Why did the US army pick the M14 over the FAL?

[Lone_Gunman]

Does anyone know why they picked the M14 over the FAL? I am interested in real reasons, not speculation.

I don't really see much difference in performance, and the ergonomics of the Fal are a little better because of the pistol grip. Both seem like excellent rifles.

 

[kcmarine]

Uh. Made here.

 

[The Deer Hunter]

Well, the FAL is foreign. And the M14 is based off the M1 Garand.

woops, thats speculation.

But "Made in USA" is nice to have.

 

[slzy]

racks and tools all fit,too.

 

[def4pos8]

The story is told by R. Blake Stevens in "U.S Rifle M14 -- from John Garand to the M21" published by Collector Grade Publications. Short version: The Army was all but ready to go with the T-48 (FAL) until it fared badly during cold weather testing and dust testing. They let themselves settle for something more familiar. The T-44 was an M-1 modified, primarily, with a 20-round box magazine and the Harvey/White gas system. Adopted as the M-14, it had a painful development and production history. SecDef MacNamara bagged it for the M-16 but it continues to serve to this day.

 

[buck00]

The first thing that comes to mind is pork-barreling politics. Back in the 1950's when the US military was looking for a new rifle, I'm sure a senator from Massachusetts had drinks with a few generals, and lobbied heavily for the contract to go to Springfield Armory rather than overseas. When it comes down to it, why get some Belgians at Fabrique Nationale rich when good, honest Americans could benefit?

It has less to do with "which rifle is better" and more to do with politics.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pork_barrel

A pork barrel (or pork barrel politics) describes government spending that is intended to benefit constituents of a politician in return for their political support, either in the form of campaign contributions or votes.

 

[HorseSoldier]

The rumor (reported in a variety of sources) is that Army Ordnance rigged the cold weather testing to make the M14 prototypes outperform their FAL competition.

No idea of the accuracy of the rumor, but in light of their subsequent actions concerning the M16 field trials it seems quite plausible. Ordnance back in those days was not overly into fair and open testing if the competition might jeopardize one of their home grown designs.

 

[Evil Monkey]

Why did the US army pick the M14 over the FAL?

The same reason they stuck to the 308, they had their heads up their butts and wouldn't listen to anybody.

 

[Telperion]

Not Invented Here syndrome.

 

[Nightcrawler]

Springfield Armory also told the US government that the M14 could be produced on Garand tooling, I've heard. I've also heard that this turned out not to be true.

I wonder...if the US would've adopted a variant of the FAL and the FAL-O automatic rifle, how long would it have been before going to the intermediate cartridge weapons? One of the reasons they wanted the M16 was because the M14 was unsuited for automatic fire, and the M15 automatic rifle variant was more or less a failure.

I'm willing to bet it woudl've pushed back the movement to adopt a 5.56mm rifle twenty years.

 

[Slamfire]

def4pos8 has it right. Both rifles were equally acceptable, the M14 was a home grown design and it was a product improved Garand. There was nothing really wrong with the M14, and as the Garand had proved itself every where, and the M14 was similiar, why change?

I have dealt with the "user" community. What the military user wants is something similiar to, but better than what they have. They are conservative by nature, once they like and are familiar with something, they don't want want radical changes. So they tend to be evolutionary not revolutionary. And if you are going to put your life on a piece of equipment, you might tend to buy the stuff that you know is reliable. Of course if the revolutionary item really is a big jump, lets say Death ray guns versus pointy sticks, the user will happily put the pointy stick behind the firing line. He won’t junk the stick until the Death ray proves itself 100% reliable..

The basic problem with the M14 versus FN comparison is that strong points in one platform is not found in the other. So it becomes a choice, of what do you like. Apples or Oranges.

We might have been better off adopting the FN. As good a job the Ordnance Department did in promoting its in house design against the FN, they could not hold the line against Colt. Colt hired lobbyists, besmirched the M14, lobbied Generals, Congressional Staff, and Congressmen, with Broads, Booze, and Beefsteak. The Ordnance Department is totally outgunned in the political area by Commercial contractors. There is no line item in Government Contracts for lobbying, pay off's and corruption. So, in the end we got the M16 through a top down decision from the Office of Secretary of Defense. The FN might have been able to survive the lies of the Colt lobbyists, and we would still have an effective rifle in inventory.

