Why not the FN/FAL over the M14 and AR-10?

[HorseSoldier]

Actually Germany adopted the FAL as the G-1 before the G-3. The G-3 only got adopted to replace it because the 1950s Belgian government was a bit skeptical about giving the Germans a production license for the FAL due to some sort of diplomatic hullabaloo in the early/mid 1940s the Belgians were still upset about.

 

[LemmyCaution]

some sort of diplomatic hullabaloo in the early/mid 1940s

Well, that's about the apotheosis of understatement.

 

[451 Detonics]

A Metric FAL has pretty good sights, and definitely better than a L1A1 pattern, but they still take tools to adjust, and the sight radius isn't as good.

For me I have discovered with a aperture rear sight as long I have 18 inches or so of sight radius I am as good as I would be with a longer radius, sort of a case of diminishing returns. Another nice thing is the number of different buttstock options for the FAL. With the M1A you don't have as many and it can be easier to fit the FAL to some folks.

 

[Stevie-Ray]

The only personal experience I have concerning the accuracy of an FAL is with my Springfield SAR-4800. It's has no discernible deficit in the accuracy department.

I would say the same for my SAR-48HB. I would definitely put it up against a M1A or AR10 for accuracy. I did, though, have a gentleman put a few rounds through it that said it was the most accurate FAL he'd ever shot.

 

[Slamfire]

I think the AR10 has the potential to be the most accurate of these rifles, mainly due to the multilugged bolt which evenly divides the load. However accuracy is only one aspect of a battle rifle, and the accuracy of the M14 and FAL are perfectly adequate for troops for whom training budgets are cut in favor of major weapon system procurements.

No AR10 type rifle has either the development time or actual combat experience of either the M14 or FAL. We have no real idea how it will perform in dust, wet, cold, etc. We know that the other rifles performed well in world wide environments, and in the hands of soldiers.

My favorite is the M1a. I like the sights, the trigger. The FAL is a very clever rifle, no special tools for field or detailed maintenance. My M1a requires a wrench for the gas cylinder lock screw, the FAL, is a lot easier to take apart and clean.

FAL’s were not cheap and that is the reason they have gone out of inventory. A gentleman whose opinion I respect told me a FAL receiver is more complicated to make than a M14. In terms of today’s money, the FN FAL’s brought into the US in the 70’s would cost $3,000. That is a lot of money.

It is ironic that only the G3 is still a front line weapon, apparently in production in Pakistan for one. Yes there are limited M14’s out there, but Clinton destroyed virtually all US inventory, what is being fielded now were in the hands of Police Departments and were called back. I suspect less than 20,000 survived the Clinton administration.

 

[PowerJoker6.0]

as someone said above Boston's Gun Bible is an awesome book to have that covers this very topic in depth. unfortunately i have never had the opportunity to fire a FAL-type rifle so alas, my personal knowledge on the subject is lacking. but based on my experience with the M1A thus far, i would gather that the author of the book definitely knows what he's talking about.

 

[Fullboar1]

Sorry SharpsDressedMan for taking your thread off topic

FN made M16A2's, which is still in service in larger numbers than the M4. Colt hasn't been the only supplier. Others include the Hydramatic Division of GM, and Harrington and Richardson.

Yes the M16 has been made by 3 other manufacturers besides Colt, but they have been made under licence (from Colt) so they would have made something out of it. The M4 has ONLY been made by Colt.

Instead of cranking out a completely bogus rant filled conspiracy

It's not a bogus conspiracy, It a documented FACT.

I mentioned the L129A1 recently adopted for Brit snipers, were you aware the SAS adopted the M16 decades ago? They abandoned the FNFAL because it's inferior and no longer met the demands of modern combat.

The reason the FAL was dropped was because the UK wanted to adopt the 5.56 Nato round and like our SAS they mostly work with and are supplied by US forces. While you say the FAL is inferior and the AR is the be all and end all of a battle rifle it doesnt make it so. Although "I think" the AR is a good platform it like the FAL does have it's short comings and just because the US uses the AR that doesn't make it the ONLY rifle to own. Everytime the US spends millions and millions on a replacement for the M4/M16 and actually feilds a rifle that through testing is more reliable (superior) it gets canned for some bogus political reason or no reason at all.
Like I said before the FAL was one of the most (if not the most) widely used battle rifles in the world for a good reason.

 

[fragout]

There are approximately 170,000 M14 service rifles that remain in the U.S. military.

This is left from the total delivered number of 1,376,031.

Around 450,000 were given away to other countries, while about 750,000 were destroyed by my own government.

