question for those of you who have used both

I've owned them both and shot them both...and yes, one of mine is a real USGI 12(3) M14 although I don't recall any difference between firing the "real M14" and the Norc ones that I have.

general accuracy...pretty much the same...slight edge to M14, probably because of the sights.

ease of cleaning and maintainance...I don't perfer one over the other here.

reliability ( bit of a non issue.. both are pretty reliable rifles )...non issue.

Honestly, I really like them both and wish I could still shoot the FAL...:mad:
 
I loved my FN C1 and C2 The C2 really came into it's own on semi-auto, if your barrel handn't been totally cooked yet.
Even so, as a sporting rifle, I'd give the edge to the M14. The better sights and trigger outweigh (IMHO) the better ergonomics, stripping/cleaning and adjustable gas system.

If I was selecting an TEOTWAWKI rifle, it'd be a FAL, hands-down, when one might end-up with dirty ammo of uncertain power, making both the adjustable gas system and the ease of cleaning important, and one might also find oneself doing a lot of shooting in a short time with that ammo, making the ergonomics more important.
 
When I was wearing green, C2 gunners were taught to shoot SHORT bursts, and I can testify that the C2s we used did NOT have burned out barrels. Off the bipod, we used to shoot at 45 gal drums at about 400 yds. It was quite possible to keep a short burst on the drum. In fact, the C2s might have been TOO accurate in burst fire, as the cone of dispersement of the bullets was a bit too tight for use as an area suppressor.

The M14 on R&R is a bit too much for most to control, however it is doable if, like me, you weigh in at well over 200 lbs, and again use SHORT bursts. From a deep rooted, leaning well forward stance, it is possible to keep three rounds on an IPSC sil at 25 yds from standing, and at 100 yds from prone.
BTDT,
this is experience talking, not theory. The M14 can benefit greatly from the addition of a pistol grip and a straight line butt stock, but even then it is a beast to hold down without a really effective comp.

The ORIGINAL AR 10 is the most controllable of the three when you choose to R&R instead of waltz. The straight line stock, and the HEAVY bolt and buffer gives a recoil up/down effect, very much like the old long recoil Browning Auto 5 shotgun. As the bolt slams forward, the muzzle comes down.
Repeat until done!!!

WAYYyyyyy back in the day, 1980s - 1990s, I shot a lot of three gun and bowling pin matches with my old AR 10, and won some ....
but I cheated. It wasn't that I was a great shooter, it was mostly that my AR 10 was far superior to the other rifles that showed up at the matches.

I had a comp on my shortened AR 10, a red dot mounted on the milled down carrying handle, a special trick "SET" trigger, skeletonised butt stock, AR 15 hand guards and pistol grip, and for matches I shot mostly 123 gr Lapua .310" AK bullets loaded down to 2500 fps. I also experimented with Remington .223 gr "accelerators", and 110 Gr Imperial "Power Point" plastic tipped ammo.

And I once lay down beside a bunch of senile old farts [ DCRA shooters ] with my AR 10, and using DCRA issue 7.62 NATO BALL, with iron sights, I shot a 5 shot group at 600 yds that could be covered by an 8 1/2" X 11" sheet of paper.

This was back three decades ago, and I see the new crop of AR 10 shorties is finally looking a lot like what I built way back then, and the new Hornady "TAP" ammo has rediscovered the old Canadian idea - plastic PP tipped bullets.

I am in the process of setting up my modern variation/AR 10 wannabe Remington R25, with a comp, an 18 3/4" barrel, and working up some 110 gr and 125 gr hand loads for it. I'll probably swap between a Hakko 1.5 - 5X Short dot, and a Falcon 10X scope, depending on what games I play.

Strange how things seem to go in cycles ...

YEP,
the AR 10 was simply an idea ahead of its time,
and IMHO,
the best battle rifle that never was.
[;{)
LAZ 1
 
The M14 style of stock shot "softer" for me. Even with an XL stock the C1 would routinely punch me in the cheek bone due to the drop in the stock behind the rear sight.

I preferred the C1 sight aperture over that of the M14. Likewise the elevation adjustment on the C1 front sight.

The hinged design of the C1 meant that rifles would loosen up over time. I saw some very rattley rifles in the racks.

The C1 trigger is better IMO.

Magazines are easier to change on the C1.

Left hand operation of the C1 allows the shooting hand to remain on the pistol grip. I consider this an advantage.

