Stevie-Ray
Member
I went with the FAL all those years ago when it was the same choice. But I must confess, I'd still like to have the M1A also.
M1a Vs Fn Fal
- Thread starter BIGRETIC
- Start date
- Status
MTMilitiaman
Member
Not to take credit from where it is due, but if being the most issued made you automatically the best, then I suspect there would be no point to arguing "AK vs M16," "9mm vs .45 ACP," or "Smith vs Chin." But of course, based solely on popularity, that would make a Honda better than a Porche...
Again, I am just saying. I like the FAL. I think it was the "Right Arm of the Free World" for a reason. Perhaps a few of the them. But popularity isn't a valid reason to support the superiority of anything, or anyone for that matter.
Again, I am just saying. I like the FAL. I think it was the "Right Arm of the Free World" for a reason. Perhaps a few of the them. But popularity isn't a valid reason to support the superiority of anything, or anyone for that matter.
Last edited:
Ash
Member
Well, cars are a bad comparison - save for a comparison between similar cars.
Another comparison would be how many rifles are based on the Mauser action versus other actions.
Even that, though, is not really up to the mark. Popularity does not mean, necessarily, that the FAL was the best product. Yet, in this case, it does establish that more non-Communist nations, which had professional armies or conscripts, chose to arm themselves with the FAL than the M14. In fact, I can only think of the US and Taiwan as the two nations which chose to arm their regular armies with the M14. Even the BM-59 saw more official adoption. Though a different version of a select-fire Garand, the BM-59 developed a rather poor reputation in Indonesian service.
Even though the FAL was a far more successful rifle than the M14, that is not necessarily a good reason to buy one as a civilian as the uses are different. The choice can be made for many different reasons.
Of course, buying the M14 and then discarding the features that make it handle like an M14, replacing them with features that make it handle like the FAL (you really can't say it handles like an AR, because the furniture, while AR in feel, cannot change the fact that the mass is higher, which in the most important ways makes it handle like an FAL), makes one wonder why not just get an FAL.
In the end, each platform has advantages. The FAL has higher ease of maintenance, already comes with a pistol-grip format, is user-adjustable, and can be charged without removing your hands from the pistolgrip, magazines, regardless of the difficulties of a single member, high quality magazines are easier and cheaper to get (nobody worries about after market magazines in FAL's because original high quality military mags, both steel and aluminum, are readily available), and accuracy is great. Replacement parts are cheap, but they do mean you have to do the 922 juggle (except for DSA SA-58's, which are mostly US made).
The M14 is the rifleman's rifle in the auto world. It is a reliable but more complex layout, is a traditional shooter's layout, has an easy safety to work without changing your grip, has excellent target sights and is very accurate. A large number of magazines on the market for the M14 are crap and high-quality military magazines are expensive but are available. But, if you have a few good magazines, the action is a bit more forgiving because it can be charger-loaded. Replacement parts are insanely expensive, but most M14 type rifles have no problem with 922.
Ash
Another comparison would be how many rifles are based on the Mauser action versus other actions.
Even that, though, is not really up to the mark. Popularity does not mean, necessarily, that the FAL was the best product. Yet, in this case, it does establish that more non-Communist nations, which had professional armies or conscripts, chose to arm themselves with the FAL than the M14. In fact, I can only think of the US and Taiwan as the two nations which chose to arm their regular armies with the M14. Even the BM-59 saw more official adoption. Though a different version of a select-fire Garand, the BM-59 developed a rather poor reputation in Indonesian service.
Even though the FAL was a far more successful rifle than the M14, that is not necessarily a good reason to buy one as a civilian as the uses are different. The choice can be made for many different reasons.
Of course, buying the M14 and then discarding the features that make it handle like an M14, replacing them with features that make it handle like the FAL (you really can't say it handles like an AR, because the furniture, while AR in feel, cannot change the fact that the mass is higher, which in the most important ways makes it handle like an FAL), makes one wonder why not just get an FAL.
In the end, each platform has advantages. The FAL has higher ease of maintenance, already comes with a pistol-grip format, is user-adjustable, and can be charged without removing your hands from the pistolgrip, magazines, regardless of the difficulties of a single member, high quality magazines are easier and cheaper to get (nobody worries about after market magazines in FAL's because original high quality military mags, both steel and aluminum, are readily available), and accuracy is great. Replacement parts are cheap, but they do mean you have to do the 922 juggle (except for DSA SA-58's, which are mostly US made).
The M14 is the rifleman's rifle in the auto world. It is a reliable but more complex layout, is a traditional shooter's layout, has an easy safety to work without changing your grip, has excellent target sights and is very accurate. A large number of magazines on the market for the M14 are crap and high-quality military magazines are expensive but are available. But, if you have a few good magazines, the action is a bit more forgiving because it can be charger-loaded. Replacement parts are insanely expensive, but most M14 type rifles have no problem with 922.
Ash
Ash
Member
Not at all. The M14 is pretty simple to produce, too. The M14 barely even won out over the FAL in the US, and part of that was from a misconception that the M14 could use existing production equipment - even though comonality of parts is very low.
The Price argument does not float for an even more basic reason: not all nations base their purchases on price. Were price the issue, there would still be nations which adopted the M14. After all, the Danish adopted the SIG 210, which was an expensive pistol, and the SIG 510 was adopted by Bolivia and Chile, which was an expensive rifle.
Yet, who adopted the M14? Indeed, if price is the issue, then Taiwan's adoption of the M14 is a perfect example, given the firesale of M14 production equipment and parts when the US discontinued it. Only when the US decided to no longer use the M14 did Taiwan pick it up - due almost solely to price.
The Price argument does not float for an even more basic reason: not all nations base their purchases on price. Were price the issue, there would still be nations which adopted the M14. After all, the Danish adopted the SIG 210, which was an expensive pistol, and the SIG 510 was adopted by Bolivia and Chile, which was an expensive rifle.
Yet, who adopted the M14? Indeed, if price is the issue, then Taiwan's adoption of the M14 is a perfect example, given the firesale of M14 production equipment and parts when the US discontinued it. Only when the US decided to no longer use the M14 did Taiwan pick it up - due almost solely to price.
Ash
Member
The FN FAL's, until the 1970's, (and other manufacuturers throughout the entire run) were forged. As the majority of adoption occured at this time, the fact that the M14 was forged is meaningless as the FAL was, too. Therefore, compared with the FAL, the M14 is still pretty easy to produce.
Ash
Ash
Given the right tooling, the M14 can be produced relatively cheaply. TRW demonstrated this with their designed-for-purpose manufacturing facility which lost money the first year of production, but would have been profitable in subsequent years had the production contract not been cancelled.
Cost of manufacturing both the FAL and the M14 are quite high when compared to more modern designs, many of which are designed around production, rather than requiring special production techniques be developed to produce the firearm in question.
Neither the FAL or the M14 has any particular production advantages over the other. Both are comparatively complex to produce. The only reason that the current commercial FALs have a price advantage over the M1A is that there is still a large amount of surplus parts that can be use to build 'new' FALs, while the supply of GI surplus M14 parts is virtually non-existent. If the FAL had to be manufactured completely from new parts, it would be substantially more expensive.
Cost of manufacturing both the FAL and the M14 are quite high when compared to more modern designs, many of which are designed around production, rather than requiring special production techniques be developed to produce the firearm in question.
Neither the FAL or the M14 has any particular production advantages over the other. Both are comparatively complex to produce. The only reason that the current commercial FALs have a price advantage over the M1A is that there is still a large amount of surplus parts that can be use to build 'new' FALs, while the supply of GI surplus M14 parts is virtually non-existent. If the FAL had to be manufactured completely from new parts, it would be substantially more expensive.
That's incorrect.
M14 receivers require much more precision machine work to produce than the FAL receivers.
A new forged FAL receiver sells for about $425.00
A new forged M14 receiver sells for about $950.00
That said, the SA58 OSW looks interesting especially if you remove some of the accessories.
M14 receivers require much more precision machine work to produce than the FAL receivers.
A new forged FAL receiver sells for about $425.00
A new forged M14 receiver sells for about $950.00
That said, the SA58 OSW looks interesting especially if you remove some of the accessories.
That's because M14 receivers are typically made on CNC machinery. TRW made M14 receivers using dedicated, purpose designed continuous broaching machines. TRW's second run of rifles cost $17,464,000 for 219,691 rifles for a cost of $79.49 per rifle. This figure included a profit for TRW.
Adjusting for inflation from 1962 dollars, that works out to be $545.33 today, for the complete rifle.
