question for those of you who have used both

Fenix.NZ

Fenix.NZ

CGN Ultra frequent flyer
EE Expired
Rating - 100%
2   0   0
Location
Hamiltron - City of the Future , New Zealand
which is the better of the two rifles ?

M14 or L1A1 ( C1A1, SLR, FAL .. whichever you prefer )

generaly accuracy
ease of cleaning and maintainance
reliability ( bit of a non issue.. both are pretty reliable rifles )


and please no FN FAL cos you cant have them comments.. this is a serious question ( i promise i wont mention suppressors )
 
Does used both mean the real USGI M14 and the FN FAL? Anything else would not be a fair comparison.
And now for my 2 cents.....M14 better sights, FN better ergonomics.
 
accuracy with irons- the m14- the sights are MUCH better on the m14/garand series-
they both suffer when you stick a scope on- unless you have a 3rd geneation mount for the 14- or the one i had had problems with a loose body cover-
as far as cleaning, about the same- you still have a gas system to worry about , piston to clean , and all the associated stuff
the gas system itself was better on the fn- being able to dial in for different lots of ammo is better than hoping you don't have to do an i/a
the m14 is finicky as far as what kind of ammo it likesie you have to put up with it if you get a "soft load" , you can just dial in a different gas setting with the fn
 
generaly accuracy M14
ease of cleaning and maintainance FNC1
reliability ( bit of a non issue.. both are pretty reliable rifles ) TIE

All of this is a moot point - you can only own & shoot an M14S of the rifles listed.
 
I Have been issued the C1A1. I must say I prefer the C1A1 hands down.
I find C1A1 comes up from the low read more naturally;
Ergonomically I find it more comfortable;
I hate reciprocating op rods and cocking handles;
I love that C1A1 is left hand operated (meaning right hand remains on the pistol grip throughout all drills.


However the M1 style sights are better than the "rear sight of the folding aperture type"
 
Last edited:
For recreational or target shooting, the M-14 has better sights. This is the only advantage a M-14 might have.
I would choose an FN.
 
You are asking Canadian's what rifle they prefer. Well lets see the FN FAL served our country for 30+ year's and most of the free world's army as well. So I would have to say with no doubt in my mindthe FN FAL. But for a rifle man's rifle the M14 win's hands down. The true question is what role would you be looking for this rifle to fill.
 
Satain said:
You are asking Canadian's what rifle they prefer. Well lets see the FN FAL served our country for 30+ year's and most of the free world's army as well. So I would have to say with no doubt in my mindthe FN FAL. But for a rifle man's rifle the M14 win's hands down. The true question is what role would you be looking for this rifle to fill.
Click to expand...

served us well too ( L1A1 )

its going to be my service rifle banger, deer rifle and goat rifle, general banger.. and SHTF gun

basically an all rounder ( im a strong lad so i dont mind dragging it throug the bush )
 
tiriaq said:
The M-14 didn't win the competiton with the T-48 because it was a better rifle......
Click to expand...

Yes indeed!

I own both and have shot both and I prefer the FN.

-Better ergonomics (so long as the butstock is the right length for you).
-Easier to strip and clean.

Off the rack, there is no real accuracy difference, but the M-14 can be tweaked for greater accuracy, while there is not much you can do to improve the FN.

Given a choice, I would take the FN.
 
I've owned dozens of the genuine US GI M14s.

I was also a sometimes summer soldier C2 gunner.

I've also owned an Australian L2 [ with the rather neat wood legs/fore end/ bipod, and the not so neat immense, weird ?Flash Hider? ].

I've also owned dozens of the AI built Sudanese and Portuguese AR 10s.

And ONE Valmet M 76 in 7.62 Nato.

I've shot thousands of rounds through all of these, including some on fast forward.


All of these are reliable, durable, and accurate.

In my experience, the AR 10, with the rotating bolt, is a bit more accurate on average than the others.
PLUS,
the ergonomics of the AR 10 are superb.

This is why I prefer the AR 10 as my first choice, but honestly, all of them are great.
[;{)
LAZ 1
 
Lazerus2000 said:
I've owned dozens of the genuine US GI M14s.

I was also a sometimes summer soldier C2 gunner.

I've also owned an Australian L2 [ with the rather neat wood legs/fore end/ bipod, and the not so neat immense, weird ?Flash Hider? ].

I've also owned dozens of the AI built Sudanese and Portuguese AR 10s.

And ONE Valmet M 76 in 7.62 Nato.

I've shot thousands of rounds through all of these, including some on fast forward.


All of these are reliable, durable, and accurate.

In my experience, the AR 10, with the rotating bolt, is a bit more accurate on average than the others.
PLUS,
the ergonomics of the AR 10 are superb.

This is why I prefer the AR 10 as my first choice, but honestly, all of them are great.
[;{)
LAZ 1
Click to expand...

I would LOOOOVE to handle let alone own/shoot a Sudan/Potruguese/South African Trials AR-10! I am extremely jealous!

The weird thing on the end of the L2 was supposed to reduce recoil for small aisian soldiers (Malaysia contract) so I am very curious if it worked. Did you notice any difference between it and a C2?

(apologies to all for the hi-jack).
 
I own C2A1, M14 and AR10.

AR10 is a very pleasent surpize to shoot. I like it but have not put thousands of rounds through it, as I have the m14s and C1 and C2.

I much prefer the trigger and sights on the M14.

I prefer the way I can quickly remove bolt carrier from the FN and claen from the back, as God intended.

Even with the heavy barrel, the C2 is useless on full auto - and the M14 is even worse. AR10 might be better on full, but have not tried that.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom