Not really. Words are really limited symbols. It's hard to make out what somebody is trying to communicate to you when they on top of this misuse the meanings.
Yes it does, it sucks because it's heavy and expensive compared to it's competitors. If your criteria is just fun, just cool. Then that's purely subjective.
>Competitors
Is there another traditional stock semi auto 308 that has 100 round drums and I can watch the locking lugs rotate in and out of battery on?
The G3s ergos are absolutely shit. The charging handle silliness is fine when it's up close like an MP5 and doesn't require so much force to unlock, but it truly sucks on the G3.
Yes it does, it sucks because it's heavy and expensive compared to it's competitors. If your criteria is just fun, just cool. Then that's purely subjective.
Heavy and expensive compared to entry level AR-10s, maybe. It's on par cost wise with G3s and it's cheaper than most FALs.
11 months ago
Anonymous
I disagree, I find them perfect as long there’s an Ambi fire selector with a Navy lower, the tumor lower is super uncomfortable and digs into your hand. I find the FAL really uncomfortable grip angle-wise, I need to try out a SAW style one again to if that’s any better.
I had a neighbor that passed away recently that absolutely loved this gun when he was in the service. Of course he was 6'whateverthefrick and built like a brick shithouse even in old age, so I imagine that's partly why.
You can when it's worse in every way except for magazine capacity and maybe some ballistics edge.
>Worse in every way >Actually proven to be more reliable and accurate >Tappet gas system prevents excessive or sluggish bolt velocity with OOS ammo or extreme climate conditions >Roller on bolt cam significantly reduces friction, overall increases reliability >New stock bedding system retains accuracy/zero far better than the M-1 >Flash suppressor >Shaves a whole pound off
Yes, truly inferior. Let's stick with the WW1-tier autoloader that uses mannlicher clips, a long stroke gas piston that's prone to bending, an excessively oversized cartridge case for mediocre ballistics, tears itself apart if you don't dunk it in grease, and jams if you even think about getting it within 300 yards of sand.
The M-14 is such a drastic improvement it's not even funny. It might not seem like such a big difference when you're shooting it on a clean range, and you have the time to properly maintenance it, but in long term reliability and part wear/breakage, the M-14 smokes the M-1.
It's like trying to argue that a 1891 Mauser is better than an 1898. Do they both work? Sure. But one has had significantly more development time learning from the failures of it's predecessor. The only people who don't adopt the new & improved are either poor or moronic.
>You can when it's worse in every way except for magazine capacity and maybe some ballistics edge
It's also lighter and more balanced. What a brainlet take, you've obviously never owned both.
[...]
Said it better than I could have. The cognitive dissonance of people who hate the M14 and love the M1 is mind boggling.
Alrighr fair enough, I was talking out of my ass. I didn't consider a lot of the differences. The fact that we still use M14's in some capacity proves its worth despite its issues. And besides, one of my dream guns is an EBR clone.
>cheap >good >pretty
If you're looking at a gun that's sub-four figures, you get to pick maybe one, otherwise you get to pick maybe two. Some exceptions apply.
>If you're looking at a gun that's sub-four figures, you get to pick maybe one, otherwise you get to pick maybe two. Some exceptions apply.
you've got it the wrong way around.
Most guns that cost $1000 or more are baby-barf plastic bullpups. Most surplus 1980s S&Ws and police Remingtons are <$1000.
11 months ago
Anonymous
I love old Smiths and Wingmasters, and can appreciate your taste in fine vintage firearms. That said, >Most guns that cost $1000 or more are baby-barf plastic bullpups.
Reeks of poor. I've got a bunch of $1K plus guns that do not meet that description whatsoever. Imo while deals on some neat old guns are certainly out there, over the $1K mark is where you find a lot of the really interesting stuff.
Okay, but now consider the context in which both rifles were used. The Garand ruled supreme in its day. The M14 was the worst out of the big three battle rifles of its time by a long shot and was competing against the post-war king; the AK. Yeah, the M14 was better than the M1 in various ways, but it was comparatively shit in its role.
>Garand ruled supreme
Yes, because everyone else was fielding bolt actions as standard issue, and the US had the logistics to support such a frail and maintenance intensive rifle. >Inferior to FAL and G3
The FAL I'd agree is overall superior, but the G-3 is a mediocre rifle only purchased by those who couldn't afford FAL's. >No LRBO, even the M-14 has that >Atrocious charging handle design and location, prone to breaking in cold environments >Gun beats itself to death after 15,000 rounds because it's a recoil operated gun that locks into a stamped steel receiver >Atrocious trigger, even the FAL and AK had better triggers
If the G-3 had a better trigger, a bolt catch, and a better charging handle, I'd agree it's overall better than the M-14, but the lack of those three things make it a misery to shoot in extended engagements.
>prone to breaking in cold environments
Any source on that? G3 was used by the coldest countries in Skandinavia for decades. >Gun beats itself to death after 15,000 rounds
same here, does it really >because it's a recoil operated gun
It's a delayed blowback gun.
The clips have charm, 30-06 is perfect and slander of it will not be tolerated. The m1 doesn't tear itself apart and the sand thing goes for the m14 too. But otherwise yes the m14 is superior to the Garand and the double standard is nonsensical.
>You can when it's worse in every way except for magazine capacity and maybe some ballistics edge
It's also lighter and more balanced. What a brainlet take, you've obviously never owned both.
>Worse in every way >Actually proven to be more reliable and accurate >Tappet gas system prevents excessive or sluggish bolt velocity with OOS ammo or extreme climate conditions >Roller on bolt cam significantly reduces friction, overall increases reliability >New stock bedding system retains accuracy/zero far better than the M-1 >Flash suppressor >Shaves a whole pound off
Yes, truly inferior. Let's stick with the WW1-tier autoloader that uses mannlicher clips, a long stroke gas piston that's prone to bending, an excessively oversized cartridge case for mediocre ballistics, tears itself apart if you don't dunk it in grease, and jams if you even think about getting it within 300 yards of sand.
The M-14 is such a drastic improvement it's not even funny. It might not seem like such a big difference when you're shooting it on a clean range, and you have the time to properly maintenance it, but in long term reliability and part wear/breakage, the M-14 smokes the M-1.
It's like trying to argue that a 1891 Mauser is better than an 1898. Do they both work? Sure. But one has had significantly more development time learning from the failures of it's predecessor. The only people who don't adopt the new & improved are either poor or moronic.
Said it better than I could have. The cognitive dissonance of people who hate the M14 and love the M1 is mind boggling.
No experience with M14, but I happen to own an M1 Carbine which is sort of like its little brother (same action, detachable box magazine.etc) and its my favorite gun of all time. Not the strongest caliber, not the weakest either, its right where it needs to be
The M1 carbine is another oft maligned gun that is a joy to own and shoot.
You'd enjoy an M14, if you like the carbine. Had both models myself, so I get what you're saying.
Agreed. If you like the carbine you'll probably like the M14 too.
[...]
Alrighr fair enough, I was talking out of my ass. I didn't consider a lot of the differences. The fact that we still use M14's in some capacity proves its worth despite its issues. And besides, one of my dream guns is an EBR clone.
Surprisingly reasonable response, it takes character to admit you were wrong. You're alright in my book anon.
>.280 >Good
It was a British flavored 7.62x39. Sure, the 7mm bullet would've had a flatter trajectory, but that measly 130gr bullet & 2300fps muzzle velocity is shit. The later .280-30 bumped that up to 135gr/2550 fps, which would've been an acceptable replacement for .30-06/7.62x51, but still too large, heavy, and high recoil for Cold War general infantry combat.
Regardless, the US Air Force was developing the .22 SCHV program independent of whatever the Army wanted. We likely would've still ended up with the 5.56 and AR-15, as that combo is superior to a lackluster intermediate, but a nice 7mm NATO in place of 7.62x51 would be agreeable.
Everyone loves the carbine anon. Fun fact, more M1 Carbines were produced than Garands and M14, which makes it the most popular of the M1 pattern of rifles.
My M14 is admittedly pretty nice (at least, it is pretty authentic) and my last G3 pattern was a PTR so not very high end, but my complaints about the G3 are inherent to the design. Specifically, horrible manual of arms, bad trigger, no BHO, recoil impulse, length of pull, and the sights. Some of that can be fixed with aftermarket, some can't. It's a rugged design and is surprisingly accurate but has always struck me as cruder and less user friendly than the M14 or FAL.
I have a springfield M1A with an 18.5" chrome lined criterion barrel. I swapped the stock gas system for a unitized one, got an adjustable gas plug, an Ultimak rail, and bedded it to a usgi stock with a rigidizing rail I installed to it. (Look up rigid rail mod). It shoots well, and with minimal gassing to help preserve component life.
James River Armory makes their own forged receivers now with integrated scope rails. I wouldn't frick with the M14/M1A platform anymore just due to the high cost to performance ratio, but if I were looking to get into it I'd probably go that route.
Is it a waste to get an m1a if I already own an assrifle15 I never make time to shoot? I would be buying more reloading dies and junk. I’ve just always liked them because, BECAUSE I JUST DO, OKAY?!
i cant in good faith recommend mini-14s. they're such a relic of a design thats been completely overtaken by economies of scale. theres no reason to buy one over an AR if you have the choice. castings are neat but it also means wide tolerances so enjoy every gun being 'unique' in the worst way.
I've never handled one, and my only opinion of them is from years of reading about them on the internet. I've always wanted one, because like you say it's basically the American SKS, I just can't get over how blindingly stupid it was that it wasn't made to take STANAG mags from the get go. I'm sure there were business reasons behind it at the time, but in hindsight goddamn, if only they'd known. Their biggest problem otherwise is they're too expensive compared to an AR (in the past decade at least), but I also feel like that might not be the case if the first issue was addressed. If they were cheaper than an AR in 2012 it would have been my first rifle instead of my AR, but it didnt make sense financially then, it definitely doesn't now. Basically the only reason to get one these days, is you just want one, which is fine, that's plenty of justification, or you live in a ban state
I will find you and I will shove a pigeon in your mouth and down your throat if possible. SKSen might not be the best rifles in the world but they are very solid and accurate and aesthetic and frick you
I was raised in Massachusetts, every gun-owning adult I knew had a mini because they're exempted from the MA ban.
They're... fine? They run well, I've never known them to be unreliable. The older ones aren't terribly accurate out of the box, a great deal of thought and conversation in range parking lots was centered on bubba accurization efforts. Obviously the old-fashioned stock makes mounting optics or lights a lot more difficult, but there's a picrail handguard they all come with and more traditional ones that sit above the action are plentiful. I wish Ruger would cut two or three mlok slots into the stocks on a couple of their models, I'd quite like that.
Honestly if they were less expensive they'd probably be a lot more popular outside of ban states. I love the look, I love the heritage, I really like traditional stocks on small, handy semiautos. Sadly for what a new mini runs these days you can get a good quality, fix it to an aero lower with any stock you want, toss on a light and a cheap dot and still buy yourself a sandwich on the way home.
For lack of M1 carbine milsurp or repros worth a damn, kind of nice. More or else this
I've never handled one, and my only opinion of them is from years of reading about them on the internet. I've always wanted one, because like you say it's basically the American SKS, I just can't get over how blindingly stupid it was that it wasn't made to take STANAG mags from the get go. I'm sure there were business reasons behind it at the time, but in hindsight goddamn, if only they'd known. Their biggest problem otherwise is they're too expensive compared to an AR (in the past decade at least), but I also feel like that might not be the case if the first issue was addressed. If they were cheaper than an AR in 2012 it would have been my first rifle instead of my AR, but it didnt make sense financially then, it definitely doesn't now. Basically the only reason to get one these days, is you just want one, which is fine, that's plenty of justification, or you live in a ban state
I was raised in Massachusetts, every gun-owning adult I knew had a mini because they're exempted from the MA ban.
They're... fine? They run well, I've never known them to be unreliable. The older ones aren't terribly accurate out of the box, a great deal of thought and conversation in range parking lots was centered on bubba accurization efforts. Obviously the old-fashioned stock makes mounting optics or lights a lot more difficult, but there's a picrail handguard they all come with and more traditional ones that sit above the action are plentiful. I wish Ruger would cut two or three mlok slots into the stocks on a couple of their models, I'd quite like that.
Honestly if they were less expensive they'd probably be a lot more popular outside of ban states. I love the look, I love the heritage, I really like traditional stocks on small, handy semiautos. Sadly for what a new mini runs these days you can get a good quality, fix it to an aero lower with any stock you want, toss on a light and a cheap dot and still buy yourself a sandwich on the way home.
>m305
See this shit right here makes so much goddamn sense. A shorter M-14 in x39 that takes AK mags. I'd buy that in a heartbeat for the cost of a Ruger Mini 14/Mini 30. Hell it makes TOO MUCH sense not to own (I say that knowing nothing of their actual quality). Fricking Canadians
>Platform
The rifle + all the parts + all the accessories & mounts that are unique to it. >System
The rifle, all the unique parts and accessories, and all the accessories that it is capable of using that are not necessarily unique to it.
>absolutely sucks
The gun works fine. Yes it's heavier than its competitors and it's development took way too long, but it works fine. You might have a point saying it sucks in relative terms, but in absolute terms it's fine. If it truly was complete garbage we wouldn't still be using it for DMR purposes. Guns that absolutely suck are things like the insas, l85, chauchat in .30-06, or the zip 22
Anybody who calls a gun a weapon system or platform needs to be punched in the face
>the M14 platform
Are you moronic?
Who ever called the m14 a platform needs to be punched in the face
I think you need to be raped in the face
>dude it’s a platform that I can add force multipliers to to increase my lethality
All you need is iron sights or maybe a scope on an M14/1A, quit trying to tacticool it out
>trying to deplatform the m14
t. never worked in procurement
>He brought a gun to a platform fight.
>you cant use words i don't like
>don't ask me why i don't like them because i'll have to make up a reason on the spot!
Anybody who argues about casual semantics is a homosexual, Black person
Not really. Words are really limited symbols. It's hard to make out what somebody is trying to communicate to you when they on top of this misuse the meanings.
It doesn’t suck for civilians. There, I said it. Also get a brown colored fiberglass stock/walnut stock, and get a bula one
Yes it does, it sucks because it's heavy and expensive compared to it's competitors. If your criteria is just fun, just cool. Then that's purely subjective.
>Competitors
Is there another traditional stock semi auto 308 that has 100 round drums and I can watch the locking lugs rotate in and out of battery on?
its a great gun if your goal is to defraud the tax payer and support the military industrial complex
Box mags trap souls.
I want one of those in 6.5 CM. Pure sex.
False
I've owned all three and would take an M14 over a G3 in most circumstances. FAL is the top of the heap, though.
Either had a really good M14 then or a shite G3
G3 is more reliable, accurate, durable, doesn't lose zero when cleaned, and will chew up and spit out anything you stick in it.
But heavier, higher recoil, and less ergonomic. The G3 is better as a static position rifle shooting targets, but worse as a soldier/combat rifle.
>But heavier
They're all pretty much identical.
>higher recoil
Slightly
>less ergonomic
The slap is good.
The G3s ergos are absolutely shit. The charging handle silliness is fine when it's up close like an MP5 and doesn't require so much force to unlock, but it truly sucks on the G3.
Heavy and expensive compared to entry level AR-10s, maybe. It's on par cost wise with G3s and it's cheaper than most FALs.
I disagree, I find them perfect as long there’s an Ambi fire selector with a Navy lower, the tumor lower is super uncomfortable and digs into your hand. I find the FAL really uncomfortable grip angle-wise, I need to try out a SAW style one again to if that’s any better.
>worst battle rifle
Imagine the kino if the Americucks had actually adopted a decent battle rifle like the G3 or FAL.
if you like the garand, you can't hate the M14.
I had a neighbor that passed away recently that absolutely loved this gun when he was in the service. Of course he was 6'whateverthefrick and built like a brick shithouse even in old age, so I imagine that's partly why.
You can when it's worse in every way except for magazine capacity and maybe some ballistics edge.
>Worse in every way
>Actually proven to be more reliable and accurate
>Tappet gas system prevents excessive or sluggish bolt velocity with OOS ammo or extreme climate conditions
>Roller on bolt cam significantly reduces friction, overall increases reliability
>New stock bedding system retains accuracy/zero far better than the M-1
>Flash suppressor
>Shaves a whole pound off
Yes, truly inferior. Let's stick with the WW1-tier autoloader that uses mannlicher clips, a long stroke gas piston that's prone to bending, an excessively oversized cartridge case for mediocre ballistics, tears itself apart if you don't dunk it in grease, and jams if you even think about getting it within 300 yards of sand.
The M-14 is such a drastic improvement it's not even funny. It might not seem like such a big difference when you're shooting it on a clean range, and you have the time to properly maintenance it, but in long term reliability and part wear/breakage, the M-14 smokes the M-1.
It's like trying to argue that a 1891 Mauser is better than an 1898. Do they both work? Sure. But one has had significantly more development time learning from the failures of it's predecessor. The only people who don't adopt the new & improved are either poor or moronic.
Alrighr fair enough, I was talking out of my ass. I didn't consider a lot of the differences. The fact that we still use M14's in some capacity proves its worth despite its issues. And besides, one of my dream guns is an EBR clone.
