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

[Bwana John]

OK. Ill say it.

Because the M-14 is "better" than the standard 50.00 FAL.

Why?, cause I can shoot it "better".
(and this is coming from sombody thats got 4 FALs and one M-1A).

Now if we are talkin 50.63 Id take the FAL

 

[Limeyfellow]

OK. Ill say it.

Because the M-14 is "better" than the standard 50.00 FAL.

Why?, cause I can shoot it "better".
(and this is coming from sombody thats got 4 FALs and one M-1A).

Now if we are talkin 50.63 Id take the FAL

Except the M1a has alot more care done in fitting and bedding the rifle and other work to make it far more accurate than the standard M14. To pass qualification for the M14 to be accepted by the ordinance department it merely required to be able to pass a 4 moa accuracy test. The same is true with the M16s too. Sure many can beat this accuracy but in the default military weapons its not a flat out requirement that they do so.

Accuracy between the M14 and Fal tend to both fall inbetween 2-4moa most regularly without extra work done on them to improve it.

 

[otomik]

Welll, that's one non-US country which paid money for it...any others?

sure, you also want to count the Norinco M14 used frequently by the muslim rebel groups of the philipines. In the same way that the Armalite AR-18 is mentioned with the IRA. Are you complaining that this is some quibbling point? you're the one writing books.

The M14 came nowhere - nearly all of the ones seen in foreign hands were, I believe, donated free of charge from surplus US stocks.

There are problems with this sweeping statement.

 

[Vern Humphrey]

Having used both the M1 and M14 in combat, and having worked with Aussies armed with the FAL, I'll go with the M14 every time. It has fewer parts, is more rugged, less susceptible to stoppages due to mud, crud, and sand. It also has a self-adjusting gas system and uses a short-stroke piston to smooth out its functioning. It works. It works under conditions that would stop a FAL cold.

 

[kentucky_smith]

I've always thought of FAL's being equal to an AK in reliability.




http://www.falfiles.com/forums/show...p;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;perpage=50&pagenumber=1

 

[FerFAL]

The FAL is more rugged than the M14 and more user friendly, but the M14 was made in USA, and the FAL was made in Belgium. The M14 is a bit more accurate, mostly because of better sights.
Both are outstanding weapons, but the FAL was created by the 2nd greatest genius in firearm history. The guy has the FAL AND much of the Browning Hi Power to his credit. Hard to argue with that.

It works under conditions that would stop a FAL cold.

Sorry, don’t think so. You need to check out more FALs.
Check out ol’dirty and then find a M14 that tolerated ½ of that kind of abuse.

FerFAL

 

[Vern Humphrey]

the FAL was created by the 2nd greatest genius in firearm history. The guy has the FAL AND much of the Browning Hi Power to his credit. Hard to argue with that.

The quality of a weapon, particularly a combat weapon, is determined by how well it performs in combat, not who designed it.

Sorry, don’t think so. You need to check out more FALs.
Check out ol’dirty and then find a M14 that tolerated ½ of that kind of abuse.

Were all those rounds fired in combat? After wading through rice paddies and spending several nights in the open in the jungle?

I've seen both the M14 and FAL (and the M1, too) perform in combat.

 

[Tony Williams]

sure, you also want to count the Norinco M14 used frequently by the muslim rebel groups of the philipines.

No, when counting sales to other countries I don't include use by insurgent groups - they take whatever they can get.

Are you complaining that this is some quibbling point? you're the one writing books.

You've lost me there. The point I was making is simply that one measure of success is the number of other countries which selected the weapon in a competitive market. By that reckoning, the FAL was highly successful, the G3 almost as much so, but the M14 came third by a long way.

 

[otomik]

No Lucky, Macnamara was genuinely a pompous idiot.

i disagree

The F4, A6, opposition to the expanded acquisition of the F-104 (the only US fighter of the time that could face a MiG-21 on the MiG's terms and beat it),

well I was just reading after Nightcrawlers post that the A4 is used at Top Gun to mimic the Mig-21's manueverability. The F-4 turned out to be a fine fighter when you add guns. I don't think "facing a mig-21 on the mig's terms" is wise, Thach weave defeated the Zero.

the M-16 initial issue fiasco, and above all, domino theory.

