M14/M1a vs FN FAL

Kc.338Lp

Kc.338Lp

CGN frequent flyer
Rating - 100%
28   0   0
Location
Kingston , Ontario
Did a bit of searching on here and on the rumornet and have not really got a close definitive opinion / explanation on how these rifles differ except the fact that the FAL came with an adjustable gas system .

was wondering if maybe some of the gun nuts who owned and shot their FALS could tell us younger guys if we are really missing anything by not being able to own one , what you liked or disliked between the 2 rifles or what common ground the 2 rifles have in respect to their own designs .
 
It definitely had a nice Adjustable gas system. Set it high and it purred like a kitten (as long as it was clean). Set it low and she hammered like a #### star, and similarly, never failed to get the job done. ;) :D

Easy to maintain, simple to strip. Heavy was about the only complaint I ever had, but that was no reason to hate it. I preferred the ergonomics of the pistol grip compared to a standard stock, but that is really a personal preference. I liked the rear disk site, as it could be tuned for competition (most of my shooting as a cadet and reservist), but I could see the complexity being a PITA in combat.

And the C2 was something else all together. At the end of the day, it was not really as practical as it sounded, but it sure was fun back in the days before the C9 and a whole lot lighter than the C6.
 
What a shame it is that for the last two decades we have all been denied the ability to shoot an FN/FAL in Canada. A whole generation has been screwed because of a bunch of gun-hating misandrists.

F**k you Wendy Cukier!:mad:

I have had the opportunity to shoot an L1A1 in the States and quite liked it. I can't compare it to an M14/M1A (as I haven't shot one) but I did shoot it side by side with an M1 Garand chambered in .308 Win. The recoil was much milder in the L1A1, but I liked the sights better on the Garand.

You're lucky in that there are a lot of ex-CF guys here who carried the C1A1 and know it inside out. A lot of them are avid M-14S shooters now and can give you a better testimonial than me.
 
I preferred all the pistol gripped battle rifles (FN, G3/HK 91, Galil 308) over the M14/M1a series. Generally easier to maintain and just as accurate (if not more so) out of the box.

To quote Chuck Taylor (regarding the M14) "a good arm, but inferior to the FN-FAL and AR-10 series" (Book-"The Fighting Rifle").
 
I was issued a very accurate C1A1 that was made in '57 I had it in 81-82 in the militia. I put them all in the basket at 100m but shooting prone it bruised my cheek. Thanx to the sergeant (Donovan)'s advice to ignore the pain, I scored very well but I find shooting a m305 prone keeps your head lower and less beat up than when shooting a pistol gripped stock. Obviously I'm missing something as all combat rifles these days are pistol gripped.
 
I enjoyed shooting the FN C1A1 from the time I first fired it in 1967 to the time I left in 1986 it was and always will be a favorite of mine. yes it was not with out its faults but it was a very robust firearm
 
Hi. An M1A doesn't count. It's an expensive, commercial, sporting rifle that has been raped by the SA. Inc. marketing Dept. Their silly SOCOMs etc., are marketing things.
"...missing anything by not..." Wouldn't go as far as saying that. FALs weren't cheap when they weren't evil. $300 plus, as I recall. Pay scales being much different then and now. $300 was a lot of money, 20 years ago. Would have had to sell something important to buy one then. Mind you, I got to shoot C1A1's for pay then.
Can't say as I miss not owning one. Not being able to shoot one without a lot of fuss is another thing. They're neat, but only because they're real battle rifles that are a piece of history. Except that Kingston is a long way, the ESSA open house(Juneish), might provide an opportunity for you to shoot one. Operative word being 'might'. Contact Stormbringer.
"...The FAL is a more modern design..." Than what? The FAL and the M14 are contempories. The U.S. tested 'em both when they were looking to replace the M1. The FAL won every test, except accuracy. The M14 was adopted for political reasons, not because it's a better rifle. NIH raised it's ugly head. The M16 was adopted for political reasons too.
"...liked the rear disk site..." Always thought that was a weak point of the C1A1. Thought it'd be easily broken off in combat. Fortunately, nobody had to test that.
"...it bruised my cheek..." Butt stock was too short for you. Mind you, I found that not all of the 'normal' butt stock lengths were the same. Had one on my MIU that was perfect for me, but not all of 'em.
"...Obviously I'm missing something..." Better FA control. More natural angle for the hand too.
 
Stevo said:
If I could still shoot my FAL I never would have purchased an M305.
Click to expand...

Me too!

The only advantage of the M-14/M1A/M305 is that it can be "tuned" to be more accurate. Off the rack, there is no real difference.

I much prefer the FN.

-Way easier stripping and cleaning. (Don't have to take it out of the stock / can be easilly cleaned from the breech, no bore guide required).

-Gas plug doesn't need periodic re-tightening

-Adjustable gas system, for reliability, softer shooting or tayloring to the ammo.

-Better ergonomics (except for "hamburger face" if you get a short butstock)

-Don't need a bunch of tools to dis-assemble (Yes there is a special tool for the butstock, but a jeezly big screw driver from Princess Auto will do, and I can take out the extractor with a pin punch if I want to).

-Spring loaded firing pin, so no slam fire risk, and I can strip out the firing pin and spring without a tool.

.....and it is just sooo cool!
 
I prefer the M14, but obviously the FN/FAL has its merits. I like the fit and feel of the M14 stock and sights. If you are only shooting issued ammo and maintaining the gun, I'm not sure I see the merit of the adjustable gas system. It's a shame we can't all have both. It's a cool piece of history that should never have been prohibited.

IMO the rifle we should all have, and unrestricted use of is the AR-15 platform. Light, simple, accurate, reasonably inexpensive.
 
I own 4 FN's (Brit, Aus, Ind, Can).

I purchased an M-305.

I still own the 4 FN's.

I sold the M-305.

I prefer the rifles I can't shoot to the one I could....what does that say?

NS
 
The FN was a great weapon to shoot. I really enjoyed the adjustable disc on the C1 for the rear sight. I was issued mine at the age of 17 and could put my 5 round groups in a pie plate at 600m. I weighed 130 lbs at the time and stood about 5'5" so it was a brute. I missed it when I was issued my C7. I thought the wood gave it some class and swagger over the plastic.
 
If you've never read the "Tale of Ol' Dirty" follow this link to The FAL Files forum

http://www.falfiles.com/forums/showthread.php?threadid=68486

You'll have to register to see the attachments. But by God, Ol' Dirty is so famous on the internet that Cafe Press even has Ol' Dirty T-Shirts. YouTube has vids as well, here's one:

[youtube]h3pFWU54skA[/youtube]

Here's a couple of pics:

http://1.bp.########.com/_YoGEx-xqfjk/Rd0Vow9SbnI/AAAAAAAAAD8/XO_R0ORT6MQ/s1600/old_dirty_bath.jpg


http://1.bp.########.com/_YoGEx-xqfjk/Rd0U8w9SbmI/AAAAAAAAAD0/NkJybmA9qhc/s1600/olddirty.jpg
 
If I could own, and shoot, an FN FAL, I would only need one more rifle, in .22LR to be able to do everything.

Because I can't own an FN FAL, I need 10 rifles - So F&*K YOU, Gun Control zealots - See how your logic backfired there?! HA!! :rockOn:

In all seriousness, I was lucky enough to have been issued an FN C1A1 for the first couple of years in the militia, 89-91. I loved that rifle, and cringed in disgust when we started receiving the Mattel Toys.

YMMV.
 
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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom