@TOBY458Yes sir! My first deer rifle that my dad gave me is still in my safe today. It's a Remington 700 BDL from the 1970s. I've killed many deer with it over the years.
During my time running an NZDA range complex I lost coun t of the number of times that someone had a stuck case situation with a 7mm-08, .308 Win. or .223Rem. I understand that the .260 Rem. is worse on that regard.
I have a single shot target rifle based on a Spanish Air Force 98 action with a Koenigsberg barrel which is chambered for 7.62x51. I have no intention of ever again owning a so-called repeater chambered for .308 Winchester (or any derivative thereof) unless it is a two lug Sako. That is because the feeding of those cartridges is typically crap in cheaper rifles.
Surviving civilization who invented a stick that comes back and hits you if you don't keep your eyes on it.
@Rule 303Nought wrong with Bob. He is a wise man avoiding the 243 like the plague and recognizing the 358 cal for it's greatness. I too admire and respect the 358 cal, I have 4 different 358 cals, one even surpasses the great 375H&H.
Too right they feed well in the SLR! The first rifle I shot, government paying for the ammo. The SLR is very well set up and although rather heavy it is far quicker and easier to field strip, clean and reassemble than AR15 rifles. It also has a better military sight system then either the M16 or the M16A2, i.e. none of that competition garbage OR a foresight that appears to go from thick to thin and vice versa as it is adjusted. Before anyone gets confused about my omission of the M16A1, that designation refers purely to a select fire AR15 rifle with the forward assist mechanism. The US Army insisted upon that mechanism because the M1 Garand, M1 Carbine and M14 rifles had reliability issues due to dirt getting into their open top receivers. The fact that AR15 rifles only have a side opening with a Sturmgewehr derived spring-loaded ejection port cover did not deter them from adding needless and potentially dangerous complexity to the rifle.
Tit for tat nonsense should never apply to such programmes but the world will always invent a better idiot.
@Bob Nelson 35Whelen Some time before I joined the squadron, a match was placed in the appropriate place and the barrel of an L1A1 was destroyed during the subsequent playtime. The L1A2 is a nice gun to fire BUT it should have had a hand guard. I understand that the FAL heavy barrel did have one and I reckon that the Aussie improved prototype would have been a nice gun.@ZG47
The SLR also had two designations
The L1A1 semi auto and the L1A2 selective fire.
When I was in the army we used to have fun (in a safe way) with dickheads that needed to be straightened out. We would turn the gas to operate with the dirtiest setting and place part of a match in the right area. When dickhead assumed the position and locked and loaded he was in for a big surprise. What ever was loaded into the mag was emptied in one full auto burst and the shooter had the shit kicked out of him by the recoil. After the exersize the rifle was field stripped to determine what happened, but as soon as the action was open the bit of match would fall out unseen. The poor recruit was balled out by the by the NCO but they never stuffed up again.
Another little trick was when doing a range shoot all weapons had to have the sights blackened and checked for alignment .
A strip of sticky rope over the peep sight sprayed with mat black paint then put a pin hole in it giving a very fine sight picture like a target aperture. No one picked up on it and couldn't figure out why I got such small groups in the ordinary target shoots. For the combat shoots and it was the standard battle apature used. Always had the range NCOs stumped because at the end of a target shoot all weapons had to be inspected. W seconds and the tape was off and you presented a normal weapon.
Loved the SLR runs rings around the Styer f88 in my humble opinion. If I hit a target I want it to stay hit with a bit of grunt not sting it to death with a 223. Call me old fashioned and out dated but that's me.
@ZG47@Bob Nelson 35Whelen Some time before I joined the squadron, a match was placed in the appropriate place and the barrel of an L1A1 was destroyed during the subsequent playtime. The L1A2 is a nice gun to fire BUT it should have had a hand guard. I understand that the FAL heavy barrel did have one and I reckon that the Aussie improved prototype would have been a nice gun.
The Steyr AUG was obviously of lower quality throughout than the SLR variants, on first inspection; and the F88 was of lower quality again. I am talking from experience.
Too many people fail to realise that the AUG was designed, tested and purchased as an interim weapon! The Austrian Army was planning to adopt the caseless technology developed by Voere but the Soviet Union collapsed, the Iron Curtain disappeared (starting in Hungary) and European defence budgets were swiftly reduced. The Voere (UCC?) bolt-action rifles were an attempt to recoup development costs.
@Bob Nelson 35Whelen I have seen the Lithgow PR videos and read some of their information. I would imagine that the Austeyr 90 is a big improvement over the F88.@ZG47
The new Austyer 90 made in Australia is supposed to be a big improvement over the old 88. All the mod were Australian and now being adopted elsewhere.
The match stick trick shouldn't have hurt the old L1A1 but anything is possible.
The look on old mates face when he touched it off was hilarious .
@ZG47@Bob Nelson 35Whelen I have seen the Lithgow PR videos and read some of their information. I would imagine that the Austeyr 90 is a big improvement over the F88.
The guys got the barrel on that L1A1 red hot with all the rounds they put through it. I suspect that they might have wrecked it by trying the cold water trick which is not a good idea on light rifle barrels. Best to let them air cool. Specially made machine gun barrels have reportedly been cooled in streams without obvious damage.
It would have funny to watch!