As someone already pointed out, it's doubtful McNamara was dictating small issue items to go with the m-16. If you really want to blame domino theory you're going to have to explain how south vietnam did not turn communist after american support left, and how neither did laos or cambodia.

What did the man do as SecDef that DIDN'T turn into a fiasco?

The Cuban Missile Crisis

 

[_N4Z_]

Gotta go with Vern on this one.

Reliability AK > M14 > FAL

In my experience the FAL is a good rifle, but not as reliable as an AK.

Also lets throw a little more history on it circa 1960's Israel.

The Israeli FAL first saw action in relatively small quantities during the Suez Crisis of 1956, and by the Six-Day War in June 1967, it was the standard Israeli rifle. During the Yom Kippur War of October 1973 it was still in front-line service as the standard Israeli rifle, though increasing criticism eventually led to the phaseout of the weapon. Israeli forces were primarily mechanized in nature, and the long length and heavy weight of the FAL slowed deployment drills and proved exceedingly difficult to handle within the confines of a vehicle. Additionally, Israeli forces experienced repeated jamming of the FAL due to heavy sand ingress in the Middle Eastern deserts, requiring repeated field-strip and cleaning of the rifle, sometimes while under fire. During combat, it was found that many Israeli soldiers would discard the FAL in preference to captured AK-47s, American M16A1 rifles, or Uzi submachine guns. The rifle was eventually replaced by the M16 and the 5.56 x 45mm IMI Galil.

Yep.

 

[FerFAL]

The quality of a weapon, particularly a combat weapon, is determined by how well it performs in combat, not who designed it.

Well, a guy called Browning designed some really nice stuff, buy/borrow a bunch of it and try it out, and I’m not only talking about 1911s. Same can be said about Mr. Saive. Genius design genial weapons, and those perform well in combat.
Besides, now FALs and Hi Powers are not battle proven weapons????

Were all those rounds fired in combat? After wading through rice paddies and spending several nights in the open in the jungle?

I've seen both the M14 and FAL (and the M1, too) perform in combat.

No, not rice paddies and “several nights in the open in the jungle”, much worse.
I saw someone else post about this same FAL, Ol dirty, which is well documented with text and pics over at falfiles.com, did you check it out? I’d like to see similar documentation on M14 torture tests.

FerFAL

 

[otomik]

The point I was making is simply that one measure of success is the number of other countries which selected the weapon in a competitive market. By that reckoning, the FAL was highly successful, the G3 almost as much so, but the M14 came third by a long way.

This one measure of success is highly biased against countries like the US. The Garand was horrible because nobody bought it, the AR15 is horrible because nobody bought it. You're always competing against clones and weapons dumped into a countries lap because a certain nation is trying to build influence. Weapons sales are not much of a free market at all.

 

[FerFAL]

Additionally, Israeli forces experienced repeated jamming of the FAL due to heavy sand ingress in the Middle Eastern deserts, requiring repeated field-strip and cleaning of the rifle, sometimes while under fire. During combat, it was found that many Israeli soldiers would discard the FAL in preference to captured AK-47s, American M16A1 rifles, or Uzi submachine guns. The rifle was eventually replaced by the M16 and the 5.56 x 45mm IMI Galil.

Yup... Israelis are the only ones in the world, out of +90 countries that used the FAL, that had problems with sand and FALs… because of the sand… so they switched to M16 that are much more reliable than FALs… and they get them for free from USA…
Afghans paid good money for their FM FALs. They were very pleased with them. Never been to Afghanistan but I bet there’s plenty of sand there, of all kinds, including the very thin one that’s supposed to destroy FALs.
Guys, lets not forget about politics and economics here.

FerFAL

 

[Number 6]

Yup... Israelis are the only ones in the world, out of +90 countries that used the FAL, that had problems with sand and FALs… because of the sand… so they switched to M16 that are much more reliable than FALs… and they get them for free from USA…

They actually first designed and went for the AK derived Galil, but then opted for the M16.

 

[Lone_Gunman]

Vern, it sounds like you have some experience in real situations with the FAL, and have some issues with it compared to the M14. But are those issues enough to keep you from carrying an FAL at all?

Or, are there specific situations (eg desert) where you would be afraid to carry a FAL, but be Ok with it in other sitations?

If you were in a situation where sand was not an issue, but dirt, mud, water, etc might be (or lets say an urban combat situation), would you be OK with using a FAL?

 

[Tony Williams]

This one measure of success is highly biased against countries like the US. The Garand was horrible because nobody bought it, the AR15 is horrible because nobody bought it. You're always competing against clones and weapons dumped into a countries lap because a certain nation is trying to build influence. Weapons sales are not much of a free market at all.

That certainly applied to countries collecting free AKs from the USSR (or Israel getting free M16s from the USA) but the FAL and G3 were widely purchased, using real money. I'm not aware of Germany or Belgium giving any away, although they certainly agreed to licence production (for a fee, of course).

Anyway, if you ask anyone outside the US about countries which have used political and economic power and influence to win commercial defence contracts, they'll assume you're talking about the USA

 

[Lucky]

It's also possible that places like the Duchy of Grand Fenwick wanted to preserve their status as non-hostile to either superpower. When it comes to buying arms, I'm curious just how many countries really base their decisions on ultimate performance and value, compared to politics.

Look at Venezuela, they had arms tests going on for years, but irregardless Chavez up and ordered not just rifles but a rifle factory from Russia, in an obvious move to demonstrate political leanings and allegiances. Or more specifically to demonstrate who he doesn't like.


FerFal the Israel comment is not wrong. It's not widely known but Israel first designed the Galil in 7.62Nato, specifically to replace the FAL. Only later was it scaled down to fire 5.56. And as you well know Israel was NOT picky about what weapons they got or who from, so if they replaced the FAL after a HOT war, there must be something to it. At least a little.

 

[MechAg94]

Going back to a previous comment, my Dad trained with an M14 and received an M16 while in Vietnam. He said he liked the M14 a lot, but he appreciated the light weight of rifle/ammo of the M16. He said he would rather starve than run out of ammo and he could carry a lot more ammo in .223. He said he never had any reliability problems, but he was in a maintenance battalion so I his use of it was different. He also shot his Colt carbine one handed which he pointed out you obviously can't do with an M14 though that may not be something to desire in a rifle.

 

[MechAg94]

Regarding McNamara and M16 details, it seems I remember in almost every show on the adoption of the M16, they talk about how McNamara's guys nitpicked all the changes the ordnance department wanted like chrome plating of the bore and such. McNamara himself may not have messed with details, but I think his whiz kids did.

 

[Neo-Luddite]

Our Army could've been carrying M1 Garands and Single Action Army revolvers and the outcome wouldn't have been different in the least for the Iraqi Army.



OK then--ask Joe if he would like to be armed in that manner---see how many takers you get. Joe's outcome may have differed. *BOTH* weapons mentioned are MUCH more powerful round for round than the current M-4 / M-9 offering. Make that .45LC a 1911, and the choice for the pair becomes very easy for many.

And back to the point of this thread----put yourself at Chosin---Do you want a FAL or an M-1/M-14 in that manner of horrible cold?

 

[Limeyfellow]

Regarding McNamara and M16 details, it seems I remember in almost every show on the adoption of the M16, they talk about how McNamara's guys nitpicked all the changes the ordnance department wanted like chrome plating of the bore and such. McNamara himself may not have messed with details, but I think his whiz kids did.

It was the ordinance department that decided to scrap the chrome lined barrel as a big fu to McNamara and company, along with the other changes.

 

[Nightcrawler]

OK then--ask Joe if he would like to be armed in that manner---see how many takers you get. Joe's outcome may have differed. *BOTH* weapons mentioned are MUCH more powerful round for round than the current M-4 / M-9 offering. Make that .45LC a 1911, and the choice for the pair becomes very easy for many.

So what are you saying? The 1911 and the Garand are preferable to the M16 an the M9, or not?

Here's the point I was trying to make. The vast majority of Joes in the first Gulf War never fired a shot an Iraqi soldier. Not even once.

Why? Because Saddam hunkered his Army down, dug trenches, and expected our Army to slog through it all. Instead we bombed his ass for six weeks. After that onslaught, in which something like thirty thousand Iraqi soldiers were killed, the majority of the survivors wanted to surrender.

Of course having modern weapons will help the soldier in a firefight. But single firefights rarely determine the outcome of battles, and individual battles rarely determine the outcome of the war.

Machine guns are more important than rifles. If your squad has all AR-15s, and no support weapons, you'll likely have a hard time defeating an opposing squad that has M1 Garands but a pair of belt-fed machine guns. Magazine-fed weapons can't compete with belt-feds in the fire support role. As a general rule, given equal training, the side with the most machine guns and other heavy weapons will win. Mortars, light artillery, things like that...these determine which side wins battles. Then there's the support provided by infantry fighting vehicles, tanks, helicopters, and jets.

On the flipside, imagine the Germans in 1944 magically being re-armed with HK33 .223 rifles and HK21 .308 machine guns, replacing all of their Mausers, MGs, MP-40s, etc. The Allies would've had a tougher go in some firefights, but it wouldn't have changed the outcome of the war. They were still overstretched and being constatly pounded from the air, trying to fight a war on two fronts without the industrial base to maintain it. Those HK33s wouldn't have helped them against the relentless Allied bombing campaign, nor would they have stopped the thousands of Soviet T-34s coming at them from the East.

Now, keep the Mausers and the MP40s, but replace the Me-109 with the F-4F Phantom that (I believe) the Germans still use and their Panzer tanks with Leopard IIIs.

Now all of a sudden the Allied tanks don't have a ghost of a chance (their shells literally bouncing off the armor of a modern tank), and our fighters and bombers are being massacred in the air. Germany now can stop the onslaught, catch its breath, and regain the initiative.

Do you see what I'm saying?

It's intersting to note that despite the Germans having inferior rifles (the manually operated Mauser can't compete with the autoloading Garand), our infantry and theirs were pretty evenly matched. Although our rifles could maintain a higher rate of fire, they had lighter and more mobile machine guns, and that had a decisive edge many times. Their downfall was they couldn't produce enough of them to matter. However, they were the first to use the "universal" (general purpose) machine gun now used by every army in the world, while we were getting by with overly heavy, magazine-fed automatic rifles and tripod-mounted medium machine guns (both holdovers from the Great War).

As for the M1/M14 vs. FAL in cold...it gets every bit as cold in Upper Michigan as it does anyplace in Korea. I never had a problem with my STG. The Canadians used the C1A1 inch-FAL variant for decades, and they know a thing or two about cold weather, I'm sure. You just don't use lube, is all (because the lube turns to thick goo and gums things up). The FAL will run dry.

I don't think either the M14 or the FAL have an advantage over each other in the reliability department. I do think the FAL is more soldier-proof than the M14, but both rifles reflected neatly the doctrines and attitudes of the armies that adopted them. Each one probably has quirks and disadvantages that the operator needs to be aware of, though.

As for the Israelis, I have no idea. They, with their domestically-produced FAL variant, are the only ones that seemed to have had much problem with it.

 

[kcmarine]

Time to sum this up.


Pol. i. tics.

 

[nemoaz]

while we were getting by with overly heavy, magazine-fed automatic rifles and tripod-mounted medium machine guns (both holdovers from the Great War).

Everything is a holdover from the Great War or the Second Great War. That's the way Americans think, especially the gunrag commandos who pine for old obsolete weapons like 1911s or M1s. Hell, the 1911 was obsolete in 1942 and was despised by the troops who would much rather grab a carbine with its superior power and accuracy. Revisionist history is prevalent.

Back to FAL vs. M14- the Ordnance Dept was not going to have a foreign design. It's as simple as that. Besides, in this case, the M14 was certainly a competent MBR, so I don't have any problem with the decision. (As far as Cetme/G3 vs. FAL vs. M14, it's basically a toss up as far as I'm concerned.) But the Ordnance people should have been imprisoned or executed for removing the chrome bore and chamber, changing the 5.56 poweder, and issuing the M16 without a cleaning kit. That was at least gross negligence if not willful malfeasance resulting in the death of thousands of GIs.

 

[Tony Williams]

On the Israeli FAL experience, I have a vague recollection of reading (although I can't point to a source) that they did indeed have problems with sand and dust, and that as a result some cuts were added to critical parts of the action to allow the sand to escape. That was supposed to have solved the problem, and became a standard feature of new production thereafter.