User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 5/1/2012 7:42:42 PM EDT
Pretty interesting read regarding the trials. One thing that is not included though is the fact that our adoption of the M14 nearly ended NATO.
As far as I know the only original rifles from the trials are at Quantico and maybe one other museum. The USA tested the FAL in several forms; initially as manufactured by FN in experimental configurations, and later in the final T48 configuration as an official competitor for the new US Light Self-Loading Rifle intended to replace the M1 Garand. The US Army procured T48 rifles from three firms for testing, including two US based companies in an effort to assess the manufacturability of the FN design in the USA. The T48 was manufactured for testing by Fabrique Nationale (FN), of Herstal, Belgium; Harrington & Richardson (H&R) of Worcester, Massachusetts; and the High Standard Company of Hartford, Connecticut. The United States also received a small number of FAL Heavy Barrel Rifles (HBAR) (either 50.41 or pre-50.41) for testing, under the designation T48E1, though none of these rifles were adopted by US. The T48/FAL competed head to head against the T44 rifle, basically a product-improved M1 Garand with detachable magazine and select-fire capability.Initial testing proved the T48 and the T44 roughly comparable in performance. In December 1953, both rifles competed in the arctic rifle trials.Springfield Armory, anxious to ensure the selection of the T44, had been preparing and modifying the test T44 rifles for week with the aid of the Armory's Cold Chamber, including redesign of the T44 gas regulator and custom modifications to magazines and other parts to reduce friction and seizing in extreme cold. The T48 rifles received no such special preparation, and began to experience gas system problems during the trials.FN engineers opened the gas ports in an attempt to improve functioning, but this caused early/violent extraction and broken parts as a result of the increased pressures. As a result, the T44 was ranked by the arctic test staff as decidedly superior in cold weather operation. In the end, the T44 was selected over the T48/FAL primarily because of weight (the T44 was a pound lighter than the T48), simplicity (the T44 had fewer parts), the T44's self-compensating gas system, and the argument that the T44 could be manufactured on existing machinery built for the M1 rifle (a concept that later turned out to be unworkable). In 1957, the U.S. formally adopted the T44 as the M14 service rifle. In the wake of World War II, the NATO "Rifle Steering Committee" was formed to encourage the adoption of a standardized NATO rifle. The Committee and the US interest in the FAL proved to be a turning point in the direction of the FAL's development. The US and NATO interest in small arms standardization was the primary reason why the FAL was redesigned to use the newly developed 7.62x51mm NATO cartridge, instead of the intermediate cartridge designs originally tested by FN. Two political factors are worth noting: the US Government tacitly indicated to NATO, and specifically to the United Kingdom, that if the FAL were redesigned for the new US 7.62x51mm cartridge, then the FAL would become acceptable to the US, and the US would presumably adopt the FAL rifle. Secondly, FN had indicated that it would allow former WWII Allied countries to produce the FAL design with no licensing or royalty costs as a gift to the Allies for the liberation of Belgium. Ultimately, the US chose to part with the other NATO members and adopt the M14 rifle, while the majority of NATO countries immediately adopted the FAL.  |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/1/2012 8:15:23 PM EDT
[#1]
The M14 is more accurate than the FAL and has better ergonomics.
The FAL breaks down nicely and is very easy to field strip and clean. FALS were not known for operating well in Sandy Environments (which is one of the reasons the Israeli's dumped the FAL). The Brits were worried about this and added lightning cuts to their inch pattern L1A1s. (Israeli's used Metric pattern: no lightning cuts) I have M1A's, some L1A1s and One Israeli FAL (kind of cool seeing Hebrew on the receiver) |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/1/2012 8:16:47 PM EDT
[#2]
Dude, you are just et up with the Fal disease, aren't you?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/1/2012 8:22:37 PM EDT
[#3]
Staying with the M14 was a blessing in disguise.
