FAL versus M-14/M-1A versus AR-10/SR-25


December 26, 2002, 12:33 PM
Hey Everyone,

What are the pros and cons of the following three designs of big bore battle rifles in 7.62mm NATO?

Springfield Armory M-14/M-1A
Armalite AR-10/Knight SR-25

I'm looking to invest in ONE of the rifles as a fighting rifle, but am having trouble narrowing my choice. Currently my only rifle is a Colt AR-15 Sporter that has been lightly customized for fighting.

Thanks for the advice.

- Anthony

If you enjoyed reading about "FAL versus M-14/M-1A versus AR-10/SR-25" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
December 26, 2002, 03:09 PM
FAL: Proven design & still in use in much of the world. Lots of inexpensive parts, too.

Steve Smith
December 26, 2002, 03:19 PM
You forgot the G3/HK-91/Cetme group!

Feh. Only a slightly more interesting poll than AK/AR.

December 26, 2002, 04:50 PM
I have the M14/M1A and it outshoots my FAL but I feel the FAL is the superior rifle/design and if I were offered two "hand inspected" FAL's I'd trade the M14 in a heartbeat (after all I paid over twice as much for the M14):)

December 27, 2002, 06:09 PM
A whole lot of people worldwide seem to think the FAL is pretty workable design and I couldn't disagree. I think if I had to have one of those listed as my bet-my-life-on-it rifle, the FAL would be the one.

December 27, 2002, 06:56 PM
The FAL and M14 are neck and neck as far as my preferences go. The FAL definately gets a big thumbs up for cheap parts/mags availability.

December 27, 2002, 07:29 PM
I personally like the FAL, although the M1A is next on my list of "must haves".

I really like the ease of filed stripping by shotgunning the weapon and easy gas regulation for different loads and weapon conditions. Couple that with easy to obtain spare parts and you have a winner.

Best of all you can get a DSA product and have a lifetime warranty.

Good Shooting

December 28, 2002, 12:34 AM

December 28, 2002, 12:44 AM

Where are the HK's? Both the G3/and HK91 should be on this list.

I feel left out. :( :( (I'll get over it.)

So, that leaves the FN Fal as my top vote-getter. ;)

December 28, 2002, 02:53 AM
FAL and G3. ;) I like the M1a and AR as well but mine sits in the safe most of the time, I prefer the FAL though.



December 28, 2002, 08:12 AM
I think as long as you get an "original" gun, and not one of the clones, you'll be alright with any of them, FAL, M1A, HK. The FAL is the worst of the lot accuracy wise, but fine within reasonable ranges. Personally, I'd take the M1A over the others, it truly is ambidextrious, and is easier to snap shoot than the others. All in all, its really just a matter of preference and practice. Whatever you get, if you practice, you can overcome any of the "overblown" problems that seem to present themselves here. They all work, just stay away from the clones.

December 28, 2002, 10:30 AM
M14 v/s FN FAL

The M14 was by far the totally superior battle rifle and here are just a few reasons why. Although both guns were total failures in regards to their original roles which was to do double duty not only as an infantry weapon but to as well to replace the squad automatic rifles like the American BAR and the British Bren Gun they did turn out to be premier semi-auto battle rifles but total failures in the full auto mode.

Stock design: The M14 stock design far supassed the awkward straight designed stock of the FAL. This type of stock is only needed for full auto rifles and being that both guns were total failures in full auto the convention stock of the M14 allowed quick snap shooting v/s the akward stock of the FN FAL that actually had to be carried but up over the shoulder to allow soldier even half a chance to snap the gun to their shoulders.

Safey lever.: Again the FN was not a well thought out design. The safety is so far forward almost all have to shift their grip to snap it off in a hurry v/s the in the trigger guard and lightning fast safety of the M14.

Gas System. Again a failure in the FN FAL. The gas system in both the short tube and long tube FN FALs has given the gun nothing but touble. The short tube versions have a really bad habit of of coming loose due to recoil or just plain rusting away of the ultra thin tube that is only silver soldered on to keep it from leaking. The long tube version has no soldier and leaks even when new. Once it gets loose and starts to leak the weapon will malfunction. The troublesome adjustable gas system at first glance would seem to be an advantage over the M14's non-ajustable gas system but one of lifes great surpises is that the M14's non-ajustable gas system would work with under as well as full power ammo with no problem while the FN's system is so finicky that if it is not ajusted just right to the ammo used it will either not eject the cases strongly enough to prevent jamming or it will eject them so violently that it will start to batter the weapon to death. As a matter of fact the ejection pattern of the FN is also very poor. It will throw one emty close to the weapon giving rather weak ejection and then the next case will be thrown almost 20 feet away. The M14 does not have this design problem.

Reliablilty in Sand and Cold temperature: Once again the FN FAL fails compared to the M14. In tests conducted by the U.S. army the M14 proved the superior weapon when used in extremely cold environments. The British had so much trouble with their FN's in the desert that they had to put sand cuts in the bolt of the FN to get it to work somewhat more realiably in the sand of the desert and one of the main complaints of the Israilies is that they to could not get the weapon to work when it got sand in it. The M14 worked 100 per cent better when contaiminated with sand because of its rotating bolt that actually threw off sand rather than trap it like the bolt of the FN Fal.

Strip down: Although the FN looks like a dream to strip down it is anything but a dream to strip. The stock if broken must be removed with a special tool and even using this tool can be a nightmare to the person who has seldom done this job. Contrast this to the instant take down of the M14. The trigger group on the FN must be taken out piece by piece for cleaning if the rifle is really full of mud or sand compared to the instant modular drop out trigger of the M14.

Sights: Here again the FN fails as compared to the M14. You will not find better or more instantly ajustable precision made sights on any battle rifle like the M14. The crude sliding rear sight or the other model flip up sight of the FN Fal is fine for blast em quick senarios but for precision long range shooting the fully ajustable rear sight of the M14 is superior to the FN which also must have a special tool to adjust the front sight.

Trigger pull: ON average almost all the M14 rifles I have personally fired had better trigger pulls than any FN Fal rifle I have ever fired.

Accuracy: Both rifles can shoot very acurately but the M14 has it all over the FN Fal and when the M14 is used in its sniper version called the XM21 it is by far one of the worlds premier sniper weapons. The FN Fal can be made in an all heavy barrel as opposed to the M14 that usally because of its gas system must have only a half heavy barrel to clear the operating mechanism, so some heavey barrel FNs may, if tricked out with a good trigger shoot very accurately indeed.

Scope mounting both night vision and daylight scopes: Here again the M14 is superior to the FN Fal. The FN being a hard gun to scope and it provides a less than stable plantform when the thin sheet metal dust cover is used as a base for the scope mount. A mount could be designed that would be attached to the side of the reciever like the M14 for quicker and more stable mounting but it seems that most of the popular military mounts were on the unstable and loose fitting top dust cover. Screws have been installed on some civilain mounts buy they are a pain to loosen up to remove the scope and once this is done the rifle may loose zero.

As far as the AR15 7.62x51 is concerned:

This weapon is notorius for being subject to stoppages when it gets dirty from its open gas sytem that sprays burnt powder all over the action and when mixes with rain water you have real problem with them. It is also know for being unreliable in sandy conditions. It has also been known on average to have a very creepy trigger pull. Of course there are civilian match triggers availble for this weapon. On the plus side in its heavy barrel configuration it is a very, very acurate weapon but due to its reliablity I rule it out for serious military applications. Its a great rifle for the pristeen , immaculate , civilian target range but not for the battlefield.

December 28, 2002, 12:03 PM
I have gone with the AR10TNC (16' barrel).


I have a friend with a DSA (FAL) that thought the AR10 was not reliable, so while at the range we had a little competition. We used the dirtiest old ammunition we could find. We also used to some of the best reloads I could make. The end result after 250 rounds and no cleaning,

AR10 - one failure to feed

DSA – one failure to extract


We used Federal 168 Match ammunition, 3 round group.

AR10 - .52 @ 100 yards

DSA – 1.68 @ 100 yards

Cost of the Rifles

AR10 target Navy Carbine 1650.00

DSA (FAL) 1450.00

The real difference in cost is the fact that my AR10 is the target model. SS barrel, 2 stage trigger, and free floated.

End result. They both did great considering the fact we dropped all the ammunition in the dirt before we started. As for myself, I think I will stay with the AR10tnc. Some people say that AR10 is not a combat type rifle, I would disagree. Also during the Gulf War and my time in the Marines, I just got confortable with the AR. I will always keep my pre/ban AR-15's but the AR-10 just gives that extra kick.

BTW - BH9P, They do not make a AR15 in 7.62X51. It is called a AR10.


Marko Kloos
December 28, 2002, 06:52 PM
My favorite battle rifle in 7.62mm NATO is the HK G3. No gas system to need tweaking or give trouble, near-bombproof construction, and extreme reliability. The only bad thing about it is the price for a pre-ban HK91 these days.

