Ok, this is bit out there. But I have it in my head that a modern .308 bolt action rifle more along the lines of an old military pattern rifle might be a fun range toy. You know, something new that is not 90 years old to actually shoot...a lot, in a common caliber. But with that old world bolt action battle rifle charm. Maybe that seems odd? I don't know but so many commercial companies are sort doing that just now with this whole scout rifle thing. For those that do not know its usually a bolt action rifle with a forward mounted low eye relief scope. Now I could not give a crap about that bit. But many of these things are sort of the angle of a fun bolt gun range toy. And they all have stupid short 16 inch barrels and some sort of silly muzzle device like a flash suppressor. BTW, the only person a flash suppressor really hides flash from is the person shooting the rifle at night. And make little sense on a bolt action rifle at that. Heck, even a semi auto its questionable. But totally needed on a full auto rifle firing bursts at night so a soldier does not loose to much of their night vision. I guess it looks "cool" but probably is hurting accuracy. But it looks "cool" so I guess that makes it ok? In all honestly they do look, hmmm "cool". And then back to the .308 rifle with a 16 inch short barrel. It makes a giant fire ball as .308 was never intended to be used in such a short barrel. Lots of powder burning out the bore unless you are using some sort of quick burning propellant or it is like some modern military surplus with flash retardant in there to cut that fireball down. And with such a short barrel its obnoxious to everyone at the range. You might not be a super popular guy that day. I know I go as far away from guys using shorty .308's at the range as I can get. Times like 10 if its a shorty with a muzzle brake. I hate those guys.

So I have to ask. Why on earth can I not get something with utility military old school feel with an 20 inch barrel, in .308, with a detachable 5 to 10 round magazine with some basic iron sights? Am I like the only person on earth that such a thing would appeal too? I know I ogle a Savage .308 Hog Hunter rifle and go, only IF it had X and Y and it would fit the bill. Maybe one day I just buy one and do some insane bubba gunsmithing to get a detachable magazine to work (ok not old school but they are nice) and some custom wood. Just would get expensive in a hurry defeating the lower cost range toy idea. And then you have all these things that are close but IMO, stupid. All the "scout" rifles. Although Rugers is rather nice. But I have zero desire to ever mount a scope all silly up front. After all, it has a detachable magazine so a lot of the reason for a forward mounted optic is pointless as you do not load with stripper clips from the top or singly into a non-detachable magazine. So just put the damned scope where it belongs if you want that. To be frank I find it odd no company out there has really tried to make a modern shoot able OLD school military pattern fun gun. Repo's are cool, but costly. Like an enfield in .308 would be awesome sauce but would end up really expensive as there are not a zillion machinists out there anymore. So for cost, use modern manufacturing and just get the right "feel" would be good enough for me.

So am I crazy? Meep!

I don't get the obsession with .308 period. It's an old outdated military cartridge

Maybe you need a FNH FNAR?

20" heavy barrel, 10 or 20rnd detachable box magazine. (Clip! HA)
Sub MOA out of box. Based on Browning BAR gas system.

Hmmmmm outdated? .308 is more or less 7.62 X 51 nato. For an average modern military rifle its silly. But still has a lot of legs for certain things. Like if you want to engage soft things at 800 meters its a pretty good choice. But that is speaking thinking of modern military need. It is not going anywhere till someone comes up with something like 50 percent better. And there is nothing like that out there yet to dump all the GPMG's and this and that battle rifle still working the niches.

For an analog of something older and not shooting 70 year old ammo in a 100 year old gun I think it quite right. You can walk into any sporting goods shop and get .308. Its fine for pretty much any game in North America except way North in giant bear country. And you know you are firing a rifle and not a .22 that's taken to many steroids. Although I am not knocking those. But firing a 12 gauge is more fun than a .223 sort of thing. To a point. Like before the bruised up shoulder bit. And not the 3 inch magnum loads that rattle your brain. You will never see me blasting threw 50 3 inch magnum loads of 12 gauge. But certainly regular old buckshot and slugs.

With all that said, with more power needed to deal with modern body armor there will be a day where you no longer need 2 calibers. More like the old days really but with a modern twist. Like something the size and weight of 5.56, but with a lot more power behind it. Or if anyone can figure out how to get a accurate round going closer to 4000 fps without all the bad parts like rifling that is shot out after like 50 rounds. Speed kills armor and all that. But for my analog range blaster of old tech. Its groovy sauce. But I certainly do not get the short barrel .308 thing that is going on in the civilian arms universe. I guess its trend following. You can see that one at work. Like on CCW pistols. You started with small rounds then about 20 years back they started sticking full sized rounds into little packages. Where shooting your itty bitty 9mm felt like shooting a .44 magnum. And somewhat seesawing both ways with things like .380 suddenly getting more popular again. I mean you get a firearm that sucks to use you don't use it right? But the guys making the things only see trends and give em what they want even if its stupid. Like no one thought that John Browning did not think of sticking a .45 ACP into some stupid small package once upon a time. I am sure he did. And probably thought I do not want to shoot that either so, NO. You get a .32 acp pocket pistol.

No! Ugly and its a semi auto. Going that route it would be like get an M1a and call it a day. If I want to shoot itty bitty groups I personally just go with my Savage Mark 2 and some stupid expensive .22 match ammo. Now I usually go on the 50 yard line with that thing but I can get 3/8 inch groups if I am not high on coffee. And works for me at lesser cost. Even printed out a nice 1/4 inch now and then.

I am getting my idea of fun gun is different. Just want an analog of something older with a couple modern twists. Accurate enough with enough bang to let you know its a rifle. Something to head up in the mountains with and blow up some cans at 100 yards maybe. But not be a cookie cuter hunting rifle. 10 rounds for more bang per reload on those deadly soda cans. High cost plinking really. But fun range toy too. And less hunting for brass. That gets SO old.

Checkout the Ruger Gunsite Scout. I think the only thing you'll find lacking is the 18.7" barrel...and perhaps the price.

To me the whole Scout Rifle concept is a solution in search of a problem. It's a short, lightweight bolt-action rifle in a useful caliber, equipped with a long eye relief scope for ease of sight & target acquisition. Up here that's called a .30-30. I don't see the need for something that quick to shoulder & fire past maybe 150 yards, except for combat. In combat I'll take a semi-auto in something like 6.8SPC, hunting past 150 yards I'll take a full-size bolt gun with 20-22" barrel and a more powerful scope for deliberate shots.

And agree on the scout rifle concept. It may have had a place out there. Like 80 years ago. But no, not know in the world of red dots, reflex sights, 1 - whatever scopes, light weight firearms components and all that. As of now, it makes little sense.






In combat I'll take a 5.56mm M193 sort of round given the choice and in an some kind of AK pattern. Like Bulgarian or Russian maybe Polish. But I have about zero desire to ever be in a combat zone ever again if I can help it. I can carry a lot of 5.56 and it grows on trees. Much less complaints on the old M193 from what I can tell except that its even worse at range. But seen pictures of wounds from this round close in and no thank you. Old Xrays from like Vietnam sort of tells the tale of what a little #%&*$# a round that m193 could be. BUt M855 or SS109 is more PC and more in line with the intent of the Hague convention. While M193 had that propensity for fragmentation at cannelure making really nasty wounds and while not exactly intended, fragmenting rounds are banned under this convention. Although I seriously do not think this was an intended effect. It just does it like all the time at high velocities.


The idea of side trading a 5.56 for these other intermediate rounds is a questionable choice. While something like a 6.5 or 6.8 might well be better ballistics at range, it also is not as flat shooting as old 5.56. And 5.56 is a nasty bugger round, depending. I am not much a fan of newer stuff like M855. Some folks go bonkers over it, it aint all that. It certainly seems a worse round with wounding effects than the M193. And when you go I wonder why the USSR dumped their 7.62 X 39 for 5.45mm, maybe there is something to it. Now for civie use, 6.8 or whatever makes sense if you want to go take a dear or something. Its legal pretty well everywhere where 5.56 is a no go is many spots for hunting. But for military use, 5.56 is going to be a better armor killer, flatter shooting, weights less per round but does blow at range. Its accurate enough to hit folks way out there. But when it gets there its not exactly effective. And that is unarmored folks. Both would be worthless except for hitting someone in the face that is wearing modern body armor with plates and helmet at 400 meters plus. Well or, at 5 meters too. But that is another issue. And at 5 meters 5.56 is going to chip away the plate better than anything moving slower in the same sort of intermediate class round. Black tip 5.56 AP is no joke either. Close it goes threw more armor than the much bigger 7.62 X 51mm armor piercing round. Of course i am talking regular steel armor used on things like BRDM-2 scout cars. I have no idea about ceramic plates. But it still makes you go really? Hmmm....

So while some none aligned Nations are jumping on the 6.8mm train, most are not. It might have a place if you are shooting at camel herders in the desert that have no body armor but for a real threat does it offer anything? Right now in the age old protection vs fire power, protection is vary much winning on the military infantry protective gear. Even if it destroys ankles, spines, and shoulders..... But that might be more a one size does NOT fit all. Well 3 sizes.. But the same idea. As a side note I find it hilarious when old soldiers campaigning about those old flak vests they had to wear. Like wtf. They weighted like 4 or 5 pounds. Put like 4 of those on and then complain about it.

https://www.full30.com/video/7031a674075cb232ab631104d969c9f3


look at the SCAR 16 at 8:00 mark and listen to the Armourers opinion on the high usage

Friend of mine bought the HK MR 308 (civilian version of the HK 417/G28/CSASS) last year and I can't find anything wrong with that gun, or the caliber. The ammo may be a bit more expensive than .223.

