M1a Vs Fn Fal
- Thread starter BIGRETIC
- Start date
- Status
dmftoy1
Member
There's been about 4-5 threads on this subject that you might find useful.
Here's one ... but BELIEVE ME . .there are more.
http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=344653&highlight=M14+FAL
Here's one ... but BELIEVE ME . .there are more.
http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=344653&highlight=M14+FAL
wayne in boca
Member
Hey,that's like asking which of my kids I love the most,kinda hard to make a call here.Both are solid battle rifles with an excellent track record,and I have multiples of each.I will not lean either way,I will grab one in each hand.
islandphish
Member
serviceable fal...800 bucks. m1a well over a grand. is the m1a 400 bucks better than a fal...no way. Is the m1a better than a fal at all...the debate rages.
seems like a pretty easy decision between the two...
seems like a pretty easy decision between the two...
Both were developed into highly reliable platforms. Both were successfully used in combat. The FAL was adopted by over one hundred countries.
Each has nice features that are not duplicated in the other. Want precise elevation and windage adjustment, a trigger that can be tuned to match quality, get the M1a. Want a pistol grip, inline stock, and a carry handle, get the FAL. The FAL is also easier to diassemble, and requires almost no special tools to do so.
The FAL is heavier than a M14, so what would you rather carry all day?
Both are great rifles. It is a matter of preferences. Chocolate or Vanilla?
Each has nice features that are not duplicated in the other. Want precise elevation and windage adjustment, a trigger that can be tuned to match quality, get the M1a. Want a pistol grip, inline stock, and a carry handle, get the FAL. The FAL is also easier to diassemble, and requires almost no special tools to do so.
The FAL is heavier than a M14, so what would you rather carry all day?
Both are great rifles. It is a matter of preferences. Chocolate or Vanilla?
DSAPT9
Member
I have had both as well but went with the FAL platform only because of comfort. It also fit in with the AR platform of rifles as far as control layout; so going back and forth between the 2 is easy.
I would have no problem with either rifle and trust both to do its job.
I would have no problem with either rifle and trust both to do its job.
M1A/M14 or FAL
Have M1a,M14 Federal Ordnance and M14 Polytech. My son in law has FAL. He's always adjusting the gas nut for different loads. I'll feed anyone of my M14's anything handloads or military surplus and don't experience any problems. If I had to make a choice to carry it would be hands down M14.
Have M1a,M14 Federal Ordnance and M14 Polytech. My son in law has FAL. He's always adjusting the gas nut for different loads. I'll feed anyone of my M14's anything handloads or military surplus and don't experience any problems. If I had to make a choice to carry it would be hands down M14.
MTMilitiaman
Member
I really can't comment on this objectively as I have almost no experience with the FAL and relatively little experience with the M1A.
My M1A is a stainless/synthetic "Loaded" series. I paid about $1300 for it a year and a half ago. With the exception of a single Type-57 mag, it has been flawless through about 500 rounds. I've shot it with iron sights out to 600 yards. Though it has only had M80 style FMJs run through it and has never been scoped, it constantly amazes me with its accuracy. People here might be tired of me saying it, but it strikes me as the quintessential "Rifleman's Rifle." Everything is where it belongs, it has excellent sights and a great trigger, and just feels good. It is a delight to shoot. I love that rifle.
That said, I am saving up for a DS Arms Para FAL. With the options I want on the rifle, it is looking to cost over $2K and take several months to get to me even after it is ordered. Handling FALs in various pawn shops and such, the FAL feels solid and pretty well balanced, though I might have to give the edge in ergonomics and control placement to the M1A. This might be because I shoot left handed, however. While the sights and trigger on the FAL are serviceable, and the FAL's accuracy is adequate, the M1A has better sights and trigger, and is likely to have an advantage in accuracy. Judging by reputation alone, I would give the reliability advantage to the FAL.
My M1A is a stainless/synthetic "Loaded" series. I paid about $1300 for it a year and a half ago. With the exception of a single Type-57 mag, it has been flawless through about 500 rounds. I've shot it with iron sights out to 600 yards. Though it has only had M80 style FMJs run through it and has never been scoped, it constantly amazes me with its accuracy. People here might be tired of me saying it, but it strikes me as the quintessential "Rifleman's Rifle." Everything is where it belongs, it has excellent sights and a great trigger, and just feels good. It is a delight to shoot. I love that rifle.
That said, I am saving up for a DS Arms Para FAL. With the options I want on the rifle, it is looking to cost over $2K and take several months to get to me even after it is ordered. Handling FALs in various pawn shops and such, the FAL feels solid and pretty well balanced, though I might have to give the edge in ergonomics and control placement to the M1A. This might be because I shoot left handed, however. While the sights and trigger on the FAL are serviceable, and the FAL's accuracy is adequate, the M1A has better sights and trigger, and is likely to have an advantage in accuracy. Judging by reputation alone, I would give the reliability advantage to the FAL.
Gator
Member
I have and like both, but prefer the M1A. It has better sights and is more accurate, plus I like the controls better. But they are both fine battle rifles.
W.E.G.
Member
I would favor the M1A, except the angle of the "pistol grip" on M1A stocks of conventional configuration does not suit me. Maybe if I had bigger hands. (insert anatomy jokes here) To some, this might seem like a minor issue. But, for me, I can never get a comfortable hold on an M1A in the same way I can with the vertical-type grip on most EBR's.
The M1A is something of a pain (mechanically and financially) to mount a scope. Plus, the line of sight you get with a scope on an M1A leaves much to be desired unless you install of those (dare I say "dorky") strap-on cheekpieces.
For a utility rifle, I prefer a FAL.
The M1A is something of a pain (mechanically and financially) to mount a scope. Plus, the line of sight you get with a scope on an M1A leaves much to be desired unless you install of those (dare I say "dorky") strap-on cheekpieces.
For a utility rifle, I prefer a FAL.
Husker1911
Member
One observation, FAL magazines (metric) are plentiful and inexpensive. Wish the same could be said for the M1A.
Creature
Member
+1.
The way I see it, battle rifle implies iron sights...anything else added on makes it a "specialized" rifle..
rklessdriver
Member
I also have both.
My FAL is an IMBEL recivered Century L1A1. I could have done better but it runs 100% and is accurate. It was also cheap enought a Lance Corporal could afford it and not hurt himself $$$ wise back then. I've had it since 1996 or so and still love it. I like the fact the saftey works like an AR. Keeps things simple for me.
I just bought my M1A1. I like it. A FREAKIN LOT. Its everything everybody told me it would be. Time will tell if I love it like I love my L1A1.
Both have their fan boys. I'll say I'm one for both. IMO its hard to go wrong with either. As for which is really better, it depends on the person. Far too subjective for me to say. Buy the one that speaks to YOU.
Semper Fi
Will
My FAL is an IMBEL recivered Century L1A1. I could have done better but it runs 100% and is accurate. It was also cheap enought a Lance Corporal could afford it and not hurt himself $$$ wise back then. I've had it since 1996 or so and still love it. I like the fact the saftey works like an AR. Keeps things simple for me.
I just bought my M1A1. I like it. A FREAKIN LOT. Its everything everybody told me it would be. Time will tell if I love it like I love my L1A1.
Both have their fan boys. I'll say I'm one for both. IMO its hard to go wrong with either. As for which is really better, it depends on the person. Far too subjective for me to say. Buy the one that speaks to YOU.
Semper Fi
Will
Ash
Member
They are both great rifles. It really depends on what you will do with it. If you plan on scrapping the stock, replacing it with some pistol-gripped telescoping stock, you might as well get the FAL, which did it in the first place. If you plan on competition shooting, or like walnut or birch sporter-style stocks or don't want to scare your neighbors so much, get the M1a.
Ash
Ash
I'm another FAL fan that gradually leaned towards the M1a. I am interested in accuracy, and it's easier to make the M1A into a match capable rifle. That being said, the AR-10 series win the accuracy war over the other two, but I like the M1A for it's ruggedness versus the AR-10.
As a basic battle rifle, I'd generally recommend the the FAL. As a DMR, I like the M1A better, although it has plenty of warts.
W.E.G., I have never likes the M1A walnut stock due to the thick wrist. The synthetic suits me just fine
As someone else noted, it's chocolate and vanilla. All things considered, I don't think there is a clearly superior rifle. It depends on the role and what the user wants. I have both, but the M1A gets shot the most. But like everyone else, I wish there was a source of cheap, reliable mags.
As a basic battle rifle, I'd generally recommend the the FAL. As a DMR, I like the M1A better, although it has plenty of warts.
W.E.G., I have never likes the M1A walnut stock due to the thick wrist. The synthetic suits me just fine
As someone else noted, it's chocolate and vanilla. All things considered, I don't think there is a clearly superior rifle. It depends on the role and what the user wants. I have both, but the M1A gets shot the most. But like everyone else, I wish there was a source of cheap, reliable mags.
stubbicatt
Member
I would choose neither based solely on ergonomics. With the M1a I have to accommodate that dust shroud on the rear of the receiver which keeps punching me in the upper jaw just under my nose. That HURTS! I can shoot it from standing ok, but not from seated or prone due to that ergonomic blunder.
FAL has a poor trigger, IME, and the forend gets too darn hot to hold after a mag dump. I guess my G1 had metal handguards which were changed out over the development cycle to better heat resistant materials. I have no idea how people could expect to actually use one of those metal forended rifles in the real world, as you would literally burn your hands on that thing.
Hence the G3 clone which I much prefer.
FAL has a poor trigger, IME, and the forend gets too darn hot to hold after a mag dump. I guess my G1 had metal handguards which were changed out over the development cycle to better heat resistant materials. I have no idea how people could expect to actually use one of those metal forended rifles in the real world, as you would literally burn your hands on that thing.
Hence the G3 clone which I much prefer.
Click Click Boom
Member
buy both
DSAPT9
Member
This may start a word war but why do people spend so much time playing with the gas system on the FAL. I have owned 21in, 18in and 16.25in barrels all with standard length gas systems and found if you set the gas setting to 5 it will function as well as any M1A with 99% of the ammo out there. If you follow the instructions you will usually find it will end up at a setting around 5 90% of the time anyway. Like I said in an earlier post I prefer the FAL but would trust both for sport and in battle.
This is how you correct the heat problem. Try a different forearm and a grip to hang on to.
This is how you correct the heat problem. Try a different forearm and a grip to hang on to.
Ash
Member
The steel-forarms were intended to be used with a bipod. No heat problem when done that way. Plastic or wood guards work much better for heat. One of the nice things about the FAL platform is that it is a much more closed action with a much sturdier adjustable gas piston and already comes with a pistol grip. It is also considerably easer to break down for cleaning. Also, unlike the M14 platforms, can be cleaned easily from the breach.
Ash
Ash
Regolith
Member
I'd take an M1A over a FAL, but I wouldn't mind having either. The M1A is simply more aesthetically pleasing, particularly with a wood stock.
Hoplophile
Member
- Joined
- Dec 23, 2007
- Messages
- 238
If you grab one in each hand, you'll probably lean towards the M1A. Those things are freaking heavy.
lmccrock
Member
I like the ergonomics better on the FAL. They are also easier to scope. The only time I adjusted the gas on mine was when I decided I did not want the brass to fly as far.
Yes, I believe the M1a (that is, new Springfield rifles) are pretty. Many FAL rifles are built from parts kits so they are not pretty unless someone refinished them. The DS Arms FALs are pretty. Regardless, I go for function first.
Lee
Yes, I believe the M1a (that is, new Springfield rifles) are pretty. Many FAL rifles are built from parts kits so they are not pretty unless someone refinished them. The DS Arms FALs are pretty. Regardless, I go for function first.
Lee
Deer Hunter
Member
- Joined
- Dec 26, 2005
- Messages
- 4,097
Readily available for a bit more green, that is.
- Status
