M14 sighting in Iraq
- Thread starter svt-40
- Start date
Never saw an enfield during my tour....just lots of AKs. The only people who had enfields were the joe average guy who could not afford an AK....
And there's the valid (and experienced) point of view.
IMHO, some things have not and never will change....
The rifle (and rifleman) are a "local protection" component of the greater section, platoon, and company in battle, serving to keep the natives off the crews manning your primary killing tools; the MG, the Mortar and the AT crews.
When you start rolling in light Mechanized forces, the primary weapons just get bigger and better -- granting the advantage of firepower, mobility, flexibility, and armor.
Basically, your 7.62 rifleman isn't going to contribute significant volumes on that scale at distance. Certainly, you won't be smoking what the 25mm can't.
They don't need to reach out and touch at 6-700 yards, when the bigger guns do that oh-so effectively. They just need to reliably function and put threats down.
Barrier pen is something else. But imagine there are goodies in the bag for that too...
One thing you can BET on. Our troops have been relearning a lot of forgotten lessons about conducting a battle, and creating some of their own new twists. Exciting times for the CF all-in.
Keep safe Jeff.
Last edited:
Well, you can't argue with a man who has carried the Stoner in combat, and still has faith in it. I'm glad your experience was a good one, and I'd also like to thank you for your service. It is genuinely appreciated. However, I know several US vets from several wars (including this one) that see it differently. To be honest, if I had my druthers, the US would sling the AK-47, but we all know that will never, ever happen.
I will say this; I have only owned one FAL and that is my current one. The DSA FAL's are probably the finest, and last, to ever be produced. Advances in metallurgy, machining, and the fact that all DSA's are hand builds most likely has something to do with that. I also have a medium contour barrel rather than a pencil barrel, but I will tell you this; I have consummate faith that I could put magazine after magazine through that barrel until you could see the bullet traveling down it, and it would still perform. I even took her (I named her ""The #####"" in honor of what the Aussies in 'Nam called it) this last weekend, and put 5 mags through here back to back--as fast as I could pull the trigger--and it was all still in the kill zone at 100yds. God you should have seen the dust cloud that I was kicking up (I shoot on my own private range). It was a waste of ammo to be sure, but damned if it wasn't the most fun I've had in a long time.
One other thing; my good friend who is a Command Sargent Major currently in Iraq came home on leave 2 weeks ago, and begged me to take my FAL back with him. You can't bring back any rifle you take over there, so I gave him my undying gratitude, and wished him luck, but my FAL was staying home. LOL. God Bless him.
Regards
P.S. Come on Sprint, you've got an M-14 (or is that an FN-49; but same difference) in your profile there. Don't act like you don't love .308 Battle Rifles. You know...You know what I'm talking about. "".308, when come; come heavy!"" (You can hear that heavy "Chack-Chack" in your dreams; just like the rest of us, LOL.
P.P.S. Sitting here thinking about it; I guess it just all comes down to what you know, and what you trust. I don't know about the current generation of Stoner Platforms, and ammunition being used in combat, but I do know this: A 7.62x51 Ball will set 'em down on their butt, and keep them there regardless of where you hit them. I also don't like higher velocity, lower grain rounds. It hurts my electrical system to shoot them. Give me lower velocity with a hell of a lot of lead in front of it every time. I guess that's why I put so much faith in the round, and the rifles that shoot it. I was a die-hard M-14 man until I got this FAL though.
I will say this; I have only owned one FAL and that is my current one. The DSA FAL's are probably the finest, and last, to ever be produced. Advances in metallurgy, machining, and the fact that all DSA's are hand builds most likely has something to do with that. I also have a medium contour barrel rather than a pencil barrel, but I will tell you this; I have consummate faith that I could put magazine after magazine through that barrel until you could see the bullet traveling down it, and it would still perform. I even took her (I named her ""The #####"" in honor of what the Aussies in 'Nam called it) this last weekend, and put 5 mags through here back to back--as fast as I could pull the trigger--and it was all still in the kill zone at 100yds. God you should have seen the dust cloud that I was kicking up (I shoot on my own private range). It was a waste of ammo to be sure, but damned if it wasn't the most fun I've had in a long time.
One other thing; my good friend who is a Command Sargent Major currently in Iraq came home on leave 2 weeks ago, and begged me to take my FAL back with him. You can't bring back any rifle you take over there, so I gave him my undying gratitude, and wished him luck, but my FAL was staying home. LOL. God Bless him.