I do not want to carry 210 rounds of 7.62mm Nato. that is the problem with that gun for anything but niche uses. But that is not an issue for someone that runs out and buys a civilian version of such. It only goes from the trunk to the range. Not up a hill and down a valley with it all the other junk. Oh and for the same weight of ammo it would be 400 rounds of 5.56. There is a niche use but try shooting in the prone in loose sand or dirt with such a short barrel. You might start seeing the issues. 2x if suddenly you start hearing lots of bees over head from the dust storm. In all fairness everything does this. But the shock wave with a 7.62 x 51 and with so much propellant burning out side the barrel is going to lift a lot of shoot me here into the air. Just like a muzzle brake that vents off to the side will.

For military use the short barrels are a trade off. they need to save weight and it needs to be easily deployed from vehicles. They are less concerned with loosing the 250 FPS in velocity than say a 22 inch barrel as its still more than enough power on the other end at 400- 700 meters to fill in the gap that 5.56 sucks at. Also a military can cherry pick its ammo. Use a faster propellant and flash retardant. If you average joe, you hit up Walmart and its a slower powder with no flame retardant as its intended for like hunting rifles with 22 inch barrels and what not.

FN Fal or it's many variants.

You can't do any of that in Germany - unless you have a hunting license and a Revier where you are allowed to hunt in - so it's purely a range gun.

The German Army acquired a couple of G27/28 as designated marksman rifle, though. 5.56 was not doing too well in Afghanistan from what I've heard (most engagements were rather long-range, often too far for the G36).

Until the introduction of the G36, generations of Bundeswehr conscripts slugged around their trustworthy G3s (with ammo) without complaining (much). And with steel pots as helmets (not those "new" kevlar ones). A lot less batteries, though, and no body armor.

Short of reproductions, like new Springfield 03s made in .308 for ease/cost, not likely much market for what you seek. Most bolt guns market to hunting or precision shooting.

That said, sounds like what you want is to look for an Ishapore: Indian Enfield in 7.62x51, 25"bbl, and carbines w/20". Should be able to find one in good shape for 3-400. Tried one some time back, we hit 10" steel @300yds with no problem, was a nice rifle.

Here's one in WA state:
http://www.gunbroker.com/item/578192233

And a carbine, just to see.
http://www.gunbroker.com/item/577705341

The steel pots weight less than the new ones. But talking US Army. I can not remember what the heck the ACH weighted? 3.5 pounds? 4 pounds? 3 pounds? Who knows. You get use to it. But the old US steel pot was way less. And was not going to stop a 9mm bullet at point blank either.

Ya I know of the Indian Enfields. years ago a buddy picked one up from a big five for a hundred bucks. I always liked enfields My Grandfather got one somehow from somewhere. For all I know he stole it when he was in Burma. It sure looked like it. It was one of the few firearms he held onto when he sold off his collection in the late 90s to pay off medical bills. Apparently his collection was worth quite a lot. No one in the family even really knew he had one. I guess the ancient musket over the desk should have been a clue. I was 16 when I found that one out. Never came up before. Weird. OK that was random.

No idea what the deal is with that type of rifle but they are popular.

I have four ~75 year old rifles all in either .30-06 (M2 ball) or .30 carbine and I don't even see where realistically .308 is something I have to consider. For anything I do, .30-06 is plenty good.

And my sole 'modern' rifle is an AR15 in 5.56. Mimics an M16A2. Light- can hold it one handed at arm's length, full 30 round mag, and I don't have any fantasies about room clearance so barrel length? Who gives a hoot. Plus I want the longer sight distance. Accurate- It's almost boring to take it to the 100 yard range.

So on the one hand I don't need .308 and on the other, any 'scout rifle' needs I could ever have would be covered by my M1 carbine....and the M1 carbine is much easier to clean.

I think the market has moved to precision rifles when it comes to bolt actions. And those often tend to be in larger calibers. Otherwise they're geared towards hunting, in popular hunting calibers (.270?).

The close range, tactical style guns are all semi autos which makes sense for close in shooting, and the cool factor. For most a 20" .308 bolt action with iron sights only does not make much sense. There are always Indian Enfields and Israeli Mausers surplus wise to look for.

I LOVE my Ruger Precision Rifle in .308. I'm not shooting 1600 yards (that's beyond my ability by a "long shot" (ehhh...get it...."looonong shot") so I don't need 6.5 Creedmoor.

I think the .308 is a great cartridge, btw. Pretty much every .308 I own, and they are nice ones, will shoot sub MOA as is...

I have two old rifles that have been rebarreled to 308/7.62. This is one I did myself, made from a a Yugo M48. Heavy 18 inch barrel. I wanted to try a a short heavy barrel compared to my longer barrels. It is OK, but I prefer 22 inch to 24 inch. I don't mind the length. But I'm old school.



Here it is in the process.





And here is a 1936 Czech VZ24 with 24 inch 308 barrel.




I'm quite fond of the 308/7.62. Have done a lot of time with it in many different rifles ; some of it in combat.


The strange obsession with 16 inch barrels is a convergence of the US NFA laws of a minimum barrel length of 16 inches without having to get special registration and the "tactikool" desire. But keep this in mind.