If you notice, DoD really does not have any inhouse design bureaus. The era is over when DoD produced inhouse designs that took profits from contractors. DoD just puts “requirements” out on the street and has a competition between contractors. Since all contractors fully fund Politicians, snatching a program from Defense Contractor A and giving it to Defense Contractor B turns out to be a fight between Congressional interests. Closest thing to a fair fight in the Acquisition process.

 

[BigG]

Well, yeah, Slamfire, maybe so - but the Colt was superior to the M14.

 

[RNB65]

Politics, politics, politics. Good old boy cronyism at it's finest.

The M14 is based on the M1 which was designed by John Garand. The same John Garand who happened to be an employee of the US Army's Springfield Armory.

Coincidence? I think not.

 

[def4pos8]

I'll have to return to using my old sign-off of "More to follow, break break". John Garand retired from Springfield Armory in 1953. He did some work on the T-25 rifle for Mathewson Tool Co, designing the magazine. This magazine was eventually adopted for the T-44/M-14, helping to solve a feed problem. The T-48/FAL was NOT a perfected system at that time. Failures in the dust tests resulted in addition of "sand cuts" in the bolt assembly. Both rifles were "works in progress" during the '50s. Pork barrel issues were more related to selection of production contractors. Personally, I believe selection of the FAL in '54 or so would have been the way to go. We would have put an, ultimately, more effective battle rifle into the hands of troops faster and the system would have remained in service longer. R. Blake Stevens provides exhaustive accounts of each weapon.

 

[otomik]

The story is told by R. Blake Stevens in "U.S Rifle M14 -- from John Garand to the M21" published by Collector Grade Publications. Short version: The Army was all but ready to go with the T-48 (FAL) until it fared badly during cold weather testing and dust testing. They let themselves settle for something more familiar. The T-44 was an M-1 modified, primarily, with a 20-round box magazine and the Harvey/White gas system. Adopted as the M-14, it had a painful development and production history. SecDef MacNamara bagged it for the M-16 but it continues to serve to this day.

I think at the time McNamara was still at Ford trying to stop the Edsel.

Springfield Armory also told the US government that the M14 could be produced on Garand tooling, I've heard. I've also heard that this turned out not to be true.

I wonder...if the US would've adopted a variant of the FAL and the FAL-O automatic rifle, how long would it have been before going to the intermediate cartridge weapons? One of the reasons they wanted the M16 was because the M14 was unsuited for automatic fire, and the M15 automatic rifle variant was more or less a failure.

I'm willing to bet it woudl've pushed back the movement to adopt a 5.56mm rifle twenty years.

I'm not sure about the tooling, though the similar Italian BM-59 was made out of Garand parts and served up until the nineties. Are you saying that the FAL is more suited to automatic fire than the M14? I don't see a significant difference though the AR10 was more suited to automatic fire.

 

[Limeyfellow]

And some of us are still bitter we didn't get out 7mm British Fals. Silly Generals.

But yes mainly politics and not wanting outsiders designs in by the US ordinance department and the Springfield Armory.

 

[Lucky]

How is the FAL with scope mounts? M14 was clearly designed with them in mind, I found this period picture but can't tell what the mount is.

 

[Slamfire]

“BG: Well, yeah, Slamfire, maybe so - but the Colt was superior to the M14.”

Sir: I do not have a M14. I have a number of match M1a’s. I also have a number of match AR15’s. I received two of my Legs, Silver and Gold, with Match AR’s, and got my final Leg and a Regional Gold with a M1a. From a target shooters perspective, the AR is superior due to less recoil.

However, I would rather carry a GI configuration M14 in a combat zone. It is just a preference, I would choose the apple over the orange, but it is a preference based on familiarity with both platforms and cartridges. Almost every Vietnam veteran that I have had the chance to talk to, and last week I was visiting this issue with an office mate who falls into this category, if they were in Vietnam around 1966 or so, and had trained on the M14, they thought the M14 a more reliable rifle and preferred it over the M16’s. They liked the power of the 308 round, as the 308 would penetrate brush and trees far better than the .223, which caused more causalities to Charlie. The one point of superiority for the M16 everyone agrees on is that you could carry more .223 rounds than 308.

