Try and convince me the 243 is actually useful

[cash_tx]

I'm really kind of surprised that the 243 didn't get more traction as a combat application. Seems like it would have been an easy transition from 308 Win for something lighter and faster, but still more heft than the 5.56 (especially with the 55gr bullets at the time).

 

[One Day...]

I'm really kind of surprised that the 243 didn't get more traction as a combat application. Seems like it would have been an easy transition from 308 Win for something lighter and faster, but still more heft than the 5.56 (especially with the 55gr bullets at the time).

Yes from a ballistics point of view, but it would not have addressed the critical perceived "issues" (?) to be resolved with the 7.62x51 : action size, weapon weight, and combatant ammo load, because in the end the .243 Win is nothing but the .308 Win necked down.

Being a big fan of "battle rifles" myself (as opposed to "assault rifles"), I have still to understand what is wrong with 7.62x51 and it amuses me endlessly that all the efforts over the last few decades to beef up 5.56 mm ammo, replace it with 6 mm, 6.5 mm, then 6.8 mm, etc. all aim in the end at replicating what we had to begin with: the performances of 7.62x51...

The big mistake was to put a full auto selector on the M14, because 7.62x51 is uncontrollable on full auto unless you shoot a 11 lbs weapon on bipod, i.e. a M60 or equivalent.

Oh well..................

 

[JG26Irish_2]

I like my 243. It is a Sako S20 and when strangers ask me what it is chambered in, I often tell them it is a 6mm/08, which makes them perk up, and say "A what??". After all there is the new 6ARC, the 6CM, 6GT, 6BR and 6mm Rem, and several other metric 243's. Mine likes the 75g Hornady Superformance ammo and is deadly with it on Coyotes and other Eastern predators. I have not shot deer with it but would using an 80g Fed Fusion or a Barnes TTSX in same weight. I used mine to hunt deer a couple of years ago but failed to see anything worthy of a shot that trip.

The 243 will shoot bullets up to 95g and 100g with good accuracy. My PH in Africa told of seeing Blue WB taken with 243's. I think the issue is bullet choice and placement. I would use mine on Pronghorn but have a 7mm Mag for that. I would not use it on large African PG as it is just asking for problems. They use 223's in Hawaii for axis deer and they do the job. Why would the 243 not be just a little better? Just avoid the highly frangible varmint bullets for wild game hunting on things like deer, hogs, and antelope and you will not have issues.

 

[JG26Irish_2]

Yes from a ballistics point of view, but it would not have addressed the critical perceived "issues" (?) to be resolved with the 7.62x51 : action size, weapon weight, and combatant ammo load, because in the end the .243 Win is nothing but the .308 Win necked down.

Being a big fan of "battle rifles" myself (as opposed to "assault rifles"), I have still to understand what is wrong with 7.62x51 and it amuses me endlessly that all the efforts over the last few decades to beef up 5.56 mm ammo, replace it with 6 mm, 6.5 mm, then 6.8 mm, etc. all aim in the end at replicating what we had to begin with: the performances of 7.62x51...

The big mistake was to put a full auto selector on the M14, because 7.62x51 is uncontrollable on full auto unless you shoot a 11 lbs weapon on bipod, i.e. a M60 or equivalent.

Oh well..................

Interesting topic. At the risk of hijacking the thread, IMO, the big mistake by the US Military was not adopting the FAL and substituting the M14 in its place. Imagine if our troops arrived in Vietnam with the FAL instead of the M14 and the M16? Maybe it would not have mattered enough to change the outcome but if you have handled and shot the FAL you know what a magnificent battle rifle it really is. It is heavy but has the smoothest action of them all and is accurate and reliable.

Now imagine what an FAL chambered in 6mm/08 (243) would have been like? Load a 100g bullet that is only marginally stable, that tumbles on impact, and carries a 30rd mag with controllable full-auto capable HB w/ bipod versions serving as a squad auto (ala BAR) and you have a do-it-all piece.

You can even hunt with the FAL except in places where it might not be legal. When I was younger, and a bit of a redneck, I deer hunted with one using handloaded Nosler BT's and over a five year span, I never lost a deer to it. Not a hunting rifle but serviceable as one until I could afford a real hunting rifle. Back then, my interests leaned more toward black rifles, and volume fire. I have grown up a little since then, lol.

 

[Wyatt Smith]

Interesting topic. At the risk of hijacking the thread, IMO, the big mistake by the US Military was not adopting the FAL and substituting the M14 in its place. Imagine if our troops arrived in Vietnam with the FAL instead of the M14 and the M16? Maybe it would not have mattered enough to change the outcome but if you have handled and shot the FAL you know what a magnificent battle rifle it really is. It is heavy but has the smoothest action of them all and is accurate and reliable.

Now imagine what an FAL chambered in 6mm/08 (243) would have been like? Load a 100g bullet that is only marginally stable, that tumbles on impact, and carries a 30rd mag with controllable full-auto capable HB w/ bipod versions serving as a squad auto (ala BAR) and you have a do-it-all piece.

You can even hunt with the FAL except in places where it might not be legal. When I was younger, and a bit of a redneck, I deer hunted with one using handloaded Nosler BT's and over a five year span, I never lost a deer to it. Not a hunting rifle but serviceable as one until I could afford a real hunting rifle. Back then, my interests leaned more toward black rifles, and volume fire. I have grown up a little since then, lol.

I love the FAL! The original caliber was to a 7x43mm. But we Americans pressured the 308 onto the rest of the free world.
I think I may like my HK-91 better than the FAL by a little, but I like both far better than the M14.

 

[cash_tx]

I still recall my high school friend hunting Texas Hill Country whitetail with his HK91 and Zeiss scope back around 1988/89, and it did quite well. I suspect most of his shots were under 200 yards. He eventually traded just the rifle (no scope) sometime around 1990 straight across for a new Model 70 Featherweight in 30-06. Clearly that trade did not age well.

 

[One Day...]

I love the FAL !

But being of French origin, and having served as an officer in the French Army, and having used it extensively, I must say that my favorite of them all (FAL, G3, M14, etc.) remains the French MAS 49/56.

3" shorter, 1/2 lb. lighter, similar ammo (7.5x55 actually shoots a 7.62 bullet, it is just denominated by lands rather than grooves), indestructible, reasonably accurate for this type of weapon (none of them are MOA tack drivers), outstanding looks (at least in my eyes), and of course sentimental value (to me)

This being said, an original FAL with wood furniture has long been on my lust list, but funds not being unlimited etc. etc. etc.

 

[LWPhunt]

Great gun for young hunters, there are many caliber options, this is one of them. Have a couple that my girls deer hunt with, more than adequate, and ammo available. it's not a multi tasker amongst other big game animals, for sure, but deer and coyotes, etc, does a great job. A great value. To each his own.

 

[JG26Irish_2]

I love the FAL !

But being of French origin, and having served as an officer in the French Army, and having used it extensively, I must say that my favorite of them all (FAL, G3, M14, etc.) remains the French MAS 49/56.

3" shorter, 1/2 lb. lighter, similar ammo (7.5x55 actually shoots a 7.62 bullet, it is just denominated by lands rather than grooves), indestructible, reasonably accurate for this type of weapon (none of them are MOA tack drivers), outstanding looks (at least in my eyes), and of course sentimental value (to me)

View attachment 702760

This being said, an original FAL with wood furniture has long been on my lust list, but funds not being unlimited etc. etc. etc.

At the risk of sounding like a A-hole, is not the phrase "French Battle Rifle" a contradiction in terms? I am asking for a friend. Just busting your chops mate. I have not had the pleasure of handling the MAS, so I will have to plead ignorance. The pics does look nice.

I have handled the HK91, G3, M16 and HK93 as well as several versions of the AK47, AK74 family and some of them are pretty nice but none have that slick clickety clack action of the FAL. While most are not tack drivers as stated by others, my Match Grade model FAL from Springfield Armory shoots better than you would expect with certain loads of all things, Venezuelan army surplus ammo. It likes my old hand loads too. The folding stock Para model is shorter, lighter and makes a handy bush rifle. But, nobody will accuse them of being a light weight. With the all steel construction, they are a hefty peice of kit.

 

[colorado]

To be honest, even though I am a big 270 Win fan, it would've been smarter for the Army to go with the 243 Win for their new battle rifle instead of the new non standard .277 caliber they're going with. Hits a lot harder than a 223 not much more recoil. Ammo not that much heavier. Or they should've just gone back to the 30-06. But it's the Army, not supposed to make any sense. The 243 Win would've been plenty. People are a lot easier to kill than elk.

 

[One Day...]

At the risk of sounding like a A-hole, is not the phrase "French Battle Rifle" a contradiction in terms? I am asking for a friend. Just busting your chops mate.

Yeah, you did (just kidding too). "Is not the phrase "French Battle Rifle" a contradiction in terms?" is the usual ignorant joke . Another one like that is "French military rifle for sale. Great condition. Only dropped once"

OK, quick digression, but opportune moment to explain a few things few folks know in the US

It is an historical fact that 1930's French political DOD leaders' and army upper command's obsession with defensive thinking was totally screwed up. Or should we say skewed up? This is what happens after loosing 1.5 million French soldiers in WW I... In any case, the French 1940 defensive doctrine of 1,000 groups of 3 tanks to protect infantry thinly spread over 600 miles from the Alps to Holland turned out to be less effective than the German's offensive doctrine of 3 groups of 1,000 tanks concentrated over a few miles each to punch through the infantry. No arguing about this! Ah, but the weight of overwhelming material and troops superiority at the offensive point... ​

​

As to the only battle where French and German armored divisions faced each other (Montcornet, May 17-19), the French won it, but this was admittedly meaningless to stop the German's other armored columns in their rush to Dunkirk, where 100,000 French sacrificed to stop 800,000 Germans to allow the evacuation of 340,000 Brits and allied. To make a long story short, Germans generals themselves respected the French troops bravery and fighting skills, although they loathed their leadership's inept way to conduct war.​

​

Along the same lines, do you know the difference between French troops' defeat in Dien Ben Phu and American troops' victory in Khe Sanh? American overwhelming material superiority! 3,700 French air force attack sorties with hand-me-down US WW II propeller fighter-bombers (King Cobras, F6F Hellcats, F8F Bearcats, F4U Corsairs) vs. 24,000 USAF tactical fighter-bomber sorties (F-4 Phantoms, F-105 Thunderchiefs, F-100 Super Sabres) and 2,700 B-52 sorties... Cumulate the number of sorties + the difference in armaments and payloads of the aircrafts, and you get a new sense of how good or bad were the 10,000 French who held the 80,000 Viet Minh for 56 days. Ah, but the weight of overwhelming material superiority at the defensive point... ​

(Not to also mention that the 1 to 8 ratio at Dien Ben Phu compares unfavorably to the 1 to 3+ ratio at Khe Sanh between 6,000 Marines and 20,000 NVA).​

​

So, no arguing, French troops were routed in 1940 and defeated in Indochina, therefore I get the joke about "French battle rifle", but it is about as accurate as the idiots (and there are plenty in the world) saying that American troops are worthless because of Pearl Harbor, Corregidor, Bataan, Guam, Wake Island, Hong Kong, Malaya, Singapore, Java Sea, Kasserine Pass, or the catastrophic evacuations of Vietnam or Afghanistan, or, in short, anywhere and anytime they do not benefit from overwhelming material and troops superiority. Well, not quite, there was a bit more to each story, right?​

OK, end of digression, back to the thread

FAL and MAS 49/56 share the action tilting block design, and it is generally not the best design for accuracy, but random military production rifles, and tuned up or limited runs Match or modified version (FAL Match or MAS 49/56 "MSE" like mine) with tight block tolerances are clearly good enough for Designated Marksman role, although inadequate for Sniper role. My MAS 49/56 holds 2 MOA with so-so PPU ammo, which is still plenty good enough for a helmet hit at 400 yards or a torso hit at 600 yards.

To be honest, even though I am a big 270 Win fan, it would've been smarter for the Army to go with the 243 Win for their new battle rifle instead of the new non standard .277 caliber they're going with. Hits a lot harder than a 223 not much more recoil. Ammo not that much heavier. Or they should've just gone back to the 30-06. But it's the Army, not supposed to make any sense. The 243 Win would've been plenty. People are a lot easier to kill than elk.

You mean just gone back to the .308 (7.62x51) right?