Why so much $$$ for semi .308 rifles?

[flakbait]

Why do semiautomatic .308 based rifles (M1A, FAL, AR-10) cost 1.5-2 times that of AR-15 style rifles? I can find bare bones AR-15 rifles for less than $1000 but I don't see any semi .308 for less than $1500-2000.

Probably most AR-15 style rifles are chambered for .223/5.56 which is marginal for big game hunting (deer, hogs, antelope). The 6.8 mm SPC round is nice but the ammo is pricey. I'm sure big game hunters far outnumber varmit hunters.

The .308 is much more useful for big game hunting and can take any animal in North America. Why is the demand for .308 rifles not the reducing the cost. I don't think there is much difference between the AR-10 and AR-15 other than the amount of metal used and slightly different bolt carrier parts.

I guess the simple answer is probably supply and demand. Most AR-15 style rifles are purchased for plinking/target shooting rather than hunting/long range shooting. .223 ammo is still relatively cheap compared to other centerfire ammo. What are your thoughts?

 

[Slamfire]

That is a good question about the AR-10. I don't know why the AR-10 costs the premium. The material cost differences between it and a AR15 should not be that high.

As for the M1a (M14) and FAL. Both of those are expensive rifles to build. A class III manufacturer I know told me that the FAL receiver was actually took more machining than a M14 receiver. The Garand receiver, which was the direct ancestor of the M14, was designed pre WWII by a machine and tool die maker (John Garand). My manufacturer friend told me the Garand/M14 has all sorts of weird contours and requires a special cutting tool for each. The FAL was designed just after WWII and I doubt that manufacturing costs were much of a consideration. A new FAL in the 1970’s, the sale price was about $3,000 in today’s money, so it was a very expensive rifle even towards the end of its production.

Stoner actually did a good job in making his rifle relatively cheap to make, and this again was back in the 50’s.

I think the Germans with the HK91 did the best job of designing a rifle that is quick and cheap to build. The bolt head is not easy to make, but the receiver is simply a welding. It is my opinion that they never meant the HK91 to be rebuilt, I think they were just going to make lots of them.

If the price is high, it is likely to the law of supply and demand. There are all sorts of AR15 parts out there. I think the TDP is in the public domain. The AR10 rifles are all different, parts don't interchange, and you are going to pay a lot for one.

 

[Hatterasguy]

Battle rifles cost a lot more to build. The receiver on a Fal takes a lot of machine work. My FN49 most have cost a bundle, a lot of very nice machine work went into making that rifle. But than again a top of the line AR costs that much, LWRC's are usualy around the $2k mark.

I'm sure thats another reason they are not widely issued.


G3's OTOH should be dirt cheap, they are just stamped. You can get the PTR which is a pretty decent clone for $900.

 

[Z-Michigan]

It's mostly quantity and economy of scale. The AR platform had a built in economy of scale due to adoption by the US military, US LE, and lots of foreign militaries. Once it started becoming popular with civilians the resulting competition and diversity of suppliers really drove costs down. Right now ARs are about as cheap as they have ever been, in inflation-adjusted terms.

The AR design is actually quite machining intensive as well. I remember reading (somewhere) that when it first came out, only about 8 countries in the world had the level of machining capability to make it. Obviously that has since changed, but it is definitely unlike an AK that can literally be made in Afghan hills and villages. If it were not for the volume and competition I would expect an AR-15 to cost upwards of $1200 as well.

You can get a relatively inexpensive FAL if you're willing to accept a cast receiver and iffy parts assembly. Before the Clinton import ban you could get very affordable M14s from Norinco. I think their current high prices relate mostly to the limited number of manufacturers and the high standards that most buyers are looking for.

BTW, a DPMS LR-308 starts in upper $800s, only a little more than AR-15. But there is a fair bit of parts commonality with the AR-15.

 

[Kurt_D]

Yep, scale is the answer. The AR platform benefits from being used by the .mil and LE services which want the platform in pretty large numbers. That lowers production cost and that savings is passed on to you the civilian shooter. The tooling to build the rifles was paid for long ago as was the R&D, again these savings are passed on to you. That makes the platform affordable for more people and it just flat out works; there's also a reason it's called a Barbie for men. That demand means even more are made, which again can lower cost some more. Prices seemed to have stablized around the $800 mark for a standard chrome lined carbine, which is probably as cheap as you can go with out dropping features or taking shortcuts.

The AR-10 (or .308 pattern ARs), even though it looks like an AR-15 XL, requires new tooling and R&D which cost money. Couple that with way smaller numbers, the nonstandard nature of this platform, and the political landscape means a higher price. Do you want to gamble on recouping you're cost over 5 years when your product could be banned this year? Funny thing is they still manage to stay close; DPMS can get you a bare bones stripped model for ~$900, Armalite models, forged, with similar features to a standard AR are going to be ~$1300.

