Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Site Notices
1/25/2018 7:38:29 AM
Posted: 6/22/2002 1:10:29 PM EST
I read through the thread regarding the use of 1911's and M14's in Afghanistan. And being a proponent of the 308 for intermediate range use (in between the 5.56 and the .300" WinMag) I'm personally kinda partial towards the L1A1 over the M14. I just plain like the feel of the L1A1.
I do understand the argument for the M14 based on availability (us having a sh*tload of M14's in storage), but say we had none of either and we had to begin production.
Which design would you pick, the M14 or the L1A1?
Link Posted: 6/22/2002 2:27:33 PM EST
That's a pretty close call. For MBR use I'd tend to give the nod to the FAL because of its reliability. They're both very fine rifles, however.
Link Posted: 6/22/2002 4:53:34 PM EST
[Last Edit: 6/22/2002 4:57:14 PM EST by tdkak]
I personally love straight stocked battle rifles.Straight stocks are better for hookin and jabbin.
I garauntee you the M14 is every bit as reliable as a FNFAL/L1A1 and a little bit more accurate to boot.But you cant beat the FNFAL as far as affordability.My friends have less than half invested in their Fals as i do in my M1A.
I believe both my friends have DSA SA58's.They are nice though it would be my second choice.
Link Posted: 6/22/2002 5:01:29 PM EST
I take that back,one of them just walked in and i asked and he said he paid a grand for his.He said you can buy real cheap ones but he said DSA kicks ass.
Link Posted: 6/22/2002 6:47:11 PM EST
Personally, I'd go with the M14. I own both (M1A and Imbel/STG58 build), and I just prefer the '14. The FAL seems to have an odd balance in my hands. I also prefer the op. rod handle of an M1A to the charging handle set-up of a FAL. Both are great rifles though.

For your question, either one would work. The M14 is a little more accurate, a bit more reliable(IMO) and a pound or so lighter (big deal) . The FAL is supposedly more "ergonomic", that's about it. The FAL's recent popularity is 90% money related, with the flood of parts and kits and mags it's the easiest way to get into 7.62. And if you were starting from scratch all the FAL stuff wouldn't be so available and cheap.
Link Posted: 6/22/2002 6:53:36 PM EST
This might be a little off-topic, but are there any decent scope mounting systems out there for the FAL? The ones I've seen look pretty cheesy. Scope mounts for the M14 appear to be more reliable and less complex.

Back to the topic, If I had to service a gun in the field, I'd choose the FAL for it's ease of cleaning and it's adjustable gas system.
Link Posted: 6/22/2002 7:06:37 PM EST
Based on my experience with both systems, I'd have to go with the M14. Better sights, better trigger, more reliable. My M1A's will feed anything, including ammo that chokes the FAL (no, it's not a cheap frankengun). The M14 doesn't seem to need an adjustable gas system, 'cause it feeds just about anything even when it's really dirty. The M14 has more muzzle climb because of the stock design, but it's still very controllable. The FAL is a very nice rifle, but the M14 gets my vote.
Link Posted: 6/22/2002 10:36:26 PM EST
The question about the scope mounts answers the question as to my pick. The M1A has several very stable scope mounts available for it, most of the FAL scope mounts replace the dust cover and are not stable.
I own an M1A and a post-ban Stg-58 and both are reliable and accurate. But if I had to pick one I would go with the M1A. It is every bit as reliable as the FAL, if not more so, and in my experience it is more accurate. Also the trigger pull tends to be better and I prefer the M1A's iron sites. Although, if I could get a more stable scope mount on my FAL who knows...?
Link Posted: 6/23/2002 2:14:41 AM EST
[Last Edit: 6/23/2002 2:15:29 AM EST by Ross]
Well, we don't have a sh!tload of M14's in storage anymore. They've been given away to other countries except for those required for probable current operations (i.e. SEALS, SF, and USMC DMR program). The rest were given away to the Phillipeens, the former Soviet Union states, and a host of other small countries as aid. Many were demilled under Clinton. Last I heard the actual number of M14's on hand was something closer to under 100,000. The spare parts for these guns is almost gone as well. Given away to the new users of the M14 and sold off for scrap or spares through the CMP. It is assumed that the government is holding enough spares for their own usage, but they can also have sub-contractors make spares as required, since it's not a standrad issue rifle anymore.

The fact is, if we were to go back to 7.62mm, we'd have to go produce a new one. There aren't enough SERVICABLE M14's around.

Ross
Link Posted: 6/23/2002 3:16:53 AM EST
Here's a few opinions on the same issue from over on the FalFiles:
www.falfiles.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=42303
Link Posted: 6/23/2002 3:27:42 AM EST
How about an AR-10!!!!!!

AIRBORNE!!
Link Posted: 6/23/2002 4:36:51 AM EST

Originally Posted By Ross:
Well, we don't have a sh!tload of M14's in storage anymore. They've been given away to other countries except for those required for probable current operations (i.e. SEALS, SF, and USMC DMR program). The rest were given away to the Phillipeens, the former Soviet Union states, and a host of other small countries as aid. Many were demilled under Clinton. Last I heard the actual number of M14's on hand was something closer to under 100,000. The spare parts for these guns is almost gone as well. Given away to the new users of the M14 and sold off for scrap or spares through the CMP. It is assumed that the government is holding enough spares for their own usage, but they can also have sub-contractors make spares as required, since it's not a standrad issue rifle anymore.

The fact is, if we were to go back to 7.62mm, we'd have to go produce a new one. There aren't enough SERVICABLE M14's around.

Ross



I don't quite think so. The Phillipines, as I understand it, license-built their M14s, as did the Republic of China (Taiwan). Most of our foreign aid weapons over the last decade, including the ones we gave to the Bosnians and the Palestinian Authority, have been M16A1s. Rock Island said that they have "plenty" of M14s in stock. Of course, I don't know what "plenty" means to them.
Link Posted: 6/23/2002 7:01:03 AM EST
It's a personal thing but the M-14 just operates better to me than the FN/FAL. Its tiny magazine release just doesn't do it for me. For the long range work a straight stock also suits me better.


DSA makes a good scope mount.
Link Posted: 6/23/2002 7:51:36 AM EST
I have a great condition STG-58 and two M-1As, one standard and one match grade.

I love both the FAl and the M-1A but if I had to choose between the two of them I would take the M-1A. It is a little lighter and therefore easier to fire from a standing position. It feeds any 308 ammo nicely. Sometimes I have trouble with the poorer grade surplus ammo in the FAL.

The M-1A also feels more ergonomically correct. It is more comfortable to handle. The FAL was designed for someone who uses the other side of their brain from me or something. It does not feel right. I have a hard time with the charging handle being on the left side. I understand why they put it there but I still don't like it.

Neither one of them were designed to be a platform for a scope. They both were designed to be an open iron sight gun.

The advantage to the FAL is that it is a better full auto 308 than the M-14. Since I don't have full auto guns I can't use that as a factor.

I guess the best way to sum up what I think is my preference is that the M-1A was designed for real Americans and the FAL was designed for Euro-trash. (no comments please, I was just kidding)
Link Posted: 6/23/2002 7:53:47 AM EST
[Last Edit: 6/23/2002 7:55:00 AM EST by marvl]
I've owned many FALs and one M1A. I noticed a tendency with the M1A for the muzzle to rise excessively after a shot. Dunno if it was me or not, but it seemed harder to keep the rifle on target for a follow-up shot.

Here's my current favorite: Kit build from Arizona Expertarms, DSA scope mount, Super Sniper 10X scope. (Forgive me if I don't say "Tasco," I didn't want to leave a bad taste in anyone's mouth. ).

Link Posted: 6/23/2002 6:23:22 PM EST

The FAL's recent popularity is 90% money related, with the flood of parts and kits and mags it's the easiest way to get into 7.62.


Great point. If the M1a and FAL were the same price I think you'd see way more M1a owners and less FAL's sold. However theres always plenty of us who'd buy both anyway.

I like to shoot holes in paper, as close together as possible. I'd take the M1a because its more accurate and I'm already familiar with the M1 Garand - the M1a is just an improved version.
Link Posted: 6/23/2002 7:36:09 PM EST
A Armory Seargeant when i was in the Marines told me at Camp Pendleton that the Armory at the ASP had racks upon racks of M14's,M60's new M16A1's captured AK's everything you can think he said its there.
Not all of it was on racks though he said most of this stuff was packed away in cosmoline.This was after my first pump,he came to our battalion and regiment sent him ASP till we came back.He also said one of the Warrant officers at ASP worked at the main Marine Warehouse in Bakersfield CA said that they had 100 times the weapons there than at ASP.So i think safe to say our military has probably hundreds of thousands of M14 rifles still.
I know Klinton was trying to munch all of them he could but i bet we still have 2/3 of all the M14's produced.
Top Top