Posted: 5/29/2006 8:00:12 AM EDT
|
Help me round this out... It has been a while since I have fired an M1A or an AR10, but I own several FALs and a true HK... I will update this one as things progress. UPDATED 
|
|
I actually think you're being overly hard on the HK. For example, I think the selector is in a great location (and like it better than any of the others), and personally, I find the HK the easiest of all of them to disassemble. (I've never owned an HK91, but the mag release on the G3 was REALLY easy - I'd say better than a FAL). But I guess some of those things are hard to separate from personal preference and familiarity. Personally, I think the Garand is really easy to disassemble, but a lot of people seem to think it's pretty complicated. But overall, it's a pretty good list/comparison |
|
Kind of a slant on the AR -> An AR-pattern weapon shouldn't need an 'adjustable gas system', as the lack of a piston should make it farely self-adjusting... Also, you missed one of the most glaring faults of the M14 & descendants -> the stock Having a sporting-style 'stock-bedded action', vs the more modern reciever-centric design creates problems with regard to (a) wood stocks that need glass bedding, and are affected by temperature/humidity, and (b) the maintanance & durability issues of a 'bedding-required' design, vs the no-bed, no-full-length stock design of more modern weapons... |
With regard to the selector, can you actually engage it without shifting your grip at all? Most people I know need to shift their grip (whatda have, monkey fingers?)  Good point on the disassembly, I'll update. With regard to the mag release...it is much to far to reach witht he firing hand...are you sure, you aren't adjusting your grip?
|
Yeah - the shorter barrel version of the HK91, with a retracting stock is probably MORE compact than almost any other option. PLus, the HK can have a type of "forward" assist if you have the bolt carrier with the serrations on the side, where you press it into battery with your finger. Not the same kind of forward assist as the AR, but it is a version (albeit less useful) of a forward assist. ETA: I hope I'm not coming across as a HK fanatic. I like the design of the HK series, and love the sights, but the ergonomics suck for me, and I've never liked shooting them. |
Look here www.ar15.com/forums/topic.html?b=6&f=9&t=174127 |
|
The whole point of choosing a MBR in 7,62 NATO over a weapon chambered in 5.56 NATO or 7.62x39 is the advantages gained in Penetration and Range at the cost of being able to carry more ammo as well as cost per round. In light of this, a choice on MBR's should be based upon a compromise between 3 Major factors: Reliability vs. Durability vs. Accuracy Minor Factors should be cost of Magazines because these can be obtained gradually, and you won't be carry more than 10 fully loaded 20 round magazines anyway. Perhaps have an additional 3 to keep as spares. Same is true with the Cost of the Rifle, as you can always save up for the rifle. Unless of course your time constraints are very short, then initial cost comes into play. Long Term Costs are pretty much dictated by how much you use the rifle and accessories as well as the conditions they are in, maintenance intervals, as well as price and availability of parts. ------------------------ Back to the Major factors. In terms of Reliability the HK hands down. In terms of ease of maintenance: the FAL. In terms of Accuracy, an AR10 though it is probably the least reliable as well as durable of your stated choices. A good compromise is an M14 built around a Norinco or Polytech Receiver. (These are Drop Forged, unlike Springfield Armory's Inc which are Cast). Because of this, they are stronger. Why get a MBR in .308 if you cannot exploit its potential for Range because its accuracy is bad. (of course if you live near a heavily wooded and brushy area, then range may not be a consideration, out west, there are some pretty wide open spaces...) Similarly no point in having a wonderfully accurate rifle if you have to constantly clean it, and or it is unrealiable. Another factor to consider is the Rifle's Ergonomics. Which one do you just shoot better. As for the above list of hardware features. The only thing that I see that immediately grabs my attention as being wrong, is the M1A's Forward Assist ability being Bad. The Forward Assist on the M1A is the same on the M1 Garand. It is the Bolt Handle. On the "FAL" if you have an L1A1 there is no forward assist since the Bolt handle flips forward. Only on Metric Pattern "FALS" can you have the possibility of a forward assist. The Forward Assist on the AR design is weak. Similarly the ability to extract a stock round in the chamber is also weak on the AR design. However on the M1A (M14) and M1 Garand, you unload the magazine place the rifle butt down on the ground and push down the bolt handle with your boot. (making sure that the muzzle is NOT pointed at yourself). I also disagree with the rating on Ease of Cleaning for the M1A and the AR-10 as being "Good". On both of these rifles it is somewhat poor. The FAL and L1A1 are Excellent in terms of ease of cleaning. Simularly in terms of ergonomics I would rate the AR-10 as being Excellent not Good. The M1A being somewhere above the FAL and somewhere below the AR-10 in terms of ergonomics. |
Good points. With regard to the ratings, there were only three: Good, OK, and Bad., I added Great. |
Well, just to start on Cost, how can you say the fal is "great" and label the rest "good" I understand with the AR10, but you can find CETME For around $300. And when your looking at a cheap FAL, it's probablly a century that's a POS. The M1A can also be good, the polytechs run around $800. and along with those astireks, you could apply those to almost anything on the chart, so i'de just take em off and use the stock guns for comparison. Because "If replaced from factory stock" you could turna ny of those into a "GREAT" That's just to name a few. |
Good points. |
|
My comments on the table (in regards to bias): Accuracy: How do you range the FAL as good? I'd say 'OK'/'Acceptable', but of the 4 it has the least accuracy potential (note lack of accepted sniper variants used by services - yet the other 3 have sniper varients tha have (and currently are) serving). Charging handle location: I'd swat the HK & FAL ratings. The HK's location doesn't require move the hand back - it's already where your offhand is located. IMHO it's the optimal spot - with the FAL's being #2. Safety Location: I think it's BS you call the FAL's location 'great' - oh but only if you buy a non-standard part and retro fit your rifle. You should rate it as OK with a note that it can be upgraded to good/great with the replacement of a part. M1A's safety I rate lower than OK, but that's me. Cleanliness: How do you rate the FAL as 'Great' but the M1A as 'Good'? IMHO they should share the same rating. I'd have though the HK would be rated higher as it lacks a gas system, but I've never had the pleasure of cleaning one. I wouldn't call the handling of the FAL to be 'great'. Good maybe, but not 'Great'. Long barrel & muzzle device (barrel is 2" longer than the HK IIRC). Adjustable Gas System: I don't get the rating here. Of the 4 weapons only one of them needs an adjustable system to operate. In other words the other 3 have fewer parts and are less complex (usually a GOOD thing in a weapon system). I've never had an AR type stop operating because of a problem with the gas adjustment (I HAVE had issues with an FAL becomming non operational due to it's gas system over the course of a range session). Cost of furnature: I'd gove the nod to the M1A and the AR over the FAL. Fred's usually has some great deals. Felt recoil: I'd rate it the same as the AR/M1A IF you have the gas system adjusted as it should be for 'battle reliablity'. True you can change the setting so it shoots softer but that is not an advantage if the rifle is a WEAPON. Carbine Version: I'd change the M1A & FAL to 'Good' rather than 'Great'. They are not as readily available, and generally cost a good deal more. Collapsible stock availablity: I'd rate the FAL & HK no higher than 'Good/OK' as they are not nearly as easy to find as say a telestock for the AR series. |
|
Have you thought about adding two more columns? 1) Weight (of standard 20ish barrel variant - and maybe a 2nd one of the most common carbine variant with a collapsible stock). 2) Length (again of the standard 20"ish variant, then a second set of number for the carbine with the stock open & closed). |
|
I'd disagree with the "OK" accuracy assessment on the FAL. I'd however add an "ambidextrous" catagory as that's important in a combat/defense weapon. I'd like to see how SCAR-H ranks on your chart as well (hopefully in a few months  ). Other than the unknown cost of magazines it should compare very well.ETA: For those complaining about the adjustable gas system on the FAL, just crank it down to about 2/3 or 3/4 and leave it if you don't want to mess with it... that's plenty of force to operate under almost any condition. |
It's been a while since I've handled a G3, but I don't recall ever having an issue with the selector. Just to clarify, when I'm talking about the "G3" I'm referring to a military select-fire version (which is what I'm used to) - I've never used a semi HK91. So the mag release I was talking about is the original HK paddle release, which I think is superior to the FAL because it is easier to operate under stress. I'm not even sure how the mag release works on an HK without the paddle, but I imagine it sucks. |
What about the G1ZF-Z4B (NSN:1005-12-124-3155)? The sniper version of the West German G-1. Here's a pic of the correct scope and mount....  Proper scope/mount for a Dutch "sniper-FAL"....  Belgian infarred scope/mount for an FAL.....  Canadian scope/mount for a C-1 (Canadian FAL).....  And here's an "FAL-sniper"...  Accuracy is "ok/acceptable"??? Friend......either your experience with FALs is limited, or any you've fired had shot-out bores. A close friend of mine regurlarly out-shoots "M-14 Fred" and his M1A crew out at the Riverside Gun Club (range has changed names in the last year or so.....I'm currently experiencing a "brain-fart" and can't remember the damned new name!!!  ). My friend's rifle of choice? An StG built using a like-new, bone stock StG barrel and a DSA receiver! And all shooting is done with iron sights at ranges out to 500yds.Now.......the iron sights on a "stock" FAL could use some improvement (they suck compared to an M-14/M1A), but they're usable. AND.....they can be upgraded. |
I didn't say they didn't TRY, but as a sniper weapon it wasn't successful. Accuracy is competant for a battle rifle, but it can't compete against a bedded M1A or a Free Floated AR-10. |
|
Forward assist? M1a bad? AR10 good? AR10s do not have a forward assist and there is no way to do so if you need to close a M1A you bump the op handle which is IMO a better system than a AR15 anyway other than that your chart is OK IMO but a bit biased but nomore so than most major magazines |
This is getting harder than I thought! |
I have several FAL's one of which always gets under 1MOA; however, most out of the box FALs are 2-3 MOA guns. |
How was it not successful? The "G-1 sniper" was used by the German border police for years after the G-3 was adopted (last reference I have to them in use in Germany was 1988....possably later). Adopted in 1957.....used thru 1988. That's 31 years by my "publik skool" math. Granted, a bedded M1A is capable of MOA (and even sub-MOA) accuracy.....but it looses quite a bit of durability in the process. The M-14 is a reasonably rugged rifle, but try throwing your pillar-bedded M1A in a mudhole or rolling around in the dust with it. Doesn't matter how accurate it is if it goes "click" instead of "bang". But I digress.......we're talking about MBR's here......NOT specially built sniper rifles (of which, I'd choose my Remmy PSS with it's 5R barrel ofer any of the "MBR-sniper hybrids" listed above). My point.......an FAL is just as accurate as an M1A or M-14 with a similar condition barrel. Take your M1A and dump 15k rounds down range in full auto, in poor environments and with little care and you'll have a "tube" similar to many FAL barrels that came into the country. |
Weghted Avgs would be simple using the three factors above: Reliability, Durability, Accuracy Give them a 7 5 6 or so "weight" respectively, multiply by the 1-5 scale. Everything on the list (other than cost) would fit into 1 of the three categories, so in an Excel Spreadsheet, you could change the "weightings" around based on further input, so you could increase desired accuracy, but the base rating number would be the same for all rifles, allowing you to "tune" what you are looking for. Excel spreadsheet:
Or something similar, the hidden "category" cell would be a lookup to the three parameters at the top |