Opinion of the U.S. M-14 vs our FN C1 Rifle

[tbloggins]

You have one you can shoot for $400.00 (legally, the M 305)), and one you can't (illegally, the FN) for $1200.00. Tell me what you need to know?

 

[eos]

I lugged the C1 around for 15 years, and I now own a M305, and as far feel, ease of matanience and the "pleasuer" of shooting, I would take the M14/M305 any day over the C1. The M14 has a nice push in the shoulder when shooting, and the C1A1 pig would kick me in the face every time I pulled the trigger! I'm 6'3" and needed a long butt, and even when I could get one, I would always walk of the range with a sore face. Get a little dirt on the breach block, and she would jam. I think the Canadians had the best FN, of the countries that used them, but still, give me a M14/305 any day over it.

I have to agree about the discomfort of prolonged shooting with the C1. The small hump on the stock behind the rear sight would hammer my cheek bone all day on the mound. I had to shoot with an XL butt.

The M14 style rifles are more comfortable to shoot and seem more of a push than a punt when it fires. For semi auto firing I also prefer the traditional semi pistol grip stock.

Having said that, I would have been quite comfortable taking a C1 to battle. I used to have no trouble putting a 5 rd application into the face of a figure 12 at 600m. The rifle inspired confidence in the hands of a trained shooter.

 

[Sgt Striker]

EOS said: Having said that, I would have been quite comfortable taking a C1 to battle. I used to have no trouble putting a 5 rd application into the face of a figure 12 at 600m. The rifle inspired confidence in the hands of a trained shooter.

Yes, I agree with you.... the FN was a good battle rifle. I think the real problem with it was the way the butt stock slanted down from the reciever. I think that's what gave it it's "jump up" when firing. I'd really have no problem taking either into battle.... but if I had my choice... well, we've been over this already haven't we.... ;D

 

[Curtton]

One pet peeve about the FNC1 was how the rear sight would flip down from the recoil

not suppose to happen, your rear sight had weak spring.

personally i like the C1 rear sight , i like it rotating and the aperture is larger for the 200y . unlike the brits and aussy , theirs are sliding with one size aperture for the 200y right up to 600y, i think later on they brot in two aperture size.

i have a pic handy , from left, late version , early version , for C2 (1000m) and for L1A1.