Regards
P.S. Come on Sprint, you've got an M-14 (or is that an FN-49; but same difference) in your profile there. Don't act like you don't love .308 Battle Rifles. You know...You know what I'm talking about. "".308, when come; come heavy!"" (You can hear that heavy "Chack-Chack" in your dreams; just like the rest of us, LOL.
P.P.S. Sitting here thinking about it; I guess it just all comes down to what you know, and what you trust. I don't know about the current generation of Stoner Platforms, and ammunition being used in combat, but I do know this: A 7.62x51 Ball will set 'em down on their butt, and keep them there regardless of where you hit them. I also don't like higher velocity, lower grain rounds. It hurts my electrical system to shoot them. Give me lower velocity with a hell of a lot of lead in front of it every time. I guess that's why I put so much faith in the round, and the rifles that shoot it. I was a die-hard M-14 man until I got this FAL though.
Last edited:
Corpus,
If you do a search under 223 vs 308 or AR15 vs M14...you will see that we have hashed this around extensive. I will say however that the army does not need everyone to be equiped with 7.62 rifles. That is what you have machine guns for. Fighting in urban environments is difficult, fast and usually in low light conditions. An m4 rifle with a PEQ2 or PAC4 and a red dot with a flashlight is outstanding for the task. Have you ever tried doing room clearing with an M14? Remember, platoons fight together and have a wide variety of weapons. Call it tools in the tool box. The 5.56 AR series does the business. The platoons and companies have support weapons, snipers and other systems to engage the enemy. It is not like there is one guy facing off against another mano a mano.....The people that got shot by ARs were just as dead as those with 7.62mm. Also I would temper comments about what works at home on the range, does not necessarily equate to the same in combat.
Reference your friend from Iraq. I just finished working in Iraq for the last 18 months. Despite the gun mags desire to make issue, there has been no issue wth the M4s. I spent a great deal of time with the troops and the M4 was nary an issue. These were front line combat troops and the Brigade I had served with in the 101st. I don't mean to disagree with your friend but anyone less Special Forces, has been no concerns with the M4. Shortages of optics, lasers, flashlights etc...sure but not the rifles themselves. What unit was he from?
If you do a search under 223 vs 308 or AR15 vs M14...you will see that we have hashed this around extensive. I will say however that the army does not need everyone to be equiped with 7.62 rifles. That is what you have machine guns for. Fighting in urban environments is difficult, fast and usually in low light conditions. An m4 rifle with a PEQ2 or PAC4 and a red dot with a flashlight is outstanding for the task. Have you ever tried doing room clearing with an M14? Remember, platoons fight together and have a wide variety of weapons. Call it tools in the tool box. The 5.56 AR series does the business. The platoons and companies have support weapons, snipers and other systems to engage the enemy. It is not like there is one guy facing off against another mano a mano.....The people that got shot by ARs were just as dead as those with 7.62mm. Also I would temper comments about what works at home on the range, does not necessarily equate to the same in combat.
Reference your friend from Iraq. I just finished working in Iraq for the last 18 months. Despite the gun mags desire to make issue, there has been no issue wth the M4s. I spent a great deal of time with the troops and the M4 was nary an issue. These were front line combat troops and the Brigade I had served with in the 101st. I don't mean to disagree with your friend but anyone less Special Forces, has been no concerns with the M4. Shortages of optics, lasers, flashlights etc...sure but not the rifles themselves. What unit was he from?
Morpheus32, what a grunt will tell a superior officer, or someone who could intern tell a superior officer, and the true reality are often two separate things. It's like when your CO tells you to "speak freely." Once in a blue moon a really good CO means what he says and will not hold anything against you, but most of the time it's an invitation to your own funeral. So you blow the proper sunshine up his a** and move on, just to get him out of your hair. Grunts know that most officers are just there to make grade and move on. There is little love between the two of them, and no real reason to help one another more than enough to grease the wheels between the two, and try and make the team work. Point being; unless you're one of the "grunts" then you will most likely never really know what they really think. You only know what they tell you, and 9 times out of 10 they are going to tell you what they think you want to hear.
As I stated earlier, I'm glad your experience with the AR was a good one, but nobody is going to tell me that .223 is a war round, even at 77grns, or that the Stoner gas system is anything more than a joke. I respect your service Morpheus32, and am happy for your safe return, but I think we should just agree to disagree here. Yes, the AR will work, but in a pinch, a Rugar 10/22 will kill, and if that's all your given, believe me, you will be motivated enough to make it do pretty good. It's your life that's on the line after all. You could be given McGuiver stuff (Bubble Gum Wrapper, and a Paper Clip) and you would figure out some way to turn it into a weapon and then use it to save your life. I dislike the AR and especially the .223. There are many others out there that agree with that also. Many others who have used said tools in combat. What irks me the most is that defenders of the system always seem to point out that "it works" or "it's technically" or any number of examples that conveniently avoid the basic physics of "bigger is universally deadlier" when referring to impact weapons. It feels like they are towing some company line, or trying to make grade by jacking up their superiors rehetoric. It may "technically" and it may "work" but compared to what? Back in the caveman days as an example: "Rock work good to kill enemy, Bigger rock work better!" Both will "work" but which one is the "Best?" That is my issue at hand in this discussion at any rate.
Most of the guys have never been given anything else to us, so how would they know if it "worked"? Maybe it sucks but they wouldn't know any better? The problem is; until you give one guy in a squad an AR to use and another a M-14, let them use them for 2 weeks in theater, and then let them come back as a unit to decide which one they all want to use (being given one choice mind you) it gets pretty moot.
I don't mean to jump off in your rear with this Morpheus32, as I said, I truly appreciate your service, but this is starting to get to the level of patronization. Lets just let this aspect of it go, eh?
P.S. As far as who my friend is, well, the truth of the matter is; this is an open chat board on the internet, and I don't know who you are other than who you say you are. I know you as Morpheus32, and I hope you will understand that I am not interested in getting my friend in any trouble, or providing his name, unit and location in an environment where anyone could obtain, and possible use said information. You can take my relay about what he said at face value, or discard it as BS, but I'm not going to just give out that information to someone I don't really know, or risk his safety. I will tell you this; he is real, he is my friend, he has a family, I have no reason to believe that he would lie to me, he is a good man who slings a rifle, and patrols with his men--signs up on the board for patrol rotation, just like any other grunt--and is one damned fine NCO, and he is currently in harms way. He has experience with multiple weapons (he's been in a long time, and we are shooting buddies) and knows what he is talking about IMO. Take that for what you will. I simply can not provide you with more than that, so if that makes me a liar...then I've been called worse in my lifetime; I can live with it.
As I stated earlier, I'm glad your experience with the AR was a good one, but nobody is going to tell me that .223 is a war round, even at 77grns, or that the Stoner gas system is anything more than a joke. I respect your service Morpheus32, and am happy for your safe return, but I think we should just agree to disagree here. Yes, the AR will work, but in a pinch, a Rugar 10/22 will kill, and if that's all your given, believe me, you will be motivated enough to make it do pretty good. It's your life that's on the line after all. You could be given McGuiver stuff (Bubble Gum Wrapper, and a Paper Clip) and you would figure out some way to turn it into a weapon and then use it to save your life. I dislike the AR and especially the .223. There are many others out there that agree with that also. Many others who have used said tools in combat. What irks me the most is that defenders of the system always seem to point out that "it works" or "it's technically" or any number of examples that conveniently avoid the basic physics of "bigger is universally deadlier" when referring to impact weapons. It feels like they are towing some company line, or trying to make grade by jacking up their superiors rehetoric. It may "technically" and it may "work" but compared to what? Back in the caveman days as an example: "Rock work good to kill enemy, Bigger rock work better!" Both will "work" but which one is the "Best?" That is my issue at hand in this discussion at any rate.
Most of the guys have never been given anything else to us, so how would they know if it "worked"? Maybe it sucks but they wouldn't know any better? The problem is; until you give one guy in a squad an AR to use and another a M-14, let them use them for 2 weeks in theater, and then let them come back as a unit to decide which one they all want to use (being given one choice mind you) it gets pretty moot.
I don't mean to jump off in your rear with this Morpheus32, as I said, I truly appreciate your service, but this is starting to get to the level of patronization. Lets just let this aspect of it go, eh?
P.S. As far as who my friend is, well, the truth of the matter is; this is an open chat board on the internet, and I don't know who you are other than who you say you are. I know you as Morpheus32, and I hope you will understand that I am not interested in getting my friend in any trouble, or providing his name, unit and location in an environment where anyone could obtain, and possible use said information. You can take my relay about what he said at face value, or discard it as BS, but I'm not going to just give out that information to someone I don't really know, or risk his safety. I will tell you this; he is real, he is my friend, he has a family, I have no reason to believe that he would lie to me, he is a good man who slings a rifle, and patrols with his men--signs up on the board for patrol rotation, just like any other grunt--and is one damned fine NCO, and he is currently in harms way. He has experience with multiple weapons (he's been in a long time, and we are shooting buddies) and knows what he is talking about IMO. Take that for what you will. I simply can not provide you with more than that, so if that makes me a liar...then I've been called worse in my lifetime; I can live with it.
Last edited:
Settle down. If you do a little bit of research you will see this has been hashed out dozens of times. I have been around here alot longer than you have, and I don't have to justify myself to you. And don't get into that officer vs NCO bull. I know a lot of outstanding NCOs and Officers that would take great offence to your comments. Every one of the them a combat veteran. Canadian and US soldiers I have served with.
All I asked was what unit your friend was from. Don't get your knickers in a knot or you won't last long around here. I had a discussion on the M4 with the Command Sgt Major of the US Army Europe and he concurs with my comments. So I am glad your friend has an opinion. What I have seen does not agree with your friend both in Iraq an Afghanistan. First hand. Not some officer/NCO bull...save that for the movies.
I am glad you think the M14 and 308 cartridge is better. Run with it. I am telling you...first hand that it is not an issue....zero...no problem with Canadian Army. Lets just leave it at that. Our guys have the tools they need and it is working fine. If you think otherwise, then have at it.
Oh ya....lighten up. PM me if you have any issues or do some looking if you need to figure out my background.
Out here.
H20,
Just because they are looking for them to enhance long range engagements, doesn't mean the whole army needs them. They are but tools in the tool box. The Canadian Army is using AR10s in this role, does that mean the Canadian Army needs everyone to be equiped with them? Nope...just more tools in the tool box. You need a balance of weapon systems in platoons and companies...
Until we get a significant leap in weapon performance, not likely capable with current technology, you will still see a weapons mix at the platoon and company level...
In Baghdad and Mosul, the problem stems from the acquistion system. They can get M14s for free and can not buy other systems rather having to wait until the army acquires them. The guys who are working on them are using unit funds to pay for upgrades. It is really crazy when you think about it but it is the system. The US Army like the Canadian Army is trying to figure out what balance they need. In Canada, we have increased our snipers at the Battalion level to fill the void. The US Army is experimenting with both a designated marksman and increased snipers. Unfortunately, this really seems to be an emotional issue for alot of people and it is moving forward very slowly. I was involved with the staffing of a designated marksman type addendum for our tactics but it was opposed by one of the Regiments which put it off the rails. Hopefully it will get back online as I think it significantly increases the flexiblity of the platoon to have a couple of lads with precision semi autos in 7.62.
As your aware, I am a big fan of the M14 and have a very large collection of them....
EricCartmann
Member
- Location
- Las Vegas, NV
Morpheus: I enjoyed your Astan pics in the Ebrsopmod forums.
I love a good .308 vs. .223 or a M14 vs. AR argument as much as the next guy so I thought I would jump in.
Even the Russians have a caliber argument, the AK-74 vs. AKM. I remember reading Russian combat stories in Afghanistan. Units were equiped with 5.45 and 7.62x39 and 7.62x54 guns, and according to the Russian, all the rifles were just as lethal as the other. The 5.45 was even found to be lethal at distances. As we all know, the biggest advantage of the 5.45 is weight, enabing you to either carry more rounds or a lighter load, so that is the caliber most Russians soldier preferred.
As for the M14, if it is what we have in inventory, then I can see why the US military would use it. But why manufacture new M14's? The 14 is an ancient and complicated design. All the new space age stocks do make the M14 a better weapon, but they are all cumbersome, and hard to maintain. They are just a workaround for an ancient design.
Here is my list of why the M14 should go the way of the M1903 and the Garand:
-------------------------
- funky oprod design, one hot round and say hi to a bent oprod and bye bye to your $1800 M1A.
- funky way to secure the oprod to the reciever. see that little notch where the oprod slides into the reciever? the rifle is dependent on this tab on the oprod for the whole operation of the rifle. if the tab were to wear out it's bye bye rifle.
- funky bolt design. See that little roller on the bolt? A useless invention that is not necessary. If that roller breaks, it is impossible to replace. See that the extractor and the way it is secured? Yes the extractor can jump out of the bolt.. and has.
- hard to manufacture. Look at all the little parts and specialty parts.
- spare parts non existent. You can't even find M14 parts anymore. These days bolts go for $200 if you can find it! You basically can get an entire FAL parts kit with barrel, stock and all for about $250.
- not easy to scope, every scope mounting technique is a micky mouse job. The M1A seems to just want to twist the mount off. Also have you seen the price for those ugly Smith mounts? $300! Crazy I tell you, it is like you are paying a tax stamp for the right to scope. The others are easy to scope. AR-10's comes with a flat top. FAL's has the DSA mounts that slide in and stay put.
- cheek weld is non-existence if you run a scope.
- not modular (need a smith the change the barrel), need special tool to work on the bolt.
- stock has no bedding. It is no secret it takes about 40 rounds for the M1A action to settle into a USGI stock.
- no pistol grip. There is a reason why every modern rifle has a pistol grip.
I love a good .308 vs. .223 or a M14 vs. AR argument as much as the next guy so I thought I would jump in.
Even the Russians have a caliber argument, the AK-74 vs. AKM. I remember reading Russian combat stories in Afghanistan. Units were equiped with 5.45 and 7.62x39 and 7.62x54 guns, and according to the Russian, all the rifles were just as lethal as the other. The 5.45 was even found to be lethal at distances. As we all know, the biggest advantage of the 5.45 is weight, enabing you to either carry more rounds or a lighter load, so that is the caliber most Russians soldier preferred.
As for the M14, if it is what we have in inventory, then I can see why the US military would use it. But why manufacture new M14's? The 14 is an ancient and complicated design. All the new space age stocks do make the M14 a better weapon, but they are all cumbersome, and hard to maintain. They are just a workaround for an ancient design.
Here is my list of why the M14 should go the way of the M1903 and the Garand:
-------------------------
- funky oprod design, one hot round and say hi to a bent oprod and bye bye to your $1800 M1A.
- funky way to secure the oprod to the reciever. see that little notch where the oprod slides into the reciever? the rifle is dependent on this tab on the oprod for the whole operation of the rifle. if the tab were to wear out it's bye bye rifle.
- funky bolt design. See that little roller on the bolt? A useless invention that is not necessary. If that roller breaks, it is impossible to replace. See that the extractor and the way it is secured? Yes the extractor can jump out of the bolt.. and has.
- hard to manufacture. Look at all the little parts and specialty parts.
- spare parts non existent. You can't even find M14 parts anymore. These days bolts go for $200 if you can find it! You basically can get an entire FAL parts kit with barrel, stock and all for about $250.
- not easy to scope, every scope mounting technique is a micky mouse job. The M1A seems to just want to twist the mount off. Also have you seen the price for those ugly Smith mounts? $300! Crazy I tell you, it is like you are paying a tax stamp for the right to scope. The others are easy to scope. AR-10's comes with a flat top. FAL's has the DSA mounts that slide in and stay put.
- cheek weld is non-existence if you run a scope.
- not modular (need a smith the change the barrel), need special tool to work on the bolt.
- stock has no bedding. It is no secret it takes about 40 rounds for the M1A action to settle into a USGI stock.
- no pistol grip. There is a reason why every modern rifle has a pistol grip.
EricCartmann
Member
- Location
- Las Vegas, NV
I have to say Corpus is spot on too!
As an Enlistment man myself, officers don't know jack about their enlisted troops, they may think they do but they don't
Not looking to stir up trouble just speaking my true feelings
As an Enlistment man myself, officers don't know jack about their enlisted troops, they may think they do but they don't
Not looking to stir up trouble just speaking my true feelings
God I wish we were all at a Bar right now so we could just knock back a few drinks, knock each other the "F" out, and then go have a cigar in the parking lot, and laugh about it. Shame on you EricCartman for speaking foul of the M-14. Then again, I like the FAL better.
There is no doubt that a new and improved weapon is needed for general distribution, but the M14 will continue to serve in specialized roles for
many years to come and they can be modernized in such a way as to deliver AK47 reliability and excellent accuracy with reduced maintenance.
Just how large is your M14 collection these days Morpheus? Feel free to post pics and details over on M14HDW.US
As of 08/08/08 I'm sitting on 8 M14s
.
many years to come and they can be modernized in such a way as to deliver AK47 reliability and excellent accuracy with reduced maintenance.
Just how large is your M14 collection these days Morpheus? Feel free to post pics and details over on M14HDW.US
As of 08/08/08 I'm sitting on 8 M14s
.
Last edited:
EricCartmann
Member
- Location
- Las Vegas, NV
I can't comment on the lethality of the 556 as I only experienced 4 days of combat and did not get to see first hand what it could do, but I can comment on the reliability of the AR-15/M16 in sandy environments.
I hear a lot on the internet how the AR-15 DI system is not good in the sand, but I have to disagree. I served in the first Gulf War, and I currently live in the desert, so I know a little bit about the sand.
Orignally we had problems in the sand in the first Gulf war due to misinformation Big Army told us. They told us to only put a light coat of CLP, said excess lube will just attract dirt and build up enough rendering your weapon useless. We found this info to be a crock of crap. The weapon will attract sand regardless. With all the sandstorms and even walking on a quiet day, kicks up a lot of dust. Even if you put your weapon in a garbage bag, eventually the sand will find it's way all over the weapon, inside and out.
We found out the excess lubing just helped everything moving. Ofcourse we already knew this, in Germany, we use to run our weapons really wet, lots and lots of clp. It kept the parts moving and the gun was pretty much spot on reliable even when it was -5 (F) degrees out. Same thing in the summer in the Hohensfel and Wildflecken Training Area, these places were very dusty, but the access lube kept the weapon cycling reliably (with blank ammo). But right before we deployed to the Gulf, we were told light coat of oil.... conclusion? Big Army does not always know what's best.
I hear a lot on the internet how the AR-15 DI system is not good in the sand, but I have to disagree. I served in the first Gulf War, and I currently live in the desert, so I know a little bit about the sand.
Orignally we had problems in the sand in the first Gulf war due to misinformation Big Army told us. They told us to only put a light coat of CLP, said excess lube will just attract dirt and build up enough rendering your weapon useless. We found this info to be a crock of crap. The weapon will attract sand regardless. With all the sandstorms and even walking on a quiet day, kicks up a lot of dust. Even if you put your weapon in a garbage bag, eventually the sand will find it's way all over the weapon, inside and out.
We found out the excess lubing just helped everything moving. Ofcourse we already knew this, in Germany, we use to run our weapons really wet, lots and lots of clp. It kept the parts moving and the gun was pretty much spot on reliable even when it was -5 (F) degrees out. Same thing in the summer in the Hohensfel and Wildflecken Training Area, these places were very dusty, but the access lube kept the weapon cycling reliably (with blank ammo). But right before we deployed to the Gulf, we were told light coat of oil
.... conclusion? Big Army does not always know what's best.
What the heck is the this....US guys on CGN?
Eric - speak freely of the US Mil. From personal experience...the Canadians operate alot differently. I was in 3rd Bde/101 and saw alot of what you speak...mostly in my opinion of the rapid turn over of officers.
H20 - 9 right now. 4 Norincos with USGI parts, 3 M1As, 2 M1As SOCOM IIs.....4 of them in Vltor stocks, 3 in Sages, and the others stockless right now....
Eric - speak freely of the US Mil. From personal experience...the Canadians operate alot differently. I was in 3rd Bde/101 and saw alot of what you speak...mostly in my opinion of the rapid turn over of officers.
H20 - 9 right now. 4 Norincos with USGI parts, 3 M1As, 2 M1As SOCOM IIs.....4 of them in Vltor stocks, 3 in Sages, and the others stockless right now....
EricCartmann
Member
- Location
- Las Vegas, NV
God I wish we were all at a Bar right now so we could just knock back a few drinks, knock each other the "F" out, and then go have a cigar in the parking lot, and laugh about it. Shame on you EricCartman for speaking foul of the M-14. Then again, I like the FAL better.
Be careful.
I have been kicked out of forums for believing the FAL is the greatest battle-gun of all time. Also been kicked out for telling people they don't need a $2000 optic, and for arguing with SWAT guys