December 28, 2002, 07:22 PM
I have an Imbel clone and even so I'd prefer it to an M1a or M14. I think alot of owners of the clones be they CETME's or FAL's feel they got an excellent value not an inferior want-to-be.

December 28, 2002, 11:10 PM
Having carried the M14 for 4 years in the Marine Corps, I'd have to pick it because of the familiarity.

December 28, 2002, 11:45 PM
I wish I would have known about all the things wrong with the FN's before I bought 3 of them.Now that I know all their faults I guess after 8 yrs of use I am going to start having problems with them.Guess it was just a lack of knowledge on my part that has kept them working for the last 10,000 rds.
Sure would like to see verafication of all these faults just to make sure in my mind.

December 29, 2002, 07:21 AM

I'm glad you got a couple that shoot. Of the three I had, two kits and a commerical FAL, none would shoot a group, and the kit guns were nothing but frustration. I spent to much time, money and aggravation on them, and they still would not shoot a group. FAL's have a nasty tendancy to "string" their shots. I've owned FAL's, M1A's, and HK's, my personal order would be M1A, HK, and FAL. I own an Armalite in .223, with the way it shoots and functions, I dont see a problem with the AR10, as long as getting mags weren't an issue, then it would prbably, be the M1A, AR10, HK, and FAL. With all guns alike, (original manufactuer), the FAL just doesnt make it in the accuracy department, for me personally. In this respect, from what I've seen from its baby brother, the AR10 would probaly be the winner.

Realisticly, for a "battle rifle", none of these can really compare to the lighter gun/caliber combos out there now. All the 7.62x51 guns are heavy and dont lend themselves well to CQB type shooting. The AK and AR/M16 series guns win out here. If all your shooting would be 200 yards plus, then yes, they have an advantage, but 150 and under, I really dont see it. In this realm, I think the 7.62x39 actually has it over all the rest, mostly because it will penetrate cover the 5.56 wont and still have enough "oommph" to get whats on the other side. With faster recovery from recoil, and higher capacity mags, they leave the 7.62x51 lacking.
If your planning on using this as a long range, standoff type gun, I'd take a scoped AR10 or HK. A flat topped AR with a low mounted scope will be hard to beat and probably the more accurate. Both the AR and HK have the capability to have removable, no zero loss scopes, that have a practical head position while shooting, and have the accuracy to make use of them. Of course, they are also the more expensive guns.
The problem here is, there is really no one gun for everything. Your going to have to compromise somewhere, or decide just what you want to accomplish with it, and then decide.

December 29, 2002, 11:36 AM
Magazines for the AR10

When I purchased my AR10tnc, I also purchased 20 magazine conversion kits at the costs of the 30 dollars per kit. I then went to the local gun show and bought 20 M1a magazines. I bought the cheapest ones I could find. From one table I bought 10 magazines of 25 dollars. These magazines were dented and unusable in an M1a but could be used for the conversion kits. I found 10 more that were in about the same conditions for a good price. Total cost per 20 round complete AR10 magazines was 42 dollars. Still costly but not near 100 dollars. (note to self buy more conversation kits and resell at higher price)

Now Armalite will take any M14 or M1a magazines for trade. I think Tapco sells cheap M1a magazines for 9.99 each. If you buy these send them to Armalite they will send you back a new magazine body. They keep crap magazine and send you a new lifetime warranty Magazine. Total cost, about 41 dollars a magazine.

I don't have anything against any MBR out there. I have just found the AR10 is a quality MBR.



December 29, 2002, 12:06 PM
I agree with you on the 7.62x39.It is far better then the 223.How ever I will disagree with you on comparing assult weapons with main battle rifles.They serve two different roles.
My Fn's will group at 1.5 min at 100 yrds which is good for a MBR.I bought all kit rifles from J&G in Prescott AZ and none of them worked well when I got them.A AGI tape and internet research gave me the knowledge to take all the bugs of of them.
I have allso worked on 3 others that friends of mine have pushased after shooting mine.They have all turned out to be good shooters.I agree they are not match rifles but they are accurat enough for what they where designed for.
I live in a state where shooting would be longer range and I need something with more range then a AK or AR.
I am sorry you had the bad luck to get a couple of bad ones.It does happen but I think it is not normal.

December 29, 2002, 02:17 PM

I personally feel that, if the M21 really was "by far one of the worlds premier sniper weapons" my company would be using it, instead of the good 'ole M24/Rem 700.

G3 was designed because FN wouldn't sell license rights to Germany. Yeah, it's accurate, but they feel clunky as hell to me. AR-10 is a target rifle.

December 29, 2002, 04:36 PM
Carried a M14 for 1 1/2 tours in the Nam. I worked in detachments which allowed me to not go to the rear and swap for the Mattey Mattel.

A Brigadier in spring 69 finally ordered me to get a M16 and had his Aide take my name. My M14 was a fond history.

So as an earlier poster said, familiarity.

other reasons:

Went bang everytime! regardless of weather or terrain.

Accurate with great sights

Good to great trigger.

Easy to maintain

and the biggist of all, kept me alive!

So I have a pre ban M1A, rack grade, and I would not, have not, and will never be undergunned with that weapon.

Are there other good weapons, sure. But none put the package together like the M14.

When you care enough to use the very best, M14/M1

Glock Glockler
December 29, 2002, 06:08 PM

Excellent post: informative and detailed, Thank You.

I read that the FAL actually beat the M14 in the US Military trials, but the M14 was selected because it was made here and that our soldiers were already familiar with it's basic operation from the Garand, is this true?


December 29, 2002, 06:23 PM
I read that the FAL actually beat the M14 in the US Military trials, but the M14 was selected because it was made here and that our soldiers were already familiar with it's basic operation from the Garand, is this true?

Not to my knowledge. It was the M14 that won. You could also go to the library and get Steven Blakes gigantic masterpiece on the history of FN FAL. It costs about $130 dollars and worth every penny of it.

When FN lost they did cry foul because they claimed the M14 had been specially prepared for the cold tests but in reality little was done to the M14 that would have given it a big edge to the FN.

In my opinion the basic design of the FN proved that over the years its rectangular, tipping and horizontally moving bolt had a lot more contact with the reciever rails than the small contact area of the rotating M14 bolt. What all this boiled down to is that it was just too easy for dirt and frozen moisture to get trapped between the FN's bolt and its reciever. This is exactly why the British put grooves called sand cuts in their bolts. It was a desperate attempt to keep the gun functioning a little longer in sandy environments.

Don't misunderstand my post, the FN was not a bad weapon , I think it was one of the better assault rifles of the past 50 years but it in no way ever could compare to the M14. The M14 was just a much better thought out design. Despite all the urban lengend stories the U.S. Armed services knew what they were doing when they adopted the M14 over the FN FAL.

December 30, 2002, 12:30 PM

You guys are really making me think about this. Thanks for all of the great input...please keep it coming.

How many of you choose to mount optics on the .308 battle rifle you use? If yes, what kind of mount and scope do you favor?

If not, how do you feel the iron sights of these rifles compare to one another?

- Anthony

December 30, 2002, 01:08 PM

The M14/M1A and M1 Garand, have arguably the best sights ever placed on a combat rifle. I am sorry if I seem to be quibbling.

As far as scopes go, why, if you want a tack driver set one up as a long range dinger! Get a bolt action, cheaper and more accurate with a greater range of ammo.

If you are thinking along the lines of red dot, go with a M1A scout rifle from Springfield with with the rail set up forward of the reciever and shortened barrel. Can also place a scout scope also.

If you want to scope a rifle, find something easy to scope, and spend the money to make it accurate enough to justify the scope.

Springfield makes a M1A version for about 2500 dollars that ought float your boat if scoped is what it's about for you.

Hey, the FN is a good design, the M14 is/was better.

Good luck with what ever you choose. Oh and get what you want, if you don't you will just wind up trading/selling what you get to get what you want. Just go for it!


December 30, 2002, 05:17 PM
Actually I am not interested in scoping the rifle for super long range accuracy. I am a strong believer in the utility of dot sights and other low power optics on combat rifles.

I wonder if you can get a scout scope mount for the full length version of the M-1A as I am not particularly keen on a short .308 rifle.

- Anthony

December 30, 2002, 07:53 PM
My guess is that you could have the scout mount put on a full length rifle.

But if you are using the scout concept you don't need the extra very few FPS of the full lenght barrel.

I use a Remington model 7 20" synthetic stock Cryo'd barrel and a trigger and bedding job. Do all my hunting with it. I don't feel I give up any thing with the short barrel.

what ever you choose good luck and be safe.


January 1, 2003, 05:29 PM
There are specific attributes that define an assault rifle. Among other things, assault rifles fire "intermediate" cartridges [5.56x45mm, 7.62x39mm, etc]. By definition, an FAL is a main battle rifle.

"Assault rifles" or "assault weapons" are titles that have been often misused by the antifreedom and -gun crowd, so we as legitimate firearm folk would do well to use them correctly.

January 2, 2003, 07:16 AM
Perhaps we should just call them all "rifles", and leave any discriptors off. They are in fact just that. As for the MBR title, I dont think that really appiles anymore to the 7.62x51 caliber guns. They really are no longer the "main battle rifle" of any major, and for that matter, minor nation.(what, 2 or 3 in the world, sorry dont count:) ) The 5.56 and 5.45, 7.62x39 cartridges have long surpassed the 7.52x51 at this. So, I guess its regulated to the "homeland defense" position. And for as heavy as they are, and the state of physical conditioning of most people in the US, it makes the most sense. It will be much easier to just sit on the couch with your"rifle" in your lap, with a beer and watching football, waiting for whatever is coming your way. Another beer? :)

January 3, 2003, 10:50 AM
What kind of loads do ya'all keep in your .308 battle rifles?

- Anthony

Steve Smith
January 3, 2003, 12:52 PM
Good quality mil-surp. Its normally sealed, so you don't have to worry about it at all.

January 3, 2003, 04:06 PM
Actually, I don't think the M14/M1A is ambidextrous.

In the M14/M1A, the safety is located by the trigger guard, so left handed or right handed shooters use the trigger finger or hand to engage or disengage the safety. To reload and charge the M14/M1A, you need to use the right hand.

For right handers, the left hand stays on the foregrip, the right hand, which is the trigger hand, takes out the empty magazine, grabs another magazine, latches it into the magazine well, and also pulls back on the charging handle/op rod.

For left handers, you would have to switch the gun to the left hand, and use the right hand to do the above steps. Sure, you can keep the left hand on the stock grip, but you would have to elevate the rifle muzzle to do so. Same with righthanders wanting to keep the right hand on the stock grip. Righthanders who do this, would also have to use the left hand to reach up and over the rifle to release the op rod.

FN-FAL presents its own set of issues as well.

January 3, 2003, 04:41 PM
These are minor issues that training takes care of. The M14's controls are accessible to both right and left handed people with "minor" adaptations in tecnique. You cant do this as easily, if at all with the FAL, HK, etc. The AK is actually closer to the M14 in this respect than any of the others. Its not difficult for a lefty to hold the grip and make mag changes and recharge the rifle. It would definitly be more difficult for them to accomplish that with the FAL, HK, etc, and the stock safety is pretty much totally out. Then again, where these a will, theres a way. Training yourself to work through the problems usually presents solutions. If possible, its best to try all the different designs, just to know how to work them if you were ever to need to.

January 4, 2003, 05:32 AM
Hey, do what I did, buy one of each ;)

DSA FAL (built on Imbel receiver with surplus parts, BY DSA!)

I would have bought a G3-type rifle too if the bas$#@%rds in CA didn't ban the durned things so quick!

So far, I like the feel of the M1A best- it does need to be glass bedded to get the full accuracy out of it though (mine has everything the Nat'l match does except the bedding, and my uncle's NM gets grouns 1/2 the sie of mine). The FAL looks meanest, and I've gotten pretty good accracy out of it with military ammo so far, but no formal groups yet. The gas system is finicky and must be dialed in just so for your ammo (used in combat I'd probably just let it batter itself a bit to be safe).

The AR-10 is a little ergonomically tight for me. To enjoy it, I'll have to lengthen the stock and handgrip positions. It's hellaciously front heavy too (full length heavy barrel). After feeling my uncle's SR-25, I had to work on the trigger at once- it was embarrasing :)
It seems like it wants to go 3/4-1/2 moa, but not with me shooting it yet! Remington match ammo seems to group best, but I only got to try 5 rounds :P

If I could only have one forever.. hrmm.. probably M1A/M14 (with bedding!)- it's never jammed or hiccuped on me yet, and the bedded NM shoots MOA easy with iron sights. I wouldnt; mind the AR-10 either as a combat rifle, but with a lighter barrel. A forward assist would be a nice touch too- the AR-10T the way it is, is a fine target rifle, but lacks a few features to be a great battlefield piece.


January 8, 2003, 10:39 AM
Do you FAL owners feel that the newer DSA production FALs are vastly superior to the kits assembled by gunsmiths?

- Anthony

Shawn Dodson
January 8, 2003, 11:38 AM
I have an original, Belgian made FN-LAR, imported by Steyr, that I purchased in 1982.

It's a great rifle, but...

I prefer the M1A and M1 Garand.

I see Springfield is now producing a .308 caliber M1 Garand. Hmmm...

February 12, 2009, 03:14 PM
FAL: Issued rifle for almost 60 govt militaries worldwide, largely on the African continent, where heartyness and survivability are key. Design and location of mag and bolt release make for excelent high-speed mag changes. 20 and 30round mags are plentiful and cheap, as well as sturdy. A++[B]

G3: Almost as common worldwide as the FAL, and 20 round mags are even cheaper!

M1A/M14: an upgrade from the Garand, highly reliable, easy to find in US.

AR-10: original design submitted in 1956 to compete with FAL and M1A for US military adoption. In 1965 Army requested that it be 'downsized' to 5.56mm. if you are familiar with the M16, this rifle will be easy to adapt to.

FAL: original sights suck ass, but DSA offers 'A2 Hampton' sight option to correct this!

G3: sights also suck ass, no known cure(aside from mounting an ACOG). only mag release on US made rifles is too far forward for anyone I know to reach from a firing grip, and BATFE won't allow instalation of any kind of paddle release! Rifle has NO last round bolt catch mechanism!

M1A/M14: Mag feed lips are easy to bend, causing failure to feed

AR-10: Mags are really hard to find. Have been looking for mags for my buddy for 2 months, still nothin... I'm guessing they only make 2 per rifle, but I could be wrong... Also, rifle operates by DIRECT GAS!

Final opinion: Still trying to save money for a DSA FAL, but bought 2 dozen G3 mags in case I end up with one of those...

I have never heard a negative word about a DSA FAL, tho my advice would be to get these options:

A2 Hampton rear sight
sand cuts
'full length' gas piston setup, rather than 'carbine'
SAW pistol grip
'tactical' selector switch

There are other good ones, but this is my list of 'must haves'

February 12, 2009, 04:01 PM
For me, right now? I have a Garand, and I'm familiar with it, so I'd give an edge to the M1A series. That being said, the FAL is an appealing design, and would probably be my choice after extensive training with it/a derivative thereof....but I don't have that training yet.

Though, if it was a toss up between similarly outfitted 16" versions of a FAL and the M1A......I might still pick the M1A, as the design has been proven time and time again, and I just like it more.

The SR25's just too freakin' expensive for me to even consider.

February 12, 2009, 09:00 PM
I think the AR10 is the best in this role since it can double as a sniper rifle with relatively few modifications and IMO, that is the real strength of the .308 cartridge. It's the most accurate and is the best for optics mounting.

The other two are both great rifles, but the FAL is a little lacking in accuracy for precision shooting and the M1A was never really designed to accept a scope. Sure you can scope it, but you have issues with mounts and cheekweld that you just don't have with an AR platform.

February 12, 2009, 09:22 PM

As far as the AR15 7.62x51 is concerned:

This weapon is notorious for being subject to stoppages when it gets dirty from its open gas system that sprays burnt powder all over the action and when mixes with rain water you have real problem with them. It is also know for being unreliable in sandy conditions.

It has also been known on average to have a very creepy trigger pull. Of course there are civilian match triggers available for this weapon. On the plus side in its heavy barrel configuration it is a very, very accurate weapon but due to its reliability I rule it out for serious military applications. Its a great rifle for the pristine , immaculate , civilian target range but not for the battlefield.

:evil: Well said.

I did my homework years ago and decided that the M14 was the all-around best general purpose
battle rifle for my money and then I went with the modernized MK14 and Crazy Horse versions of it.
DMR, SASS, CQB... the M14 does it all.

I voted for the M14.

Travis Bickle
February 12, 2009, 09:31 PM
I have a FAL and it's a great rifle, but if I had it to do all over again, I'd go with the PTR-91.

No semiauto on the market is as reliable as that, not even the vaunted AK.

February 12, 2009, 09:38 PM
Old threads never die, they just fray a bit.

February 12, 2009, 10:27 PM
Sometimes they should die.

If you ask Tamara her opinion of HK today (http://booksbikesboomsticks.blogspot.com/2009/02/at-what-point.html), it would be different. If you asked Byron his opinion of HK today...well, he sold his HK 91 finally and bought a G1 (FAL type) rifle.

I'm not saying don't buy an HK or M1A. I am saying, if you want to talk about it today...start another thread.


If you enjoyed reading about "FAL versus M-14/M-1A versus AR-10/SR-25" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!