Any Old Hands Around Here?

O

One Lung Wonder

BANNED
BANNED
BANNED
EE Expired
Rating - 100%
5   0   0
Location
Aaaaaadmontin AB
My wife just got me the coolest 'coffee table' book - The Smithsonian Illustrated History Of Firearms. It starts from the old matchlocks and goes right up to the present day with big glossy pictures. There's the big old Maxims and Vickers and artillery guns in it too and many of the specimens are pristine!

We may not have old farts that are old enough to answer this one - but I will throw it out there anyways: how does the M14 stack up against the FAL? They had pictures of the old L1A1's in the book and I seem to recall that in the distant past you could still buy them in Canada. I seem to remember some old vets kicking around the gun shops back in the day that spoke very fondly of them too. Do any of you have extensive experience with them? They look like cool old guns and I would love one even as a wall hanger...

We are having an early Canada Day here and I am celebrating by going to the range! You may want to get your women and children under cover and maybe dig a fox hole for yourself - I am not the best marksman around if ya catch my drift! ;)
 
The FAL beat the M-14 in every test done by the U.S. military in the mid 50's, except accuracy. The M-14 was adopted for political reasons. Just like the M-16 was 10 years later and the Trapdoor Springfield in 1865.
And yes, prior to 1978, you could buy any rifle you wanted, FAL's included, with no fuss. Even the occasional C1A1 appeared. The very last one ever made went through the shop I worked in then. Documented as such too.
 
Another funny anecdote about the M14 and the FAL.
The UK had adopted the FN design for use as main battle rifle but wanted it chambered in .280 british.
The US had been testing the FN FAL and the M14 at the time for acceptance of a new battle rifle for the American Military.
The US did not like the new .280 British cartridge for political and a lot of bad information/lack of understanding reasons. They insisted on their new 7.62x51 cartridge.
The UK modified the .280 in many many ways to try and appease the US, they bent over a table for them literally trying to get them to adopt it.
The UK figured to play it half way and adopt the new American 7.62 cartridge as NATO standard, chambering the FN FAL for that cartridge in hopes that the US would adopt the FN FAL as standard.
The Americans then basically said "f**k it" after that and went with the M14 anyhow hahahaha.
Thus we have the M14 and the FN FAL as well as the the 7.62mm NATO cartridge to this day.
It's interesting though the .280 British cartridge was way ahead of its time. It really did bridge the gap between full pwer 7.62 NATO cartridge and our current 5.56mm NATO cartridge. We're still to this day trying to figure out a compromise when it was right in our hands over 60 years ago! The US messing around with the 6.8mm Rem SPC which is very similar to the .280/30 British cartridges of long ago.

I love my M14 don't get me wrong but I would take an FN FAL any day over it. Charging handle on the left, pistol grip, better ergonomics in general. Ah well....I can only dream :(
 
I would love to be a fly on the wall and overhear what is said behind closed doors when the military adopts new guns/cartridges. I wonder if common sense ever rears its ugly head at those meetings...
 
You might be interested in "The Great Rifle Controversy" written by Edward Ezell who was the National Firearms Collection curator at the Smithsonian.

Very readable and eye opening story of what really went on. Spanning the M1 Garand, post war attempts to find a replacement rifle and cartridge, the FN versus M14 trials, the M14 production problems, trials and adoption of the M16 right up to the mid 1980s product improved M16A2.
 
Travis Bickle said:
Another funny anecdote about the M14 and the FAL.
The UK had adopted the FN design for use as main battle rifle but wanted it chambered in .280 british.
The US had been testing the FN FAL and the M14 at the time for acceptance of a new battle rifle for the American Military.
The US did not like the new .280 British cartridge for political and a lot of bad information/lack of understanding reasons. They insisted on their new 7.62x51 cartridge.
The UK modified the .280 in many many ways to try and appease the US, they bent over a table for them literally trying to get them to adopt it.
The UK figured to play it half way and adopt the new American 7.62 cartridge as NATO standard, chambering the FN FAL for that cartridge in hopes that the US would adopt the FN FAL as standard.
The Americans then basically said "f**k it" after that and went with the M14 anyhow hahahaha.
Thus we have the M14 and the FN FAL as well as the the 7.62mm NATO cartridge to this day.
It's interesting though the .280 British cartridge was way ahead of its time. It really did bridge the gap between full pwer 7.62 NATO cartridge and our current 5.56mm NATO cartridge. We're still to this day trying to figure out a compromise when it was right in our hands over 60 years ago! The US messing around with the 6.8mm Rem SPC which is very similar to the .280/30 British cartridges of long ago.

I love my M14 don't get me wrong but I would take an FN FAL any day over it. Charging handle on the left, pistol grip, better ergonomics in general. Ah well....I can only dream :(
Click to expand...
SPent 20 years in the US Navy and Marine Corps. The US was told by the Brits way back that the 7.62X51 M1A was uncontrollable in select fire machine gun. They were right. Shooting the M305 off hand and by the time U get the 3rd round off the barrel is pointing straight up. I guess the US thought the enemy was either
divine or could fly.
 
A hell of a lot of us died in the Nam because of jammed M16 actions. The military was told not to use ball powder in these weapons, so what did they do in their wisdom? They kept the ball powder. This pisses me off to no end, money, politics, I hate the M16. Do not see what the fascination is with the current lot of shooters in the states has with their so called assault rifles, which they ante in the first place. The civilian variant AR16 is not an assault rifle. It is simply an automatic rifle. No different from the BAR 308 hunting rifle. Last time I looked an assault rifle had a select fire switch that put U in machine gun mode. Machine guns are illegal unless U get a special license from the US gov and totally illegal in Canada. end of rant
 
Stevo said:
I'd sell my M14s in a heartbeat if I could shoot my FAL.
Click to expand...

Think I'd prefer my M14 clone for a number of reasons, starting with the much superior sights. Once you knock full auto out of the equation, the FAL loses a lot of it's lustre. ;)

Grizz
 
eaglesnester said:
A hell of a lot of us died in the Nam because of jammed M16 actions. The military was told not to use ball powder in these weapons, so what did they do in their wisdom? They kept the ball powder. This pisses me off to no end, money, politics, I hate the M16. Do not see what the fascination is with the current lot of shooters in the states has with their so called assault rifles, which they ante in the first place. The civilian variant AR16 is not an assault rifle. It is simply an automatic rifle. No different from the BAR 308 hunting rifle. Last time I looked an assault rifle had a select fire switch that put U in machine gun mode. Machine guns are illegal unless U get a special license from the US gov and totally illegal in Canada. end of rant
Click to expand...

I read the book The Black Rifle which covered the entire birth, trial and use of the AR15 in the US military.
The rifles history is mired in controversy, the book is almost hard to believe at some times due to the ridiculous politics which became involved in its adoption.
The original M16 was barely debugged when the US pushed it into combat in Vietnam due to the unforeseen escalation of the Vietnam war. The US was in between the M1 Garand/M14 and adoption of a new small caliber high velocity combat rifle. Production of the M14 was delayed massively as it was anticipated that the new AR15 was going to become standard A1 very soon (it was but then Vietnam happened and got out of hand fast creating a massive need for weapons which didn't exist!)

The best contender at the time was the AR15 but it was far from at a completed stage of development. It was rushed to service due to the Vietnam war escalation.
3 main things at the time caused the problems with the rifle, each one was a massive failure on behalf of the Military/Bureaucrats in charge at the time mostly due to biased political involvement and even flat out ego #### measuring contests:

1- The weapon was rushed to the front so fast it didn't even have a cleaning kit to go with it! It was also rushed to the front so fast that no training on weapon maintenance was available. Just enough time to be dropped in the hands of an infantryman, basic drills/famil and then off you go into the bush into brutal combat.

2- The AR15 initially did not have a chromed chamber or barrel, the high humidity and brutal conditions of Vietnam with the lack of a cleaning kit of any kind/proper weapon maintenance instruction led to very corroded chambers and bores very fast.

3- The biggest controversy; the propellant used in the initial ammunition loading of the 5.56mm cartridge was known to cause excessive fouling in the weapon (which led to much faster rates of corrosion) long before the AR15 was sent to 'Nam. Very high army brass were all aware of this at the time, they insisted the ammo was ready to go and approved it fine for use regardless in order to appease the requirements for combat rifles in the new war.

All three of these together led to the infamous "dead mans gun" syndrome of the failure to extract in the M16 in Vietnam. The corroded chambers were so badly rusted that the cartridge case of the first round fired would expand into the corrosion in the chamber causing a complete failure to extract of the casing. The book had personal soldiers accounts of finding two or three of their dead peers around an M16 (or two) with a stuck cartridge case desperately trying to fix the stoppage before they got over run.

Pretty horrendous failure at the highest level. There were official boards of inquiry into the matter, you can read the actual findings from what was called the "Ichord Subcommittee" where even Eugene Stoner himself adds testimony to the failure of the Army brass calling the shots and their dangerous lack of knowledge/decisions in the matter.

The modern AR15's from the standardized M16A1 to today's models are a far cry from those initial rifles. Chromed bores and chambers, excellent cleaning kits and materials, proper instructions and maintenance training and most important a refined and perfected cartridge with improved propellant. The rifle still has its weaknesses just like any rifle and that's a whole other can of worms for internet debate lol The 3 problems above are what gave the AR its bad reputation which hounds it to this day even though the bugs have long ago been hammered out of it.

Someone else put it best regarding the AR15: "The AR15; not as accurate as people give it credit for and much more reliable than people give it credit for."

For the record, I'd still take an AK47 (AK-74M if I had my way) any day but that's just me :D
 
Last edited:
AK-47. An overgrown Soviet SMG that is pretty much worthless for accuracy beyond 150 meters.

Especially worse with the stamped receiver AKMs.

Not convinced? Read about the Battle for Mirbat and how a four man SAS detachment, that held off 250 communist insurgents (who had AKs) with mostly their FN-FALs in the open desert terrain.
 
Last edited:
The .280 British rounds, as provided to the USA Springfield Armory for test and evaluation were effing sh#t quality.
So, in reality we will never actually know how good it was. Because Great Britain's arsenals made crappy ammo in this caliber.
This is pointed out in the collector series book; USA M14 Rifle-from John Garand to the M21
If the UK was so hot on this cartridge, you would think they would have pulled out all stops in the quality department?
 
4b1t said:
You might be interested in "The Great Rifle Controversy" written by Edward Ezell who was the National Firearms Collection curator at the Smithsonian.

Very readable and eye opening story of what really went on. Spanning the M1 Garand, post war attempts to find a replacement rifle and cartridge, the FN versus M14 trials, the M14 production problems, trials and adoption of the M16 right up to the mid 1980s product improved M16A2.
Click to expand...

Do you know where I can find this for a reasonable price? Amazon wants like over $70 for it.

Brutus said:
AK-47. An overgrown Soviet SMG that is pretty much worthless for accuracy beyond 150 meters.

Especially worse with the stamped receiver AKMs.

Not convinced? Read about the Battle for Mirbat and how a four man SAS detachment, that held off 250 communist insurgents (who had AKs) with mostly their FN-FALs in the open desert terrain.
Click to expand...

Sounds more like an issue of training than the accuracy of the weapons. Also, you seem to have left out the part how there were 5 other SAS soldiers, 30 Omani soldiers, an M2, mortars, a 25 pounder, ground attack jets, etc. :rolleyes:
 
Last edited:
.30/06 FTW said:
Do you know where I can find this for a reasonable price? Amazon wants like over $70 for it.



Sounds more like an issue of training than the accuracy of the weapons. Also, you seem to have left out the part how there were 5 other SAS soldiers, 30 Omani soldiers, an M2, mortars, a 25 pounder, ground attack jets, etc. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

lol No! It was just the four dudes with FN FALS that took that one :D
 
.30/06 FTW said:
Do you know where I can find this for a reasonable price? Amazon wants like over $70 for it.



Sounds more like an issue of training than the accuracy of the weapons. Also, you seem to have left out the part how there were 5 other SAS soldiers, 30 Omani soldiers, an M2, mortars, a 25 pounder, ground attack jets, etc. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

Yeh, the Omani soldiers that mostly just hid behind the walls of a nearby fort. The bad guys also had mortars/rpgs and they were heavily outnumbered. Arguing aside my opinion stands.

The jets arrived barely in the nick of time and two of their own fell in combat.

Cheers!
 
I guess I'm an old fart . I owned a few L1A1's , Australian and British , and I still own one British L1A1 . I owned a few M-14's , One Israeli lend lease stands out , it was made by TRW and was an honest 1.5 MOA grouping rifle . To be honest , I'd be hard pressed to choose between them on a purely performance based criteria . They both work as advertised , in semi auto , they were both a failure in full auto , so I can't fault either of them . I'll date myself and say I preferred my FAL for hunting , yes kids you could use them for hunting back in the day , for me it was just a matter of ergonomics , the FAL ( L1A1) fit me better . It bothers me to no end that I can no longer legally shoot my FAL , or my M-14's if I still had them ( converted auto ) and the fact that none of you younger shooters will ever get the chance to see how good they were .