The PTR-91 are a very good bang for buck .308. The design is easy to manufacture and PTR does use new surplus parts. This way they can get the price down. The machines to make parts and build rifles were also bought used, that helps save money. Even with small numbers they can be had for ~$1000, that's definitly AR territory.

The M1A, no one uses. Spingfield has to use short cuts to keep the price competitive with other rifles as surplus parts ran dry. Small numbers, making all the parts and hand fitting equals an expensive rifle. Bare bones I've seen them for $1400, loaded models for a couple hundred more and the price only climbs from there.

FAL - assuming you're talking about quality ones I'll stick to DSA's STG and SA models. STG's can be had for ~$1100 because they still use new surplus parts, all be it fewer and mixed matched each year as the parts dry up. Like the PTR-91 this allows the price to be more competitive. The SA models are 100% US made and you can tell as they hit the $2000+ mark. Yes the FAL suffer from the same issues as the others - small numbers and a dead platform (so far and .mil and LE are concerned).

ETA: the new 5.56 rifles

As you may or may not have noticed the new 5.56 rifles - SCAR, ACR, XCR, STG-556 and E4, FS2000, etc are also way above the cost of a standard AR. Why? The same reason the .308 platforms cost a premium. And it will stay that way unless (doubtful) one of these is adopted by the .mil. At that point in a few years the accepted rifle will start to see the same benefits as the AR-15, not that the AR platform is going anywhere soon due to shear numbers.

 

[GunsBeerFreedom]

You all seem to forget the mighty Saiga 308.

 

[CraigC]

It's mostly quantity and economy of scale. The AR platform had a built in economy of scale due to adoption by the US military, US LE, and lots of foreign militaries. Once it started becoming popular with civilians the resulting competition and diversity of suppliers really drove costs down. Right now ARs are about as cheap as they have ever been, in inflation-adjusted terms.

I think you hit the nail on the head.

 

[mshootnit]

I wish my M1 did not cost so much, but I was pleasantly surprised by the rifle. Good American craftsmanship.

 

[briansmithwins]

The expensive part of owing a 7.62 NATO rifle ain't the rifle, it's the ammo.

If you're suffering sticker shock over the rifle, try pricing ammo at gun-deals.com

The only .30 I shoot it 7,62x39 cuz I can get it for $275/1260rnds.

BSW

 

[Winston_Smith]

Shotgun News has several adds for sub $900 AR10's

 

[Jim K]

I am not sure of the current price, but the M16A2 was costing us around $1000 each. I had a production engineer estimate that the AR-18 could be made for less than $100 in mass production (not counting profits or overhead). There are good reasons for a lot of the difference, but I think at least some is called ripping off the government.

Jim

 

[Al LaVodka]

"Why so much for a semi-.308" you ask?
Like divorce, 'cause they're worth it!
Al

 

[rfurtkamp]

You missed the boat on cheap .308 rifles, honestly.

PTRs were $599 from CDNN for a *long* time in the mid 200s. Vector was selling the original run of 51s for $700ish each in '06.

The surplus parts (and the ability to import surplus barrels in the kits) have largely dried up - the "build your own FAL" for < $300 days are long gone, and the market price reflects it now.

 

[Al LaVodka]

I had a production engineer estimate that the AR-18 could be made for less than $100 in mass production (not counting profits or overhead). There are good reasons for a lot of the difference, but I think at least some is called ripping off the government.

Jim

You can always tell an engineer but you can't tell him much. Get a reputable one and/or have him look at a gun with a barrel after you tell him what they actually do...

And why wouldn't you count "overhead" anyway?! They're just indirect but required costs of doing business, like taxes.


Al

 

[MCMXI]

The expensive part of owing a 7.62 NATO rifle ain't the rifle, it's the ammo. If you're suffering sticker shock over the rifle, try pricing ammo at gun-deals.com

I have four rifles chambered in .308 Win/7.62x51mm and a reasonable estimate of the cost per round (reloads) is close to $0.50. This is based on a quality match bullet, good powder such as Reloder 15 or Varget, a good case such as Lapua (used 10 times) and good primers such as CCI 200. This isn't cheap by any stretch, but when factory match ammunition costs around $1.50 per round it seems somewhat reasonable. Actually, I don't want to think about how much it costs to shoot any of my .308s. I'm building a .260 Remington which won't be any cheaper to shoot!

 

[benEzra]

Probably most AR-15 style rifles are chambered for .223/5.56 which is marginal for big game hunting (deer, hogs, antelope). The 6.8 mm SPC round is nice but the ammo is pricey. I'm sure big game hunters far outnumber varmit hunters.

The .308 is much more useful for big game hunting and can take any animal in North America. Why is the demand for .308 rifles not the reducing the cost. I don't think there is much difference between the AR-10 and AR-15 other than the amount of metal used and slightly different bolt carrier parts.

Gun owners who own guns for paper punching and defensive purposes outnumber hunters by a wide margin, and .223/5.56x45mm is arguably superior for typical paper punching and HD. (A .223 carbine is smaller, lighter, recoils less, is cheaper to shoot, the caliber is a better match for HD than 7.62x51mm, and the high-BC .223 loads will match .308 at any range as long as you're just shooting at paper.)

7.62mm AR-type rifles are a relatively low-volume niche product and are priced accordingly.

 

[MikeS.]

I paid 1100.00 for a lightly used Armalite AR-10 last month. The original owner fired 20 rounds through it. This isn't a stripped AR-10 either. So deals are to be had on these if you look around enough. Add 250 for a Leupold scope.

Ammo cost is a concern. I can buy surplus DAG for about 47 cents a round, this rifle is particular about ammo too. It has primer issues with some surplus I've found. I can reload for it for about 40 cents a round using surplus bullets. More if I use match bullets or good quality hunting bullets. So it's not cheap to shoot.

 

[RedLion]

There are good reasons for a lot of the difference, but I think at least some is called ripping off the government.

Our government might be silly at times, but they are certainly not stupid. If FN or Colt was ripping them off, they will notice, and they will get their money back.

I'm pretty sure that the different designs for every maker out there really hurts the cost effectiveness of the AR-10.

made for less than $100 in mass production

How much do you think HP, Dell, IBM, or apple are spending to produce computers? And how much are they selling them for? There are other industries that get much much larger margins on their products than the gun industry. Plus overhead is kind of a big deal, especially if you're working in the US. People are in business not to make guns or computers, but to make money. The fact that no one is making the AR-18 is kinda indicative that your friend is a little bit off.

 

[Tirod]

Ammo costs for new virgin brass rounds with a modern bullet for hunting are all about the same price. The mythology that a wildcat should be as cheap as a taxpayer supported surplus plinking round is pretty widespread, and not very informed.

Aside from some really big calibers, like .50, making ammo requires a setup expense, the proper volume of basic components, and making enough of them to get economy of scale. Running less than a minimum quantity will always raise the per unit price. It's why some ammo will always be expensive. It sells, and just enough of it will to make a profit, even with the high price.

Hunters shooting 6.8 don't have a major problem with the cost, a couple of boxes will do for deer season, or a hog hunt. If blasting 500 rounds a weekend, or taking carbine courses multiple times a year is the plan, choose something else. It's all paper punching anyway, a .22 would do as well.

.308 was the thing in the 70's/80's. HK91's were $180, cheaper than Remington 700's, and 7.62 surplus under 18 cents a round by the thousand. Surplus was plentiful. No longer, and the same could happen to 5.56 if the Army moves to a different caliber. In ten years the surplus would be all shot up. 7.62 and 5.56 would be the same price as all the rest, and a new generation would be blasting something else.

It could very well be a propane powered simulator upper with a laser pulse and reactive optical target that feeds back a hit immediately, green light/red light.

 

[zstephens13]

RRA sells semi out .308 for less that $1500, too.

 

[scythefwd]

There's a store on the way home that had 2 R-25's going for a smidge over 1200.

MSRP on a remington 750 is about 880, they come in .308. You didn't originally state it had to be an AR style rifle.

You could -cringe- buy a rack grade garand and convert it. Put a new stock on it and it's a whole new rifle... all for about 1k or so.

 

[scythefwd]

Tirod - you can get setup to reload a single caliber for 120 dollars. That will give you enough brass, bullets, powder, and primers for 100 rounds, probably closer to 200. That sets you up with a hand press, a .308win die, a decapping pin/base, and a scoop type powder measure (while not exactly very flexible, it is very consistent). Reloading doesn't have to be expensive, but it sure can get that way quick if you let it.

 

[OldMac]

cdnn has the russian TOZ122 in .308 for $299

 

[rfurtkamp]

cdnn has the russian TOZ122 in .308 for $299

Not a semiauto.

 

[OhioChief]

My RRA .308 LAR-8 was the same price as my Colt AR15. 1,200. The cost to shoot is higher, so I don't shoot it as much. Although when I got the RRA .458 SOCOM, I really learned how much it can cost to shoot. It's all relative I guess.