2025 or never, then...

B&T APC308

.30-06 is 7.62mm...

But that was more what I was referring to.  It’s not the newest design, but the weight works, and it’s definitely a battle rifle.  If you want a battle rifle, get a classic battle rifle, and there’s not much more classic than the M1.

Scar 17. I love the FAL G3 etc. Nothing as easy as the 17 to mount optics suppress etc. It was built with modern accessories in mind and works.

Yes!  I'll just assume that's a stock photo?

G3 Clone

M1 Garand!!

lol battle rifle

This is the answer.

FALs, G-3s and M-14s are cool but they are anachronistic.

The AR-10 was the answer in 1958, and the answer now.

I'm a fan of my LMT MWS, but it is a heavy pig

This. My carbine has been absolutely flawless. Much better ergos than any of the other options and feels like it weighs half as much as a FAL or SOCOM 16.

Here ya go

GAllil Ace
Vepr
La Rue  &  GAPrecision
H&K 91
Lots of good choices have been mentioned I was surprised not to see these listed so far.  I can think of lots of them I wish I could afford.

M14

COPYCAT
Attached File


What's your barrel length?

There seem to be some bugs to work out yet and recoil is excessive. For an extra 8oz, just get a P308 edge with fluted barrel.

Ar10

Either Scar 17 or an LMT LM8

FAL.

Aaaaannnnnnnnnd... another vote for FAL

This. Make sure to buy the adapter to use regular 5.56 uppers.

AR-10

Attached File

KAC SR-25
Armalite DEF-10
Colt 901

FAL

Just picked it up friday.  POF Revolution.   Took down 6 hogs with ball ammo

Attached File

I like my FAL's.

Wish I could still see the iron sights.

I gotta have an optic - and I'm completely dissatisfied with the SCOPE MOUNTS available for the FAL. On the couple FAL's I've used with the DSA mount, even when I finally got the mount locked down (an uncertain action in itself), I always ended-up having to use most of the scope's adjustment just to get the scope centered on paper. The external geometry of the FAL was never designed to marry-up "correct" for installing an optic. Think about it - you are just clamping an aftermarket invention (the mount) to the grooves which are by-design intended only to serve as a retaining-point for a sheet-metal dust cover. If you happen to have a receiver that does have amenable geometry of the top ledge of the receiver and the dust-cover grooves, its just luck of the draw. I'm not OK with having the windage and/or elevation nearly maxxed-out just to get a basic zero.

This 2008 DPMS LR-308T is fully vetted and reliable. Very accurate. Added Geissele trigger, and UBR buttstock, and 1-4x green-dot reticle.
Also, the front swivel-stud, as delivered from DPMS was unsatisfactory. The factory swivel-stud was merely threaded into the aluminum handguard. A few measley threads will support exactly NOTHING for repeated cycles of significant tension. I added a large acorn-type backing nut to a longer threaded stud, and loctited it down. If I put enough tension on that stud to pull that acorn-nut through the aluminum handguard, I need to enter some strong-man contests.



I've been working with the Palmetto PA-10 (second generation). As-received from Palmetto, that gun was NOT ready for prime-time no-way no-how. Very soft bolt became quickly deformed at the locking lugs. Feeble extractor was absolutely unreliable. Amazingly, the deformed bolt (with Fulton Armory extractor) still functions after 500 rounds. I'm still working at bringing that gun up to snuff. At this point, I've replaced a LOT of parts on that gun - so it now is not much more than a shell of what it originally was.

At this point, all I'll say for Palmetto is that the receivers, and the barrel seem to be OK. All the rest of it was too basic (trigger, butstock), or was downright defective (bolt).

I like the 2008 DPMS carbine a lot. It just flat-out works with everything I feed it, it is accurate, and it balances/weighs as ideally as any rifle in its class.

FAL PARA
HK91/G3
Galil ARM

You won't go wrong with any of those.

Just looking at it makes my ears bleed.

I'd stick to my light wt 6.8 SPC II or a 6.5 Grendel

This. But... FAL is soooo sexy. Both run out of ammo quickly if you are carrying it on person.

XCR-M or SCAR or FAL

None.

Unless you're a millionaire, the cost will be prohibitive if it's assumed you are going to train hard with it to develop real proficiency across a wide array of shooting scenarios and distances.

Everyone says they'll shoot thousands, but this quickly turns into barely a few hundred, and that gets reluctantly spread out over years.

Even handloading in these calibers can't come close to the trigger time you'll get with 5.56 or 7.6 TUBA 39 for the same ammunition layout.

And then you add on the higher cost of the gun.

I went through it, and decided I didn't need one anymore.  You might reach the same conclusion.

If you are collecting for historical purposes or want a keeper not a shooter, that's a totally different story.

Yep

FAL

You lose yours in a boating accident?

AR-15 in 7.62 x 51

ETA: Yes, it is a thing

HK 91 / G3 or equivalent. Ultra-reliable, cheap magazines, high inherent accuracy (1-2 MOA OOB), perfect barrel length for 7.62 (18"). Less support and gunsmithing available than the M14, but much more than the FAL. Claw mounts for scopes work just fine, and are much easier to deal with than the scope mounts for the M14 and FAL.

If I simply had to have one, this is the one I'd want back. There are pic rails that can be hard mounted on them now and they are much easier to deal with than the claws.

Love the FAL, but it is a hog.

I’ll second the SCAR17 or XCR-M

Hell yeah.


Another vote for XCR-M, FAL, or SCAR.

That's a new one for me. Pretty cool looking!

I'm really liking my 16" ptr (With welded rail) right now. It sucks for a lot of reasons, but it is moa if you do your part, and always goes bang.

FAL

SCAR 17

I've handled and shot the MWS on a few different occasions, and I concur. Great platform, very accurate, but hard to shoot accurately offhand with a suppressor, magnified optic, etc. I would guess 14-15 lbs.

And yes, I go to them gym....

Edit to add: SCAR 17 is a great shooter, light, accurate, and reliable. BUT, it feels like a plastic toy that would break ( especially the stock) if used in a real world combat environment. Plus, in FDE, it's 10 shades of banana color- to turd brown. Get it together FN.