M14/M1a vs FN FAL

a0jc said:
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I'm not ripping on the FAL, I just find it peculiar that most opponents of the M14 make it more outdated than it needs to be. Like its some archaic junk with outdated systems while the gas system of the FAL is just as old, if not older than Garands.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.
Click to expand...

With regards to item 3, an AK still has an inferior control layout despite the fact that workarounds have been developed. The trigger guard mounted safety of the M14 is also more conducive to NDs.

I own and enjoy a Norinco M14 and it has better iron sights than a FAL. I would certainly not feel poorly armed with either and I think that any discussion of the relative merits is splitting hairs.

If cost and legal classification were no object, one of the better 7.62 ARs, such as Knight or LMT, would be my first choice with the FAL as my second choice.
 
Ahhhh the good old days.....
Yes, the C1A1 was a tremendous rifle. Many trips to the LFCA/ORA shoots, and once to CFSAC with it.
C2 version was just fine on semi. Pointless waste of ammo on auto. (Fun with blanks though!)
Both C1 and M14 accurate; prefer the indefineable "feel" of the C1.
Agree that if the butt stock bruised you; that it was too short. [came in 4 lengths - S short, N normal, L long, and XL extra long. Not difficult to change if you had the right tool]
Would very much like to resume use of an excellent rifle!
 
The FN was a better 'field' rifle than range rifle. I had an L1A1 when they were restricted, and even though it was more accurate than the C1A1 I was issued, it simply wasn't the same being restricted to a range with it. If we could get new LSA "FN's" I'd jump on it, but ONLY if they were unrestricted. The FN belongs in the field.
 
WAYYYYyyyyyyy back in the day, I liked the FN C1 A1 and C2.
I liked the FNs reliability, durability, and decent ergonomics [ except when the wrong length butt kickked me in the teeth ]
What i did NOT like was carrying the FN and full battle rattle in the field. The FN is HEAVY, AWKWARD, and a real brush magnet.

I liked the M14 better than the FN, but I usually end up with a SHORTY M14, with a pistol grip and straight line butt stock.

What I like most of all is the AR 10 ... the best battle rifle that never was.
Most excellent ergonomics, excellent reliability and durability, and in the new short barreled more compact AR 10 / AR 15 hybrids, just about perfect.
YPMMV
 
Last edited:
Seriously folks, is there any point to debate whether M14 or FAL makes a better battle rifle? Now if someone changes the thread title to Which rifle makes a better safe queen, M14 or FAL? We may have a legit case to argue.
 
sf said:
Seriously folks, is there any point to debate whether M14 or FAL makes a better battle rifle? Now if someone changes the thread title to Which rifle makes a better safe queen, M14 or FAL? We may have a legit case to argue.
Click to expand...

LMAO, so true. I have 4 FAL safe queens and 1 Nork 14 that I can enjoy.
 
sf said:
Seriously folks, is there any point to debate whether M14 or FAL makes a better battle rifle? Now if someone changes the thread title to Which rifle makes a better safe queen, M14 or FAL? We may have a legit case to argue.
Click to expand...

This thread wasnt about what makes a better battle rifle . re read my initial post . I wanted to find out the differences between the two from people who had first hand experience firing both and using both original models and possibly able to compare them to our clone as of today. and part two if we were honestly missing anything other than another 7.62 rifle.
 
blueflash said:
... 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.

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...

There were a bunch of options. Originally the British developed a .280/7mm cartridge and a bullpup assault rifle (The EM-2) to fire it, but it was far too radical for the US, and did not scale up to the 7.62 NATO round (although there are Canadian Longbranch tool room prototypes in 7.62 NATO, and even 30-06). Canada also tried to come up with some "compromise" cartridges, necking down the 7.62mm NATO to 7mm, but the Americans stubornly refused to adopt anything less powerfull than the 30-06/7.62 NATO

The FN was everyone's second choice. Originally FN made rifles in the German 7.92mm Kurtz and the Brit .280, but saw the writing on the wall and ensured that it could be scaled up successfully.

The Brits thought that if they gave up the .280 round than the Americans (and the rest of NATO) would adopt the FN, but this was an "unwriten understanding" which the US renegged on.

The US did everything including cheating on some of the tests to ensure that the M-14 won their trials and got adopted. Once adopted they discovered that it was not able to re-use a lot of Garand tooling, and there were lots of production problems. The M-14 reputation for accuracy is based on its use (tuned up) as a sniper and competition rifle. Fresh out of the box, it was not appreciably more accurate than the FN.

I would love to have seen a .280/7mm FN. If we had adopted it, I doubt we would have had the M-16 teething pains in Vietnam and the 7.62 vs. 5.56mm B.S. or any talk of the 6.8 SPC.

Imagine an 8 lb FN, controllable on full auto, and a lighter FN MAG, and even a C2 that worked (The original concept of the C2 came about when the lighter cartridge was being studdied).
 
I had been issued an FN C1 in my Army days. Hated it. Was big, clumsy, heavy and not known for good accuracy. Did have the advantage of being easy to field strip though. Also liked the pistol grip.

I have an M 14 rifle (a real G I issue one, not a Commie rip-off). I find it lighter, easier to handle and VERY accurate.

If I had to go into a combat situation though, I would take my HK G3.
 
highlander said:
I had been issued an FN C1 in my Army days. Hated it. Was big, clumsy, heavy and not known for good accuracy. Did have the advantage of being easy to field strip though. Also liked the pistol grip.

I have an M 14 rifle (a real G I issue one, not a Commie rip-off). I find it lighter, easier to handle and VERY accurate.

If I had to go into a combat situation though, I would take my HK G3.
Click to expand...

I agree!
 
BigUglyMan said:
One's really good and the other is legal in Canada.
Click to expand...

Quoted for truth!!

But, in all seriousness, as we can sit and argue the FN FAL vs M-14 type thing until the new millenium, with neither side being more "right" than the other...

I NEED to know: Which rifle is better for bear defense??

:pirate:
 
nelly said:
Quoted for truth!!

But, in all seriousness, as we can sit and argue the FN FAL vs M-14 type thing until the new millenium, with neither side being more "right" than the other...

I NEED to know: Which rifle is better for bear defense??

:pirate:
Click to expand...

As they are both the same calibre and semi auto, there probably wouldn't be much of a difference, unless accuracy over a long distance is required.

If you need a gun for bear defence, I'd go with a shotgun with slugs and/or 00 buck, probably a Rem 870 Tactical.

If it needs to be a rifle, I'd go with something that shoots a BIG bullet, my choice would be a Marlin lever action in something like 45-70 or 450 marlin.

I've hunted bear, and I find that a big bullet will put them down faster then a small bullet.

The reason I suggest those particular guns is that they are not too heavy, short, and easy to handle, particularly in brush,and quick with followup shots if necessary.
 
I carried a FN for years with the military and I owned a civilian FN for awhile...Really loved the rifle....Reliable..accurate in the right hands...and being Infantry and later with the Airborne I got to know the FN pretty well as far as durability goes..lol...but due to the fact it is only a dream from along ago (SIGH) due to our unpopular gun regs ....I bought a Poly tech a little while ago and so far I am impressed ...for the money it was a great buy .

After alot of researching here and some range time I know it needs some tweaking and some effort to get it to shoot just right...OCD...lol....but that is half the fun and I knew that going into the deal.

Like I said for the money it cant be beat....the experts can dissect the performance to prove it either way I believe...to me they are very similiar in performance ...I miss the pistol grip and gas regulator on the FN though
 
chalkriver said:
I carried a FN for years with the military and I owned a civilian FN for awhile...Really loved the rifle....Reliable..accurate in the right hands...and being Infantry and later with the Airborne I got to know the FN pretty well as far as durability goes..lol...but due to the fact it is only a dream from along ago (SIGH) due to our unpopular gun regs ....I bought a Poly tech a little while ago and so far I am impressed ...for the money it was a great buy .

After alot of researching here and some range time I know it needs some tweaking and some effort to get it to shoot just right...OCD...lol....but that is half the fun and I knew that going into the deal.

Like I said for the money it cant be beat....the experts can dissect the performance to prove it either way I believe...to me they are very similiar in performance ...I miss the pistol grip and gas regulator on the FN though
Click to expand...

you can solve half those problems with either the beretta bm59 copy or an e2 stock- i can;t fix the gas probllem , though-
 
Loved the FN. I was a better shot with it than the c7. Would much rather butt stroke someone with a FN than a c7 also. I dont mind the m14/m305 but the FN has lots of happy memories. Never had a problem shooting my targets in the face at 200-300 metres with the FN. I can stll hear the sound of the action cycling in my mind!! Happy days gone bye!!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom