Just a sidenote here.
I have no idea whether any of this narrator's comments about the FAL process here was/is true (See Green Link --below--), but if plausible, it easily could have contributed to the choices of Only the M-14 or M-16.
I'm not here to debate (because I'm not familiar- some of you are the experts), and am only curious. If this is not appropriate at all, then have a Mod delete it, or make the "adult decision" and ignore it.
How the U.S. got shafted out of the FN FAL - YouTube 
So, much wrong with that video. I think he just pulled most of it out his butt without any real research.
1) Studler was not "seeking the limelight", the performance of the AP round was the driver for the T65 cartridge performance. And the performance of the T65 was not defined by Studler, it was defined by the US Army Ground Forces/Infantry Board.
2) The British .280 round was anemic, not even considering the poor AP performance. The advertised performance was 2550 fps with a 139 grain bullet, testing showed it only managed 2250 fps, with a very rainbow trajectory. The T65 cartridge it was competing with had a 135 gr bullet at 2800 fps.
3) The first US "Lightweight Rifle", the one that competed with the British EM-2 and FAL in .280 was the T25, which had exactly 0 percent common parts with the M1. Commonality was NEVER a requirement.
4) J.M. Browning had absolutely nothing to do with the FN-49 and subsequent FAL, nothing.
5) The US was interested in the FAL, because of the three weapons tested in 1950, the EM-2, the FAL and the T25, the FAL performed the best. However, all were in need of further development.
6) Col. Studler DID NOT ignore any information on the FAL, period. There about three or four dozen reports from Aberdeen Proving Grounds, Springfield Armory, and the Army Infantry Board (which is independent of the Ordnance Branch) that track the development of the T25/T47, T44, and FAL (T48) in excruciating detail. And all of them fully justify the final recommendation.
7) Everyone else (except the British) were "OKAY" with the direction the ammunition took. And it was the right round for the requirements of 1952-53, only its AP was capable of penetrating the side of the Soviet APC at 100 yards/meters. Everyone forgets that requirement.
8) Nothing was compromised. The Lightweight Rifle was supposed to be "habitually used in semi-automatic fire . . . and only fired in full automatic in emergency . . ." In that light, the M14 and FAL in 7.62mm are perfectly adequate.
9) There was no handshake deal. FN, knowing that if the US adopted the FAL would really boost worldwide sales, offered to provide the FAL, design package, in 7.62mm, to the US royalty free if it were adopted. As the FAL performed better than the T25, the US agreed to test the FAL against other possible designs and would adopted the best one.
10) The US did not ignore everything and "just go with the M14". Six years of the testing and development of both the T44 (M14), and the FAL, resulted in just about every moving part in both weapons to be redesigned and improved. After it was all done in late 1956, both weapons were deemed ". . . suitable for Army use . . . "
11) And last, because the list of "wrong" is getting out of hand, the often stated - ". . . the the M14 could use M1 tooling, turned out to be wrong . . ." The fact is, a large number of M14 parts can be made on M1 tooling, because they are the same parts. Every part in the trigger mechanism can be made on M1 tooling, every part in the rear sight mechanism can be made on M1 tooling, originally, 85% of the stock parts were the same as on the M1. No, they aren't big parts, but they are essential parts.
Oh, and BTW Col Studler retired in 1953, three years before the final decision on the M14 was made. He is no "villian", he a man who did his best to see to it that the Infantry got what they wanted. (The USAIB is the origin of the AP requirement that drove the performance of the new NATO round.)
The US did not get "shafted", and neither did FN.
As to the subject of this thread, the down fall of the M14 was the poor management of the procurement, delays, poor quality from the contractors, and a creeping price. Had the FAL been chosen over the M14, there is no doubt the same problems would have happened, probably worse, as the state of the FAL drawings were not in as good a shape as the M14 drawings, as they were converted from metric.
