FAL or M1A?


PDA






AJBarney
October 9, 2012, 01:03 PM
Looking for a fullpower cartridge semi-auto rifle. Which of these would you prefer and why?

CETMEs any good?

If you enjoyed reading about "FAL or M1A?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
ugaarguy
October 9, 2012, 01:08 PM
The CETME is not a version of the FAL. The CETME is the the rifle the HK91 / G3 was based upon.

Of the two you list I'd rather have the FAL for ease of maintenance. Leaving that list I'd rather have an AR-10 or SR-25 based rifle for far better accuracy, much easier mounting of optics, greater modularity, and even easier maintenance.

creeper1956
October 9, 2012, 01:11 PM
Oh man... this is one of them "never to be settled" kinda questions. Just to be a wanker, I prefer the Sig PE57/AMT. :D

CETME FAL? There's no such animal. The CETME is the father of the H&K G3.

C

AJBarney
October 9, 2012, 01:54 PM
oh, sorry about my mixup there. never mind that question :D

Narwhal
October 9, 2012, 02:00 PM
M1A.

jonnyc
October 9, 2012, 02:04 PM
My friend has both and I shoot them fairly often. The M1A is MUCH more accurate and fun to shoot, and the one I would buy.

Kyle M.
October 9, 2012, 02:11 PM
I've owned both and if doing it over I'd go with the M1A.

siglite
October 9, 2012, 02:34 PM
.45 or 9mm?

:D

I prefer the M1A out of those two. But that's my preference. The market is trending towards AR pattern 308s and with reason. The OBR is a monster, as is the SR25. And my friend built his own 308 AR, and it shoots just as tight and just as reliably as our mutual friend's OBR.

If I were looking PURELY on objective criteria, I would go the AR route. But shooting is not purely objective. And I bought myself a really nice M14, because something about it speaks to me. It was one of those situations where I dropped to the sitting position, hooked up the sling, threw it in my shoulder, and it felt like someone, somewhere, designed and built that rifle for me and me alone.

So when the time came, I went about as high end as one could go on custom-tuned builds. I am very, very happy with my decision.

Now, given my explanation above, you can see my bias. You might have the same experience with a FAL or CETME.

briansmithwins
October 9, 2012, 04:00 PM
To throw another one into the mix: SCAR 17S.

You get a modern design that's ambidextrous, rugged, designed for optics, lightweight, and dirt resistant.

Of course, you will pay for these features.

BSW

checkmyswag
October 9, 2012, 04:37 PM
I think you'll find few who prefer the FAL. But those who do...really prefer them.

61chalk
October 9, 2012, 06:27 PM
M1A all the way.

az_imuth
October 9, 2012, 06:40 PM
http://i498.photobucket.com/albums/rr348/az_imuth/Old%20Album/983ae604.jpg

Gtimothy
October 9, 2012, 06:54 PM
I bought a FAL and want an M1A...does that count???

Here's mine:
http://i1050.photobucket.com/albums/s402/Gtimothy/FAL/P1010009.jpg

fireside44
October 9, 2012, 07:03 PM
No real experience with the M1A but I built a FAL and have zero desire for an M1A. It's nothing to go 1,000 rounds or more without cleaning and zero worries, very reliable, best most fully tunable gas system ever produced, and available in a folding stock version to boot. No pistol grip or folding stock without mega bucks in the M1A. I can imagine I would be happy with an M1A though had I gone that route, they seem to be a great rifle too. The FAL was just a bit cheaper for me to acquire.

GMHAYESUSN
October 9, 2012, 07:11 PM
M1A! We have original M-14s on my boat and they are a BLAST to shoot and in the right hands more capable than the m16 in my opinion. The FA capability was taken away a few months after i arrived to the boat but not before i had some fun. Something about this gun is just addicting to me.

JSNAPS
October 9, 2012, 07:21 PM
If you are not budget limited and want the penultimate .308 battle rifle get a 17s.

ZekeLuvs1911s
October 9, 2012, 07:51 PM
Get both! I got both and the M1A is prettier. :D However, you can't go wrong with a FAL either.

fireside44
October 9, 2012, 07:54 PM
If you are not budget limited and want the penultimate .308 battle rifle get a 17s.

I'll consider that the ultimate battle rifle when 90 nations adopt it.

SlamFire1
October 9, 2012, 08:31 PM
While I think the FAL is an outstanding battle rifle, I prefer the M1a.

Better sights, in the match version, outstanding accuracy, I like the open top design and having the ability to positively close the bolt. My M1a triggers are outstanding, I have never felt a stock box FAL trigger as good.

The basic problem in comparing is that the advantageous features found in one are not duplicated in the other. So it really is, do you like chocolate or vanilla for your ice cream?, because you canít have both.

So when it comes to that choice, I will take the M1a.

Adam123
October 9, 2012, 08:39 PM
FAL.

lmccrock
October 9, 2012, 08:40 PM
For a scope and better ergonomics: FAL

For iron sights and better trigger: M1A

For the best of both, a 308 AR variant. Scope or irons, good ergonomics, great trigger.

I own M1 rifle (like a long internal mag M1A), STG-58 (Austrian FAL), and LR-308 (308 AR). I grab the LR-308 most of the time.

rduckwor
October 9, 2012, 08:42 PM
FAL. Energizer bunny of battle rifles.

RMD

Trung Si
October 9, 2012, 08:58 PM
I love the 14s, they are accurate beyond believe and a Blast to shoot, I own three of them, but if I had to use a Rifle for Combat, my choice would be an FAL, btw I own one of those!;)

barnbwt
October 9, 2012, 09:30 PM
Get both! I got both and the M1A is prettier. However, you can't go wrong with a FAL either.


You mean an FN 49 in 30-06? ;)
http://i1159.photobucket.com/albums/p630/barnbwt/P7150032small.jpg

I'd say that BM-59 posted earlier (box-fed Garand) is a close runner-up (if you can find one under 3000$). There's a variant of the FN 49 that also has a 20-round box-mag in .308. My FN will be getting some more attention once I stock up on some .30 after the election craziness, it's been functional so far, though :)

Check out the FNAR or any of the BAR series as well; near-bolt action accuracy, for a good deal less coin than a 308 AR or even nice M1A rifle.

TCB

Robert
October 10, 2012, 12:36 AM
FAL.

Balrog
October 10, 2012, 12:44 AM
I have both, and enjoy shooting both. I dont have a preference. They are both damn fine rifles. I do not feel one is better than the other, though they are a bit different and if you get used to shooting AR's, I think the FAL is more similar in operation and manual of arms.

wayne in boca
October 10, 2012, 05:35 AM
I have several of both rifles,and they are both excellent rifles.The M1A is certainly prettier,and a tad more accurate,but the FAL is no slouch.No wrong choice here.

stubbicatt
October 10, 2012, 08:19 AM
Between the two of them, if cost were the same, I'd choose the M14. Each is not designed to take a scope well, so that is a tossup. But the M14/M1A has better ergonomics, and won't set your left hand ablaze after a couple of mag dumps like the FAL. The sights are much better.

In the end, however, the one YOU like will be the best choice for you. Shoot them both, compare and contrast, and pick the one that speaks to you.

meanmrmustard
October 10, 2012, 08:21 AM
M1A.
This.

hso
October 10, 2012, 08:26 AM
I have both and the answer is "it depends".

If you want accuracy and the traditional blue/wood ergonomics, the M14 type rifles can be made to be much more accurate than a FAL.

If you want robust dependability that will function with a remarkable range of ammunition quality and pistol grip ergonomics, the FAL is what I would recommend.

Dave1965
October 10, 2012, 08:31 AM
I have both plus and hk and scar. I like the fal but prefer the scar.

bannockburn
October 10, 2012, 08:42 AM
All things being relatively equal, the FAL just seems to be a better fit in terms of the design and balance of the rifle.

MTMilitiaman
October 10, 2012, 09:53 AM
I shoot left handed so this is a no brainer for me. I greatly prefer the M1A because I like the traditional rifle ergonomics and the controls are better placed for me. If I shot right handed, I might have given more thought to the FAL, and no doubt, it is a fine rifle. Now that I own an M1A, it's not even a contest. I haven't handled or even looked twice at a FAL since I got my M1A. The M1A has the best sights ever put on a battle rifle, an excellent trigger, is more ambi than the FAL, and tends to be a little bit more accurate. Also, for the sake of history, anyone who says the FAL is more reliable than the M1A is full of it. The US government put that argument to rest when it tested both designs in the early 60s and adopted the M14.

Also, I've cleaned ARs and have to call bullpucky on the first post that stated the AR is easier to clean. No contest. The AR is easier to take apart for cleaning, which is good because you have to do it a lot more. In terms of actual ease of maintence, my M1A is orders of magnitude better than any DGI AR, and that is a fact.

I wouldn't even consider an AR in .308 either. Even a piston one. Better off with a 17S, as suggested--designed from the ground up not to crap where it eats, fully ambi, has a folding stock, actually comes with excellent sights (as opposed to a lot of ARs, which require you to buy sights after spending $2500 on the rifle), and the SCAR is lighter.

fireside44
October 10, 2012, 11:00 AM
Also, for the sake of history, anyone who says the FAL is more reliable than the M1A is full of it. The US government put that argument to rest when it tested both designs in the early 60s and adopted the M14.

Google "ol' dirty FAL" and then tell me how many times someone has put 15k+ through an M1A without cleaning it.

ugaarguy
October 10, 2012, 04:35 PM
The M1A has the best sights ever put on a battle rifle,
You realize the M16A2 sights were developed by the AMU as a replacement for the sights on the M14. The elevation drum is located differently, but M16A2 and M14 sights otherwise function identically.
Also, for the sake of history, anyone who says the FAL is more reliable than the M1A is full of it. The US government put that argument to rest when it tested both designs in the early 60s and adopted the M14.
90 of our allies disagreed, and the ordnance dept at the time was heavily biased against any rifle that wasn't developed internally - much less a foreign developed rifle.
Also, I've cleaned ARs and have to call bullpucky on the first post that stated the AR is easier to clean. No contest. The AR is easier to take apart for cleaning, which is good because you have to do it a lot more. In terms of actual ease of maintence, my M1A is orders of magnitude better than any DGI AR, and that is a fact.
ARs are extremely easy to clean if lubed properly. Of course almost every M14 worshipper tries to treat an AR like an M14, and that causes problems.
I wouldn't even consider an AR in .308 either. Even a piston one. Better off with a 17S, as suggested--designed from the ground up not to crap where it eats,
The crap where it eats cliche is tired and false. ARs aren't even true DI, and the gasses are directed into an in line piston formed by the tail of the bolt and the interior of the carrier. Their chamber fouling is no worse than any short or long stroke piston rifle.
(as opposed to a lot of ARs, which require you to buy sights after spending $2500 on the rifle)
You can get fixed sight ARs, ARs with very sturdy back up sights, or ARs which are set up to run optics exclusively. You can save money by purchasing the rifle the way you want in the first place.

Also, if the M14 was such a superior rifle why didn't Springfield Armory, SEI, Fulton Armory, or some other manufacturer resubmit it for the SF and DMR competitions? Why were those won by the FN SCAR and KAC SR-25 (adopted as M110) respectively? Why did our Canadian allies also select an AR (Armalite AR-10), and our British allies also select an AR (LMT MRP) after their own DMR equivalent trials?

W.E.G.
October 10, 2012, 05:37 PM
20 years ago I would have said M1A.
http://i227.photobucket.com/albums/dd7/rkba2da/rifle%20pics/M1A/M1A-02.jpg

10 years ago I would have said FAL.
http://i227.photobucket.com/albums/dd7/rkba2da/rifle%20pics/FAL/Hampton-Varela-EOTECH.jpg

Now I say DPMS LR-308.
http://i227.photobucket.com/albums/dd7/rkba2da/rifle%20pics/DPMS/DSCN4983.jpg

M1A and FAL are still excellent.
Although, parts are becoming more expensive, and the choices of configuration-options have always been quite limited.