>cheap
>good
>pretty
If you're looking at a gun that's sub-four figures, you get to pick maybe one, otherwise you get to pick maybe two. Some exceptions apply.
>graciously admits fault
Based.
>If you're looking at a gun that's sub-four figures, you get to pick maybe one, otherwise you get to pick maybe two. Some exceptions apply.
you've got it the wrong way around.
Most guns that cost $1000 or more are baby-barf plastic bullpups. Most surplus 1980s S&Ws and police Remingtons are <$1000.
I love old Smiths and Wingmasters, and can appreciate your taste in fine vintage firearms. That said,
>Most guns that cost $1000 or more are baby-barf plastic bullpups.
Reeks of poor. I've got a bunch of $1K plus guns that do not meet that description whatsoever. Imo while deals on some neat old guns are certainly out there, over the $1K mark is where you find a lot of the really interesting stuff.
Okay, but now consider the context in which both rifles were used. The Garand ruled supreme in its day. The M14 was the worst out of the big three battle rifles of its time by a long shot and was competing against the post-war king; the AK. Yeah, the M14 was better than the M1 in various ways, but it was comparatively shit in its role.
>Garand ruled supreme
Yes, because everyone else was fielding bolt actions as standard issue, and the US had the logistics to support such a frail and maintenance intensive rifle.
>Inferior to FAL and G3
The FAL I'd agree is overall superior, but the G-3 is a mediocre rifle only purchased by those who couldn't afford FAL's.
>No LRBO, even the M-14 has that
>Atrocious charging handle design and location, prone to breaking in cold environments
>Gun beats itself to death after 15,000 rounds because it's a recoil operated gun that locks into a stamped steel receiver
>Atrocious trigger, even the FAL and AK had better triggers
If the G-3 had a better trigger, a bolt catch, and a better charging handle, I'd agree it's overall better than the M-14, but the lack of those three things make it a misery to shoot in extended engagements.
>prone to breaking in cold environments
Any source on that? G3 was used by the coldest countries in Skandinavia for decades.
>Gun beats itself to death after 15,000 rounds
same here, does it really
>because it's a recoil operated gun
It's a delayed blowback gun.
The clips have charm, 30-06 is perfect and slander of it will not be tolerated. The m1 doesn't tear itself apart and the sand thing goes for the m14 too. But otherwise yes the m14 is superior to the Garand and the double standard is nonsensical.
>You can when it's worse in every way except for magazine capacity and maybe some ballistics edge
It's also lighter and more balanced. What a brainlet take, you've obviously never owned both.
Said it better than I could have. The cognitive dissonance of people who hate the M14 and love the M1 is mind boggling.
No experience with M14, but I happen to own an M1 Carbine which is sort of like its little brother (same action, detachable box magazine.etc) and its my favorite gun of all time. Not the strongest caliber, not the weakest either, its right where it needs to be
You'd enjoy an M14, if you like the carbine. Had both models myself, so I get what you're saying.
The M1 carbine is another oft maligned gun that is a joy to own and shoot.
Agreed. If you like the carbine you'll probably like the M14 too.
Surprisingly reasonable response, it takes character to admit you were wrong. You're alright in my book anon.
Look at what the US pushing that piece of shit robbed us of. We could have had a unified Nato with .280 FALs.
>.280
>Good
It was a British flavored 7.62x39. Sure, the 7mm bullet would've had a flatter trajectory, but that measly 130gr bullet & 2300fps muzzle velocity is shit. The later .280-30 bumped that up to 135gr/2550 fps, which would've been an acceptable replacement for .30-06/7.62x51, but still too large, heavy, and high recoil for Cold War general infantry combat.
Regardless, the US Air Force was developing the .22 SCHV program independent of whatever the Army wanted. We likely would've still ended up with the 5.56 and AR-15, as that combo is superior to a lackluster intermediate, but a nice 7mm NATO in place of 7.62x51 would be agreeable.
I like the carbine, but no one else does
Everyone loves the carbine anon. Fun fact, more M1 Carbines were produced than Garands and M14, which makes it the most popular of the M1 pattern of rifles.
>this post
>this much moronation
I predict many (you)s in the future my friend A+
M1 carbines are pretty popular guns in Europe.
Lots of people raving about them ITT
My M14 is admittedly pretty nice (at least, it is pretty authentic) and my last G3 pattern was a PTR so not very high end, but my complaints about the G3 are inherent to the design. Specifically, horrible manual of arms, bad trigger, no BHO, recoil impulse, length of pull, and the sights. Some of that can be fixed with aftermarket, some can't. It's a rugged design and is surprisingly accurate but has always struck me as cruder and less user friendly than the M14 or FAL.
