New Ruger SFAR .308
- Thread starter waco
- Start date
waco
Springfield, Oregon
I haven’t needed a new gun since 1998…
CZ93X62
Official forum enigma
The only disadvantage to a 7.62 x 51 rifle system is its weight. I have owned and used 3 of them, and dearly loved them all--though one of them was hell on cartridge brass (HK-91). I'm sure the River City Hoplophobes will render this Ruger VERBOTEN in Kalifornistan, and that's a shame. I miss having a 308 gas gun. Our Benevolent Dictator still says 'Ya' to M1As, but those are scarce on the ground and expensive when found.
waco
Springfield, Oregon
This one weighs in at 6.8 pounds.
Petrol & Powder
Well-Known Member
I went through a "Battle Rifle" phase and owned several semi-auto rifles chambered in .308 and liked them all. I traded or sold off most of them when my interests shifted. Those types of rifles can be a bit on the heavy side but that cartridge is extremely useful.
That Ruger SFAR looks like a winner. While it will still tip the scales more than an AR-15 when fully loaded, it looks like Ruger did a good in keeping the weight down.
It looks like a modern take on the AR-10 with some nice features out of the box. Ruger has always shown good engineering skills and I wouldn't be nervous about buying that rifle.
That Ruger SFAR looks like a winner. While it will still tip the scales more than an AR-15 when fully loaded, it looks like Ruger did a good in keeping the weight down.
It looks like a modern take on the AR-10 with some nice features out of the box. Ruger has always shown good engineering skills and I wouldn't be nervous about buying that rifle.
Petrol & Powder
Well-Known Member
It looks like Ruger put a lot of work into making the receiver as small as possible and yet still capable of running the 308 cartridge.
www.americanrifleman.org
That was a lot of engineering, R&D and testing. They may be onto something there.
An Official Journal Of The NRA | New For 2022: Ruger SFAR
Ruger's Small-Frame Autoloading Rifle, or SFAR, is a true, small-frame, .308 Win.-chambered semi-automatic rifle that brings short-action power into a compact, lightweight platform.
That was a lot of engineering, R&D and testing. They may be onto something there.
462
California's Central Coast Amid The Insanity
True enough, but retirement has its discretionary spending limitations.
Part of my downsizing project was selling two rifles and three revolvers, and that income was planned for a .45 Colt pistol or rifle purchase. Then, an unexpected house expense arose that exactly matched all the downsizing income. I'm being patient.
Yup, looks like a shorted carrier and heavier buffer/spring setup. 1/2# diff for carbine and rifle versions. Handguard arrangement probably adds strength too. Says barrel is heavy profile, hmm. 5r 1:10 twist though. Eliminate the flap and FA and removes even more weight and $. Magwell doesn't need much strength, Add material to the tube connections and front pins.
Ian
Notorious member
Empty. Without a scope or mount. Full mag plus scope and mount adds 3.75 pounds to that.
Not an AR10, but I'd like to find another of these uppers. No FA or shell deflector and no problems. I think( not sure) that this one was called Bushmaster "Rangemaster". I also have two Anderson "Sport" uppers that have no FA- but do have the brass bumper.
Petrol & Powder
Well-Known Member
The case deflector is just a protrusion of the aluminum upper. It doesn’t add complexity, doesn’t add much weight there are no moving parts involved or extra steel pieces. I can live with that, and it is even useful if shooting from your left shoulder.
The Forward Assist is a different story. Its inclusion in the design has become entrenched and manufacturers seem unwilling to omit it out of fear that buyers want it. I know its history and why it was added but even that was questionable. I don’t believe the FA is a horrible thing, I just wish we could get rid of that unneeded safety blanket.
I have mixed emotions about the dust cover. I can understand why the military wanted it, but I think its usefulness is dubious. It doesn’t add much weight, but weight and complexity is cumulative and if something is not needed, it shouldn’t be there. So, the question is: “is it needed”? My gut tells me no.
None of these issues are make or break issues,….. they’re just ramblings
The Forward Assist is a different story. Its inclusion in the design has become entrenched and manufacturers seem unwilling to omit it out of fear that buyers want it. I know its history and why it was added but even that was questionable. I don’t believe the FA is a horrible thing, I just wish we could get rid of that unneeded safety blanket.
I have mixed emotions about the dust cover. I can understand why the military wanted it, but I think its usefulness is dubious. It doesn’t add much weight, but weight and complexity is cumulative and if something is not needed, it shouldn’t be there. So, the question is: “is it needed”? My gut tells me no.
None of these issues are make or break issues,….. they’re just ramblings
Ian
Notorious member
Nah, just keeping it real. It's tough to make a .308 battle rifle with optics come in under 11 pounds, but Ruger has done well here. I think the biggest improvement is actually making the action shorter by moving the heavy magazine and chamber significantly closer to the shoulder.
L Ross
Well-Known Member
Fortunately a simple cold compress to my fevered brow reminded me I have a perfectly good 7.62x39 upper that functions and is accurate enough to drop the 210 yard buffalo with cast. No FA on the upper either. I've killed one deer with Hornady 123 grain soft point, so no great history. I am a bit shocked how much I like the gun. Ugly, brutally efficient, capable of being banged around with no angst about fine wood and checkering. And so delightfully politically incorrect.