At the time the M14 was being procured, cost for FAL rifles was about the same. The differences today have a lot to do with manufacturing techniques, and what the market will bear. Price comparisons aren't particularly meaningful without knowing the cost to produce, rather than the sale price - which may have little or nothing to do with MSRP.
Adjusting for inflation from 1962 dollars, that works out to be $545.33 today, for the complete rifle.
At the time the M14 was being procured, cost for FAL rifles was about the same. The differences today have a lot to do with manufacturing techniques, and what the market will bear. Price comparisons aren't particularly meaningful without knowing the cost to produce, rather than the sale price - which may have little or nothing to do with MSRP.
True enough. I had to go back and read the whole thread again.
I have a pretty good idea what it takes to manufacture the FAL receiver, since I was in the shop when Williams was making aluminum and a few steel receivers. It is certainly true that LRB is getting a premium for their forged receivers - with a substantial profit margin The difference between what is required to make a receiver from a forging and a billet is less than many suspect, with the forging requiring less machining.
The M14 has always been a specialty, high end product that has commanded premium prices. The FAL failed at it's initial appearance (from Steyr for about $2000 in the 1980) and when it made it's second appearance, it was as a kit at a very reasonable price. Any maker that substantially raised the price was going to get eliminated from the market.
I suspect that DSA profit margin is very much below SA, FA or LRB's, due to market expectations After all, SA never had to compete against surplus Imbel receivers. However, DSA can undoubtably make up a lot of revenue on complete rifles that are made up of a sizeable portion of refurbished surplus parts that they purchase by the carload for pennies on the dollar.
That being said, from a retail point of view, the receiver costs more for a forged M14. But aside from a couple of unusual cuts on the M14, it's not particularly more complicated or precisely made than an FAL receiver. But I stand by my assertion that if DSA had to manufacture almost every piece fo the FAL, like SA is now forced to do with the M1a, the costs between the two rifles would be much closer.
I have a pretty good idea what it takes to manufacture the FAL receiver, since I was in the shop when Williams was making aluminum and a few steel receivers. It is certainly true that LRB is getting a premium for their forged receivers - with a substantial profit margin The difference between what is required to make a receiver from a forging and a billet is less than many suspect, with the forging requiring less machining.
The M14 has always been a specialty, high end product that has commanded premium prices. The FAL failed at it's initial appearance (from Steyr for about $2000 in the 1980) and when it made it's second appearance, it was as a kit at a very reasonable price. Any maker that substantially raised the price was going to get eliminated from the market.
I suspect that DSA profit margin is very much below SA, FA or LRB's, due to market expectations After all, SA never had to compete against surplus Imbel receivers. However, DSA can undoubtably make up a lot of revenue on complete rifles that are made up of a sizeable portion of refurbished surplus parts that they purchase by the carload for pennies on the dollar.
That being said, from a retail point of view, the receiver costs more for a forged M14. But aside from a couple of unusual cuts on the M14, it's not particularly more complicated or precisely made than an FAL receiver. But I stand by my assertion that if DSA had to manufacture almost every piece fo the FAL, like SA is now forced to do with the M1a, the costs between the two rifles would be much closer.
I contacted DSA concerning the SA58 OSW - I inquired about surplus military parts.
The reply:
"Remember that there is a 922 R issue, and with the
short gas system, we are making mostly US parts.
The quality of our US parts exceeds the surplus parts."
I forgot about 922 R issues with FALs ... Chinese M14s share some of these issues.
The reply:
"Remember that there is a 922 R issue, and with the
short gas system, we are making mostly US parts.
The quality of our US parts exceeds the surplus parts."
I forgot about 922 R issues with FALs ... Chinese M14s share some of these issues.
Ash
Member
H2O, did you seriously complain about the extras on that FAL?
Now, I think it had too much attached on it as I prefer much cleaner lines. But it looks about like your AK's and M14 clones - at least to these untrained eyes.
Ash
Now, I think it had too much attached on it as I prefer much cleaner lines. But it looks about like your AK's and M14 clones - at least to these untrained eyes.
Ash
GarandOwner
Member
I was going to get out my stick, but then I realized this topic had allready been beaten to death....many times
PercyShelley
Member
- Joined
- Feb 15, 2007
- Messages
- 1,075
IIRC the adjustable gas system on the FAL was included because of fears that the operating cycle's lack of primary extraction would tend to cause case head separations [strike]the way it did in the SVT-40 action that was unceremoniously appropriated for the FAL[/strike] compared to a rotating bolt design like the M14. The FAL would also have been exposed to a wider variety of ammunition loads and quality, thanks to its wider service.
Anyway, who's excited for the Massoud or the SCAR-H?
Anyway, who's excited for the Massoud or the SCAR-H?
Old School
Member
- Joined
- Jun 13, 2008
- Messages
- 307
I fussed over this very same decision for a couple years. I picked the M1A. In the end, there were two reasons. All of the design and model variables involved with the FAL. And, and the way the M1A felt and handled. The gun just feels right to me.
Just looking back over the original tests, it's hard to argue one rifle is superior to the other. They rated so close that the differences are fairly meaningless. But the FAL came late to American shores, so there hasn't been the aftermarket support, and particularly that match gunsmithing the M14/M1a has had over the years. A tuned M14/M1a will almost certainly outperform a tuned FAL, for reasons of trigger, sights and barrel.
H20man, the number of parts reuired for 922r compliance are actually pretty small and are typically those that are very easy to fabricate: Op Rod, Magazine spring, magazine floorplate, selector and a couple of others are pretty typical.
See if DSA will actually give you a list. I doubt it, and based on specimens I've looked at, things like the bolt and bolt carrier, extractor and other internals are 'remanufactured'.
I don't know how DSA has changed in the last couple of years, but originally, they did no actual machine work in house, and farmed it all out.
H20man, the number of parts reuired for 922r compliance are actually pretty small and are typically those that are very easy to fabricate: Op Rod, Magazine spring, magazine floorplate, selector and a couple of others are pretty typical.
See if DSA will actually give you a list. I doubt it, and based on specimens I've looked at, things like the bolt and bolt carrier, extractor and other internals are 'remanufactured'.
I don't know how DSA has changed in the last couple of years, but originally, they did no actual machine work in house, and farmed it all out.
Grunt
Member
Well, I have both and given the choice, I prefer the M-14 design. Better sights, trigger, and more accurate are the big selling points for me. The FAL is cheaper are comes in more variations (hence my 7:4 FAL/M-14 ratio) but that doesn't mean I sitll wouldn't choose the M-14 first.
As far as the FAL being used by 93 countries and the M-14 being used by only a few, the numbers get skewed when you look at the original manufacturers. Keep in mind that FN is a private company and the companies making the M-14 were under US Government contract. A private firm can and did sell to other nations fairly easily. Hell, FN sold FALs to Cuba that we still have an embargo against as well as several other 3rd world contries that we never were all that friendly with as well. Given these conditions, I put little stock in claims that the FAL was a better weapon and therefore adopted by more countries. I'm not saying it's a bad weapon, far from it, however, I believe that for what a battle rifle was designed for, the M-14 is the better weapon.
As far as the FAL being used by 93 countries and the M-14 being used by only a few, the numbers get skewed when you look at the original manufacturers. Keep in mind that FN is a private company and the companies making the M-14 were under US Government contract. A private firm can and did sell to other nations fairly easily. Hell, FN sold FALs to Cuba that we still have an embargo against as well as several other 3rd world contries that we never were all that friendly with as well. Given these conditions, I put little stock in claims that the FAL was a better weapon and therefore adopted by more countries. I'm not saying it's a bad weapon, far from it, however, I believe that for what a battle rifle was designed for, the M-14 is the better weapon.
Ash
Member
Beretta had almost no success with their BM-59, which is fundamentally an M14 (a select-fire Garand-based box-magazine-fed rifle). The nations that adopted the Beretta-made BM-59 and the US made M14, combined, still are no match for the FAL.
By the way, Winchester and H&R are both private companies. Foreign M14 sales following the end of the US contract did not occur. And the US was only marginally successful in giving it away.
Ash
By the way, Winchester and H&R are both private companies. Foreign M14 sales following the end of the US contract did not occur. And the US was only marginally successful in giving it away.
