My FDE Scar looks like a parts gun because FN puts so many different shades of "FDE" on it. The receiver, stock module and lower module are all different colors.

However, I'm not an "oh no you di'unt - that magpul FDE TOTALLY classhes with that VLTOR FDE" sort of guy. I'm more about results and FDE is definitely less visible in the woods than black.

Regarding 308 "Battle Rifles" my money is on the FN Scar Heavy or a licensed built FAL.

I think 7.62x51mm is best left semi in standard sub 10# rifles.

The gun doesn't have to look pretty. I mixed color scar will blend better than a solid color scar anyway.

GD,
Now you're thinking

I don't mind the multicolor issue, but I think it's poor QC on a $2500 rifle.

A craptastic $500 Unirex 22LR Scar lookalike / trainer matches, but a $2500 rifle doesn't?

My only REAL complaint about the Heavy is the reputed damage inflicted on optics. SOCOM now only issues Elcan Specter Dr optics. Google the price on one . Taxpayer funded

Anyway, I spoke with Trijicon and they said the TA11H-308 was designed for the Scar-17 and that Trijicon consulted with FN on it. If it does break....they'll replace it (if the zombies haven't eaten them yet).

I had a Winchester M14 waaaaaaa back prior to 1996 here, nice rifle, great for punching holes in targets, better at that than an SLR, still very very dates in terms of a fighting rifle. The US would have been sooo much better off if the T48 was "The Chosen One" ..

Andy,
I have hands on with a real M14 as well, and agree with you 100%.

The older m14 and some of the m1a's I've handled didn't seem to be as poorly made and have some of the issues I saw.

I was issued an M14 in the late 60's and it was very accurate and reliable. I was cleaning it one day and noticed that the roller on the bolt was missing. I put over a hundred rounds through it before I could get it repaired and it ran fine. I never liked the M16 as much as I liked the M14.

Ray,
I lost a roller on one civilian M1A. I noticed when the bolt skipped the track and was locked up in the back of the reciever.

I think people should undertand there is a significant difference between the rifles offered by the civilian (never affiliated with the Government Springfield Armory) M1A and the forged USGI M14.

The sub-100k serial number M1As had a lot of surplus USGI forged parts, but as parts dried up SA, Inc. started to sub-contract for them. If you dig deep you'll find that SA,Inc. imports a lot of its cast parts from Korea. This shouldn't come as a surprise from a company that has a history of sticking its name on imported guns (SAR-3, SAR-8, SAR-48, XD line, the O/U Scout, etc).

I had a couple of early M1As and they worked fine. I personally don't think anyone reading this is going to run enough rounds through one to crack the cast receiver. HOWEVER, I always worried about the other parts and what would happen to the cast receiver if I had an overloaded / over charged round.

The USGI M14 was a 1936 M1 (Garand) Rifle product improved. The US Military would have been better served with the T48 as Andy said. I fully appreciate our heritage as "riflemen" dating back to before the American Revolution, and that the FAL has crude sights by US military standards. I don't' understand why we couldn't have just fitted the FAL with an improved set of sights and called it good.

I have nothing to base this on, but I would suspect it had to do with:

1. National pride
2. Political pressure (BIG companies lobbying?)
3. Money/create work for a bunch of folks.

Politics. Duh.