M14/M1A, FAL/L1A1, G3/HK91, whick action has inherent edge in accuracy?

[AirPower]

Between, M14/M1A, FAL/L1A1, G3/HK91, which is inherently more accurate? I'm talking about standard versions, not special sniper version.

The reason I asked is that I heard roller block G3 is better because gas system tends to make the gun less accurate due to gas hole and piston action. HK did base the PSG1 and PSG90 on the G3. Comparatively, it seems that the US army was not afraid to make the M14 into designated marksman role and it might speak for the inherent accuracy. Was FAL ever made into some type of sniper rifle? I can't think of an example.

 

[dmftoy1]

My vote is for the M1A but has no basis in fact . ..it's purely because I ordered one on Thursday.

 

[MTMilitiaman]

In terms of intrinsic mechanical accuracy, the M14 and the G3 would probably be notably more accurate than the FAL. Which of the two would be the most accurate is probably debatable.

All three are certainly accurate enough for most battlefield conditions, and DS Arms did make a version of the FAL to submit to military's SASS trials. How good it did, I have no idea.

My preference, at least for accuracy, lies towards the M1A as mechanical accuracy aside, most, including myself, will find the M1A a lot more ergonomic and comfortable than the G3 and its clones. The controls are better placed for most as well, and the M1A tends to have better trigger and sights than the G3. This should, at least in theory, lend the M1A more towards accuracy by making it easier for the shooter to obtain the highest possible degree of accuracy from the platform. Remember that in the end, the rifle is only as accurate as the shooter, and how well the rifle interfaces, so to speak, is important. I think most will agree the M1A has an edge here against the HK roller locks.

The G3 is easier to scope, however.

In the past, it would also be easier to maintain match accuracy with the PSG-1 and MSG-90 than it would with the M21/25. Modern chassis systems for the M14 make this a non-issue, as well as making the M14 easier to scope than it has been in the past.

 

[AK103K]

I've owned all three. The FAL's were the least accurate, and the other two are about equal. The M14/M1A has better iron "target" sights, while the G3/HK91 has the best all around "combat" iron sights. The FAL's sights add to their problems.

 

[4thPointOfContact]

I'd go with the M14/M1A as well, followed by the G3/HK-91.
If I remember correctly, the reason the FAL is less accurate is due to the way the bolt locks to the receiver and the varying pressure on the bolt from the rounds left in the magazine.

 

[Z71]

I've got an L1A1 with an upgraded rear sight. A sliding adjustable peep instead of the oringinal flip peep sight. It shoots accurately enough.

I have an M1A and two Polytech M14 rifles. Accusacy is superb with these guns. The stock M14 sights are quite a bit better than the stock L1A1 stock sight, and even to the sliding peep I have installed on that rifle.

I've never fired a HK 91/G3, so can't vouch for accuracy one way or the other. I do think any of my M14 style rifles will outshoot my L1A1 rifle.

All that said, ain't nothing wrong with my SLR/L1A1! She works just fine, and will hit anything you shoot at!

 

[stubbicatt]

I made expert with the M1a. It is a great rifle, but it doesn't fit me as well as does my PTR91.

I no longer compete.

The PTR91 with a scope and ammo that it likes is an amazingly accurate rifle out to the ranges I have shot it. I've tagged a prairie dog on the run with one last summer at just over 400 meters. The rounds simply go where you aim.

 

[RX-178]

I don't know how /inherently/ accurate the G3/91 and M1A/M14 actions are when compared to each other, but there are certainly more options out there to improve an M1A's accuracy even further. If you're willing to take the (costly!) route of aftermarket modification, barrel replacement, stock bedding, and other gunsmithing, the M1A would be the way to go. As a matter of fact, the only accuracy-related modification I can think of for the G3/91 platform is welding stiffening bars to the receiver (fits into the slots that a retracting stock would go into, and makes a fixed stock a must afterwards).

Out of the box, I would prefer the G3/91, because as has already been mentioned, it is easier to mount an optic on.

 

[Roadkill]

I've got all three - too many variables involved to really determine. Regarding reliability the FAL wins. Its a DSA and will literally feed anything. The PTR 91 takes a lot of getting used to the ergonomics so I haven't fired it but to try it out. The M1A (Polytech M14S) was a bitch to get shooting right but now that I have it tuned it's very accurate. All are using my reloads, (150g fmj w/42g IMR4895). Initial edge would go to the M14S for my opinion. All have iron sights.

 

[uneasy_rider]

What about the FAL makes it inherently less accurate?

 

[AK103K]

All of mine (an original FN and two early kit guns) would never hold a group. They would string the rounds vertically, especially when they got warm. The rear sights also leave much to be desired and dont help things.

 

[HM2PAC]

I'm not sure too what extent accuracy is tied to action type.

What I do know is that the M1/M14 sight radius is longer than the FAL and the G3. This may not in itself make the rifle more accurate, but for me it makes them easier to be accurate with.

My preference is too be able to be accurate with all of them.

The machine is just a machine. The human is the rate limiting step in my opinion. It doesn't matter how "inherently accurate" the rifle is if the man behind it hasn't practiced.

 

[AK103K]

The machine is just a machine. The human is the rate limiting step in my opinion. It doesn't matter how "inherently accurate" the rifle is if the man behind it hasn't practiced.

I agree 110% with us humans being the limiting factor with any of them. But, with all things being equal, some machines still do better than others, and offer more options as they come.

The problem with things like these comparisons is, your often comparing apples to oranges, even amongst the same platform, and let alone across them.

 

[Medusa]

As i shoot both the M14 and G3A3 rifle pretty often, i would say the M14 has some edge, as the cycling action is not so violent and has a tad longer barrel than the G3. Also, what I like, is that the M14 is a lot easier to clean.

 

[W.E.G.]

The M14 has the best sights and the best trigger. So, all things being equal, a shooter will probably shoot the M14 better than the others.

Once you start making modifications, you can argue until you are blue in the face.

Further, accuracy is defined by the application. For instance, a FAL with a red-dot sight is going to be vastly "more accurate" than an M14 with iron sights in a low-light CQB course.

Select a rifle for its function. Adapt it to your needs.

 

[GunTech]

As noted, a combination of factors make the M14/M1A the accuracy choice between the 3 rifles named. Even the vaunted PSG-1 isn't as accurate as a tuned AR-10 - which will beat all three of the other rifles hands down.

The biggest problem with the M14 platform is the action/stock interface. Pay attention to that and you can get an MOA rifle fairly easily. The availability of match components also favors the M14/M1A. Try to find match parts for the other two. For that matter, try changing barrels ion a G3 clone - period.

None of the three rifles is really all that accurate in its military guise. The M14 acceptance standard was 10 rounds into 5.5 inches at 100 yards.

 

[Slamfire]

In Match configuration, for decades the M14/M1a was the match service rifle. And shot fantastic scores.

On another forum, a gentleman told me he had experimented and extensively converted a FN/FAL to a match configuration. I recall it sounded quite accurate, at least MOA, probably sub MOA, but the gentleman wanted more. And he said his case life was very short, less than five firings.

While I have a PTR-91, and think it is above average for a service type rifle, I need better irons before I attempt to shoot the thing across the course. And it kicks hard, so I know I will be flinching before long.

I don't have the military specifications on the FN or HK91. However I suspect convergence on requirements. All the services trade off all the same design goals, hit probability, reliability, service life, etc. You see a lot of analysis convergence on requirements. And I suspect that all of these 308 rifles just had shoot within 3 MOA to be acceptable.

I mean after all, the military spends a lot of time teaching draftees how to march up and down the square, learning snappy salutes and packing their gear "the Army way". Marksmanship is something draftees learn on their own before they get drafted. I mean after 9 weeks of Army basic (the AF has 6.5 weeks!) is anyone going to be really skilled at shooting? So why would an Army issue anyone a target grade rifle?

I mean in a major war, the life expectance of an Infantryman is 9 months. Something like that. The guy is going to first and foremost need a rifle that goes bang. Reliably.