Ash
Last edited:
Grunt
Member
I really don't think it matters what Apoo and Jahmall adopted. Reliability is a wash and ergonomics are personal preferance but the FAL is still no match for the M-14 when it comes to sights, trigger, and accuracy. Who adopted what to me isn't an issue when in this country we can own both so it comes down to performance and here is where the M-14 and it's superior accuracy out-performs the FAL. So the FAL has a pistol grip as a standard. I can add a pistol grip stock to an M-14 quite easily but you can't easily add a conventional stock to a FAL.
Because by the time the contract expired, most countries that were looking to adopt an automatic battle rifle had already settled on the FAL that was already available. Also, are you considering manufacturing rights? The contract may have been filled but the US Government still maintained manufacturing rights to the M-14 and has a say of who their rifle design is going to be sold to.
Ash
Member
"I really don't think it matters what Apoo and Jahmall adopted."
Yeow. Sorry if I shoved any burrs into uncomfortable places...
You really do need to relax. I have said many good things about your favorite rifle. I have pointed out many of the good features of it without malice.
That it is not a combat equal to the FAL in my opinion does not affect it as a shooter. (I must admit I fail to see why anyone in their right mind would waste their time trying to get a conventional stock on an FAL is beyond me, but I feel that way about an AR, too). By the way, I think you are inflating the differences in sights between them. There are many excellent sights that make the difference between the FAL and M14 irons irrelevant. Accuracy in standard models is identical between the two, too. Can the M14 be made into a more accurate rifle than the FAL? Yep, it sure can - but it will cost as much as 8 Savage bolt rifles, and they will still be more accurate.
But, in any case, it remains a fact that the FAL was judged by more nations to be a superior rifle (You know, big hitters like Germany (you know, the G1, which they replaced with the G3 only because the Belgians understandably would not grant production rights to the Germans so soon after WWII) and Great Britain, not to mention Israel) than the M14. One of those facts of life you have to deal with. Sorry.
In any case, the civvie M1a is a great rifle, it is a fine rifle, it will be as rugged and accurate as anyone is likely ever to need.
But, then, so is the FAL.
Chevy or Ford. Mossberg or Remington.
So again, relax. I think you are getting more wrapped up in this than need be. I've owned an M1a in the past. I own several Garands today. I like them just fine. Others like them just fine. Many, many choose them over other rifles just fine. That I can have an FAL that is generally as accurate as an M1a for $400 less is good news for me (heck, mine cost about a grand less) but is pretty harmless to you.
The fact that the Garand is functionally the same as the M1a to the civilian shooter (my CMP Garand was more accurate than my standard M1a from SA) is why I have Garands and an FAL. It is nice to bask in the best of both worlds...
Ash
Yeow. Sorry if I shoved any burrs into uncomfortable places...
You really do need to relax. I have said many good things about your favorite rifle. I have pointed out many of the good features of it without malice.
That it is not a combat equal to the FAL in my opinion does not affect it as a shooter. (I must admit I fail to see why anyone in their right mind would waste their time trying to get a conventional stock on an FAL is beyond me, but I feel that way about an AR, too). By the way, I think you are inflating the differences in sights between them. There are many excellent sights that make the difference between the FAL and M14 irons irrelevant. Accuracy in standard models is identical between the two, too. Can the M14 be made into a more accurate rifle than the FAL? Yep, it sure can - but it will cost as much as 8 Savage bolt rifles, and they will still be more accurate.
But, in any case, it remains a fact that the FAL was judged by more nations to be a superior rifle (You know, big hitters like Germany (you know, the G1, which they replaced with the G3 only because the Belgians understandably would not grant production rights to the Germans so soon after WWII) and Great Britain, not to mention Israel) than the M14. One of those facts of life you have to deal with. Sorry.
In any case, the civvie M1a is a great rifle, it is a fine rifle, it will be as rugged and accurate as anyone is likely ever to need.
But, then, so is the FAL.
Chevy or Ford. Mossberg or Remington.
So again, relax. I think you are getting more wrapped up in this than need be. I've owned an M1a in the past. I own several Garands today. I like them just fine. Others like them just fine. Many, many choose them over other rifles just fine. That I can have an FAL that is generally as accurate as an M1a for $400 less is good news for me (heck, mine cost about a grand less) but is pretty harmless to you.
The fact that the Garand is functionally the same as the M1a to the civilian shooter (my CMP Garand was more accurate than my standard M1a from SA) is why I have Garands and an FAL. It is nice to bask in the best of both worlds...
Ash
- Status
