M14/M1a vs FN FAL

[maple_leaf_eh]

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?

The Para FAL return spring is the same as the G43 and SVT40. There is a short rod to gap between a deep hole in the top of the breechblock carrier and the rear receiver wall. The spring slides into the hole. I don't remember how the three pieces stay together.

Just to throw my .02$ into the fray, I too have had C1A1 rifles issued to me, but mostly 9mm SMGs. The C1 wasn't popular in the light armoured recce units because it was too long for crew carry. I shot the C1 at paper alot in the rifle association, but never carried it much.

The C1 was designed to be fired standing up at running targets. It was not a target rifle. The pistol grip and scooped out butt are the telltales. The M1 and M14 were designed as precise battle rifles (a subtle distinction from a battle rifle). This is why they have such intricate sights and can be made into NRA High Power and sniping rifles. You can't say that about the C1, despite the number of attempts to make them into what would be a Designated Marksman's Rifle today.

The C1 has a fundamental flaw that prevents it from being as accurate as the sum of its parts. That stupid hinge in the middle and the safety sear that rotates on the hinge pin make it like a loose handshake with a sight on each half. Yes, it is easy to teach to recruits and fast to clean, but putting the back sight on a bridge on the receiver rails would have gotten past that design fault. Everything else about it is a good rifle, and the Canadian back sight was the best of all the variants - bar none.

 

[savagefan]

^ I still qualified with mine at Wainwright even though after each shot the thing would open up and I'd have to close it. My "coach" was worried that I'd get the Rat-tail in the eye if I continued and threatened to call it. Bought him off with a 95 cent beer.

 

[Riflechair]

Thanks Brutus
I've got the same reports from a few chaps I know... They did the same in competition - never broke the action for this very reason. I can't believe the broke off the take-down latch... I guess the Sgt. Major just looked the other way....

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.

 

[wildphil24]

After reading the first pages of this thread I felt the M14 was an inferior rifle. I tought I should sell my beloved M1A and wait for a Swiss SAPR or XCR-M. Then I took some distance and rethink about it:

The M14 is one of the world's best rifle.
From Vietnam to tomorrow's Middle-east it has protected North-america with distinction.
You never hear any soldier complaining about an M14 problem or weakness.
It's more reliable than a almost every AR10.
It's more accurate than almost every FAL.
I don't see any ergonomic problem with the M14 and if I want to put a pistol-grip on it, I have plenty of choice.

I agree it's probably not perfect. You have to know and love the M14 to treat it right but it will pay back.

Of course I would like to try a FAL but I'm too young and was only issued a C7. But I would have prefer to be issued an M14. That is the rifleman's rifle and I feel armed to the teeth with my M1A.

My ancestor have been in Canada for centuries and I feel more american than european. I like the M14, 1911, hamburger, riding in the wild, campfire, etc.
There are some things and people we should be proud of and John Garand and his rifles are some of them.

 

[Brutus]

After reading the first pages of this thread I felt the M14 was an inferior rifle. I tought I should sell my beloved M1A and for a Swiss SAPR or XCR-M. Then I took some distance and rethink about it:

The M14 is one of the world's best rifle.
From Vietnam to tomorrow's Middle-east it has protected North-america with distinction.
You never hear any soldier complaining about an M14 problem or weakness.
It's more reliable than a almost every AR10.
It's more accurate than almost every FAL.
I don't see any ergonomic problem with the M14 and if I want to put a pistol-grip on it, I have plenty of choice.

I agree it's probably not perfect. You have to know the M14 to treat it right but it will pay back.

Very well said friend...........

When I attended my very first long range match, the only rifles I had for the two of us to use (my brother and I) was a VAR barrelled M1 Garand in 30-06 and a 7.62mm Polytech M-14S.
My brother beat me for overall points, but I beat his 800 meter score with the M1 at Bull Meadow.

 

[BattleRife]

...I took some distance and rethink about it:

The M14 is one of the world's best rifle.

