Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
BCM
Member Login

Site Notices
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 3
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.


























 
Link Posted: 5/1/2012 8:15:23 PM EDT
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)
Link Posted: 5/1/2012 8:16:47 PM EDT
Dude, you are just et up with the Fal disease, aren't you?
Link Posted: 5/1/2012 8:22:37 PM EDT
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.




 
Link Posted: 5/1/2012 8:26:14 PM EDT
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.
Link Posted: 5/1/2012 8:27:25 PM EDT
FAL > Dogshit M14
Link Posted: 5/1/2012 8:38:08 PM EDT



Quoted:


FAL > Dogshit M14


Choke yourself.



 
Link Posted: 5/1/2012 8:42:19 PM EDT
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.
Link Posted: 5/1/2012 8:42:47 PM EDT
Quoted:
FAL > Dogshit M14


I wont say dogshit but yeah
Link Posted: 5/1/2012 8:43:54 PM EDT
Quoted:

Quoted:
FAL > Dogshit M14

Choke yourself.
 


Link Posted: 5/1/2012 8:50:57 PM EDT
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.
Link Posted: 5/1/2012 9:00:24 PM EDT
So, if the FAL wasn't originally intended to be chambered in 7.62x51, what would it have been?
Link Posted: 5/1/2012 9:02:46 PM EDT
Quoted:
Dude, you are just et up with the Fal disease, aren't you?


Link Posted: 5/1/2012 9:02:53 PM EDT
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
Link Posted: 5/1/2012 9:08:32 PM EDT
FAL, M-14... I love'em both.
 
Link Posted: 5/1/2012 9:09:35 PM EDT



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.



 
Link Posted: 5/1/2012 9:11:01 PM EDT



Quoted:


So, if the FAL wasn't originally intended to be chambered in 7.62x51, what would it have been?


280 british







 
Link Posted: 5/1/2012 9:24:13 PM EDT
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.

Link Posted: 5/1/2012 9:32:31 PM EDT
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
Link Posted: 5/1/2012 9:32:39 PM EDT
Read this, if you can find a copy:
Link Posted: 5/1/2012 9:32:58 PM EDT
Did anyone ever make a 5.56 FAL?
Link Posted: 5/1/2012 9:40:32 PM EDT
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
Link Posted: 5/1/2012 9:40:47 PM EDT
Quoted:
Did anyone ever make a 5.56 FAL?

IMBEL (Brazil) did.
IMBEL MD-2




IMBEL MD-97



Link Posted: 5/1/2012 9:42:13 PM EDT
Quoted:
Did anyone ever make a 5.56 FAL?


Fnc?
Link Posted: 5/1/2012 9:59:44 PM EDT
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.

Link Posted: 5/1/2012 10:10:41 PM EDT
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.
Link Posted: 5/1/2012 10:14:23 PM EDT
Another pic, just cuz.



FInishing up my clone this month.
Link Posted: 5/1/2012 10:23:34 PM EDT
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.
Link Posted: 5/1/2012 11:06:28 PM EDT
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.
Link Posted: 5/1/2012 11:09:14 PM EDT
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.
Link Posted: 5/1/2012 11:10:33 PM EDT



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.



 
Link Posted: 5/1/2012 11:33:16 PM EDT
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.
Link Posted: 5/1/2012 11:36:40 PM EDT
Quoted:
Dude, you are just et up with the Fal disease, aren't you?
He could have been a crew member of the FalShip Monkeepipe VII when it was flying around.

But that's another story.

Link Posted: 5/2/2012 12:07:00 AM EDT
Quoted:
Did anyone ever make a 5.56 FAL?


Imbel did, Springfield armory imported a few before 1989.
Link Posted: 5/2/2012 12:15:32 AM EDT
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.
Link Posted: 5/2/2012 12:33:10 AM EDT

Alas, the things that never came to be.


.

Link Posted: 5/2/2012 12:55:42 AM EDT
Link Posted: 5/2/2012 1:06:38 AM EDT
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.

Link Posted: 5/2/2012 1:09:38 AM EDT
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.
Link Posted: 5/2/2012 1:18:22 AM EDT
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
Link Posted: 5/2/2012 4:47:50 AM EDT




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?
Link Posted: 5/2/2012 5:12:22 AM EDT
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.
Link Posted: 5/2/2012 5:33:39 AM EDT
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.
Link Posted: 5/2/2012 5:36:44 AM EDT
The better rifle won.
Link Posted: 5/2/2012 5:38:34 AM EDT
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
Link Posted: 5/2/2012 5:44:06 AM EDT




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.

Link Posted: 5/2/2012 5:49:36 AM EDT
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.



Link Posted: 5/2/2012 5:50:15 AM EDT
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.
Link Posted: 5/2/2012 5:59:17 AM EDT
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.
Link Posted: 5/2/2012 6:05:16 AM EDT
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).
Link Posted: 5/2/2012 6:05:31 AM EDT
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.
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 3
Top Top