After owning, and testing the FAL and HK91 up against the M14S/M1A, I ended up preferring the latter in the end, and sold off the others.( AR10 didnt make it this far at the time)

Most of my reasons were personal preference..... ie...... I shoot the M14 types better than the others mentioned, but here is some other things that swayed my decision in the end.....

1. I used 10 different factory loads though all 3 designs, and the M14 shot most of them better off the bench vs the other 2, and was less finicky overall.

2. There are more options when it comes to stock design as comparison to the others.

3. Location of the safety, charging handle, mag release, etc....... make the design my choice over the others. ( Of all things tested, this was the biggest difference)

4. Iron sights.


Note: This was not a scientific test by any means, but the plan was to make it as fair and consistent as possible with the variables.

Here is how I rank them concerning the battle rifle role.
1. M14
2. FAL
3. G3
4. AR


11B

 

[Tirod]

UK wanted to adopt the 5.56 Nato round and like our SAS they mostly work with and are supplied by US forces.

This is precisely the misinformation that strains any credibility of other comments. We don't supply the armed forces of other nations. They gather their own taxes and buy their own gear. The L129A1 is the example, a paid contract to a NON COLT suppler.

Colt does not supply every Stoner design ever made, it just wants royalties for it's developmental and technical support. The US Government bought the TDP precisely to allow others to submit to milspec. It makes the parts interchangeable regardless of source. That's a good thing, you can order lowers, uppers, barrels, and trigger parts from completely different sources and still get a functioning milspec firearm as a result.

The FNFAL, no, it was either inch or metric. That makes two different firearms, and truth be known, the huge list of countries that did adopt it is much much smaller when you bother to check and see who still uses it. Not many at all.

If there is a fault to the AR10, it is that it suffers the same problem - there isn't a single spec of standards to control dimensions, so various makers change things to suit themselves. Not even uppers and lowers are universally interchangeable, and mag wells aren't 100% compatible - just like FAL's.

If someone want's to keep taking the thread off topic with opinions on the Colt monolithic domination of military firearms, and completely ignores the fact they lost that domination for a significant contract, go do it in a more appropriate thread. The facts are clear, and we really aren't focused on the M4. It's about the AR10, FNFAL, and other retro battle rifles no longer used or even issue.

Most armies of the world use intermediate caliber automatic firing lightweight rifles and carbines. The few .30 cal battle rifles used are almost never shot full auto, and are generally in limited numbers in a support role. If the job requires a 600-800m shot, with lethal results, it takes a skilled and trained marksman who practices weekly at least. That's not the average soldier, and quite honestly, most shooters can't and don't even try to keep up. They just own the gun because they can, not because they are.

 

[BeJaRa]

I have shot all three and for me the sights are the biggest factor between the guns. For irons I feel the M1A/M14 wins hands down, for optics the AR10. both the M1a and the FAL are very reliable guns and every AR10 I have shot has been reliable, but picky about ammo.

 

[skipbo32]

the M14 is rugged and accurate and the AR is ergonomic and very accurate. i always felt like the FAL was a combo of those two guns.....(closer to the M14 however).

if i had one to choose, id take the M14 and not look back.

if someone had an AR10 and a M14, id say they have the best of both worlds, so why have a FAL....?

if i had to choose in order however, it would be:

M14
FAL
AR10 (a distant 3rd......i think a battle rifle should be as rugged as it is accurate)

 

[451 Detonics]

1. I used 10 different factory loads though all 3 designs, and the M14 shot most of them better off the bench vs the other 2, and was less finicky overall.

Just about every load I have shot through my FAL equals the groups shot through my M1A

2. There are more options when it comes to stock design as comparison to the others.

I wasn't aware there were that many stock options for the M1A, DSA alone offers about a dozen different buttstocks and the are quite a few different style pistol grips

3. Location of the safety, charging handle, mag release, etc....... make the design my choice over the others. ( Of all things tested, this was the biggest difference)

Mag release is in the same place and I prefer the receiver mounted safety of the FAL. I will never forget the look on my brother's face when he shoved the safety off on my M1A while wearing gloves and had an AD (into the berm). As fa as the charging handle I guess it is personal preference but I like it on the left. This allows the right hand to stay on the pistol grip allowing more leverage to work the action.

4. Iron sights.

The M1A's are easier to adjust but once adjusted the FAL's work just as well for me. I sighted the iron's in on my FAL 4 years ago and haven't had to touch them since.

On a combat long arm I really do prefer the pistol grip stock. My AR's of course have them, my FAL, my CETME, and my 1100 all have them as well. I like the way it positions the hand and, more importantly the trigger finger, for a straight pull to the rear. I also prefer both the FAL and the CETME for ease of cleaning in the field.

I think you will find 90% of these things are a matter of personal choice, much like picking a Dodge or a Ford when you go truck shopping. Everyone has their own set of personal likes and dislikes.

 

[henschman]

Most armies of the world use intermediate caliber automatic firing lightweight rifles and carbines. The few .30 cal battle rifles used are almost never shot full auto, and are generally in limited numbers in a support role. If the job requires a 600-800m shot, with lethal results, it takes a skilled and trained marksman who practices weekly at least. That's not the average soldier, and quite honestly, most shooters can't and don't even try to keep up. They just own the gun because they can, not because they are.

Yeah, it's funny how our military's main service rifle, and the 5.56 round in general, was adopted for controllability on full auto, but now most M-16s and M-4s don't even have a full auto trigger group -- they have a 3 round burst -- and our soldiers are trained not to use it. Other than the SAW's/LMG's, almost all shots in combat are fired in semi auto. The armed forces learned in Vietnam that "spray and pray" is not a very effective technique. Thank Mr. McNamara and his whiz kids for that... they're the one that came up with the theory that "more rounds in the air equals more casualties." They didn't realize that this is only true for WELL PLACED SHOTS.

It doesn't take weekly practice to be able to make a 600-800 yard shot with a .30 battle rifle. It DOES take some solid training in the fundamentals of rifle marksmanship... which is, admittedly, not something our armed forces do particularly well, with the possible exception of the Marines. You DO have to know your dope for different distances, and know some rules of thumb for compensating for wind (and some experience putting them into practice), all of which involves a little bit of trigger time... which our military is too cheap to give our soldiers very much of, unfortunately. That kind of skill could certainly be taught on a widespread level if it was deemed important enough though.

When Appleseed trained an Army unit at White Sands Missile Range, they had them making good hits at 600m with M4 carbines after a week.

Which is why I say it's not so important what rifle you have... it's much more important to have the skill set to go with it! Any of the .30 battle rifles should be absolute killing machines at 600m if you know how to properly put them to use. Heck, at 600 even a 5.56 could probably at least make you have to go to the hospital and get some stitches!

 

[USSR]

As an aside, has anybody noticed all the FAL's in the hands of the Libyan rebels?

Don

 

[Remo223]

Since no privately owned rifle will ever be anything but a single fire target shooter or hunting rifle, all this talk of battle proven yada yada is irrelevant.

Thus we are left with ergonomics, accuracy, and ease of break down/cleaning as relevant parameters.

Do I really need to say what rifle wins hands down given the parameters?

AR

 

[henschman]

Interesting opinion Remo223. I don't consider myself that much of a subject. I believe in being prepared to go to war if necessary. It's the American way.

and yes, I have noticed all the FAL's in Libya... it looks like it is usually the older, wiser guys who are packing them! The FAL also appears to be what the Brazillian cops are using, judging by the pictures on the school shooting story. I like this pic:



Notice how all the men have FAL's and the little woman cop has a CAR-15, lol.

 

[HorseSoldier]

The Brazilians use a 5.56mm service rifle based on the FAL (which was previous standard issue), though some of the guns in that photo look like the real deals. Brazilian police do still use lots of hand me downs, even in their elite paramilitary wings like BOPE, so an Imbel FAL in their hands might indicate preference or might indicate that while it's not the best rifle for the job they're using it for, it's the only option they were given (kind of like <<cough>> M14 based DMRs <<cough>>).

It doesn't take weekly practice to be able to make a 600-800 yard shot with a .30 battle rifle.

Um, it takes something pretty special, since in real (non-notional, non-benchrest, non-NRA High Power competition across mowed grass) firefights 600-800 yard hits are only slightly more common than surprise airdrops of cadbury chocolate eggs and peeps from a C130 piloted by the Easter Bunny . . .

When Appleseed trained an Army unit at White Sands Missile Range, they had them making good hits at 600m with M4 carbines after a week.

So what? I spent time in a unit where we had the range time, bullets, toys and luxury of making sure everyone we could get to the range (support guys, not just the secret squirrels) could ring steel chest plates out to the ballistic limits of M4s, ACOGs, and Mk 262 ammo all day long until it just got boring. Six hundred meters with an M4 on the range? Yawn, did that already, get back on that after I see if the burgers are ready on the grill (well, until range control found out about the barbecue . . .).

But, see above comment -- range time and combat performance are not the same. For combat shooting -- and sorry for hurting peoples' feelings -- Appleseed is a great big and only semi-funny joke that isn't teaching killing skills. I'm disturbed some nitwit officer wasted his guys' time and unit ammo allocation in that direction when there are much better ways to train guys to get steel and/or lead on target.

 

[Grunt Medic TXARNG]

Medic as well as the Knights M110 I thought your armed forces were trialing some other AR-10 type variant like the
HK 417 and the Scar 17.

Our conventional forces, no. Our Special Operations Forces (and yours as well) are constantly issuing new variants and designs of all types of weapons for research, development and trials. The SEALs, USMC Reconnaissance and Force Recon, Special Forces, the SEAL DEVGRU and CAG/Delta all get to play with all kinds of developmental and non type classified weapons and equipment. I stand by my statements regarding the gear issued to our conventional military forces - although I'm willing to be corrected if someone here has direct experience to the contrary.

 

[HorseSoldier]

There's a sniper/DMR version of the Mk 17 that SOCOM is presently super excited about, which may be the rifle in question. The (circa '08, when I got out of the AD side) plan was that the Mk 16 would be the work horse with the Mk 17 primarily intended to replace the SR-25 but also any other applications where 7.62x51 was needful. Obviously there have been some bumps in that road, and I'm not read in on the latest and greatest stuff going on behind the curtain . . .

 

[451 Detonics]

I swear this thread has been hijacked more than a French cruise ship sailing past Somalia...

Appleseed is a great big and only semi-funny joke that isn't teaching killing skills.

Spoken like someone who couldn't earn their rifleman patch...

Before you can teach "killing skills" (not real sure what those are btw) you have to teach the basics. Appleseeds do this, they teach proper sight usage, proper cheek weld, the basic firing positions, how to use a sling, etc. They also teach the role of the civilian rifleman in our Nations history.

 

[Semyon Vasilii]

Do you think Colt has been the only supplier of your main battle rifles for over 40 years because
Colt are the only company that can make a decent battle rifle or because Colt makes massive political and campain donations and lobbies senators ect and employes truckloads of retired Generals on there board of directors and as advisors ect.

every rifle in my platoon in boot was made by FN. i'd say 90% at SOI were made by FN. and thats where my marine corps career ended so i cant speak on the rifles in the fleet but im guessing the marines have a lot of FNs because FN produced the m16a2 in higher numbers than any other manufacturer and the marines still have a lot of those kickin around. at least in training battalion armories.

 

[Tirod]

McNamara and the socalled whiz kids were the recipient of over 50 years of previous research. Don't forget, the STG44 and AK-47 were issued 20 years before these guys even had the data briefed to them. Project Salvo investigated this in the late '50s, most of the upper levels in DOD were more than aware of it's results.

It's the nature of conspiracy theorists to point blame on contemporaries in time, in this case, assault rifles in use 20 years prior means it was the German and Russian whiz kids who made the point - our guys finally had to get off the dime and wake up.

Just whiz in the wind blaming political appointees for the long term military response to actual combat conditions. It had been coming since the 1930's, and is quite obvious just doing a bit of research instead of listening to Uncle Fudd spout off.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M16_rifle scroll down to the Project Salvo paragraph and note that combat reports dating back to WWI were used to assess what really happened in combat. Also note the dates involved, long before the McNamara whiz kids were even out of school.

If there is a source of misinformation and complete falsehoods about a subject, it's the American public. They simply repeat the same garbage over and over with no effort taken to actually find out the truth.

 

[fragout]

451 Detonics:

I would say that it is more like 95% personal preference in the end brother
In the end, it was more about which one I liked the best.

You like pistol grips, I like the traditional stocks. The M14 can be had with either, and combined are too numerous to count, but here is just one example of the variations that can be utilized...
www.law483.com
The above may interest you if you still own an M1A and wish to use a pistol grip type stock instead. Sage and Troy are but two others that offer pistol grip stocks for the M1A/M14.

Your brother had a negligent discharge,( unless there was some mechanical issue with your rifle's safety)... and is the main reason as to why you like the safety on the Fal receiver, but I prefer the safety of the M14 right where it's at. No issues with an N.D. yet.

You shoot right handed, while I prefer to shoot with either hand. ( Both designs can be worked with in order to achieve this same goal, but after using both, I prefer the M14's design for "switch hitting", and think it is the better design for a southpaw... as the lefty can keep his left hand on the grip, while the right hand manipulates mag changes and the op-rod handle.

Something that might interest you = a Smith Enterprise Inc. bolt stop. This component replaces the std bolt stop on an M1A/M14, and allows one to use it much like the bolt release on an AR........

