FAL History

[lysanderxiii]

Interesting. I didn't know this. We have a couple of H&R FALs in the arsenal museum and the book says they were actual trials guns. The book has been wrong before. Based on what Larry Vickers said in the video I get the impression that the H&R guns kinda sucked. Maybe if the museum ever re-opens I can do some research. Our archives section in the basement will have copies of every report submitted on the trials.

The H&R T48s were tested extensively, and in a few cases, even tested against T44s, but these were not for "adoption" testing, i.e., the results were not used to decide what rifle wins the big production prize, but as "how well are we doing in converting the drawings?" type testing. In these tests the T44 was used as a control as the Army had access to T44 of the latest configuration, but may or may not have had Belgian produced T48s of the latest configuration. One must recall that after each trial, both weapon types were returned to their respective manufacturers with a laundry list of the failings and recommended improvements.

H&R's efforts were less than stellar due to the poor state of the drawing conversions, in one case the bore diameter was wrong, and a whole lot of barrels was made wrong. Some of this (well, maybe a lot of this) can be blamed on High Standard, as they were contracted to convert the drawings from FN metric standard to MIL-STD-100 standard, they were slow to produce drawings, and apparently when they were told to hurry up, they became sloppy. Reports of just converting the dimensions and tolerances from millimeters to inches, carried to five places, not switching from first to third angle projection, and other short-cuts have been recorded.

In one case they managed to gather copies of T44s, FN T48s, 2 versions of H&R T48s and a few UK FALs to test all together. This report states that only the T44 and FN made rifles were suitable for Army use. (To be fair the UK FAL was, other than the British sand cuts, the same as an earlier FN T48 and didn't have many of the latest fixes to known deficiencies.) (Evaluation of Lightweight Rifles, CONARC 29 May 1956)

Other reports worth looking for:

Evaluations of Lightweight Rifles and Ammunition
A Comparison Test of United Kingdom and United States Lightweight Rifles
A Comparison Test of United Kingdom and United States Ammunition for Lightweight Weapons
Service Test of Lightweight Rifles
Rifle, Caliber .30, Lightweight, T48
U.S. Rifle, Caliber .30, Lightweight, T48, Technical Report
U.S. Rifle, Caliber .30, T48 - Accuracy Improvement
A Test of Rifles, Caliber .30, T44A4 and T48
A Test of Rifles, Caliber .30 T48 and T48A1 Manufactured by Fabrique Nationale d'Arms de Guerre
Development of the Caliber .30 Rifle, T48 Series

One of these details High Standard's involvement, and I believe the first three include the EM2 and T25.

 

[lysanderxiii]

Another thing that is often overlooked is there are many variations of the T48 beyond just the H&R, HS and FN made examples. After each test a list of recommended and suggested changes were provided to FN for incorporation prior to the next test. And, they averaged about 1-1/2 test per year from 1952 to 1956, so there are about 6 different FN, two H&R, and one HS variations, and about 6 different T44 variations, all collected under the "T44" and "T48" labels. Unfortunately, usually the same rifles were overhauled and upgraded, so examples of each modification are lost to history, except in poorly reproduced photographs in test reports...

 

[tark]

We have, in the archives, over 2000 books, in dozens of languages, about firearms. Their use, their history, their effectiveness in battle....you name it, we've got it. I will look up the serial numbers of those two H&R FALS and find out exactly when they were manufactured and how and when they were used in the trials....if they ever were.

 

[tark]

Lysanderxiii, I believe you are correct I freely admit I know very little about the trials. You seem to know exactly what happened. I suspect any research I do will prove you correct in every detail. I do know this for a fact. The Army kept changing the rules in the middle of the game and moving the goal posts until the found a way for the T-44 to prevail.

 

[FL-NC]

Between the 3 NATO rifles of that cold war era (M14, G3, FAL) I always thought the FAL was the best as a general purpose infantry rifle.

 

[lysanderxiii]

Lysanderxiii, I believe you are correct I freely admit I know very little about the trials. You seem to know exactly what happened. I suspect any research I do will prove you correct in every detail. I do know this for a fact. The Army kept changing the rules in the middle of the game and moving the goal posts until the found a way for the T-44 to prevail.

That is hardly the case.

In 1953 the FAL was way ahead in the trials, and had its performance in the arctic tests been better it would have been game-over for the T44*. This assumed surety of the FAL adoption is the reason why High Standard and Harrington & Richardson got contracts to convert drawings and start pilot production. If you are gaming the system to eliminate the foreign contestant, why issue two expensive contracts to prepare US industry for their production? (Especially when the Army did not have a lot of money to throw around, most of the DoD budget was earmarked for nuclear bombs and the airplanes and missiles that would carry them.)

And, contrary to popular belief, the reports do not "turn against" the FAL, the T44's performance just improves. All of the tests were basically the same as those used in all the other weapons tests before and since and they did not change between the annual tests, so every six months or so, the latest version was shipped off to Fort Benning or Aberdeen and shot under a sprinkler or in an artificial dust storm, and it would come back with a report card.

In the end, both were deemed suitable for Army use, so FN did walk away with one of the two most thoroughly tested rifles in the world, as they used just about every modification we suggested.

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
* In fact, according to the Officer in charge of the Engineering Department at Springfield Armory that prepared the T44s for the Arctic Winter test of 1953/54, he really didn't think the T44 would win, but as a point of duty he wanted the weapons sent for the test to be the best Springfield could produce. To that end they spent a good deal of time working on the gas system in a climate chamber, something FN probably also should have done. It would have saved the Army the cost of two more years of testing.

 

[czhen]

A few points:

1. There are parts on an M14 that are made on M1 tooling, these are the parts that the two share: extractor, extractor spring and plunger assy, the 14 parts that make up the rear sight assy, the butt plate assy, rear sling swivel, hammer, trigger, their associated pins and the safety. And someone will say these aren't important parts, but try and shoot an M14 without them. (Also, over half of those parts are forgings, broachings, or both, so you are saving quite a bit in tooling, as well as keeping the subcontractors experience.)

2. The reason the FAL did not get adopted was due to FN not taking the arctic test seriously. In 1953, a report from the Office of the Chief of Army Field Forces stated: "In the event that the arctic tests results substantiate the results of the Fort Benning tests, no further consideration be given the US. Rifles, Caliber .30, T44, and T44E1."

The 100 FN manufactured T48s that had been used in the temperate weather testing at Fort Benning in the summer of that year had been returned to FN to correct the minor deficiencies identified during testing. These were the small modifications that show up in later FALs: the three piece extractor, the two piece firing pin, sand cuts in the carrier, etc. FN should have known that arctic temperatures would reduce gas pressures, and rented a climate chamber and tested their design in sub-zero arctic temperatures.

3. We would still have the M16. All of the early problems with the M14s were quality related, to assume that Springfield, Winchester and/or H&R would not have suffered quality issues producing the T48 is unrealistic. These quality issues were brought about by the mindset/culture existent in the workforce of gun manufacturers in the late 1950s/early 1960s. In fact, due to the condition of the drawings in 1957 being only partially converted to US standard, coupled with funding issues with the Army's small arms programs, would have resulted in more delays in fielding a T48 than the M14.

Further, H&R never managed to make rifles that were as reliable as those made by FN. Contrary to popular belief, only the FN made T48 were tested head-to-head against the T44. The H&R contract for T48s were only made to work out the bugs in converting the drawings from metric to US standard, and proving regular production was possible. The fact that you have a mix of Canadian-style parts and Metric-style parts in the H&R T48 shows the state of the drawings. What the Army actually was looking for, was Metric-style FALs, made to inch drawings. If anything, finishing up the drawing conversions and solving the reliability issues with American manufactured FALs would have made delays more likely.

And last - the AR-15 came onto the stage due to the USAF looking to replace the M1 Carbine in 1958, this is after the Lightweight Rifle Program concluded, so its appearance is independent of the result of the T44-T48 competition. All of the comparative testing done between the M14 and AR-15, would have had the same results, as all of the factors against the M14 would have still been held against the T48, even more so, as the T48 was a pound heavier. The new administration that came into office in 1961, would have still pushed for an AR-15 buy, which is what starts the ball rolling for a standardized M16A1 infantry rifle. Remember, the user, the infantryman, never stated, or requested that the M14 be replaced. In fact, some users (notably the USMC), would say the M14 was replaced against their will.

In regards of the infamous test, FAL semi and full auto performed in the harsh of south atlantic war in 1982. Both with the same configuration offered during test.

 

[FL-NC]

I have seen the FAL work exactly like it is supposed to under every type of terrain, weather, or other condition possible. As long as the dummy carrying it doesn't put the gas plug in the grenade launching mode after he cleans it, they tend to work just fine.