As a side note , my father participated in the troop trials of the EM-1 , he really liked it . The old man carried a No4 Enfield and a Bren during WWII and Korea and thought the EM-1 was light years ahead of both . He often expressed his regret that the British military didn't pursue it's development . He got quite annoyed over the choice of the 7.62 Nato which was a failure as an assault rifle cartridge , and also took the EM-1 out of contention , only to be dropped in favor of the M-16 / 5.56 mm platform that ballistically was far inferior to the 280 that was used in the EM-1 . It makes you wonder what could have been.
 
Being only 30, I have no first hand, hands on knowledge of running these guns side by side.I can only tell you what I have been told by those who were there. My Grandfather, an ex-British Military sniper that wore a Pegasus patch, he was trained on the No.4 Mk.1 and Sten, and after marksmanship training was issued the No.4 Mk.1 (T). He had lots to tell about the range time behind the "T" and even though he doesn't like to talk about his service life that much, I can tell you I saw a S*** eating grin on his face when he saw a picture of me with a Longbranch No.4 Mk.1 (T) in hand. The interesting thing about his service life is, they were one of the groups that took part in the FN trials in England. He felt it was a better rifle inside of 300-400 yards, but still preferred his No.4 (T) to the FN. Before leaving the service, he also had a chance to handle and use the EM-1..... I will not repeat the long list of expletives he had to say about this rifle, I will just say he could have made an Old salty Marine Master Sargent blush.

A very good friend of mine south of the boarder who served with both the Army and the Marines, spent a lot more time behind the trigger than most for the simple reason he was an Armorer. To give you an idea with his experience, after being transferred to his first major posting, the base commander was informed that their new armorer was rather experienced with building/repairing 1911's. So, as I was told it went something like,
"YOU, on my six now. I have been informed that you are pretty good with working and running 1911's, is that correct?"
"Uh, yes sir"
"Good (Places hand on door and pushes door open revealing a room of about ten thousand plus 1911's), this will be your job until you are either finished with them or you are given a new job. Needless to say, this should keep you busy for the foreseeable future."
Now, in his 35 years behind the bench, he worked on Garands, M1 Carbines, M-14 (yes, the E2 variant as well), M16's (yes, XM177, 177E1 and E2's as well), M60, old worn model 12 Trenchguns, a few Model 97 Trenchguns, a couple 1911's, blah blah blah. In his civilian life he has owned Garands, Carbines, M14's, M-16/AR-15's and FN FAL's. As a battle rifle, he feels the FN is a better gun, but as a distance marksman rifle, the Garand/M14 win out every time. As a left handed shooter, he prefers the FN.

Personally, I feel it is about comfort, that being which fits you better?
 
enefgee said:
Sights on the C1A1 were in no way inferior to those of the M14. The FAL was heavier, but all around it was a better gun. I carried one in the reserves and owned one on civvy street.
Click to expand...
The fact of the matter is that the rear sight of an FN-FAL is on the lower which is not truly stably locked to the upper.

My buddy who was on his regiments rifle team tells how they had to resight the rifle after each time they opened the action. They would make every effort to avoid opening the action.

Talk to a civy shooter who competed with and FAL, many I've spoken to removed the safety sear and replaced it with an oversized washer to lock the lower as tightly to the upper as possible.

The FN-FAL Competition model rifles built on 3rd type (flatside) receivers had the competition rear sight mounted to the upper. It looked much like an Australian Central rear sight.

The Australian single shot competition rifles also had the (real) Central rear sight mounted to a block attached to the upper receiver.
 
unfortunately for me I just caught the tail end of owning some of the fine firearms that are now prohibs.
sadly, I never bought or fired an FAL but I did get to have a few years of fun with the englis mark 2 bren gun, steyer aug and got to experience buying and shooting the Lever Arms M14 "family pack" for a grand (1 of each manufacture of GI m14). the days when sks rifles could be bought by the pallet for 99.99 each and a free case of silver box x39 with every 5 rifles. LOL the fun times we had back then eh?
one day i'll have to head down to vegas and go shoot some of these rifles again :D
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom