I've had both....Now I just have the M1A....

The FAL has no soul....trigger sucks....Sights are meh..Accuracy varies a lot.....

If you are experiencing more recoil from a FAL then you need to learn how to adjust the gas system.  I have had and shot 3 gun with all of the big 4 (FAL, AR10, M1A and HK91) and I love the FAL the best.  You get AK reliability, reasonable accuracy and a good all around gun that is tough as nails.  The only problem that I ever really worried about was the iron sights.  The M1A has better sights.  I have gone through a half a dozen different iron sights on my FAL, and am currently running a HK drum sight.  If you are buying brand new, buy the DAS that has the AR15 A2 style rear sight.  If the apocalypse hits tomorrow, I am bringing my FAL.

I'd op for the M14, always had a sweet spot for them, if your choosing one of the two,. I have both and also a BM59. The BM59's are sweet shooters and shouldn't be overlooked..

Check Mate is the supplier of M-14 mags to the DoD.

Don't screw around with lesser scope mounts go straight for a Smith Enterprises mount and be done in one. Smith is a supplier of M14 goodies to the DoD and alphabets everywhere.

Technologically the M-14 is a little old. However, it works and works and works quite well. It's proven itself an accurate, durable, reliable and useful tool.

Everyone who's used it to do good things to bad people will attest to that.

This. Go CMI.

So is A.R.M.S. and I prefer their #18 personally. It’s small, lightweight, and sits very low.

I'd vote for a loaded m1a full length barrel.  It will be a accurate shooter for bench or sit hunting.  Later if he wants a walking around rifle I'd get the fal.

These are expensive but they don't shift, wander or shoot loose. Ever.

This. It's not hard.

The M14 and M1a rifles are easier to shoot accurately when not shooting from a bench. I loved my FAL and my AR10, and my HK91, but my NM M1a was the best of the bunch.

The AR10 was more accurate from the bench, but from any position or standing, the M1a was better. The other guns are a bit clunkier.

Normally I shot it with irons, but, I also scoped it as well from time to time. Mine did have a synthetic stock, and the stainless Douglas barrel. For me, they just point more naturally, are easier to get hits with , softer shooting, and they are simple to break down and clean if you aren't a moron. The aggravating part is the op rod removal and reinstallation. Once you figure out where to tilt and lift sideways, you'll be able to do it right every time. IT might take 10-15 tries at first though.

The manual of arms, simple, rack the bolt hard, pull the trigger. To place on safety, put your trigger finger on the safety and pull it rearward into the trigger guard. To fire, simply put your trigger finger in guard again, and push out. the good thing, is that when it's dark, or low visibility, all you need to do to see if it's on safe is touch the inside of the trigger guard and feel if the safety is inside.

My vote goes to the M14 / M1a.

I've had three M1a's (fullsize, bush, SOCOM) and about four FAL's of different flavors over the years. I now only have a factory SAR-48 FAL. If I ever decide to go with an M1a again (not likely) I'd go back to the bush rifle configuration.

Deciding is easy, get them all like I did!

This sums up my opinions of both rifles as well.

Personally, I give a slight edge to the FAL.

I say go with the M14/M1A. I have a few of all of the Battle Rifles, M14/G3/F.A.L./AR10 and I find myself shooting the M14 way more. I prefer the full size, 22" barrel and I bet your Dad would too. The shorter barreled M14/M1A rifles aren't all that, it's mostly the guys who think they're high speed tactical operators who like them. The longer sight radius of the 22" barrel is sweet and it's easier to disassemble. If you look for an older Springfield Armory Inc M1A try to find one under serial number 100,000. These have USGI parts.

I was and still am a big fan of the F.A.L. but they are far from tack drivers. They average 3 to 6 MOA, the StG 58 is usually more accurate but they're not MOA rifles. The good F.A.L. parts are starting to dry up and mags are harder to find since a couple of lazy companies decided to make rifles using F.A.L. mags instead of something more plentiful or designing their own mags.

The G3/HK91/PTR91 is more accurate than the F.A.L. and the parts and mags are plentiful as of now but as it gets more popular the supply will decrease and the price will go up. Some don't like the recoil, say it's harsh compared to other rifles and the rifle feels like holding a 2x6. They're proven design and the PTR91 gets you into a .308 Battle Rifle cheaper than the others. The AR10 type rifles are accurate but their quality and reliability vary. I've become bored with ARs of all calibers, they just have no soul like other rifles.

I have both, A half dozen Fals and a Standard M1A.  The Fals, Especially the inch types win hands down for me. Easy to shoot well, Low recoil, Tough as hell and easy to scope.

I don't think the M1A has left the safe in 5 years or so. It's up for sale.

You can argue a lot of points as to which rifle is superb, and much of it comes down to nothing more than preference, but one thing that cannot be argued against is that the FAL is superior to the M14 and G3 and on par with the AR10 for ease of disassembly for field stripping. Hell, taking that further, all of the pins and screws can be removed with nothing more than a bayonet.

I wasn't even talking about the F.A.L. when I mentioned disassembly but please go on. Deleted comment.

6) Attacking or insulting a member in an effort to elicit a negative response. You have the right to disagree, but please do so in a respectful manner. This rule also includes posting disparaging remarks about a member's family.

Please remain civil. Thank You

I bought my M1A in late 1978.  I used to really enjoy shooting it, hunting with it, knowing it was good to go and would get the "job" done if it ever became necessary.  However, it has never been accurate enough to suit me.  I spent a lot of money many years ago trying different powders/bullets trying to get it to shoot satisfying groups.

My M1A has been scoped since not long after I got it.  Never any issues with it.  Single bolt mount.  I haven't taken it off the rifle in over 30 years.  I had to add a cheek piece to the stock to get a good cheek weld, a few years back.  I'm not sure I ever noticed a problem till I got to shooting multiple targets and moving from one to another resulted in my groups moving on the target because my eye was moving behind the scope.  The cheek piece fixed that.  If I were going to scope an M1A today I'd buy one of the scout scope mounts from Amega Ranges or (I can ever remember the name of the other company that makes them) and put a long eye relief scope on it.  Did that on an M1 Garand and absolutely love it.  My M1A regularly bounces an empty back into the bolt/receiver area and jams up when shooting SA surplus.  That's the only brand that does it, but it's an issue with the over the receiver scope mount.

M1A trigger is good.  Recoil isn't an issue (weight and sling use).  Reliability has been great (broke op rod with my reloads - twice - over 35 years ago, but it's been fine since then).

I bought an FAL for my youngest son.  Yes, the sights aren't as precise.  I really don't like the way you go about scoping a FAL (that small screw clamp the cover to the receiver method just bothers me).  However, it is accurate.  It doesn't seem to kick any more than my M1A/M1 Garand.  It has a nice trigger.  The only issue we've had with it was gas port related.  A previous owner cut the barrel back and then had a compensator welded to the barrel to get it back to legal length.  Not enough barrel between the muzzle and the gas port led to having to set the gas system almost wide open when clean and a short "range life" before adjustments had to be made to keep it functioning.  After I opened up the gas port it's been great.  I would have no issues using/carrying/hunting with that FAL.

About a year ago I bought a DPMS GII Recon.  If I was going to buy another .308 it would be another GII Recon.  Lighter than either the FAL of the M1A.  Just as reliable, so far.  Easy to get an awesome trigger for it.  I can put my nose on the charging handle (like the .223 AR15) and shoot it with no problem, so recoil is fairly light with SA surplus.  I did change the free float tube (don't like quad rails) and put an SA adjustable/venting gas block on it (thinking about a suppressor, some day).  The GII rivals my best shooting M1 Garand for group size and that M1 Garand shoots rings around my M1A and the FAL.

One of the neat things about the GII is how so many AR15 aftermarket parts fit it (stocks, triggers, sights, scope mounts - NOT handguards, or at least not free float tubes - due to the barrel nut).

Never mind wrong thread

I just don't understand some of the M1A versus FAL comments.

1) Hard to mount a scope on an M1A.

Compared to what?  I had a scope on my match grade M1A for load development and long range shooting for years.  It took 15 seconds to remove it or re-install it and I never had more than 1/2 MOA of drift in the POI.  It doesn't get any easier than that.  Ever.   In contrast, with a FAL you need a new dust cover to mount an optic, and that cover has to be screwed/clamped to the upper receiver to provide any degree of accuracy.  That however causes issues with field stripping, and then with repeatability when you re-install the dust cover and scope.

2) Accuracy of the M1A.

When I hear this I always do an eye roll.   It's an incomplete question.   If you're talking about a Match or Super Match, you are talking about sub MOA accuracy.  If you are talking about a standard M1A you are talking about 3-4 MOA, and the air gauged barrel on the Loaded model might reduce that to about 2 MOA.  If it's a SOCOM or Scout Squad 3-4 MOA might be optimistic.

In comparison, there is not much you can do to improve the accuracy of the FAL.  They are pretty much 3-4 MOA rifles. Period.

3) Gas systems.

The FAL has a superb gas system that can be shut off to produce a straight pull rifle, or adjusted to cycle with just about any .308 or 7.62 NATO ammo.   Just reduce the gas port adjustment until it stops fully cycling and then increase the setting by 2 clicks.
In contrast the M1A gas system is what it is and while it's much more flexible than the M1 Garand gas system, it is still very prone to being abused by slow burning powders.

4) inch pattern magazines are hard to find.

So what?  Inch pattern FALs work just fine with both Inch and Metric magazines.  The greater contact area of the inch pattern interface is theoretically more secure, but in practice there is no difference.

----

My thoughts on both, based on actual ownership and use over the last 20 years:

M1A

The M1A has the edge in accuracy, even in the rack grade versions.  And you always have the option of adding a match barrel, unitizing the gas system and glass bedding the action to get MOA or sub MOA accuracy.

The M1A points really well.  The US military used to use a drill where you taped over the ear sight and then snap shot at close range targets.  It handles like a well fitted shot gun in this regard and the CQB performance is impressive, even with a 22" barrel and flash suppressor.  The SOCOM and Squad Scout versions are the current tacti-cool fad, but unless you are actually clearing houses with them, they add absolutely nothing and cost you an unacceptable loss in long range performance and accuracy.  They are pretty useless, but SA sure sells a lot of them....

FAL

The FAL has very good ergonomics in the sense that it handles and carries like a rifle that is much shorter and lighter than it actually is.  It's the opposite of the G3/HK91, which actually feels longer and heavier than it really is.  The amazing part is that this is case even though the FAL had to be scaled up from the original .280 Brit version to accommodate the 7.62x51 round.

The FAL will never be accused of being sub MOA accurate, but it's a better battle rifle overall than the M1A/M14.

I agree the M14-type is the best overall for the 1950's-60's era NATO battle rifles. They aren't overly difficult to scope, and the added scope bases do not have the disadvantages of the FAL scope bases (as pointed out above). I love the M14 iron sights the most. It is a very easy rifle to point, manipulate, and control, despite not having a full pistol grip stock in its standard configuration. The E2/A1 config is fun too, but not really worth the additional weight (and expense) in semi-auto.

The AR-10 style rifles are the best today, however, if you don't want a piston rifle. SCAR 17 is best if you do want a piston. I don't have experience with the HK417 to rank it.

#2) M14
#3) G3/HK91
#4) FAL

My opinion comes from owning/firing them. I don't have a SCAR or .308 AR yet but they're coming.

I'm not saying my Para FAL sucks either, but it's the last one I'd choose among the above options. The SVT-style tilting bolt and resulting vertical stringing really hamper its performance.

Great rifle for looking like a Rhodesian merc though. Accept no substitutes! I prefer non-bipod-cut hand guards, but they're hard to find. ARS owner (Mark Graham?) was selling some on GB last I checked.

Currently have a scout and a socom 16. I use to have a SAR48 (FAL) and sold it during the ban. After shooting a friends L1A1 I remembered why I sold it. I can't remember how many pairs of glasses I broke and the amount of black eye I got from the rear sight. I might be set up to close to the sight but never had a problem with that on other platforms. The rear sight rail is hard and sharp.

I vote FAL .

I love mine . And I like the looks better .
I never owned an M1A though .

Is one really that much better than the other . I doubt it .

Only thing I dont like about my FAL ,( and I havent read this in this thread ,)
The bolt has no way to shut manually if it ever did not want to go into full battry .
No assist lke an AR either .

Never an issue for me but just saying .

Exactly.  +1

_________________________

If your Dad has had military service....which rifle did he train on?

BTW.....I had no military service.  Though, when I had the chance (years ago), I bought the FAL.  Back then, there were not imported all that often.   It's a real Belgium Made - Steyr.  Today it's a collector piece and worth a lot.

But.....shortly after the purchase I got bit by the Hi-Power bug.  Back then, the shooters were using the M-1a.  So, I regretted the decision of buying the FAL.    Oh well.....so, I bought a M1a.  The FAL went into the safe.   More or less, it stays there living the life of a "Safe Queen."

Aloha, Mark

You just don't have the right FAL

scar 17 or pof revolution

Having owned multiples of both, I would say FAL without a doubt.

Fal for .308 M1 for 30-06

Ive had FALs for years. One M1A.

The M1A is more accurate.  If I had to fight with one I would take my FAL.

FAL

Get both - Both are good rifles.  You can probably shop around and find bargains for either.

I have both and I flit between which I like better.  I have 5 FALs and one M1A.  There are more flavors of FALs over the counter so better make that get several FALs and at least one M1A!

For accuracy I'd go with an M1A or similar M14 clone.
Better sights and trigger.

The FAL can be more reliable if it's built well with surplus parts.

I've owned several FALs and M1As over the last 20 years.

I will probably own another M1A at some point to round out our collection of US
service rifles.

Your best bet is to look around for a sub 80,000 s/n M1A with mostly
USGI parts.

There are other makers of the M-14 platform.

My Dad with my new James River / Bula M-14.  I like FAL's too.  I've always wanted an "M-14" though.

If your budget would allow, I would get both and let your father shoot and choose.  M1A sights are better out of the box as is inherent accuracy.  FALs are easy to upgrade with much better iron sights and triggers (which I've done with both of mine).



I have an older M1A-Bush that I love, but for some reason the FAL just turns me on  I like both and if I was looking for a do-all rifle from combat to hunting, it would be the M1A-Bush.  If I needed a .308 combat rifle (I don't have an AR10 variant...yet), I would choose the FAL.  I like the way the FAL handles better and the manual of arms is more ingrained for me.  I have two FALs left and a future upgrade will be adding a para lower/stock assembly...it actually makes it heavier, but far better looking!

If you're willing, DSA's FALs and upgrades will push the accuracy limitations much closer to a stock M1A.  Many of the surplus parts guns had mediocre accuracy, but newer rifles will surprise you.  An M1A will likely serve you better if just shooting from the bench.  However, if you start doing dynamic ranges, the FAL will likely handle far better...simply my opinion based on my experiences.

Oh, after you buy both, let you dad choose and you get the other rifle...a total win-win in my book

ROCK6