Safety/Selector is easier and quicker to operate on the C1

Accuracy? At similar ranges I have found that neither rifle held the clear advantage in my hands using standard NATO ball. I have not used either at ranges exceeding 600 m and so cannot comment on how they perform after that.

M14 is easier to clean. C1 piston and gas regulator were the infantryman's bane. C1 is much easier and faster to field strip.

Speaking of the gas regulator, the M14 self regulating gas system is superior IMO.

The op rod handle on the M14 makes a handy forward assist if needed. C1 lacked this ability.

Your mileage may vary.......;)
 
Trained on the C1. I still believe that it deserves the title, "right arm of the free world". If I could only have one centerfire rifle, it would probably be an FN. I have had a few m14's. Good rifles but I believe the FN to be superior. When the eyes were still young, I could hit anything out to borderline reasonable ranges with the FN. I found it easy to break down and clean and 100% reliable under any conditions that I used it in.
 
EOS - funny that you say the M14 is easier to clean. at the Service rifle club i attend we have many guys who are ex NZ, Aus and British army. i think everyone at the club has an M14 .. and the one comment that i hear every week is that the M14 is a nightmare to clean in the field.. they all prefer the SLR/FAL/C1/L1 for breaking down and cleaning.
 
Fenix.NZ said:
EOS - funny that you say the M14 is easier to clean. at the Service rifle club i attend we have many guys who are ex NZ, Aus and British army. i think everyone at the club has an M14 .. and the one comment that i hear every week is that the M14 is a nightmare to clean in the field.. they all prefer the SLR/FAL/C1/L1 for breaking down and cleaning.
Click to expand...

There's clean and then there's infantry Sgt. clean. Getting all the carbon from a C1 piston, gas block recesses, gas plug and regulator to satisfy a Snr. NCO was a real chore. Lots of receiver recesses to keep clean too. Plus side: dead easy to field strip over the M14.

M14 piston requires a complete clean less often. C1 piston is much easier to access. C1 breech is block easier to disassemble but likewise easier to lose firing pin parts if careless.

M14 requires the issue combo tool to get at the piston. This could be disadvantageous at times. Like when you lose the tool.

Trigger mech of the M14 is more "soldier proof" and easier to keep clean. Bored Herbies would often hum up the C1 mech trying to "improve it" or lose parts after idly disassembling it. Orders were generally given not to mess with it and to refer problems to the Gun Plumbers.

Return spring mech of the C1 was better protected in the buttstock than that of the M14 beneath the barrel. C1 required a special tool to service the return spring or replace the buttstock. Easier to replace a damamged stock with the M14

I consider both rifles to be well designed but give the lead to the C1/L1 series on several counts.
 
I am also on the bandwagon that the M14 has better sights...

But the FN FAL is hands down a tougher, easier to maintain, battle rifle.

The M14 belongs on the competitive rifle range - The FN belongs at war.
 
Choice

This is like the old saying "The Germans use a hunting rifle (98 Mauser), the Americans use a target rifle (Springfield 1903) and the British use a rifle for war (SMLE).

While both the M-14 and the FN-FAL have good and not so good features, if it came down to a choice, mine would be for the FN. Having been there and done that, I want something that is reliable, easy to clean, and gives acceptable accuracy under 300 yards. She's a fairly heavy old beast, but she works!
.
 
Used both.. c1a1 all the way. Ergonomically and performance it wins over the M1a & M14.

Like has been stated before, the M14 has better sights but I found I shot better instinctively with the FN. When you had time to slow down and pick & post the M14 sights gave it an edge.

IMO the C1A1 has a better balance and shootability and under pressure shined through. Scoped however, the M1A is more suited. The FN is much more reliable and serviceable and will eat anything. Looks wise, the M1a is a ###y beast, especially scoped and tuned it's a nice rig on the range. Running on gunning, box it up and leave it at home, the FN will get you there and back.

They both have assets and faults. All things being equal it depends on the role you'd use it in. War? Hunting? Paper punching? Take your pick, both will perform. In the end though I think that the FN is more well rounded.
 
only problem with the FN was that they were chambered for that american round... 7.62x51mm :p

should have stuck to the 280 Enfield, not that would have been one hell of a rifle

but hey you can get a remmington R25 in 7-08 :D thats close to the 280 Enfield :D



:nest: :stirthepot2: :nest: :stirthepot2: :dancingbanana:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom