Best battle rifle under 1800$

[MK11]

The only things I don't like on the Ruger GSR is the physical size of their 10 round magazines, and, if I remember correctly, the trigger guard is plastic/polymer (in fairness, that's probably not a big deal). Best, Jon

Definitely true of the steel factory 10-rounders. Ridiculously huge, heavy and worse, rough feeding.



Ruger made polymer versions that have a much smaller footprint (and feed better, too). I can't find the polymer mags anywhere and even saw one site say they were discontinued but AICS-pattern mags like Magpuls work as well.

[Borderland]

Hey, I'll go one more....7.62 NATO 'battle rifles' are fun to shoot. A short barrel FAL? Is like you're Thor wielding Mjolnir...it's damn fun and I'm all for that as an excuse to own one.

I tend to think of high volume hog hunting as being one of the few places where we regularly see conditions that favor 'battle' rifles over other platforms here at home. And even there, a 6.5G, 6.8SPC, or .300BLK will tend to do what is needed.

I agree that 7.62 is becoming more of a "niche" round. Particularly, now that we have 6.5G and 6.5CM, we're seeing the efficacy of the 6.5mm bullet profile at longer ranges from the Creedmoor, and at shorter ranges in the Grendel - there isn't much that 7.62 does better...

It's less than a "niche" as a battle rifle cartridge. I would say it's obsolete in that capacity. If I wanted an AR platform rifle that had to be something more than .223, I would choose a 300 BLK. Although it isn't a 250 yd deer rifle a person can limit the range to 150 yds. Most whitetail are killed within that range anyway. Lots of bow hunters take deer within 50 yards.

[Borderland]

If, and this is a big if, magazine restrictions or some type of an AR ban go into effect, an old-school, well-built, vetted bolt rifle might see a bit of a resurgance. Built for extreme environmental possibilities, significantly soldier-proofed, easy to clean, lubricate and maintain. Preferably with decent 10 round magazines, which I think is a reasonable compromise between on-board capacity and possessing a decent lower profile. Yes, if you're on a military op, an AR is certainly desirable for putting out an immediate and somewhat sustainable base of suppressive fire, but how many of us realistically are involved in that scenario?

An accurate rifle, in a credible cartridge, capable of good (or excellent) performance, viable as a general purpose, multi-role/target rifle throughout a reasonable spectrum of ranges while maintaining sufficient effective terminal power might have a lot to offer.

I'm currently taking a hard and serious look at a Lee Enfield No 4 Mk 1 or 2, and Tikka's T3X Arctic (an under-the-radar truly vetted organizationally deployed scout rifle-but with apparently limited availability and expensive magazines, at $100 'Murrican at a crack....)(and was the exact rifle choosen to replace the Lee Enfield No 4 Mk 1 after testing/competition for Canada's Ranger organization).

But in the meantime, my CZ527 is going nowhere. :-)

Best, Jon

Realistically, a bolt carbine is probably going to be all any civilian will ever need.

Trying to combine a "battle" rifle and "hunting" rifle really muddies up the water.

[fatdog]

I bought the Savage 110 version of their scout rifle a year ago, it was a real bargain. Takes AICS compatible mags, nice iron sights, their accutrigger and their new modular adjustable stock system. I am sure the Ruger is just as good a rifle, but there is no real defect in my Savage for the money.

[Trigger]

Tikka T3x, pick your favorite caliber. Put it in a KRG Bravo stock. Done. Well under $1800.

For accurate shooting, I can run a bolt gun almost as fast as I can shoot an AR-10. For blasting, not so much. (But I don’t do that very much, either)

[JonInWA]

The Ruger Gunsite is a nice rifle, particularly in the synthetic stock but no matter how much Jeff Cooper wanted to re-fight the Boer War in his head, bolt guns are obsolescent as “battle rifles.”

While not obsolescent, irons sights are a disadvantage vs optics on the battle rifle side and even more so on the hunting side. Positive ID is a real issue in hunting and magnified optics are a great help in that regard if you are hunting anywhere shots over 100 yards are an option.

Having tried both a Styer scout and vintage bolt guns in practical competition I agree 100% with the Intange TV guys on this subject.

I finally had an uninterrupted chance to see the video-and I totally agree with their conclusions, which basically are that a semi-automatic, lighter cartridge (lower recoiling), larger capacity platform makes for a better battle rifle.

However, what we may be forced to deal with are if in fact platform and/or magazine constraints come into effect. In that case, my preference would be towards a semi-automatic within capacity restraints, or a medium-to-larger capacity bolt action rifle.

Other factors perhaps worthy of consideration could be durability, maintainability, ease of use, and inherent resistance to environmental factors inhubiting operastions.

Best, Jon

[UNK]

What about the Barrett 308 AR?

https://barrett.net/products/firearms/rec10/

[Phaedrus]

The REC10 looks sweet but it's $1000 over the OP's stated price goal.

[HCM]

I’ll re-iterate, scout rifles are cool and useful, I’ve had one since the late 90s and prefer them over lever guns for a “ranch” gun, but in the modem era where fighting guns are semi or full auto they are not viable “Battle Rifles.”

They’re hunting rifles that could be used for personal defense if necessary.

Everyone thinks they are Simo Häyhä. 1) You’re not; 2) he got many of his kills with a sub machine gun.

[HCM]

Savage is actually building some very nice (and under rated) AR’s.

The Savage MSR-10 meets the OP’s price ceiling.