This LRB Arms M14SA Tanker pictured above has one installed. Once the bolt locks back after the last round..............
1. Drop empty mag via mag release.
2. Insert a loaded mag
3. Smack the bolt release, and your back in business.

The right hand does not have to leave the grip, provided the rifle is already loaded of course.

The FAL iron sights are decent, and they work for you, but I simply like the irons of the M14 better, as they can be adjusted rather easily for elevation. The front sight of this design also has a few options( other than the std type) that I have been trying out over the yrs......

Below is a comparison of a std front sight/flash hider with the typical castle nut, while next to it is a Smith Enterprise Inc. "hooded" gas lock front sight with Vortex direct connect flash hider. The LRB M14 pictured first sports the "dovetail" version of the gas lock front sight. All 3 types mentioned above have their respective good points over each other, and at present time...... I prefer the hooded SEI version for the role as a "battle rifle" front sight.


Nothing wrong with a well built FAL however, and I am not implying that there is. Only stating my preference for a "Chevy" instead of a "Ford".....so to speak.....
If I change my mind in the future, my "Chevy" will hold it's re-sale value well, and open funds up for a switch to "Ford"....lol

EDIT: I agree with you 100% regarding post # 46.

11B

 

[henschman]

Yeah, it's largely personal preference, I'll agree with that. I know a lot of guys who are outstanding Riflemen who prefer the FAL. Also, I think a lot of people just prefer what they have, and haven't actually tried the other design. I have tried both, and the sights are definitely the biggest determining factor between the two for me. It is definitely a close call, though. Both are outstanding rifles.

On the M-14, if you are right handed and want to charge the bolt with your non-trigger hand, it is simple enough to reach over the top of the receiver with your left hand and run the bolt, like folks do with the AK. That or you can get one of those extended paddle bolt stops like fragout mentioned, and run it like an AR.

HorseSoldier, Appleseed also trained 600+ members of the South Carolina National Guard who were deploying, the 10th Mountain Division at Fort Drum, NY, and a squad of designated marksmen at Fort Stewart, GA, in addition to the designated marksmen from the 2nd Engineer Battalion at WSMR. If you want, you can get in touch with the CO's of those units and discuss your opinion that they are nitwits for taking the opportunity to get their men some extra training on long range and precision marksmanship; but at every event the men and their officers all felt the training was very much worthwhile and that it gave the soldiers a much needed increase in max effective range and confidence in hitting targets at distance, which they felt would augment their existing training (which was mostly geared towards close range shooting). Many of them felt the training would save lives in Afghanistan, where I am told that many engagements occur out past 500m.

As an Appleseed shoot boss, I have had a lot of guys on my line who have been there and done that, and not one of them have yet told me that Appleseed was a joke. In fact, I've never had anyone on the line who didn't get anything out of it. However, I have had a few people who came into it with the attitude that they didn't need a class on the fundamentals, only to leave with their tails between their legs after the first day.

Appleseed's course of instruction is nearly identical to Marine marksmanship training and the Army's designated marksman training. I don't think either one of those is a joke.

Of course hitting targets at the 600m practice range is different than hitting targets on a 2-way range, but it beats the hell out of no practice at all at those kind of distances. At least it lets the shooters know what it takes to make such a shot, and lets them know what they and their weapons are capable of out that far. Unfortunately most troops don't get the opportunity for that kind of training like you and your guys did.

 

[HorseSoldier]

Spoken like someone who couldn't earn their rifleman patch...

Do the ones the army gives out with the wreath around them count, or do I only know anything about combat shooting if I've faced down the paper red coats at 25 meters with a 10/22 with an antique shooting sling strapped to it?

Before you can teach "killing skills" (not real sure what those are btw) you have to teach the basics. Appleseeds do this, they teach proper sight usage, proper cheek weld, the basic firing positions, how to use a sling, etc. They also teach the role of the civilian rifleman in our Nations history.

The US military kills a lot of folks because institutionally we have trouble blowing through the inertia to do the whole cycle of crawl-walk-run. Appleseed crawls, and doesn't even do that with a real combat focus. (Hint -- if your POI involves slinging up at any point in the process, you're not training people to kill bad guys and survive combat.) You find a badly trained enough bunch of soldiers, getting more chances to crawl can't hurt them, but it surely isn't an optimal use of resources to get them to maximum competence and ability with their weapons and combat skills.

And since we're talking in this case about training US military personnel, the pro-2A civic action program means nothing. Preaching to the choir, and much more to the point wasting one word on mythology about riflemen kicking red coats out of America is time and words not spent teaching people how to survive combat.