What do the FN FAL proponents see as its merits over the M16? I've had both (well, it was an AR-15), and found the AR15 to be more accurate, easier to shoot, lighter to carry, and much lighter weight for carrying equal quantities of ammunition. Is it the calibre you prefer? I don't see the FN FAL as making best use of 7.62.
best service rifle
- Thread starter caster456
- Start date
Glen Valour
CGN Regular
- Location
- Winnipeg, MB
Owning most of the list, my choice is still the FN.
Rational: the FN is as robust as an AK, as accurate as an AR, is more than battle proven having fought in every climate, and lastly - just familiarity with the weapon.
The AR habit has grown on me; the AK is stupid proof; and the HK is a marvel of engineering; but nothing says "Rifle of the Free World" like the FN.
Rational: the FN is as robust as an AK, as accurate as an AR, is more than battle proven having fought in every climate, and lastly - just familiarity with the weapon.
The AR habit has grown on me; the AK is stupid proof; and the HK is a marvel of engineering; but nothing says "Rifle of the Free World" like the FN.
I had to go with the AK-47. Don't get me wrong, I loved the FN-FAL when I had the chance to handle and shoot one. But the Kalashnikov is smaller, MUCH lighter and handier to carry, easier to use for most people, and the 7.62x39mm is more than enough to do the job at the <300m ranges 95% of modern combat takes place at. And as Stalin astutely pointed out 'Quantity is a quality of its own' - no other rifle has ever been as cheaply mass-produced in the numbers the AK was.
I'm surprised nobody has voted for the Mauser 98, which would have been my second choice. It was a world-changer when it was introduced, stayed in service for over fifty years in dozens of armies, and is still in use today as a vast majority of the world's hunting/sporting arms.
I'm surprised nobody has voted for the Mauser 98, which would have been my second choice. It was a world-changer when it was introduced, stayed in service for over fifty years in dozens of armies, and is still in use today as a vast majority of the world's hunting/sporting arms.
Glen Valour
CGN Regular
- Location
- Winnipeg, MB
Let's do a side by side.
FN-PARA vs AK
Caliber : ............ 7.62x51 .................. 7.62x39
Overall Length: ... 736 mm .................. 870 mm
Bbl length: ........ 431 mm ................... 415 mm
Weight empty: ... 3.77 kg ................... 4.3 kg
Mag capac.: ...... 20 rounds .................30 rounds
Rate of fire: ....... 650-700 rnds/min ...... 600 rds/min
Max effect rng: .. 600 m ..................... 400 m
First place FN.
Second place AR-15.
Third place AK.
Anyone voting for a bolt gun here has to be in their 80's or has played too much Call of Duty.
Polar Man
CGN Ultra frequent flyer
gotta agree
Full auto capable, accurate, powerful round, the fact they are still used in Iraq says a lot about them.
Though if zombies attacked I would go for the AR.
Full auto capable, accurate, powerful round, the fact they are still used in Iraq says a lot about them.
Though if zombies attacked I would go for the AR.
fat tony
CGN Ultra frequent flyer
Hmmm, somewhere I remember reading that Canadian forces that were to participate in Operation Olympic were to be kitted out in US gear, including the M1 Garand, to me that is telling.
I'd say the M-16 and AK-47 would be in a dead tie for first place. Both rifles have been in use for 40+ years and have spawned countless numbers of variants from dozens of countries around the world, and they'll be in use for decades to come.
Other rifles have their places in history, but if there were a conflict right now, I'd be reaching for an M-4 and not a Lee-Enfield, Garand, or even a FAL. It's too heavy and cumbersome to be running room to room with, and we'd be doing alot of it, as most conflicts today occur in urban areas. If I wanted something as big as a FAL, I'd grab a C6.
Other rifles have their places in history, but if there were a conflict right now, I'd be reaching for an M-4 and not a Lee-Enfield, Garand, or even a FAL. It's too heavy and cumbersome to be running room to room with, and we'd be doing alot of it, as most conflicts today occur in urban areas. If I wanted something as big as a FAL, I'd grab a C6.
BigUglyMan
CGN Ultra frequent flyer
- Location
- New Scotland
Also hard to argue with the AK when push comes to shove. Sure it's no long range outfit, but more people have likely been killed with it than any other. And in battle, killing people is everything.
The 736mm length for the FN-FAL Para is with the stock folded - actual overall length is 990mm. Also, if you wanna compare the Para, compare it to something like the AKM, which is only 3.6kg.
Cocked&Locked
CGN Ultra frequent flyer
- Location
- S. Ontario
It would have to be either the Lee No 4 for a bolt gun, or a M-16....not that I don't prefer the FAL, just that the 16's been going for how long now? and how many countries use it? in how many versions? And the Lee was the longest serving bolt gun, some still in use in modified sniper format by english forces .....
I had to say the Enfield. It kept my grand father alive, and who knows, if it wasn't for the Enfield we might all be speaking German haha. I guess the same could be said for the 1903, M1, and even the Mosin Nagant. But thats for another day.
Glen Valour
CGN Regular
- Location
- Winnipeg, MB
I stand corrected. Mine with a 16" bbl is 972mm in total length.
The Para is more controlable and lighter than the FN-FAL (et al). I can't say that I found the AKM to be more controlable than an AK (lighter isn't always a benefit).
Quantity over quality only counts if you're able to sacrifice manpower and materiel to achieve your goals. Oddly enough, Stalin had this option.
You're opinion of the AK is noted. If I was an illiterate peasant (in a global sense) I too would prefer it to using a machete. However, we have access to better tools and my opinion of the AK remains unchanged.
This is a difficult poll, and I guess you would need to justify your decision based on a specific set of criteria to be truly accurate and define an actual winner. Each of the rifles named above have their own little niche and place in history, and it just as hard to compare apples to oranges as it is Enfields to AK's.
At the end of the day there is no right answer, but at least people have given their opinions and that in itself has made this a very interesting read.
I still say the Enfield for many reasons, but mainly because I like the underdog. Any weapon that was suppose to be replaced because it was outdated, and then spent the better portion of a half century as the british main battle rifle is indeed a feat in itself. I guess the AK applies to the same, but the conditions and variables are much different. But although outdated, the AK seems to still be causing trouble for all sorts of people across the globe. The 7.62 x 39 is by no means an interesting cartridge though, but people still hunt with 30-30, 45-70 and so on, so I guess outdated is only a statement.
At the end of the day there is no right answer, but at least people have given their opinions and that in itself has made this a very interesting read.
I still say the Enfield for many reasons, but mainly because I like the underdog. Any weapon that was suppose to be replaced because it was outdated, and then spent the better portion of a half century as the british main battle rifle is indeed a feat in itself. I guess the AK applies to the same, but the conditions and variables are much different. But although outdated, the AK seems to still be causing trouble for all sorts of people across the globe. The 7.62 x 39 is by no means an interesting cartridge though, but people still hunt with 30-30, 45-70 and so on, so I guess outdated is only a statement.