It didn't take until the 80s for the British to unload the FAL and finally adopt a better combat rifle. Where as because we had the M14, we had to get a new rifle in the 60s, which was the M16 pattern rifle and is still the best combat rifle ever designed. IMO. We probably of never looked at the AR15 and probably wouldn't have got rid of the FAL until the 90s, if ever. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/1/2012 8:26:14 PM EDT
[#4]
Quoted:
Staying with the M14 was a blessing in disguise. It didn't take until the 80s for the British to unload the FAL and finally adopt a better combat rifle. Where as because we had the M14, we had to get a new rifle in the 60s, which was the M16 pattern rifle and is still the best combat rifle ever designed. IMO. We probably of never looked at the AR15 and probably wouldn't have got rid of the FAL until the 90s, if ever. I know the FAL has a ton of "street cred" around here, but I wonder how much of that is due to "them other guys got better stuff than we do" syndrome. I'd still like to have one if prices weren't full retard. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/1/2012 8:27:25 PM EDT
[#5]
FAL > Dogshit M14
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/1/2012 8:38:08 PM EDT
[#6]
Quoted: FAL > Dogshit M14 Choke yourself.  |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/1/2012 8:42:19 PM EDT
[#7]
Quoted:
Staying with the M14 was a blessing in disguise. It didn't take until the 80s for the British to unload the FAL and finally adopt a better combat rifle. Where as because we had the M14, we had to get a new rifle in the 60s, which was the M16 pattern rifle and is still the best combat rifle ever designed. IMO. We probably of never looked at the AR15 and probably wouldn't have got rid of the FAL until the 90s, if ever. Kind of this. The FAL was the epitome of 50's level machining and design, applied to a cartridge that was soon to be obsolete for the average infantry soldier given the evolution of modern combat. It enjoyed popularity in a lot of countries that couldn't implement a modern approach to warfare and still does to a certain extent where things like air support are not a given. I love my FAL's but still wonder WTF they were thinking when they mounted the front and rear sights on two different assemblies... That being said I'm amazed they hold zero when taken apart and put back together. The numbers folks figure out that carrying more ammo, and controlled FA at times, was a bigger advantage and that was that. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/1/2012 8:42:47 PM EDT
[#8]
Quoted:
FAL > Dogshit M14 I wont say dogshit but yeah |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/1/2012 8:43:54 PM EDT
[#9]
Quoted:
Quoted:
FAL > Dogshit M14 Choke yourself.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/1/2012 8:50:57 PM EDT
[#10]
FAL is way overrated.
Back in the day, lots of graybeards used to say that those T48 test-FALs ended up issued to a unit in the Texas National Guard. Never saw any substantiation, but an interesting idea. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/1/2012 9:00:24 PM EDT
[#11]
So, if the FAL wasn't originally intended to be chambered in 7.62x51, what would it have been?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/1/2012 9:02:46 PM EDT
[#12]
Quoted:
Dude, you are just et up with the Fal disease, aren't you? |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/1/2012 9:02:53 PM EDT
[#13]
Quoted:
Staying with the M14 was a blessing in disguise. It didn't take until the 80s for the British to unload the FAL and finally adopt a better combat rifle. Where as because we had the M14, we had to get a new rifle in the 60s, which was the M16 pattern rifle and is still the best combat rifle ever designed. IMO. We probably of never looked at the AR15 and probably wouldn't have got rid of the FAL until the 90s, if ever. interesting take, never thought about it like that |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/1/2012 9:08:32 PM EDT
[#14]
FAL, M-14... I love'em both.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/1/2012 9:09:35 PM EDT
[#15]
Quoted: Quoted: Dude, you are just et up with the Fal disease, aren't you? That's beside the point. Just curious about the initial trials. I became even more curious when I heard about the possible fall out over the adoption of the M14. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/1/2012 9:11:01 PM EDT
[#16]
Quoted: So, if the FAL wasn't originally intended to be chambered in 7.62x51, what would it have been? 280 british  |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/1/2012 9:24:13 PM EDT
[#17]
Quoted:
The M14 is more accurate than the FAL and has better ergonomics. The FAL breaks down nicely and is very easy to field strip and clean. FALS were not known for operating well in Sandy Environments (which is one of the reasons the Israeli's dumped the FAL). The Brits were worried about this and added lightning cuts to their inch pattern L1A1s. (Israeli's used Metric pattern: no lightning cuts) I have M1A's, some L1A1s and One Israeli FAL (kind of cool seeing Hebrew on the receiver) The M14 is more accurate, and has better sights, but the FALs ergos are markedly superior. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/1/2012 9:32:31 PM EDT
[#18]
Quoted:
Quoted:
So, if the FAL wasn't originally intended to be chambered in 7.62x51, what would it have been? 280 british http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/41/280british.jpg Everything old is new again
BTW, M14s have fantastic ergos for Southpaws 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/1/2012 9:32:39 PM EDT
[#19]
Read this, if you can find a copy:
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/1/2012 9:32:58 PM EDT
[#20]
Did anyone ever make a 5.56 FAL?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/1/2012 9:40:32 PM EDT
[#21]
Al Pacino might know something about either that or the CAL.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FN_FNC http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FN_CAL |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/1/2012 9:40:47 PM EDT
[#22]
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/1/2012 9:42:13 PM EDT
[#23]
Quoted:
Did anyone ever make a 5.56 FAL? Fnc? |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/1/2012 9:59:44 PM EDT
[#24]
Quoted:
Did anyone ever make a 5.56 FAL? Red Rock Armory? I think that was their name? Someone did maybe 7-8 years ago, as far as civilian legal copies go. I believe IMBEL makes or made a similar weapon to the FAL in 5.56. FN tried but there was no interest, I forget what it's exact designation was. It was a precursor to the FNC and made sometime in the 70s IIRC. By that time small arms had moved on from the FAL. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/1/2012 10:10:41 PM EDT
[#25]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Did anyone ever make a 5.56 FAL? Red Rock Armory? I think that was their name? Someone did maybe 7-8 years ago, as far as civilian legal copies go. I believe IMBEL makes or made a similar weapon to the FAL in 5.56. FN tried but there was no interest, I forget what it's exact designation was. It was a precursor to the FNC and made sometime in the 70s IIRC. By that time small arms had moved on from the FAL. The FN CAL was (according to Wiki) the first 5.56mm "assault rifle" FN manufactured in any quantity. Google it under "images" -it's not a bad looking rifle at all. The FNC (adopted by Belgium, Indonesia, and Sweden and probably others) succeeded it. A handful were imported into the States as semi-auto sporters way, way back. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/1/2012 10:14:23 PM EDT
[#26]
Another pic, just cuz.
FInishing up my clone this month. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/1/2012 10:23:34 PM EDT
[#27]
Quoted:
Staying with the M14 was a blessing in disguise. It didn't take until the 80s for the British to unload the FAL and finally adopt a better combat rifle. Where as because we had the M14, we had to get a new rifle in the 60s, which was the M16 pattern rifle and is still the best combat rifle ever designed. IMO. We probably of never looked at the AR15 and probably wouldn't have got rid of the FAL until the 90s, if ever. When the Brits finally adopted the L85, it was far from being better than the L1A1. The L85 was so bad, it was shelved for ODS while the "old" L1A1s were brought out of mothballs and reissued to UK forces prior to the ground war, according to what I've read over the years. Hence, the L85A2 that was developed after Royal Ordnance acquired HK's engineering talent (I think that's how it went) for a PIP. The T-48 would have been easier to manufacture than the M14, but I think McNamara was looking to rattle the cages of the "establishment" within DoD, and since everyone saw the war in SEA looming, the M16-or some other sub-caliber "SCHV" design-was inevitable. Take into consideration that the "Not Invented Here" (NIH) syndrome quite possibly would have pressured ordnance authorities to look for a domestically-designed rifle to replace the FN designed FAL as a matter of national pride sooner rather than later. It may sound strange to you now, but NIH was a serious factor in weapons procurement dating way back to at least before the turn of the 20th Century. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/1/2012 11:06:28 PM EDT
[#28]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Did anyone ever make a 5.56 FAL? Red Rock Armory? I think that was their name? Someone did maybe 7-8 years ago, as far as civilian legal copies go. I believe IMBEL makes or made a similar weapon to the FAL in 5.56. FN tried but there was no interest, I forget what it's exact designation was. It was a precursor to the FNC and made sometime in the 70s IIRC. By that time small arms had moved on from the FAL. The FN CAL was (according to Wiki) the first 5.56mm "assault rifle" FN manufactured in any quantity. Google it under "images" -it's not a bad looking rifle at all. The FNC (adopted by Belgium, Indonesia, and Sweden and probably others) succeeded it. A handful were imported into the States as semi-auto sporters way, way back. The CAL is what I was thinking of. According to the wiki article it was a different design than the FAL though. Apparently a scaled down FAL was design but was considered "unmarketable" by FN. I didn't know the scaled down FAL and CAL were two different rifles. Learn something new everyday. I can't even imagine what an original imported CAL goes for these days, that has to be one of the rarest FNs around. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/1/2012 11:09:14 PM EDT
[#29]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Did anyone ever make a 5.56 FAL? Red Rock Armory? I think that was their name? Someone did maybe 7-8 years ago, as far as civilian legal copies go. I believe IMBEL makes or made a similar weapon to the FAL in 5.56. FN tried but there was no interest, I forget what it's exact designation was. It was a precursor to the FNC and made sometime in the 70s IIRC. By that time small arms had moved on from the FAL. Did it take AR mags or something else? If so I'd like to get ahold of one of those. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/1/2012 11:10:33 PM EDT
[#30]
Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Did anyone ever make a 5.56 FAL? Red Rock Armory? I think that was their name? Someone did maybe 7-8 years ago, as far as civilian legal copies go. I believe IMBEL makes or made a similar weapon to the FAL in 5.56. FN tried but there was no interest, I forget what it's exact designation was. It was a precursor to the FNC and made sometime in the 70s IIRC. By that time small arms had moved on from the FAL. The FN CAL was (according to Wiki) the first 5.56mm "assault rifle" FN manufactured in any quantity. Google it under "images" -it's not a bad looking rifle at all. The FNC (adopted by Belgium, Indonesia, and Sweden and probably others) succeeded it. A handful were imported into the States as semi-auto sporters way, way back. The CAL is what I was thinking of. According to the wiki article it was a different design than the FAL though. Apparently a scaled down FAL was design but was considered "unmarketable" by FN. I didn't know the scaled down FAL and CAL were two different rifles. Learn something new everyday. I can't even imagine what an original imported CAL goes for these days, that has to be one of the rarest FNs around. Here is one that had a price of 10K. I wonder if it sold. http://www.gunsamerica.com/920904119/Guns/Rifles/FNH-Fabrique-Nationale-Rifles/Semi-auto/Other/FN_CAL_Carabine_Automatique_Leger.htm Seller stated 1 of 22 imported. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/1/2012 11:33:16 PM EDT
[#31]
Quoted:
FAL is way overrated. Back in the day, lots of graybeards used to say that those T48 test-FALs ended up issued to a unit in the Texas National Guard. Never saw any substantiation, but an interesting idea. Lore of the Holloway arms HAC-7.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/1/2012 11:36:40 PM EDT
[#32]
Quoted:
He could have been a crew member of the FalShip Monkeepipe VII when it was flying around.
Dude, you are just et up with the Fal disease, aren't you? But that's another story.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/2/2012 12:07:00 AM EDT
[#33]
Quoted:
Did anyone ever make a 5.56 FAL? Imbel did, Springfield armory imported a few before 1989. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/2/2012 12:15:32 AM EDT
[#34]
Politics had more to do with the decision to go M14 than performance. There was no way in hell that the US was going to adopt a foreign made battle rifle at the time.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/2/2012 12:33:10 AM EDT
[#35]
Alas, the things that never came to be.  .  |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/2/2012 12:55:42 AM EDT
[#36]
Quoted: Politics had more to do with the decision to go M14 than performance. There was no way in hell that the US was going to adopt a foreign made battle rifle at the time. Yeah supposedly the tests were rigged, I forget how The m14 stock really sucks for close in stand up shooting
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/2/2012 1:06:38 AM EDT
[#37]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Did anyone ever make a 5.56 FAL? Red Rock Armory? I think that was their name? Someone did maybe 7-8 years ago, as far as civilian legal copies go. I believe IMBEL makes or made a similar weapon to the FAL in 5.56. FN tried but there was no interest, I forget what it's exact designation was. It was a precursor to the FNC and made sometime in the 70s IIRC. By that time small arms had moved on from the FAL. Did it take AR mags or something else? If so I'd like to get ahold of one of those. Yes it did take AR mags. Apparently it's from the Bobcat Weapons people: Red Rock Arms ATR-1 I have no idea if it is still being made. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/2/2012 1:09:38 AM EDT
[#38]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Did anyone ever make a 5.56 FAL? Red Rock Armory? I think that was their name? Someone did maybe 7-8 years ago, as far as civilian legal copies go. I believe IMBEL makes or made a similar weapon to the FAL in 5.56. FN tried but there was no interest, I forget what it's exact designation was. It was a precursor to the FNC and made sometime in the 70s IIRC. By that time small arms had moved on from the FAL. The FN CAL was (according to Wiki) the first 5.56mm "assault rifle" FN manufactured in any quantity. Google it under "images" -it's not a bad looking rifle at all. The FNC (adopted by Belgium, Indonesia, and Sweden and probably others) succeeded it. A handful were imported into the States as semi-auto sporters way, way back. The CAL is what I was thinking of. According to the wiki article it was a different design than the FAL though. Apparently a scaled down FAL was design but was considered "unmarketable" by FN. I didn't know the scaled down FAL and CAL were two different rifles. Learn something new everyday. I can't even imagine what an original imported CAL goes for these days, that has to be one of the rarest FNs around.
Here is one that had a price of 10K. I wonder if it sold. http://www.gunsamerica.com/920904119/Guns/Rifles/FNH-Fabrique-Nationale-Rifles/Semi-auto/Other/FN_CAL_Carabine_Automatique_Leger.htm Seller stated 1 of 22 imported. Cool! I thought they would sell for much more than that. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/2/2012 1:18:22 AM EDT
[#39]
tag
its always kind of interesting to speculate on what would have happend had we adopted the T48. Would the M16 have ever came to be? btw, as an owner of both the FAL and a M1A, I hate to say it but I do like my FAL more. The M1A has better sights and trigger, but there is just something about the FAL that I like more |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/2/2012 4:47:50 AM EDT
[#40]
Quoted: Pretty interesting read regarding the trials. One thing that is not included though is the fact that our adoption of the M14 nearly ended NATO. As far as I know the only original rifles from the trials are at Quantico and maybe one other museum. There were T48 rifles at the US Army JFK Special Warfare Center in the training weapons pool. And did you just quote that without attribution? So where is it from? |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/2/2012 5:12:22 AM EDT
[#41]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Pretty interesting read regarding the trials. One thing that is not included though is the fact that our adoption of the M14 nearly ended NATO. As far as I know the only original rifles from the trials are at Quantico and maybe one other museum. There were T48 rifles at the US Army JFK Special Warfare Center in the training weapons pool. And did you just quote that without attribution? So where is it from? A friend of mine is building a replica of the T48 he carried in the Q course, with actual T48 parts, with obvious exception of the receiver. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/2/2012 5:33:39 AM EDT
[#42]
Man you guys forgot a LOT in that article. What about the AR10? It did compete in the tests with the FAL and M-14. For some reason they (Armalite) decided to go all space age in the tests and include a "Titanium / Aluminum" barrel in their AR10. Needless to say it didn't work out so well for Armalite. Several burst barrels later they opted out of the tests. They later got the contract with their AR15s, but couldn't produce as many as the services wanted so they sold the patent to Colt.
Needless to say the AR10 did compete in the tests. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/2/2012 5:36:44 AM EDT
[#43]
The better rifle won.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/2/2012 5:38:34 AM EDT
[#44]
I've had a Red Rock ATR FAL. Had it a couple of years. Never could get it to work. Gave it away a couple of weeks ago. Worst piece of shit gun I've ever owned. IM and I can give details. NEVER consider getting one of them - NEVER
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/2/2012 5:44:06 AM EDT
[#45]
Quoted: Quoted: Politics had more to do with the decision to go M14 than performance. There was no way in hell that the US was going to adopt a foreign made battle rifle at the time. Yeah supposedly the tests were rigged, I forget how The m14 stock really sucks for close in stand up shooting The T44 / T48 tests were the death ride of the Chief of Ordnance and Springfield Armory as the Army's in-house firearms designers. Between the shenanigans pulled during this testing and the outright resistance / attempts to sabotage the M16, the position of Chief of Ordnance was abolished by SecDef McNamara and transferred to TACOM (later Army Material Command). And Springfield Armory was disestablished. Basically, the T48 was 'not invented at Springfield'. Without someone as powerful as SecDef McNamara to push it (as he did the M16 because it was 'modern') or a President like JFK enamoured with it, the FAL was never going to be in a Soldier or Marine's hands. From 1795 through the adoption of the M16, with the exception of the Krag (which they adopted because it was a great target rifle), every standard US Army service arm was a Springfield Armory design. And any competing designs in service , no matter how superior, were eventually eliminated. 1866 / 1873 trap door versus Spencer? Shit can the Spencer! The T44 / M14 was also the last gasp of the military target shooter fraternity ('gravel bellies' they were called) that had dominated the small arms design focus of both the Office of the Chief of Ordnance and Springfield Armory. 'Gravel bellies' wanted rifles that would win Camp Perry and not WW III. They had forced the adoption of the Krag over better US designs because it was a target shooter's rifle; stolen Mauser's patent for the M1903 and (until TR interfered) foisted the rod bayonet on the Army and fought the M1 until it turned out to be accurate enough for their precious matches. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/2/2012 5:49:36 AM EDT
[#46]
I encourage everyone to visit the Springfield Armory in Springfield, MA.
It has excellent displays on the different manufacturing steps to build an M14. When you get over 1000 separate steps you start to see it probably isn't the best way to mass produce a rifle. There is a section that oozes discontent on the new kid on the block, the M16. I am surprised the section isn't labeled: FUCKING MCNAMARA'S PET M16 AS MADE BY MATTEL. ENJOY, FUCKERS. It truly is a great museum to visit. Gun porn galore. There are displays featuring some of the trials between the FAL and M14. The FAL has some advantages. I really like ease with which you can clean them. I also like the fact you can clean the barrels from the breech. I shot my M14s better (better triggers and sights are a big part of this). The FAL was a better choice for the former colonies of the British empire as you could tailor the gas system of the FAL. The M14 was built with the assumption that you would be shooting US arsenal made ammunition in it. That simplified things greatly. The British system seems to have every different country responsible to make their own ammunition. It surprises me how many different countries produced 7.62x51 ammunition and anyone who buys .surp knows it varies a good deal between manufacturers. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/2/2012 5:50:15 AM EDT
[#47]
Quoted:
FAL is way overrated. At current prices it is. But when they we're $300-$500 you got a hell of a rifle for that price. If you can find a really nice one for $900ish they're still worth it, but for the most part you're better off saving some pennies and getting a M1A instead. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/2/2012 5:59:17 AM EDT
[#48]
I used a M14 in basic and AIT in 1969. Did OK but really didn't have an opinion. Not like I was asked anyway. Got to Vietnam and used a M16 both tours. Had no problems with it. Couple of years ago I got the nostalgia bug and got M14S with all US parts . Already had several ARs and three FALs. The M14S was a great shooter and accurate as hell but my memories were more positive than the reality. I traded it for a DPMS LR308 and love it. Still have two FALs and half a dozen ARs. I'll never trash talk it but it wasn't for me.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/2/2012 6:05:16 AM EDT
[#49]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Politics had more to do with the decision to go M14 than performance. There was no way in hell that the US was going to adopt a foreign made battle rifle at the time. Yeah supposedly the tests were rigged, I forget how The m14 stock really sucks for close in stand up shooting From what I've read, "not invented here" is exactly why the FAL wasn't adopted. McNamara made some big changes to small arms testing/procurement. Marginalized previous high-authority departments, gave more sway to previously smaller departments. Part of the reason was the early SCHV ammunition testing (supposedly rigged to favor Olin in early trials of the AR15). |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/2/2012 6:05:31 AM EDT
[#50]
Quoted:
Quoted:
FAL is way overrated. At current prices it is. But when they we're $300-$500 you got a hell of a rifle for that price. If you can find a really nice one for $900ish they're still worth it, but for the most part you're better off saving some pennies and getting a M1A instead. And I'd take a DSA FAL built from an Austrian STG parts kit over a SA M1A made from cast Brazilian parts any day. |
|
|
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.
