M14/M1a vs FN FAL

actually, i didn't care much for the thing-we were issued ours from stores and had to turn the things back in when we were done- and , once in a while you'd get one witH a "fall down" rear sight, or it would work on ANY gas setting- including 0 - later , i was issued the 14 and that thing worked EVERY time, an as the rear sight was fixed, it COULDN'T fall down- the thing i'd like to know, was on the FOLDING STOCK models- something we never got in canada- i could understand the rat-tail/return spring thing is the conventional stock, but how was it done in the folder?- same as the g3with the springs inside the receiver?
 
blueflash said:
I was watching a episode of Tactical Impact, were the former U.S. special forces member was discussing it. He was saying that the FN FAL was such a far superior design to the M14 in many ways and the only reason that the U.S. military chose to use the M14 is because they could'nt swallow their pride to use a European designed gun.

He said that he believes that if the USA could of swallowed their pride and chose the FAL, and also would of listened to the rest of Nato then they would of all been using the FAL with a smaller cartridge like the rest of Nato was trying to suggest. The problem was that USA was the big kid on the block, and kind of bullied the 7.62 Nato down everyones throats, so thats why it was used. And thats why the USA used it in the M14 instead of the FAL.

He said that is the USA could of swallowed their pride, and listened to reason and chose the better gun, then the M14 would of never been used in 7.62Nato, and the M16 would of never been even introduced, and to this day the US military may be still be using the FAL in something chambered around the 5.56 Nato because the FAL was such a well designed modern gun, and the M14 was really nothing much more than an old M1 Garand with a Detach Magazine.

I was quite surprised to hear how much this former US special forces soldier praised the FAL and also I was quite surprised to hear him say that the rest of Nato wanted to switch from a Battle Rifle cartridge in the 50's but the USA was pigheaded and stubborn to switch to a smaller cartridge.

Just think, if the USA would of chosen the better gun, and listened to the rest of Nato, then to this day, many of our troops may be using a FN FAL chambered in something in the 6mm range, and it probably would'nt be Prohibited for us to own.
Click to expand...

that all depends on WHO you listen to- there are also "special forces folks" that think that the g3/hk91 was the greatest thing since sliced bread- each one has his own preferances and probably valid reasons for that- the thing i have against the g3/91 series is having to go all the way to the front of the piston to charge the rifle- with the 14, the charging handle is on the bolt, WHERE IT SHOULD BE
 
blueflash said:
I was watching a episode of Tactical Impact, were the former U.S. special forces member was discussing it. He was saying that the FN FAL was such a far superior design to the M14 in many ways and the only reason that the U.S. military chose to use the M14 is because they could'nt swallow their pride to use a European designed gun.

He said that he believes that if the USA could of swallowed their pride and chose the FAL, and also would of listened to the rest of Nato then they would of all been using the FAL with a smaller cartridge like the rest of Nato was trying to suggest. The problem was that USA was the big kid on the block, and kind of bullied the 7.62 Nato down everyones throats, so thats why it was used. And thats why the USA used it in the M14 instead of the FAL.

He said that is the USA could of swallowed their pride, and listened to reason and chose the better gun, then the M14 would of never been used in 7.62Nato, and the M16 would of never been even introduced, and to this day the US military may be still be using the FAL in something chambered around the 5.56 Nato because the FAL was such a well designed modern gun, and the M14 was really nothing much more than an old M1 Garand with a Detach Magazine.

I was quite surprised to hear how much this former US special forces soldier praised the FAL and also I was quite surprised to hear him say that the rest of Nato wanted to switch from a Battle Rifle cartridge in the 50's but the USA was pigheaded and stubborn to switch to a smaller cartridge.

Just think, if the USA would of chosen the better gun, and listened to the rest of Nato, then to this day, many of our troops may be using a FN FAL chambered in something in the 6mm range, and it probably would'nt be Prohibited for us to own.
Click to expand...

that all depends on WHO you listen to- there are also "special forces folks" that think that the g3/hk91 was the greatest thing since sliced bread- each one has his own preferances and probably valid reasons for that- the thing i have against the g3/91 series is having to go all the way to the front of the piston to charge the rifle- with the 14, the charging handle is on the bolt, WHERE IT SHOULD BE-the fn was also a bth( no "fine tune") was far as the sights were concerned,and the you had to have a special body cover to scope it-
 
blueflash said:
He said that is the USA could of swallowed their pride, and listened to reason and chose the better gun, then the M14 would of never been used in 7.62Nato, and the M16 would of never been even introduced, and to this day the US military may be still be using the FAL in something chambered around the 5.56 Nato because the FAL was such a well designed modern gun, and the M14 was really nothing much more than an old M1 Garand with a Detach Magazine.
Click to expand...

I dissagree whole heartidly and thank goodness for Eugene Stoner .
Anytime you lose your zero by beaking the action to clean or perform maintenance is an inherent design flaw. This is not an issue with the AR15 / M16.

I don't have any time behind the C1, and I consider that a great loss, however as a front line battle rifle by today's standards it is second rate. Sure the same can be said of the lee enfield, or the M14, but at least you were not required to break the action open in order to clean it. By 'breaking the action' I am referring to the rear sights being on one side of the break and the front sights on the other. Additionally the snipers had an optical sight fixed the the receiver.
 
I am not a history expert in military arms. I was just repeating what I watched from a episode of Tactical Impact thats on Wild TV. I think that it can been scene on Youtube also.

There is a few very experienced special forces members that host that show, and the one "large fellow" is a former special forces member, and he is also helped the US army develope different versions of weapons, to be used by the special forces. So basically, he is a expert. If he says something about a gun, he really seems to know what he is talking about, and he can back it up. This guys is'nt just a avid shooter and collector like most of us.

I believe him when he says the FN FAL is a far superior design to the M14 in almost every way, and the only reason the US military never chose it, is because they could'nt swallow their pride and choose a European design over a American design.
 
sorry for teh multiple posts- i get that once in a while- it doesn't post right away, and then when it does, it posts 3 or 4 times instead of editing- wierd, huh?
 
I wish I could find the video of this guy explaining, because I may be getting a little bit lost in translation.

I think that this guy was trying to say that the FN FAL was just so much better compared to the M14, and that if USA would of switched to a smaller cartridge like the rest of Nato wanted to in the 1950's then the M16 may not of been used in Vietnam.

I think he was trying to say that a gun like the M16 would of probably been invented, but it would of happened much later down the road. He was'nt trying to say the the FN FAL is better than a M16, he was trying to say that it would of just delayed the need for it to be invented.

I think he was also trying to not only talk about the FAL being better than the M14, but he was also trying to bring up the fact that England, and France already wanted Nato to stop using a Battle Rifle cartridge, and to switch to something smaller. I am not trying to "put down" the M14, I own one. I am just trying to relay the information that I heard. I am not really a expert so I can't really give my honest opinion because I am not informed enough to do so. However I believe that the guys from Tactical Impact seem quite informed.

I have been trying to find the exact video of him discussing it.

I just went to the Tactical Impact TV website, and the guys name is Larry Vickers, here is his bio:

Larry Vickers is a 20 year U.S. Army Special Operations veteran with 15 yrs. in America's most elite unit - Delta Force. Combat Veteran of numerous classified combat operations. Recipient of Bronze Star with Valor and 17 other service awards. Internationally renowned marksmanship instructor.

I am not saying that I believe everything this guys says, and everything that he says is right, but he is'nt just another gun lover with a opinion, I think he does try to relay the facts, and not be biased. Atleast that is my impression.
 
the m16 was a cook-up deal between mcnamara and a review board, and it's now a moot point- basically, the AIR FORCE wanted something a "little better" than the m1 carbines they had-then it was tried by a bunch of s/f guys , ( the m14 wasn't tested against it) and b/c it was LIGHTER , and fell within the "established " effective range, and could deliver more rounds downrange were the reasons it was adopted- those were indeed strange times- the squad was a 30 cal m60, and yet the rifleman was issued an m16- 2 DIFFERENT calibers in the same unit- and if you added the marines into the mix, there were a couple of m14s as well- which could share ammo with the m60- funny thing, the m16et al with all the "improvements" is now almost the same weight as the m14- but it still has a 10 round advantage
 
If i could still shoot my L1A1 or even the (Ishapore) I1A1 I would have no need for an M14s/M305.

The ergonomics of the FN FAL alone make it a better overall rifle (compared to the M14 design) along with CF disc rear sights ;) optional rails are also better for optics IMHO. DSArms in the US has some excellent pattern metric FN FALs that are still top notch.
6ir2qc.jpg


The M14 is OK and great that we can get them cheap from China. I just wish we could stil get cheap Norinco 7.62x51 to go with it!!!
The Troy and other stocks are the best we can do in Canada ...

middlegun-detail.gif
 
I have shot both and I personally preferred and shot better with the M14. The FN is however easier to field strip and maintain, and based on much testing, likely a little more reliable. Still either is a great battle rifle.
 
I have been told by many many many users the FN FAL was simply the best battle rifle ever. No one gun is the best at everything but when their life was on the line, the FAL was their one and only Pal. We are missing out on one of the best.
 
If I was able to, I'd own an FN-FAL just like the one I used in the Reserves. Since I can't, I settled for the next best thing, an M14 clone.

I think that ergonomically, the FN is a better rifle that fires the same cartridge as the M14. Given the choice, I'd choose the FN for that reason alone.

The other thing I don't like about the M14 design is the operating rod. It's pretty easy to get dust, dirt, and other debris in there. The FN's gas system is fully enclosed.
 
Grizzlypeg said:
If you are only shooting issued ammo and maintaining the gun, I'm not sure I see the merit of the adjustable gas system.
Click to expand...

I can only speak from my experience, but that is an important feature when firing large volumes of ammo. You could just leave the thing at zero, many did, and let it beat the piss out of you, but the nice thing about tuning is that you can stretch out a day on the range significantly when it does not punish you with each pull of the trigger. Flinch and all...

When I was 17 and took my first Rifle Coach course, we used a half dozen service rifles as well as the full complement of CF competition rifles. The .303 was the most punishing, and you could only fire a few mags before your accuracy went to #### and you flinched like a skinny nerd in a locker room. A well tuned and maintained FN could plink all day, and you would only get into the worst of it after a couple of hundred rounds.

Later on in my reserve days when I started carrying and using the C9 regularly, the dual mode system was nice as well, but we measured that the overall accuracy did drop when operating on "adverse".
 
Thanks for explaining a benefit of that feature.

Panman said:
I can only speak from my experience, but that is an important feature when firing large volumes of ammo. You could just leave the thing at zero, many did, and let it beat the piss out of you, but the nice thing about tuning is that you can stretch out a day on the range significantly when it does not punish you with each pull of the trigger. Flinch and all...

When I was 17 and took my first Rifle Coach course, we used a half dozen service rifles as well as the full complement of CF competition rifles. The .303 was the most punishing, and you could only fire a few mags before your accuracy went to s**t and you flinched like a skinny nerd in a locker room. A well tuned and maintained FN could plink all day, and you would only get into the worst of it after a couple of hundred rounds.

Later on in my reserve days when I started carrying and using the C9 regularly, the dual mode system was nice as well, but we measured that the overall accuracy did drop when operating on "adverse".
Click to expand...
 
I don't see how the F.N. can be called the greatest battle rifle ever, it was never used in any major conflicts. Australia used it in Vietnam, Britain and Argentina used it in the Falklands, and a few bush wars in Africa. Big deal.
 
you have to have experienced one to appreciate it- for me, there are 3- the fn, the m14, and the g3( hk 91) - the major drawback of the m1 was the 8 round enbloc mag- and the 308 had , for all intense purposes had the power and range of the 06 , but without the weight of the bar-
 
Riflechair said:
I dissagree whole heartidly and thank goodness for Eugene Stoner .
Anytime you lose your zero by beaking the action to clean or perform maintenance is an inherent design flaw. This is not an issue with the AR15 / M16.

I don't have any time behind the C1, and I consider that a great loss, however as a front line battle rifle by today's standards it is second rate. Sure the same can be said of the lee enfield, or the M14, but at least you were not required to break the action open in order to clean it. By 'breaking the action' I am referring to the rear sights being on one side of the break and the front sights on the other. Additionally the snipers had an optical sight fixed the the receiver.
Click to expand...

This is why during NATO trials the M14 beat out the FN-FAL design handily in the long range accuracy department.
Riflechair, if one reads about the history of the Falklands War, the Brit Marines and Paras after their issue FN rifles were zeroed, they broke off the takedown latch to prevent this accuracy loss problem. Also got this info firsthand from a few really crazy members of "Mighty Munch" (M company) 42 Commando, Royal Marines, while in Cyprus winter tour of 1986-87, and training at the British Soverign Base in Dhekalia.
They cleaned these rifles from the muzzle end in the meanwhile, for the duration of that conflict.
{British irony & humor, Mighty Munch is an Irish spicy corn snack known to cause allergic reactions and other gastro-intestinal problems!?!?!}

Myself I carried an SMG (platoon signaller) for the last of the FN Era, until the C7/C9 came along. In 1988, we were the last regular force brigade in Canada to change over during the SARP program. (SSF/CAR in Petawawa)
I prefered the ergonomics of the FN, but I rarely had the opportunity to shoot past 500 yards, because this was not a requirment.
I presently own a Polytech, and I have full confidence in handloads with bullets over 150 grains in weight for accuracy.
This is probably where the FN was at a disadvantage for truly long range shooting.
The sniper issue Leitz 3 X sniper scope/mount for the FNC1A1, was hardly seen and even rarely used.
But in the army we had other tools for this. (the C3 bolt action sniper rifle)
 
Last edited:
buckbrush said:
I don't see how the F.N. can be called the greatest battle rifle ever, it was never used in any major conflicts. Australia used it in Vietnam, Britain and Argentina used it in the Falklands, and a few bush wars in Africa. Big deal.
Click to expand...

What exactly is a major conflict? The G-3, BM-59, AR-10, and the M14, to name a few examples, didn't get a chance to face down the Soviets pouring through the Fulda Gap, either.

No other postwar 7.62 NATO battle rifle was adopted by as many countries and only the G-3 would come close in terms of the numbers of conflicts in which it was used.
 
Pretty sure it was used during the 6 day war by the isrealies

And Larry vickers has even said himself to take what he says about the FN FAL with a grain of salt as he is highly biased on its operatiion . which is why i wanted to hear from people who may be slightly less biased.

Everyones seen the adjustable gas system mod from brownells for the m14 , would this at all give it a greater chance on being par with the FN ?
 
Can't see how either one would be a wrong choice in a 7.62 battle rifle. I think its a lot of personal preference as both are proven decent.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom