User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 1/19/2006 7:14:47 AM EDT
[#1]
M14 was made here. That's essentially why it won.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/19/2006 8:19:25 AM EDT
[#2]
its allways politics
from what i gather, they were fairly equil but test were established to let the m14 fair better. im sure that SA had some influence on this process, there was also intrest that was produced domestically, as to not depend on another country for weapons. they both are good, to me the FAL feels like a real rifle where as the M14 feels like a hunting rifle. but many feel the opposite, in choosing a new weapon, justt ask you self what you want out of it, its really hard to offer advice not knowing in what way they are going to be used out of all the 308s availible i like the ar10 better than both, its more accurate and reliable than i could ever ask for, and for me, its been better than both my fal and m14 |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/19/2006 8:21:28 AM EDT
[#3]
The M-14 was a gov.org arsenal design, the FAL was NMH (Not Made Here). There were a few reliability issues with the FAL, which may or may not have been the result of Army Ordinance playing with the weapon and keeping FN people away from the tests (recall that both were weapons in development at the time). Overall the FAL is a better military weapon, although the M-14 is a fine rifle.
Also, the argument was made that the M-14 could be manufactured on Garand tooling, a substantial savings. Having shot both the M-14 and the (civilian) FAL quite a bit, I like the FAL more. With a better trigger and sights there would be no contest, IMO. The FAL came this close to winning. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/19/2006 8:51:58 AM EDT
[#4]
The M14/M1A is a nice gun and a good platform for a DM rifle, but the FAL is a better battle rifle, IMO.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/19/2006 9:58:59 AM EDT
[#5]
If you are a lefty, the M1A is friendlier than the FAL, as its' charging handle is on the correct side for you.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/19/2006 10:28:09 AM EDT
[#6]
Ahh, it's that time of the month again,right on schedule, FAL vs. M14.
First, for a lefty, the '14 is far superior to the FAL. Probably unintentionally, the M14 was the most ambidextrous rifle the US ever adopted. Without a doubt, the FAL being NIH (Not Invented Here) had a good bit to do with the M14 being adopted. But the '14 also fit in better with the long standing tradition and myth in the military of the American rifleman. In a direct comparison, the M14 is a fine rifleman's rifle, while the FAL is a rifle that can be used/maintained by illiterate third world peasants in various third world shitholes, that also just happens to launch 7.62 slugs.Not to say either can't do what the other does, but the empahsis and priorities of the designs are not hard to notice. When it comes down to it, whether for civvie or military use, it's six of one and a half dozen of the other. I've got both, and will take the M14 type everytime, but wouldn't feel any real disadvantage with a FAL.Not fighting fair and being a mean little shit will make up for any difference. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/19/2006 12:33:21 PM EDT
[#7]
Oh, plus one on that. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/19/2006 4:00:40 PM EDT
[#8]
M14's have better sights & better trigger pulls.
The M14's magazine is more robust. The M14 is more reliable with debris in the system. The FAL is more controllable with its pistol grip stock, easier to scope, and quicker to reload. Still I vote M14. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/19/2006 4:01:33 PM EDT
[#9]
The usual answer: whatever feels best to you. Seriously. It has to feel right to sit right, and it has to sit right to shoot well. I do not like the FAL. It just feels odd to me, worse, actually. However, that said, looking at it and its design, it is a TOP rifle, and probably a better SHTF rifle than most others. I have had an M1A, and they have their own idiosyncrosies. The M1 felt better to me, but I don't like all the rods flying around as they do, and the idea that stress on the stock affects the accuracy and repeatability so. Sure, stress will affect any rifle, but improvement by putting grease on the spot where the gas assembly plate contacts the stock forarm - come on! (Works, by the way) And, you had better get a one piece gas assembly for repeatability. Also, the M1A platform is harder to scope well (need the ARMS # 18, but that's still not a straightforward solution, but more of a gadget). So, yes, the FAL is a better rifle overall, if it sits right with you. You can get better sights.
Currently, I have an AR10 and like it better than both; it felt better, I could get the nice adjustable collapsible stock, and one can mount a scope or any other attachment on it easily. But, at my age, requirements are changing, and that may go, soon. I'm glad I enjoyed them all. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/19/2006 5:43:46 PM EDT
[#10]
Here's a crappy pic of the original T44 and T48 prototypes (shooting through double pane glass is a pain in the ass). Notice the M1 Garand buttplates on the 14's and the elongated gas cylinder on the first one.
 The T48's (FAL) were licensed by FN and made in the USA by Harrington and Richardson. WIZZO |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/19/2006 6:49:27 PM EDT
[#11]
T48s were produced by High Standard as well. Interesting to note that while nowadays many have opinions of both companies that are a bit unflattering, as in cheap revolvers and single shot shotguns,fifty years ago they were trusted by the gov to make frontline infantry rifles. And in H&Rs case, made among the best Garands there were. With current opinion of them by the ignorant, it would be kinda like issuing Hi-Point M16s today. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/20/2006 1:00:15 PM EDT
[#12]
I would take an HK G3/91 over the others any day of the week.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/20/2006 3:27:26 PM EDT
[#13]
Because that is the Law. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/20/2006 3:42:01 PM EDT
[#14]
The M14 is a finer RIFLE.
The FAL is a better BATTLE RIFLE. But to be completely honest? It is really like one poster said six of one, half dozen of the other. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/20/2006 3:45:53 PM EDT
[#15]
The FAL choked in the Army's cold weather testing.
People like to parrot on and on about how the FAL was adopted by so many countries, but the M14 was never sold on the open market and the G3 didn't show up until 10 years later. More than a few countries that adopted the FAL switched to the G3. IMO, the FAL is the most overrated rifle ever. As for the M14...If you like the traditional rifle stock, it's great (I don't). Lefty ergos are the best of just about any rifle out there. Only real problem with the M14 is that USGI parts are stupidly expensive. An M14 build on a LRB receiver with all USGI parts will cost about $2K. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/20/2006 3:55:14 PM EDT
[#16]
That's the truth. Believe or don't. junk |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/20/2006 4:03:50 PM EDT
[#17]
FAL. mags are cheaper. get a DSA one
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/20/2006 4:12:38 PM EDT
[#18]
They are both great rifles. There isn't a pygmies dick difference between the two in actual use.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/20/2006 5:34:40 PM EDT
[#19]
I would rather have a FAL or a M14 over a G3 any day of the week. I hated my HK so much I sold it off, that was the most over rated rifle in my opinion. But that was just me. And to answer your question, the only 7.62 battle rifle I still own is are STG58 carbine's. Phessor 
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/20/2006 6:24:41 PM EDT
[#20]
Yep. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/20/2006 9:20:34 PM EDT
[#21]
Not invented here syndrome.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/20/2006 10:51:50 PM EDT
[#22]
Quoted:
The M14's magazine is more robust. How do you figure? |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/21/2006 4:08:34 PM EDT
[#23]
Care to explain why a G3 is over rated? |
||
|
|
|
Posted: 1/21/2006 4:50:27 PM EDT
[#24]
I hated the ergonomics and the kick it had. I also like a rifle with a little bit more meat to it, not a tin can with a barrel stuck in it. And the cost for one is just outrageous! Just my 2 cents is all. Phessor
|
|||
|
|
|
Posted: 1/21/2006 4:52:50 PM EDT
[#25]
I picked my PTR91 up for 840 dollars brand new. Cannot beat that price IMO. G3 is a proven battle rifle, and continues to serve with many armed forces to this very day, period.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/21/2006 5:13:09 PM EDT
[#26]
As is the FN/FAL and the M14, what is your point? All I said was that I prefered the FAL or M14 to the HK91/G3 rifles. The only thing that I liked about the HK91/G3 was their look. I have owned all three rifle platforms and the FAL is what I prefer, then the M14. I also like Fords, does that make me right? Or does that make me wrong? Thank you, Phessor
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/21/2006 5:58:18 PM EDT
[#27]
Well I like fords too, especial turbo mustangs, so I guess you are alright.
M1As are to expensive for mags IMO. Although their is something sexy about the new SOCOM-II setup. FALs are to bulky looking to me. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/21/2006 7:53:44 PM EDT
[#28]
I always wanted a SVO Mustang! Here is a pic of my old FMP G3 that I sold to fund my Kona downhill bike. Phessor 
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/22/2006 3:33:15 AM EDT
[#29]
Any of the rifles mentioned above (and a very few more) will do for "serious social purposes".
We can argue their merits and flaws until the cows come home, but the fact remains, allowing for personal preferences and experience, that all are at least adequate to the task. This assumes that the operator can use the tool with a certain level of skill, an assumption that is unwarranted in many, if not most instances. If the operator can shoot within 4 MOA (using milsurp ammo) out to 500 yds in the field, from all positions, on demand, then he is well on the way to competency. If not, then more intelligent practice is needed, not more equipment. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/22/2006 6:02:02 AM EDT
[#30]
Phessor ,
No wonder your HK kicked so much ! Those who are into HKs refer to that specific stock as "the Meat tendorizer " ! The buttplate curves the wrong way for your shoulder and the recoil buffer is much smaller on this stock than it is on any of the other .308 HK stocks. The HKs I shot with this stock left an indentation on my shoulder matching the buttplate . They were freaken harsh ! Their kick was at least 5 times what the kick from my PTR is. That said ,all of these rifles have an advantage. I like all the big 3 Battle Rifles ,the HK just fits me better. Right now ,the PTR-91/HK clone has the advantage in cost and logistics over the otherts ,excluding kits and poorly made clones. What's the STG-58 now ,around $1,250 ? A good M1A around $1,500 + ? Good HK clone (PTR-91) ,$650 to $850 . With HK parts being cheaper than I've ever seen,and mags to be found at a $1.00 a piece at times,expect to see more PTRs at the range. With JLD producing more new US made parts for the PTR, soon they won't have to rely on any foreign parts either. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/22/2006 7:53:09 AM EDT
[#31]
It just wouldn't be a battle rifle thread if RAF wasn't here telling everyone how lousey of a shot they are!
 Took you to page two brother? You're slippin! As for 4 MOA with Milsurp ammo I guess it depends on how that Milsurp was stored. A lot of it is abused crap with degraded powder, stored in abysmal conditions and dare I say... some is downright dangerous to shoot. So to expect 4 MOA out of Milsurp might be asking a bit much. Out of current production factory non-match ammo... maybe. Hell, my club only has a 300 yard range... I can't even routinely practice to 500. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/22/2006 9:02:57 AM EDT
[#32]
Wouldn't want to disappoint...
No question some ammo is better than others. It's a good idea to shop around and then, when you find something magical, buy in as large a quantity as you possibly can. Or maybe re-load. My reloads, made on a progressive press, are way better than almost all milsurp. I'm not talking Match-quality reloads, either. Just quality ammo made with reasonable care and attention to detail. As far as range goes, just shoot a reduced size target at lesser ranges until you can verify at long range. You can learn 90% or better of what you need to know at 25 meters. |
||
|
|
|
Posted: 1/22/2006 9:06:28 AM EDT
[#33]
QUICK!!!!! TELL THE CANADIANS BEFORE.........OH, TOO LATE!!!!!! |
||
|
|
|
Posted: 1/22/2006 9:39:07 AM EDT
[#34]
But but but RAF you said...
And yeah, we use reduced sized targets for high power shoots at the club to simulate extended range, but does that really compensate for bullet drop that you would experience by adding another 200 yards to the distance on target? |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/22/2006 9:41:54 AM EDT
[#35]
Neither the G3,Fal nor M14 are line weapons for any major military power. The M14 is still issued as a DMR weapon however. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/22/2006 10:11:26 AM EDT
[#36]
The M14 is functionally ambidexterous,and design was heavily influenced by the long standing American tradition,both real and imagined, of the American Rifleman ie,superior combat accuracy. To that end it is a traditional ,some might say old fashioned, battle rifle of rugged design with superior sights and trigger.The M14 had the advantage of being home grown,supposed ease of manufacture with Garand tooling(not exactly the case),and similar manual of arms to the then issue M1 Garand.Functionally reliable and deadly accurate,I personally believe it to be the Queen of the Battle Rifles.The Fal was dumped by the Israeli's for choking in the very same desert conditions that the M14 is chewing up in the sand box right now,though to be fair I believe this has since been addressed in the L1a1.While a rack grade Fal and M14 are very close in performance the Fal simply has certain design characterisics that make it slightly less reliable and it can never approach the accuracy potential of the M14 both due to design as well as the fact that the M14 was used as a sniper and competition rifle for many years and the methods of gaining the last bit of reliable accuracy have been thouroughly researched.The M14 quite simply fit better with American tradition and doctrine.I own 4 M14/M1a's and a Fal para,and while I feel the M14 is the superior rifle i'd not feel undergunned with an Fal.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/22/2006 10:18:13 AM EDT
[#37]
The military is finding the M14/DMR as less than supportable in the field, it also has proven to not be as reliable as legend would have people believe while operating in the desert. The next generation DMR (SAM for the Marines) is not based on the M14, but rather the M16. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/22/2006 11:04:05 AM EDT
[#38]
The other important aspect of the G3 over the other rifles is the fact that it lead to the devolpment of other great firearms based on the same revolutionary action.
What other rifles were based of M14s or FALs? G3=MP5, HK51, HK53, HK33, and so on. And the most accurate counter sniper semi auto rifle is the HK PSG-1. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/22/2006 11:56:20 AM EDT
[#39]
In the end the US Army found either weapon was acceptable and serviceable.
The T48 (FAL) was favored up until the Arctic tests, where it performed badly Col. Rayle had spent quite a bit of effort insuring that the T44 would perform well in the Arctic test. FN did not do their home work on that one, and sent Vervier up there to fix their rifles. His modification made it worse. FN really botched this up. Am quite sure FN fixed the cold weather problems with their rifles soon after these tests. If you are shopping for a semiautomatic version of one of these rifles, one advantage of the FAL is that you can get a real one. Problem with the M14 is there are no real semiautomatic versions. Just knock offs, some better then others. I assembled my own M14 clone with all USGI parts save the receiver:  |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/22/2006 12:07:32 PM EDT
[#40]
And which of those, G3=MP5, HK51, HK53, HK33 does HK still manufacture? Last I knew the FAL, M14, G3 were all obsolete, and the production lines long ago shut down at FN, Springfield, and HK.
Was, out of production and superceded by the SR-25. |
||
|
|
|
Posted: 1/22/2006 3:42:10 PM EDT
[#41]
PSG-1 is a finer weapon than a KAC SR-25. Just because the US does not issue them does not mean it is a better weapon. Remember we choice the best weapon at the lowest price and the PSG-1 was around $10,000.00 NIB stateside before 1994.
And a AR style rifle is not the most reliable weapon in adverse conditions unlike a Delayed Roller Action. G3s are still standard issue for some NATO members, Iran, Pakastan, and several other countries. MP5s are still produced by HK Defense along with the PSG-1 and the MSG90, which happens to be issued to certain Marine Corp squads since it is much cheaper than the PSG-1. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/22/2006 3:48:54 PM EDT
[#42]
The M14 requires an Armorer to keep it shooting to it's potential.Your statement regarding reliability in the field is the first mention iv'e heard of any issues with the M14 DMR.Can you explain specifics? What reliability problems are you aware of?As much as i love the M14 I realize that the M14 DMR was basically a stop gap measure used because the M14 was in reserve.Thousands have been given away,sold for pennies and crushed by our own government with no new parts having been made since the early 70's.It is not supportable long term in a manner that makes financial sense primarily for lack of replacement parts and trained armorers. Also,the very issue that was it's greatest advantage when adopted is now against it as soldiers and armorers in the present day are far more familiar with the M16/AR type weapon.However the fact that it no longer is the best fit for our military in no way shape or form makes it obsolete and I have a strong feeling that ,should the military insist on sticking with a direct gas system, the M14 will once again be called on to hold the line. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/22/2006 3:56:57 PM EDT
[#43]
Don't have any stats, but just some word of mouth from a friend that worked at the infantry center. Basically, troops didn't know how to maintain them and the open action allowed allot of dust to collect in the weapon. |
||
|
|
|
Posted: 1/23/2006 8:46:11 AM EDT
[#44]
I mentioned reloads in the event that one was unable to find quality milsurp at a reasonable price. This is happening to .30-'06 shooters, and may happen to 7.62 NATO users in the future.
The bullet drop is compensated for by your adjustable sights, of one sort or another. If your sights are not adjustable enough to accomodate ranges out to 500 yds (and maybe beyond, depending), you need to fix that before proceeding further. Getting back to shooting at 25M, you can "dial-in" your sights (.308 cal) to 200 yds, and can also fire at reduced targets representing different ranges on the same paper. The vertical rise of the bullet will be small at 25 M, and a large sheet of paper will accomodate targets representing various ranges if the targets are strung vertically. Of course, you should verify at the actual ranges, but if you do your part, you will be either spot-on, or very close. Get Fred's Guide. It contains such targets, and much more. |
|||
|
|
|
Posted: 1/23/2006 8:25:36 PM EDT
[#45]
Anyone who thinks the HK roller lock action is some great advancement has obviously never had to CLEAN a roller lock action weapon! As far as eveything else is concerned, if you have two designs that are more or less equa, meet the requirements, l and one is made at home and one is made aborad...which are you going to choose? All the conspiracy theorists are probaly the same people screaming "buy American" over in the tac gear forum.  |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/24/2006 6:26:06 AM EDT
[#46]
HK's retarded blowback operated, roller locking weapons are being phased out of production, and for good reason. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/24/2006 8:22:53 AM EDT
[#47]
The G3 and its cousins have been issued to more countries than the M14 or FAL.
I have no complaints about cleaning my 91. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/24/2006 10:46:21 AM EDT
[#48]
ok now the MSG90 is issued to some Marine units?
so let me guess you heard that at a gun show from a Recon Marine?The PSG1 has always been a 1 MOA gun, if this wasnt the case you would see them at highpower shoots. the SR/AR will outpreform a PSG1 in every catogory. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/24/2006 11:15:03 AM EDT
[#49]
"The newest variant of the MSG90 is called the MSG90A1. Originally the MSG90-DMR for Designated Marksman Rifle, this newest version was commissioned by the United States Marine Corps in 1997. They took delivery of six prototype rifles in 1998. The DMR program is intended to be deployed by designated marksmen within Marine Corp Security Force and FAST teams. " "The MSG90A1 is now made for the U.S. Department of Defense. The only differences from it and the standard MSG90 are the threaded barrel and flash hider, (which will also accept a sound suppressor) and open sight capability. The rear iron sight is the 1200 meter variety, as on the HK21E and 23E series machine guns. The scope must be removed to use the open sights however. The A1 also has an improved MSG90 buttstock with rubber buttpad, indexing lines on the buttpad and cheekpieces. The photograph below is an MSG90-DMR and is from the Grey Room tour at HK. The DMR was the transition between the standard MSG90 and the newest production MSG90A1s." The only nice .308 AR is the SR-25, and last I checked, you will have a hell of time trying to buy that if you are not LE/Military |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/24/2006 11:19:48 AM EDT
[#50]
Also the PSG-1 is rated at sub MOA with match grade ammo.
|
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