I just don't buy it.

The M14 had the shortest service life of any U.S. issued frontline rifle for a reason. It was a marginal design, obsolescent the day it was adopted, obsolete by the time it made its first deployment. Plagued by scandal. Contrary to the rosy image painted by its supporters, it offered very poor accuracy as a rack grade rifle.

I own a Norinco M14s and shoot it a lot. It is a great civilian plaything. But it was and is a lousy frontline combat arm for any war fought after 1945.

 

[ykkid]

"... a lousy frontline combat arm for any war fought after 1945." Yup. I guess that is why the USMC kept theirs until forced by the Pentagon to replace them in Vietnam, and even then, many Marines who could, snuck M14's out on patrol, long after they had been issued Mattel's wondergun. Those Marines just hated that 7.62 round getting Charlie's attention when they shot him, someimte through soft cover like a wee rubber tree. They all stood eagerly in line for a 55gr pellet, spinning too fast to have effective terminal ballistics, just so the rifle loonies could shoot small groups further away than they could see any field competent communist combatant. Yup, one lousy conbat arm.

 

[MadAxe]

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.

It was Larry Vickers, and what he said was that while the M14 (when properly tuned) was a better match rifle, the FAL was probably a better combat rifle. Not necessarily that the FAL was markedly superior, but rather a more suitable battlefield weapon - in his opinion.

As for selecting the M14; I'm sure that pride played a role in their choice. But I've no doubt that issues like being able to produce the weapon at home, rather than relying on a foreign supplier or paying royalties to produce it domestically were also big factors. For all they knew Western Europe was going to be overrun by the Soviets at some point, which would make buying weapons from FN a problem.

Also the M1 Garand was a battle-proven rifle, so they can perhaps be forgiven for playing it safe and sticking to a design that the knew worked well. That doesn't mean I think they made the correct decision, but I'm sure it was more than just sheer pigheadedness on their part.

 

[Brutus]

"... a lousy frontline combat arm for any war fought after 1945." Yup. I guess that is why the USMC kept theirs until forced by the Pentagon to replace them in Vietnam, and even then, many Marines who could, snuck M14's out on patrol, long after they had been issued Mattel's wondergun. Those Marines just hated that 7.62 round getting Charlie's attention when they shot him, someimte through soft cover like a wee rubber tree. They all stood eagerly in line for a 55gr pellet, spinning too fast to have effective terminal ballistics, just so the rifle loonies could shoot small groups further away than they could see any field competent communist combatant. Yup, one lousy conbat arm.

Ykkid, you just have to read "13 Cent Killers, The 5th Marines Snipers in Vietnam"

You'll love this non-fiction book, I guarantee......

 

[MapleSugar]

FWIW, I've met a lot of U.S. Vets who saw a lot of combat in Viet Nam.

To a man they loved the M14, greatly respected (or loved) the AK-47, and despised the M16.

 

[J996]

I own a Norinco M14s and shoot it a lot. It is a great civilian plaything. But it was and is a lousy frontline combat arm for any war fought after 1945.

And my bull meter just topped out. Here we go again, stop comparing your civi copy to a us govt M14!! IT IS NOT THE SAME THING!!

The M14, FAL, G3 are all on paar as battle rifles, have all been used in plenty of conflicts, are all VERY reliable and more than accurate enough for combat. Any Soldier I know would not give two sh!ts which of the 3 was put in his hands when it counts. They are all so sh!t simple to maintain and dead reliable a monkey could use them.
This topic is one of the oldest arguments in firearms history, has been going on since the 60's, end every time it goes nowhere. Obsolete? compared to what? What are you going to replace them with? If you can't hit sh!t with a "obsolete" Garand action you won't make hits with next weeks wonder toy either.

 

[tikka#1]

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.

By that logic you could say the same thing about the m16 platform because it has only been used in vietnam and the two gulf wars and afganastan none of which would conciderd a major war in your line of reasoning

 

[anglia2]

I've owned and shot both , I had an ex isreali trw m14 (selector switch welded to semi only ) and I still own an aussie L1A1 which I can't shoot any more. I put alot of rounds through both of them , literally thousands of rounds and to be honest I would be hard pressed to choose between them. I'll date myself by saying I legaly hunted big game with both ( 5 rd mags ) in the 1970's ,both of them were utterly reliable and accurate. The L1A1 was more accurate but the m-14 felt better in my hands .I never fought off any commie hords or stormed any beaches with either rifle but I did carry and use both, I just feel bad that you younger guys will never get the opportunity to compare them .With some work the norinco's are excellent rifles and I'd be content to rely on one for my utility weapon . But as others have said there are some other designs out there that are as good and in some cases a better choice than either

 

[a0jc]

But it was and is a lousy frontline combat arm for any war fought after 1945.

Oh Korea, you'll always be the forgotten war.

I don't see how the FAL is more modern than the M14. It's always brought up as a negative point against the M14. Maybe someone could enlighten me?

 

[t-star]

it's b/c the m14 is considered as an "improved " m1 garand by most folks- basically, it has 3 advantages- shorter stroke, 20 round mag, and ( with the KIT INSTALLED- IT DIDN'T COME THAT WAY FROM THE FACTORY) SELECT FIRE capability- so it is a MODIFIED GARAND- and gets tagged with the same date of inception- the fn and g3 were designed last part of ww2- post, and are CONSIDERED newer designs- the fact that the americans simply SHORTENED their 06 by a half-inch and got the same performance while the europeans STRETCHED their 7mmx43 rails to accomodate the 308 leaves the 14 with a stronger action than the fn/g3

 

[Savage]

as far as the M14 bieng the shortest lived battle rifle in the US Military only one branch of the US armed forces did not want the M14 it was the US Army .The Navy and the Marines wanted to retain the M14 as there service rifle .The decision to to accept the M16 was politically motivated. As for the many here who think the M14 was never up to the task as a MBR it meets all NATO Requirements on accuracy which is 3moa .It is a robust firearm it has fewer parts than the FN FAL series . Was the rifle design dated when it entered service sure it was but IT Worked very well and continues to this day it has seen action in Vietnam ,Cambodia ,Burma ,Isreal, numerous countries in Africa and as well has resurgance in the the US armed forces and in countless other conflicts in the world will it be arround in say another 50 yrs who really knows,Time will tell

 

[tjhaile]

I don't see how the FAL is more modern than the M14. It's always brought up as a negative point against the M14. Maybe someone could enlighten me?

1. A "straight line" configuration with the bore axis more in line with the stock.

2. Simplified field stripping.

3. Controls designed to be operated with the right hand retaining control of the pistol grip.

For comparison, an FN-49 works basically the same way as the FAL, but the general layout reflects an older design philosophy, similar to an M1 or M14.

 

[a0jc]

1. A "straight line" configuration with the bore axis more in line with the stock.

2. Simplified field stripping.

3. Controls designed to be operated with the right hand retaining control of the pistol grip.

1. So an E2 stock would have solved this.
2. I agree on this one, but it's not overly difficult. The only ##### part is the op rod spring guide pin. For me anyways. I know it can be disassembled without tools and have done so many times.
3. Adjust manual of arms. Operate like an AK.

I'm not ripping on the FAL, I just find it peculiar that most opponents of the M14 make it more outdated than it needs to be. Like its some archaic junk with outdated systems while the gas system of the FAL is just as old, if not older than Garands. That aside, if it were possible, I'd own in order: AR10, FN FAL, G3, then a M14. But alas, 3 are prohibs, 1 restricted, and 1 is cloned.

 

[sidester]

I like this Thread...
So just to dump some S*it.
Best Assault rifle Ever is : GALIL ARM 308.
And I will not apologise...

 

[t-star]

which is nothing more than an improved ak47- there's a REASON the isrealis went to the m21