LR-308 offers all the configuration options of any AR15.
Parts are abundant and affordable.
The design is now solidly in the "proven" category.

nulook45
October 10, 2012, 06:41 PM
Literaly love both of them . that being said i have personaly seen a Fal go thru 30k of ammo with No Cleaning Whatsoever. it was dirty grimy and just full of gunk . cannot say i have ever seen a M1a do that . if i could only have one it would be a Fal but i would prefer to have both :)

The_Armed_Therapist
October 10, 2012, 06:50 PM
I'm not really sure why I'm replying... I love both! I also love the HK91/PTR9, which is the route that I went (That's the good deal I found). Ignore the CETME... Out of the two you mentioned, and the others presented by others, the CETME is the only one that I wouldn't want. I'm sure you can get a good one, but the reputation is inferior the others.

mf-dif
October 10, 2012, 07:58 PM
FAL.

briansmithwins
October 10, 2012, 08:15 PM
The M14 has great target sights, as have most rifles designed by US Army Ordnance. Unfortunately, battle rifle sights need different characteristics than target sights.

The US FAL vs M14 trials were rigged. The evidence is pretty clear that US Army Ordnance wasn't going to approve anything they hadn't designed.

As to design, the M14's exposed action is much more vulnerable to debris when compared to the FAL, the White patent expansion cut-off gas piston is a joke, and why does a post WWII service rifle require tools to strip? Besides, they built the M14 upside down. Putting the gas piston under the bore forces the muzzle up with every shot, more so than the FAL's design (or the AK, or AR, or SCAR).

M1As are decent target guns, but the record of adoption in foreign service speaks volumes when trying to compare it to the FAL.

BSW

Ash
October 10, 2012, 08:21 PM
A good FAL can be had for several hundred bucks cheaper than an m1a. But, the M1a allows for better lefty shooting. I've owned them both, and I must admit I was disappointed with the M1a's accuracy. My Garand was more accurate.

M1key
October 10, 2012, 08:24 PM
Owned several M1As over the years. Finely accurate rifles when tuned and bedded correctly. But, I had too many issues with the ones I owned...not the least of which was the Reese brothers and SA.

Have owned six FALS and currently own four. They will always get my vote for a top notch battle rifle.

Good luck.

M

siglite
October 10, 2012, 09:33 PM
Heh, I see the religious war has started. :D

Pick one, buy it, and learn to shoot it. That's the beauty of .308. It's a 1000yd cartridge in the right gun. And little in the world is more satisfying than hearing the ring of steel SIGNIFICANTLY after the muzzle blast. One of my favorite things in the world is ringing 20" steel @500 with 308. I know the AR rifles will do that with boring monotony, as will my 14. Dunno if the FAL will, but I've been told it'll do that just fine.

Pick one. Learn to shoot it. I mean.. REALLY learn to shoot it. You kind of can't go wrong here. My advice? Shoot both. Then do what I did. Buy the one that speaks to you. The 14 speaks to me. It's almost zen settling down behind that thing. Hell, it is zen. I am at peace behind that rifle. Focused and peaceful. And god help anything I can see through the optic.

56hawk
October 10, 2012, 09:47 PM
I much prefer the FAL to the M1A. The ergonomics and controls are way better on the FAL. The M1A seems to be a lot more finicky on ammo and not as reliable as the FAL. The FALs adjustable gas system is really nice. If it starts to jam, just crank up the gas pressure.

AJBarney
October 10, 2012, 10:21 PM
:D didn't mean to start any wars here, I'm just conflicted. I love milsurp weapons, collect them, and the military history of both the M14 (M1A, so to say) and the FAL speak to me. By the same token, for whatever reason I just don't want an AR-based 7.62 rifle. Its irrational (fam with AR-10 history) but its there nonetheless.

I appreciate the input. Every story, every experience with either/both of them helps me make up my mind :)

fireside44
October 11, 2012, 01:08 AM
I promise you won't regret whatever you choose, FAL or M1A. I can hardly think of a cooler military style rifle than those two. My recommendation is a matching numbers STG-58 Fal with the full length barrel built or sold from someone reputable. It's accuracy, handling and ergonomics, collectibility and history, ease of use and maintenance will greatly please you.

azgsmith
October 11, 2012, 01:14 AM
CETMES are hit and miss no punn intended. I would take an M1A over the FAL. The M1A has more parts availability, I believe it is a bit lighter, I have worked on both and the M1A is also simpler to maintain and repair and you can pick the scout, socom or the full length version. Good luck with your decision.

Ash
October 11, 2012, 06:23 AM
M1a does not have more parts availability. Indeed, if you want to use original military parts, the FAL is a far better choice as M14 parts it seems exceed their value by weight of gold. It is absurd to pay $300 for a TRW trigger group or bolt, $200 for an oprod, etc. The vast majority of M1a's these days are almost 100% commercial production. That's really fine, no problems there when you get down to it, but milspec replacement parts for FAL's are far cheaper - vastly cheaper.

Of course, with the M1a, Sec 922r doesn't come into play, so it is easier to color between the lines with an M1a. For me, were the M1a the same price as an FAL, I would get the M1a first every time.

But at $500 or more cheaper, the FAL is cheaper to buy and cheaper to dress. For the price of a decent m1a (or other m14 clone) I could get a good FAL and a good side arm or FAL and 1,000 rounds of ammo. There is much to be said for that.

txgunsuscg
October 11, 2012, 06:54 AM
Sold my FAL, bought an M1A...

JShirley
October 11, 2012, 07:19 AM
Amazing to think that anyone with net access believes the M14 legitimately won the trials. :D

Just examine your motivations. The M1A is a fine rifle if you plan on using iron sights, and/or want its classic zenith-of-the-type (WW2 battle rifle) lines. Don't buy it because you believe some nonsense mishmash that a lack of national commitment and enough .45 and .30 "lost Vietnam". :rolleyes:

If you want to scope your rifle, a FAL is a better choice.

USSR
October 11, 2012, 07:27 AM
If you want to scope your rifle, a FAL is a better choice.


Yep.

Don
http://ussr.clarityconnect.com/FAL1.jpg

Halal Pork
October 11, 2012, 07:31 AM
If you are not budget limited and want the penultimate .308 battle rifle get a 17s.
If the 17s is the penultimate, which rifle finished dead last?

To the OP, I'd like to have both but in the same boat as you I chose the M1A. I just felt more confident about the Springfield product versus the various FAL offerings. I'd still like a FAL though.

Edit to add:

Penultimate means second from last.

briansmithwins
October 11, 2012, 07:49 AM
If the 17s is the penultimate, which rifle finished dead last?

Chauchat.

If it's optics on a 7.62 NATO rifle you want, the SCAR 17S is the only way to fly.

BSW

lhead71
October 11, 2012, 08:03 AM
I have owned and shot both and kept this one. Keeps ball ammo under moa no problem.

http://i33.photobucket.com/albums/d57/lhead71/M1A.jpg

d2wing
October 11, 2012, 10:25 AM
If you want a rifle you don't have to clean, get a FAL. If you like a long range rifle that is accurate and feels good in your hands get the M1A. Also the M14 style rifle is usable for hunting. The FAL is hard to resist for some. Both make good battle rifles depending on preference and type of fighting. The M14 covers a wider range of situations as it is better at long range and hand to hand with a bayonet, and is faster to point at multiple targets.

303 hunter
October 11, 2012, 11:42 AM
I think you'll find few who prefer the FAL. But those who do...really prefer them.
I REALLY prefer them!

Runerock
October 11, 2012, 09:01 PM
M1A standard here

Ash
October 11, 2012, 09:08 PM
The M14 won the trials as much because it was supposed to use existing tooling to a great extent, would allow a simpler transition of arms, and because the establishment was loathe to go radical.

