M1A vs Fal

[Destructo6]

Thats why they are still being issued

If a US soldier wants to shoot a 7.62NATO rifle, the M14 is his only choice and those that have that choice are very few.

The FAL was issued as standard, to everyone, for 40+ years in many, many countries.

[USMCG_HMX1]

IMHO, it's comparing apples and oranges.


The FAL is a battle rifle, plain and simple. OTOH, the M14 shouldn't have tried to fit this billet due to its size and weight. It's a force multiplier and should have been used (and should be designated for this continued use) as such.

A battle rifle needs to be somewhat accurate, however the operator still needs to be able to properly deploy it when needed at a moments notice. The M14's size, weight of the weapon, and weight of extra ammo preclude it from being such.

As a DMR weapon it does a great job, as you have the "reach out and touch them" capability. As a sniper weapon, it could possibly do this job but it will require too many modifications with a huge price tag to perform well.



Kris

[Eghad]

If I had a choice between the Service M14/M1A and the FAL. I am taking the M14 or the M1A.

I have a National Match M1A made by Springfield in 90 or 91. Its the bees knees.

I also had the privilege of being on a Reserve rifle team and we had M14s that were from the mother land (USAMA) at Ft. Benning. I had to store it at the Sheriff's office in between uses. It wasn't a pristine shiny rifle as it had seen use and the stock could have used a sanding and refinish. That thing could drive nails with the M118 ammo. That rifle from Benning would be my Choice

[Gustavo]

I have an argentine-made FSL ( a semi-auto only civilian-restricted version of the FAL ), and when compared to the M1s...well I think it's not a fair comparison.

The FAL is lighter, capable of GREAT accuracy ( 3-shot groups of about 0.5" at 150 meters ), very tough and dependable.

While the M1 was without any doubt a fantastic battle rifle, the FAL has a combat record of its own.

In fact the FAL is and was used in a sniper-role. Including the Malvinas war, where the Argentine Marines using NV scopes were very effective to make the Brits to take a toll when assaulting the Two Sisters hill.

There is a sniper-specific version, made by FM ( down here ), with a heavy, long barrel, military scope mount ( NV capable ) , flash hider, suppressor and bipod. Test have demonstrated that it was capable of high accuracy using a specially developed LR ammo ( somewhat similar to the M118LR ) and is in service not only in Argentina but in some other countries.

Probably one of the main and important features of its design ( and very often overlooked ) is the use not only of a gas piston, but of an soldier-adjustable gas valve that coupled with an on/off gas-plug can make it a rifle of high accuracy, close to a bolt-action.

I regularly download my loads, close the gas-plug and shot in "manual" mode.

Results are awesome.

I must confess that I'm partial to the FAL, but its service record says a lot for itself.

[Desert01]

I have a National Match M1A made by Springfield in 90 or 91. Its the bees knees.

I also had the privilege of being on a Reserve rifle team and we had M14s that were from the mother land (USAMA) at Ft. Benning.

Both are based on the issue "rack" grade M-14's, but are not the same. Niether one is a "Service" rifle.

[Gunfixr]

For just a pure battle rifle role, the FAL takes it hands down. It is lighter, more ergonomic, and more reliable. The M1A does have better sights, but this can be rectified on the FAL. They can both be made quite accurate. The Fal has worked reliably in nearly every environment on the planet and is still being used in many Third World countries, beaten and battered, and still fighting after almost 50 yrs.

[azredhawk44]

The M-14 proved to be a dismal failure in the jungle. Mind you, in jungles, so did the early M-16's.

Yeah, but it does seem to be very reliable in desert environments, judging by all the pictures I've seen of soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan who are DM's and holding M14's. Reportedly, more so than the M4 or M16 platform.

[Bosshoff]

The question is moot. No one is selling ammo.

[Dave in AZ]

The MIA is more accurate if you put a ton of work into it. Out of the box, for general purpose shooting a decently made FAL will outshoot it each time. My Best FAL is a Israeli HB kit with an upside down v front sight and a DSA hooded match rear sight. After final fit I pressure fire lapped it and even with surplus ball ammo its headhsots only out to 500 yds with open sights.

The rifle is capable of more than I am though.

The FAL is better built, simpler - more reliable and less suceptible to the environment.

[44 AMP]

That the M14 failed in the jungle? Not being the best weapon for the tactics used, or being replaced because of political decisions does not, to me constitute failure.

I have shot both rifles, and I prefer the M14 (M1A).

[HorseSoldier]

Yeah, but it does seem to be very reliable in desert environments, judging by all the pictures I've seen of soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan who are DM's and holding M14's. Reportedly, more so than the M4 or M16 platform.

Lot of reliability problems with M14s in the desert, actually. Also problems with getting and keeping them credibly accurate for the role they're being used for. That appears to be part of the reason why the decision was made to drop the M14 in favor of DMRs based on the M16 or AR-10.

[Sturmgewehre]

The M14 can be made to be very accurate, but its easily damaged (the accuracy). Their accuracy degrades pretty quickly with use, especially hard (like military) use.

The AR10 / SR25 is a better military platform, it's just expensive.

[cheygriz]

For a general purpose, general issue infantry rifle, the FAL is superior to the M-14 in many ways, including but not limited to, an adjustable gas system, a full pistol grip, FAR better ergonomics and ease of mass production. The M-14 had a slight edge in long range accuracy, which may, or may not mean anything.

I dearly love both rifles, and thoroughly enjoy shooting both, but the rifles' designs, and the cartridge are grossly obsolete on today's short range, fast moving battlefield.

(But that doesn't make either one any less fun to own and shoot!)

[Desert01]

My FAL

[MacGille]

The M14 was not a dud as a military rifle. It was a hard hitting very accurate rifle that could double as a squad automatic rifle. The weapon was accurate and dependable. True no one could hold the trigger down on automatic and hit anything, but any trained automatic rifleman shoots 2 or 3 round bursts.

The reason it was phased out of the military and was not acceped by foreign nations was strictly political. It had nothing to do with its merits as a weapon system. Robert MacNamara the secdef. at the time wanted a smaller rifle so that the troops could carry more ammo. Robert Macnamara never had any military experience. He was a car maker, who did more to destroy the US military than any other person in our govt.:barf:

So, our Army went from riflemen to untrained recruits with a weapon that jammed when dirty and who stuck there weapons up over the edge of their foxhole and burned off a magazine at a time without ever seeing a target. The M-16 in the first two years of use in Viet Nam probably killed more GIs than VC. Even today, the troops in Iraq are finding the 5.56mm to be underwhelming in combat. And, what do they request in replacement? The M14

[Destructo6]

So, our Army went from riflemen to untrained recruits

Wow, all that with just a change in issued rifle.

who stuck there weapons up over the edge of their foxhole and burned off a magazine at a time without ever seeing a target.

To shoot in the direction of the enemy, without having a clear target, is something that veteran Marines had to pound into recruits when they arrived in the Pacific theater of WWII. The idea being that, "we know the enemy is over that way and while this ammo is cheap, your life is not."

Even today, the troops in Iraq are finding the 5.56mm to be underwhelming in combat. And, what do they request in replacement? The M14

Source?

The truth is that the M14 is little more than a product improved M1 Garand, which was a great weapon for its day. The world was looking for a significant improvement in 1958 and the M14 was not it.

[Dangerwing]

I realize this is kind of off topic but what the hell...

When manning check points around Baghdad, my unit found the 5.56 about worthless when comming from an assault rifle. The main problem? It couldn't penetrate car windshields! When a car charges a check point, its usually a safe bet that it is full of rigged 155 rounds or other IEDs. It needs to be stopped and stopped fast! If a SAW gunner could get 50 rounds or so into a windshield, you might have a chance, but half a dozen guys throwing 5.56 from 16s or M4s might as well throw rocks. As soon as we got an M240B and a M2, the problem was solved, but I still have a bad taste in my mouth from the 5.56. I guess my point is that that dropping the M14 for the M16 series was a bad call. Now if they made the M16 chambered in 7.62 NATO or my personal favorite, the US .30cal (.30-06) then we would have a good weapon!

[Jamie Young]

My DSA-STG58 can get MOA with good ammo
100yd FAL results

The M1A has better sights and a better trigger that's why it tends to be more accurate.

[HorseSoldier]

So, our Army went from riflemen to untrained recruits

I know that it was always better in the good old days and all that usual tripe, but the funny thing is there is actually no evidence whatsoever to support the idea that draftees doing two years in uniform armed with M14s were any better at hitting people in combat than draftees doing two years in uniform with M16s.

Increases in battlefield accuracy are quantifiable since the M14 got tossed aside, but stem from a volunteer/professional force, improved training techniques and focus, and most recently much better sights (ACOG, EOTech/Aimpoint, etc).

[Desert01]

Even today, the troops in Iraq are finding the 5.56mm to be underwhelming in combat. And, what do they request in replacement? The M14

MacGille, Dangerwing,

Two points to keep your comments in perspective:

1. If you are in the US military and want more puch out of a rifle then a 5.56mm, you only have one choice. The M-14 of which we have several thousand in Depots. The FAL is not an option, so we are off on a tangent.

I guess my point is that that dropping the M14 for the M16 series was a bad call. Now if they made the M16 chambered in 7.62 NATO or my personal favorite, the US .30cal (.30-06) then we would have a good weapon!

2. The M-14 has it's place, but how does it compare for room clearing with an M-4? Heck, my 19" FAL (w/ brake) is the same size has my AR-15 and weight's twice has much. Oh and the muzzle blast inside a room. I don't even want to think about what a 30.06 would be like for room clearing, but then again some of our Korea and WW II vet's could share their M-1 stories with you, and I love those cute little clips the M-1 uses to.

If you want to help out with the windshield problem have some 5.56mm AP with you at Check Points and oh yeah cover the approches with your M-240s and M-2's. Even then you might need a couple of rounds from the M-240:
http://www.wwnytv.net/72k/new-full-s...area=home+page

Specialist Rork stopped the truck by firing 300 rounds from his machine gun.

The driver, wrapped in bombs, was unable to blow himself up and was detained by Specialist Osgood.

During a satellite interview from Iraq, unit commander Lieutenant Colonel John Valledor told 7 News that the dump truck was filled with 8,000 pounds of explosives.

That is twice the amount of explosives that were inside the Ryder truck that blew up outside the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City on April 19, 1995.

[Eghad]

Both are based on the issue "rack" grade M-14's, but are not the same. Niether one is a "Service" rifle.

and?

the bullet still comes out of the muzzle and hits where I aim it at....inst that what a service rifle is designed to do?

[Desert01]

the bullet still comes out of the muzzle and hits where I aim it at....inst that what a service rifle is designed to do?

Yes, but a rack grade rifle's "acceptable" accuracy is closer to 3 MOA, then a MOA to sub-MOA match rifle.

[Eghad]

Well I have used a few rack grade service rifles too...the M14 gets my vote over the FAL.

[pigrunner]

I believe the pdf of a recently given briefing "M14 to MK 14 - Evlolution of a Battle Rifle" would be of interest to those following this thread. The old warhorse is still holding its own after near 50 years in service. This is from the proceedings of the recent NDIA small arms symposium. Various interesting briefs.

http://www.dtic.mil/ndia/2007smallar...trong_12pm.pdf

Pig-out

[Desert01]

Pigrunner,

Thanks I need the link to the NDIA breifs and you have hooked me up!