Is the M14 Superior to the FN FAL

[goon]

I got an Ohio Rapid Fire IMBEL FAL just before christmas and I just got to shoot it yesterday. The fit on the gun is very tight and it went through my test fire with no problems at all. I am waiting to get a sight tool and a gas tube tool to really get into shooting it alot.
I just had to try it out yesterday. I couldn't put it off anymore.
They charge $550 for one. That is only a few more bucks than the new century guns, and these are Imbel parts built on Imbel recievers.
If you want a FAL I would suggest that you look into one of these.

 

[Jaeger]

Tire Iron,

I have looked at that sight before and thought it looked pretty good. My only concern with it was loosing the ability to make elevation adjustments. I really wish I could just graft my M1A sights on to my FAL!

 

[Vern Humphrey]

Quote:
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Am I mistaken to think that the main difference between the M1 and the M14 is the removeable magazine in the M14? I am under the impression that the M14 was a modification of the M1, using a removeable magazine instead of the eight round "en-bloc clip" of the M1?
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The M14 is a thorough redesign of the M1. For one thing, the entire gas system is different. (There was a comment about "bending the operating rod" when using commercial ammo -- that's true of the M1, but the M14 does not have an operating rod like the M1.)

The M14 uses a captive, short-stroke piston. The piston is like a water glass, base to the rear, with a hole drilled in the side. Gas is vented into tne piston, filling, and driving it back as the gas expands. As the pistopn moves back, the hold in the piston moves out of alignment with the hole in the cylinder and barrel, shutting off the gas flow.

The beauty of this system is that it is self-adjusting. If you have underpowered ammo, or an excessivley dirty rifle, the gas pressure is lower, the piston moves more slowy, and gets more gas. If you have high pressure, the piston moves more quickly. No need to adjust the system -- it takes care of that for itself.

The piston is captive, short-stroke. As it moves back, it strikes a counterweight, transmitting it's energy to that weight, which is what unlocks the bolt and drives it back. It's a very smooth operating system.

I trained on the M1, carried one on my first tour in Viet Nam (haveing wrapped my issue M2 carbine around a tree), and had an M14 (pre-M21) sniper rifle on my second tour. At the same time, I sometimes operated with Australians, who used the FAL. I like the M14 better.

 

[Nightcrawler]

but the M14 does not have an operating rod like the M1.)

My mistake. I thought I heard someone here saying you can't use hotloaded hunting ammo in an M1A, and assumed it was the same reason you can't use it in an M1 Garand. (In the M1, this problem can be addressed by simply installing an aftermarket venting-gas-cylinder, allowing you to work up loads and take advantage of the .30-06 round's capabilities out of a 24" barrel without worrying about damaging the internals.)

I think that the FAL and the M14 are so close in capabilities and performance that which one a person prefers really is a matter of personal preferance. I don't think that one is clearly superior to the other.

Right now, I'm a big fan of the FAL, but have put less than a dozen rounds through an M14 type.

I've got the DSA STG-58A. I heartily recommend this rifle to anyone interested in a top-quality FAL.

 

[Abominable No-Man]

Personally, I would say that the M14 is superior. I had one that I built up for several years and it was hands-down my favorite rifle.

Here are some of my observations:

1) The M14's sights are hands-down the best, period.

2) The inside the trigger guard safety lever is the best of the three IMO. I know that the British FALs have a better safety selector, but that isn't true of all FALs.

3) I don't know what the military issue M14's were like as far as ammo compatability, but mine ate everything I stuffed in the magazine.

4) Here's one that I didn't see listed; the M14's action is comparatively compact- there isn't a part of the recoil system that extends into the stock, like the FAL and the M26. That's not to say that it's a poor design, just think though that if you were to suffer a broken stock for whatever reason, that FAL may well be out of action for a while. Just a thought.

5) I also like the idea of the bolt handle fixed to the bolt- it's a questionable concept to some, but I like being able manually close a sticky action on a dirty rifle. And if we are talking about battlefield worthiness (all of the rifles listed are certainly battlefield worthy, don't misread this....) then your rifle will get dirty.

6) Not all of the FALs had a last-shot bolt hold-open either. The British FALs didn't, nor to the best of my knowledge, did the Canadians or Aussies.

Now, all that being said and done, let me also say that the FAL is one hell of a rifle, too. My dad recently picked up a Century L1A1 and it shoots great. IMO, it's a bit more comfortable to shoot than the M14, and while we only put about 80 rounds through it, it didn't choke once.

Objectively, the FAL and the M14 are neck and neck. Both are great rifles with great features, and the superiority of either one is subjective to the individual shooter.

ANM

 

[No4Mk1*]

The M1A is not an M14 in my 300 round experience:
#158,XXX

1. The rifle was delivered new with a broken stock which was replaced by SA.
2. Rifle would not seat fully loaded USGI or SA mags. 19 rounds ok.
3. 97% reliable with about 3% failure to feed.
4. Bolt roller retainer came off during firing and was found in the op rod track while cleaning. Replaced.
5. After 300 rounds, the hammer now follows the bolt forward during recoil. This is not poor trigger control as it is reproduced with an empty rifle. Fortunately it did not fire out of battery or go full auto.

Data:
Ammo is South African and Austrailian surplus only.
Grease is Automotive ball bearing grease to metal - metal surfaces.
Mags= 3xBRW S-1, 1x KMT, 1xOM, 1xUHC, SA 10 rounder

SA has the rifle now and is paying for shipping to and from the factory. They seem to be standing by thier product, but losing $50 shipping costs every time it breaks is not going to help their profits.

 

[Abominable No-Man]

No4-

How cow, what the heck is SA putting out these days? I am really sorry to hear that. The rifle I had was built on a SA receiver, but that was about it.

Does anyone know if this is a recurring theme with SA? I was looking at their website a while ago, and considering what to do with my tax return. If the rifles they are putting out now are all like that......wow.......

ANM

 

[telewinz]

I have owned both for quite awhile and enjoy them both. The FAL is the better design and my first choice for combat while the M14 does have better sights and is more accurate BUT less reliable in a drenching downpour. Flame-on

 

[Grump]

Are we ignoring things?

Last time we beat this horse, wasn't there a link to some gunrag on-line article, complete with pictures, of a 10,000-round torture test of an FN system? Shooting it hot and cooling it in the snow seemed like the primary torture.

The "mil-spec" gas block blew off the barrel.

I haven't heard of even the reproduction M1A or Chinese M14-type gas cylinders EVER doing that, not even once. And yes, this is also just once...

All jams were blamed on ammo, expecially the cheap Indian stuff that often took two hammer strikes to fire. Interestingly enough, there was no "try 20 rounds in another rifle" routine to see whether something else would do better.

I'm still waiting for side-by-side reliability reports on the FAL and the few M14s the various forces fielded in both Iraq "festivities." Heck, not even the vague reports of Steyr AUGS choking on the sand have been the subject of any semi-official or first-hand reports I've ever seen posted on the web--all disclaimers fully apply.

 

[Destructo6]

2) The inside the trigger guard safety lever is the best of the three IMO. I know that the British FALs have a better safety selector, but that isn't true of all FALs.

I'd disagree with that. Requiring one's finger to be inside the trigger guard while disengaging the safety isn't the best design.

 

[9mmepiphany]

the only poorer design is putting the saftey on the face of the trigger itself

 

[Nightcrawler]

The FAL is kind of like the 1911 in one respect; what quality it is depends on who makes it. The FN made Belgian guns? The South African ones? The Canadian, British, Australian, or New Zealand inch-pattern ones? What about the Austrian version? Not to mention the unknown number of parts guns out there. The inch versions had the sand cuts, but the bolt catch was disabled. The Metric versions were select fire.

As for USGI M14s, the last one was probably made in like 1964. Does a forty year old rifle that may or may not be in bad need of a rebuild really represent the quality of the design itself?

The only true comparison would be a new production, top quality FAL (DSA, or custom house) versus a top quality, new production M14 clone (Custom built) and see which DESIGN is really better.

Frankly, I think they're about as evenly matched as two distinctive designs can be.

 

[Andrew Wyatt]

I'd disagree with that. Requiring one's finger to be inside the trigger guard while disengaging the safety isn't the best design.

Why not? you don't take the gun off safe untill you're ready to fire, and then you finger should be in the triggerguard anyway.

 

[JohnKSa]

The ONE thread that you figure you can read without having to put up with anti-Glock BS. Heck it's even on the rifle forum...

But NO:

the only poorer design is putting the saftey on the face of the
trigger itself

 

[ksnecktieman]

and the complaint is that you remove the safety by putting your finger inside trigger guard? If you are not ready to shoot you have no reason to have your finger there, so I count that as a plus

 

[Balog]

If you want an extremely thorough testing of all the MBR's I'd suggest Boston's Gun Bible.

 

[Gabe]

Obviously the concern is when you need to put the safety ON.

 

[Nightcrawler]

Well, on the M1, M14, and Mini-14, to engage the safety, you push the OUTSIDE of the trigger guard, as the safety button sticks out to the front when it's not engaged.

 

[Sunray]

Nope. When your military was looking for a Garand replacement, the FAL passed all the tests as a better rifle, hands down. The M-14 was chosen for political reasons. NIH, (Not Invented Here) being the chief one. Don't get me wrong. The my semi'd M-14 is a great rifle, but if I had to go fight as a PBI, give me a FN, every time. (I'd prefer a Sterling SMG though) The FAL is a proven battle rifle for well over 40 years and is still being used in some places. Who uses an M-14 as it was built in the 50's? (That'd be select fire, not the sniper grade rifles.) Nobody.

 

[Trebor]

Just wondering, are there any books or web sites you could recommend that go into detail about the service history of the FAL?

www.falfiles.com

Great FAL discussion board. The info section of the website has been down forever though.

"The FAL Rifle." by Blake Stevens This is a compilation of three! books on the FAL that Steven's wrote. It cover's EVERYTHING about the Inch and Metric pattern rifles. It cost's about $100, but if you read it from cover to cover, you'll learn the complete history of the rifle.

 

[JShirley]

tire iron,

Great post. Thanks.

The M14 s...has recently seen some limited use in Afghanistan and Iraq

As have DSA Carbines with some Spec Ops troops.

Personally, I believe the FAL to be the better of the two for "battle" usage, but hey! Use what works for you.

John, G1 kit on Imbel receiver w/ inch selector...

 

[50 Freak]

Both a STOCK M1A and a FAL will shoot about the same. They are battle rifles, and only need to shoot 2-3 inches at a 100 yards. As for which is more accurate, I've seen some Free Floating Match FALS that will shoot up there with the tricked out M1As.

But the FAL is definately more reliable in my opinion. I have a FAL built with a Imbel receiver and an new STG parts kit. Had the barrel cut down to 16 inches and put on light weight parts on it. The entire gun weights less than 8 pounds with an unloaded mag.

One thing I really like about the FAL is that if I take the hinge pin out of the FAL, it breaks down to two pieces that will fit into a standard backpack for those "discreet" range trips. Can't see a M1A doing that.


For a MBR, I'd pick the FAL over the M1A anytime.

 

[Grump]

Which one can be cleared easier if a jam leaves the bolt & op rod (M14 system)/bolt carrier (FAL system) stuck halfway open? Isn't one almost impossible to "break open" in that condition?

Oh, nevermind. Your favorite never jams, so that's not a problem.

 

[tire iron]

Grump,

What would cause either one of them to be 'jammed' half-way open?

I can only think of three possibilities.

First is a fired/unfired case. The typical type two malfunction clearance drill would be the appropriate remedy for either two rifle designs (M1a/M14 and the FN-FAL).

The second would be debris or foriegn matter - which with the FN is a VERY remote possibility - as the action is quite well protected from debris/foriegn matter because of the top cover. The M1a/M14 on the other hand is much more exposed - since the action is 'in the open'.

However - for the sake of argument/discussion - let us say that the FN did get some foreign matter/debris into the action. The remedy for this would be to remove said foreign matter/debris by hand - or by flushing with water from a canteen, etc. until the bolt was able to move forward. The vigorous manipulation of the charging handle would also be part of that process.

With the M14/M1a one would follow the same procedure as the FN - namely remove said foreign matter/debris by hand - or by flushing with water from a canteen, etc. until the bolt was able to move forward. The vigorous manipulation of the charging handle would also be part of that process.

The only other possibility would be a bent operation rod (M14) or a bent 'rat tail' (FN). Since a bend 'rat tail' is a virtual impossibility on the FN - the only 'jam' left is a bent operating rod on a M14 - which is occurance that DOES happen. That particular 'jam' would require more 'work' than one could do in the field.

Is there any other possibilty that I have failed to mention beside gross parts breakage which could happen to either rifle type??

cheers

tire iron

 

[Grump]

Fired case, failed to eject, jammed inside the top cover, holding the bolt back and jammed from moving either way.

I've seen it twice with the AR system (coudn't break it open to get a better/different approach) and at least twice in an AK system. On another post at THR, a colleague has reported finding fired cases inside his AK's receiver, but with no jams. Lotta room in there.

Haven't seen it *yet* in an FAL, but it is conceivable. Came close with a broken case last February.

I've experienced the off-track op rod thing with an M1A. If needed, I could have removed the trigger group, taken it out of the stock, and freed the bolt from the bottom. Yes, this is beyond immediate action drills, but requires far less tooling and fooling that I've *seen* as needed for designs less "open" than the M1A. In my case, immediate action plus a little up & side action on the second try cleared it. Quickest reduction of any of the others I've personally seen.