But apples, man, apples. The modernized M14 compared to an unmodernized rifle in its design of 50 years earlier. Come on. Use your head.
I don't know. I think it is just as fair to compare modernized M14s to unmodernized M14s as it is to compare modernized ARs to unmodernized ARs of 40+ years ago.
As to numbers to numbers, the argument is absurd. The FAL was adopted by vastly more nations than the M14 even after Taiwan received the equipment to produce the m14. Taiwan was unable to flood the market with m14's even though they made them available. When two rifles of the same type, main battle rifles, are compared, numbers, when they are so utterly lop-sided, do provide support to the argement that the FAL was the better combat rifle.
Bandied numbers comparing an assault rifle to the FAL go only so far. As assault rifles, the AK was VASTLY better than the FAL. The FAL, like the M14, are miserable assault rifles. When you have the SKS, FAL, M14, BM-59, FN-49, or AK available, which one, do you suppose, would be considered the best assault rifle? And the numbers will that out.
The AR is a better overall rifle than the AK. In that way, numbers begin to fail as supporting arguments. The AK is better in unsupported areas, the AR is superior for the professional soldier. So, among the nations with professional soldiers which one is issued more, the AK or the AR? The AR, of course. Thus, total production or adoption cannot be used.
Blah, blah, blah, yadda, yadda, yadda...
Basically then the numbers can only be used when they support your argument. Any time the numbers do not support your argument, they are invalid, even if the AR arguably never achieved popularity for some of the same reasons as the M14--namely, being comparatively more expensive and difficult to manufacture.
And I don't think
Andrewsky ever meant to insinuate that the M14 was distributed in larger numbers than the FAL, just that is was distributed in slightly larger numbers than you originally gave it credit for, and credit is due where credit is due.
Right now, of the three, I tend to favor the M14/M1A over the other two, with the FAL coming in second. The G3 and clones would be tied for last with the AR and its clones. I have an M1A and am currently trying to claw together enough money for a DS Arms Para FAL.
As I've said before, the M1A will appeal to the rifleman in you. If you identify yourself as a rifleman, the M1A speaks to you in a way few other rifles can. The M1A is built by and for riflemen, and to that end, everything is where it should be. The sights, trigger, balance, and ergonomics are all top notch. The rifle is comfortable to shoulder and to shoot. I love my M1A in an almost unhealthy way. It is the only thing that I own that I would run into a burning building to save. Sure, it might be harder to scope and clean, and more expensive than some alternatives, but these are, IMO, minor deficiencies compared to how the rifle feels at the shoulder and shoots. The sights are so good I currently have no plans to scope it, the rifle doesn't require constant maintenance to run and the only thing that has to be cleaned on a regular basis is the gas system. Just use the tool or a 3/8 inch wrench, wipe down the gas system, run a cable with a brush through the bore a couple times, and reassemble, and you're done. You don't even have to take it out of the stock but once in a great while. And this is one of those cases where I feel you get what you pay for--the M1A is, for me, worth the cost. And this is all an unmodernized, cast receiver Springfield. I can't imagine how cherry an SEI must be...
The FAL is fine, but as a lefty isn't quite as ergonomic for me. I would prefer an ambi-safety, which is an option I am utilizing from DS Arms, and one reason why my FAL is going to be more expensive than my M1A. I have a lot of respect for the FAL and something tells me when I finally get my hands on one, asking me to decide between it and my M1A is going to be like asking me to choose my favorite child, or decide which lung I can do without.
The G3 isn't nearly as ergonomic for me. It doesn't have the balance. By most reports it has more felt recoil than the other models and can be a PITA to clean. The triggers on the ones I've held were terrible. A roller lock clone would require a paddle style magazine release conversion and a trigger job be factored into the initial cost of the rifle. The sights were okay, but not as good as the M1As. Like paying $800 for a polymer framed handgun with a crappy trigger just because it was designed by HK and therefore somehow makes the user elite, I don't see how it makes any sense to pay $800+ for a stamped receiver rifle with a crappy trigger just because it was designed by HK and therefore somehow makes the user elite.
And I despise the AR. Ergos are fine and I know I can keep them running. But they just don't feel right to me. The sound and operate like cartoons to me. And I know I've said that before as well. I just could never get over the SPOING sound of the buffer tube assembly next to my head. It makes the AR feel like an ACME rocket Wiley Coyote would use, and if I never have to clean another AR star chamber again, it will be too soon.