But this issue has been hashed out before ad nauseam and desires a separate thread.

 

[Nightcrawler]

Are you saying that the FAL is more suited to automatic fire than the M14?

Yes. The M14's biggest drawback in this regard was its very high cyclic rate. Also, a pistol grip stock aids in control.

However, the FAL-O heavy-barrel served as a squad automatic weapon for decades, in both Inch and Metric patters. (FAL-O metric, L2A2 inch, and the Israelis had their own version.) The M15, the variant of the M14 intended for this role, was a failure. The lack of a squad automatic weapon is one of the things that pushed the Army towards a true assault rifle, I think.

Of course, the M16 doesn't make for much of a SAW either. In truth, the gap left by the passing of the BAR wasn't filled until the adoption of the M249 SAW in the 1980s. Had we taken the FAL, we'd have had a squad automatic weapon to fill the gap between the individual rifleman and the M60-gunner.

(Of course, we should've adopted the FN MAG, now known as the M240, instead of the M60 back in 1960, but that's another matter for another debate.)

 

[otomik]

Of course, the M16 doesn't make for much of a SAW either. In truth, the gap left by the passing of the BAR wasn't filled until the adoption of the M249 SAW in the 1980s. Had we taken the FAL, we'd have had a squad automatic weapon to fill the gap between the individual rifleman and the M60-gunner.

I see your point, the ar15 lack of range and heat build up due to direct gas has prevented it from filling that role. Given weight of the FAL compared to the M14 and AR10 and opfor's AKM as well as the lack of accuracy of the FAL compared to the M14, this alternate history trade has some downsides.

 

[Nightcrawler]

The stock service FAL wiith ball ammunition and open sights offers no less practical accuracy than an M14. The sights are rougher, but they're no less useful for practical combat applications.

Nor is a FAL any heavier than an M14. Given similar barrel profiles the FAL and M14 weigh about the same.

 

[Langenator]

What would have been really interesting is if the Infantry Board & Trials Board had prevailed over the Ordnance Board and the Army had gone with the EM-2/No. 9 Mk I and the 7mm.

Of course, if that had been the case, the M1 Garand would probably still rule the National Matches.

 

[HorseSoldier]

If you notice, DoD really does not have any inhouse design bureaus.

But they no longer have such primarily because of lackluster design work in the 1950s. The M14 was a very pedestrian update of the Garand when what we needed was an assault rifle, the M60 was a so-so design, and the M73 coax machinegun was an utter failure. Ordnance dug its own grave by refusing to keep pace with the times.

 

[MJ]

I'm going to tell you the real reason and I won't debate it.

I was attending a lecture at the armament command school at Ft. Sill. The speaker was a guy named Marshall who was some history writter from WW2 and Korea. The lecture was on Communist weapons and tactics vs US weapons and the system of procurement. He talked about the process of slection or lack of one, and had both the FN abd M14 as well as M16's recovered from Gen Moor's little party on display. He was caustic about the selection board and called them backward lookers several times.

He also had stories from WW2 and Viet Nam where he had interviewed troops and armorers down to company level. He did favor the FN and when asked why the M14 was selected he stated that the Generals could not work out the manual of arms whith the FN so they picked the M14 because I performed better in drill and no US soldier will ever parade at sling arms in their Army. This was as good as any reason we heard in the ten weeks I was there.

This was in 1966. And this was one sharp man and while he was dressed in street cloths he held a high military rank. He was an oserver of some sort at Tarawa and Sipan so he impressed us yougsters in a big way. I go with this reason as I can just see a bunch of geezers doing this to the guys in the mud.

Cheers
MJ

 

[Vern Humphrey]

I was attending a lecture at the armament command school at Ft. Sill. The speaker was a guy named Marshall who was some history writter from WW2 and Korea. The lecture was on Communist weapons and tactics vs US weapons and the system of procurement.

That's SLA Marshall, who has been shown a fake. He faked his famous "study" about firing in combat, he lied -- repeatedly -- about his own combat experience and as long as he lived, his story kept changing.