The FAL would have made a better combat arm.

ol' scratch
October 11, 2012, 09:17 PM
I love my M1 Garand, but the M1A always balanced funny for me. I own an FAL and love the rifle. It is a heavy and almost unrefined beast. I have a DSA and that is what I would recommend. As one person put it, they are the Cadillac of the present day FAL world.

I also reload and the gas system on the M1A has the same problem that the gas system on the M1 has---it is ammo sensitive. Too much port pressure and the rifle is out of action. You can get an adjustable plug, but it is not like the tunable system on the FAL. The FAL doesn't care what it eats and won't get indigestion like the M1A. I also like that you can flip a switch and the rifle is a straight pull bolt action rifle. Good surplus mags are easier to find too (or at least in my area).

MTMilitiaman
October 13, 2012, 10:01 AM
90 of our allies disagreed

If it was a matter of majority rules, we'd all be using AKs and all our last names would Chin.

The crap where it eats cliche is tired and false. ARs aren't even true DI, and the gasses are directed into an in line piston formed by the tail of the bolt and the interior of the carrier. Their chamber fouling is no worse than any short or long stroke piston rifle.


In my experience this is wrong on both accounts. Saying the rifle craps where it eats means that it is blasting those hot gases and all that carbon fouling back into the receiver where the majority of the moving parts are. And my A4 most certainly did have quite a bit more fouling in the chamber than any piston rifle I've ever fired. Not only that but the damn star chamber is a PITA to clean. In fact, the whole rifle is just a bunch of tight nooks and crannies seemingly designed specifically to catch all the crud that the rifle blasts back in the receiver.

True the M1A requires tools to disassemble, but at least the parts are big enough to keep track of and the areas of the rifle that need to be cleaned are easy enough to reach. I've spent too much time combing the Southern California landscape for firing pin retaining pins and other small bits from M16s cause a gust of wind or careless step tipped over someones cover, where we were trained to keep the small parts while the rifle was being cleaned. I've never had any of these problems with my M1A.

The US FAL vs M14 trials were rigged.

No more so that the M16 trials, or the Beretta trials, or any of the other trials that have come before or after.

wlewisiii
October 13, 2012, 11:59 AM
I built a FAL & loved it. If the US had adopted it in .280 NATO, we wouldn't be having this conversation. I may someday build another and chamber it in 7mm-08 to get most of the way there.

I have no desire for the M1A or it's AR replacements.

If I could have only one semi-auto battle rifle, I'd choose the FN-49 in 7x57 ;) That's good stuff too.

fireside44
October 13, 2012, 05:17 PM
If I could have only one semi-auto battle rifle, I'd choose the FN-49 in 7x57

Agreed but 8mm mauser FTW! Also as great a rifle as it is, it doesn't handle as nice as a FAL. Toss a synthetic stock on there and a detachable mag and I'm all over it.

Girodin
October 13, 2012, 05:42 PM
Between those two I'd rather have an FAL. If you can swing the price I'd gladly take a SCAR over either. For less money the gun pictured below is not bad at all either. This one still needs a battle comp or the like. It is much more of a project gun than any of the others though.

http://www.thehighroad.org/attachment.php?attachmentid=173400&d=1350164533

56hawk
October 13, 2012, 09:07 PM
If I could have only one semi-auto battle rifle, I'd choose the FN-49 in 7x57 ;) That's good stuff too.

Agreed but 8mm mauser FTW! Also as great a rifle as it is, it doesn't handle as nice as a FAL. Toss a synthetic stock on there and a detachable mag and I'm all over it.

My FN-49 is factory original in 308 with 20 round detachable magazines. :)

barnbwt
October 13, 2012, 10:09 PM
Toss a synthetic stock on there and a detachable mag and I'm all over it.


Might as well add rails and a buffer tube while you're at it :neener:

j/k, I like the old school, personally, but if the OP wants a beater rifle, such a fate is beneath the elegant FN 49 (though it is certaintly capable, of course). It's "unrefined" decendant, the FAL, would be a wiser choice for rough play. I can't speak to the M1A as I have no experience, other than that I find the mechanism more interesting :)

The Argentine (?) Navy contract FN 49s had a 20rnd detachable mag in .308. And a wood stock is all the better for bustin' heads with :p. My Luxembourg 30-06 is easily topped off with stripper clips (not sure if the other chamberings do that) so the detachable mag is less of, if not a non-issue.

Also, call me crazy, but it feels like the FN 49's reciever isn't as overbuilt as the FALs I've handled; those almost feel ungainly to me. The FN 49 balances "like a rifle" in my hands. Granted, most of my rifle experience is with the portly FNAR, so keep that in mind...

TCB

Girodin; for a second there, I thought that flashlight on the side was some sorta crazy muzzle device :)

fastest45ever
October 14, 2012, 11:26 PM
How does the FAL compare in full auto to the M14?
Sort of on topic;-)

kBob
October 15, 2012, 04:31 PM
I guess some of the military FALs I shot in the way back that were in European military and police service turned me off to them. I fired a couple of the built up guns in the US and they were OK. I most liked Springfield Armory's SAR-48 (I think that was what it was called when it first came out) of the FALs I have shot. Played with it over about a month and enjoyed it.

Still if you placed a non military FAL and a Springfield M-1A on a table and said "Hey kBob! Pick one up and take it home! Free! It's yours!" I wouold not hesitate a split second to pick up the M-1 A.

Mind you I was teethed on Garands, flurted with M-14s and stuck with M-16A1s and as I say my earliest FAL experience was not with nice new guns, but the M-1a does it for me of the two choices offered.

-kBob

MJ
October 16, 2012, 12:35 PM
I shot SLR back in '68 and it just didn't light my fire. The guys with the SLR were always trying to steal our M14's. I just didn't get on the wagon when they were cheap in the 80's and I don't need a clone.

Also I not sure about it being easy to scope the SLR when the G3 and M14 dedicated military tested scope mounts. So I'm good with my pick at the time.

'83 and '86

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v130/montereyjack/IMG_0982_zps67891f93.jpg

..MJ..

kBob
October 16, 2012, 08:13 PM
MJ,

Does that rubber baby buggy bumper on the HK actually prevent HK ding?

A buddy of mine used to reload recoverd HK fired brass for his M-1A and he often cursed the dinged brass. Despite what the experts had to say he thought the chamber fluting ingraving was not a problem for reloading and usig in the M-1A. I always wondered if it made for odd pressure or a weird speed for extracting. Firing in the M-1A ironed out most of the HK brasses lines but not all of it. Never did find out if the case life for reloading was much altered as he died of cancer before we thought to start keeping track rather than just inspecting brass.

Got my SHutzen snuer (German Army qualification Shooting Knot) twice with the G3.

If an HK 51/91 and an FAL were on the table I would have to dither for a bit.

-kBob

kBob
October 16, 2012, 08:15 PM
Anyone know how many natios adopted the HK 51/91?

-kBob

aubie515
October 16, 2012, 09:32 PM
Man, these threads can get sidetricked. To the OP, of the two you listed...FAL all the way.

ETA:I've owned both.

MJ
October 17, 2012, 10:59 AM
KBob The bumper deflects the case down and forward making it less visible to any spotter the side effect of retrieving brass and less case denting is a free side effect. I have 200 CAVIM cases with 11~15 reloads and some LC cases with eight reloads no problems. Even without the bumper the cases are reformed and have no side effects I have seen. They have been fired is several other rifles with no ill effects. Now I also have 500 HXP and LC cases from the FN-SLR that are a bear to reload because there is no primary extraction and the rims are bent from the the violent extraction. Lots of trimming and removing of burs with a file before they will even chamber is a case gauge.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v130/montereyjack/ffcc3a60.jpg
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v130/montereyjack/3bbd24fe.jpg

If you enjoyed reading about "FAL or M1A?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!