>the design is lovely in the MP5 though
Since this thread has brought up the M1 Carbine, do you think .30 Carbine is good compromise between muh stoppin' powah and overpen?
I have a springfield M1A with an 18.5" chrome lined criterion barrel. I swapped the stock gas system for a unitized one, got an adjustable gas plug, an Ultimak rail, and bedded it to a usgi stock with a rigidizing rail I installed to it. (Look up rigid rail mod). It shoots well, and with minimal gassing to help preserve component life.
James River Armory makes their own forged receivers now with integrated scope rails. I wouldn't frick with the M14/M1A platform anymore just due to the high cost to performance ratio, but if I were looking to get into it I'd probably go that route.
Is it a waste to get an m1a if I already own an assrifle15 I never make time to shoot? I would be buying more reloading dies and junk. I’ve just always liked them because, BECAUSE I JUST DO, OKAY?!
what do we think of the American SKS? Dark horse of the family (platform, if you will)?
i cant in good faith recommend mini-14s. they're such a relic of a design thats been completely overtaken by economies of scale. theres no reason to buy one over an AR if you have the choice. castings are neat but it also means wide tolerances so enjoy every gun being 'unique' in the worst way.
I've never handled one, and my only opinion of them is from years of reading about them on the internet. I've always wanted one, because like you say it's basically the American SKS, I just can't get over how blindingly stupid it was that it wasn't made to take STANAG mags from the get go. I'm sure there were business reasons behind it at the time, but in hindsight goddamn, if only they'd known. Their biggest problem otherwise is they're too expensive compared to an AR (in the past decade at least), but I also feel like that might not be the case if the first issue was addressed. If they were cheaper than an AR in 2012 it would have been my first rifle instead of my AR, but it didnt make sense financially then, it definitely doesn't now. Basically the only reason to get one these days, is you just want one, which is fine, that's plenty of justification, or you live in a ban state
AR's were prettty rare when the Mini was released. Ruger had no way of knowing.
>Americas SKS
America doesn't have an SKS because we don't build bad rifles.
I will find you and I will shove a pigeon in your mouth and down your throat if possible. SKSen might not be the best rifles in the world but they are very solid and accurate and aesthetic and frick you
I was raised in Massachusetts, every gun-owning adult I knew had a mini because they're exempted from the MA ban.
They're... fine? They run well, I've never known them to be unreliable. The older ones aren't terribly accurate out of the box, a great deal of thought and conversation in range parking lots was centered on bubba accurization efforts. Obviously the old-fashioned stock makes mounting optics or lights a lot more difficult, but there's a picrail handguard they all come with and more traditional ones that sit above the action are plentiful. I wish Ruger would cut two or three mlok slots into the stocks on a couple of their models, I'd quite like that.
Honestly if they were less expensive they'd probably be a lot more popular outside of ban states. I love the look, I love the heritage, I really like traditional stocks on small, handy semiautos. Sadly for what a new mini runs these days you can get a good quality, fix it to an aero lower with any stock you want, toss on a light and a cheap dot and still buy yourself a sandwich on the way home.
For lack of M1 carbine milsurp or repros worth a damn, kind of nice. More or else this
I kinda meant moreso the 7.62x39 version, it's just a neat novelty, though ARs also exist in the caliber.
China also did the M305 in this caliber
>m305
See this shit right here makes so much goddamn sense. A shorter M-14 in x39 that takes AK mags. I'd buy that in a heartbeat for the cost of a Ruger Mini 14/Mini 30. Hell it makes TOO MUCH sense not to own (I say that knowing nothing of their actual quality). Fricking Canadians
>Platform
The rifle + all the parts + all the accessories & mounts that are unique to it.
>System
The rifle, all the unique parts and accessories, and all the accessories that it is capable of using that are not necessarily unique to it.
>absolutely sucks
The gun works fine. Yes it's heavier than its competitors and it's development took way too long, but it works fine. You might have a point saying it sucks in relative terms, but in absolute terms it's fine. If it truly was complete garbage we wouldn't still be using it for DMR purposes. Guns that absolutely suck are things like the insas, l85, chauchat in .30-06, or the zip 22
Despite the FAL, picrel was foisted on the US by Ordinance for purposes of profit and dick measuring.