Quoted:
I think the guy will be happy with a FAL, though I think he would be even happier with an M1A (though not the price tag!)
View Quote
With a name like "garandman" you GOTTA know I'm a BIG fan of the M1A.
However, in modern times, I just don't consider it a battle rifle. Its IS the best you can do with a .30 cal competition rifle, but it is no battle rifle.
FWIW, I didn't come to this opinion until I had owned my M1A for a few years, but then bought an FAL.
Reasons why I say this -
1. FAL in rapid fire recoils like an AR15. M1A is all over the place.
2. Wood stock doesn't belong on a modern battle field. You can get a poly stock on an M1A, but why???? The FAL comes standard with poly.
3. the integral bipod and the carry handle make the FAL better suited to SAW useage and support fire in battle conditions.
4. Even in a life and death situation, I'd be concerned with dropping a $50-75 M1A mag in the field, and leaving it behind. Call me a tight wad.
5. Pistol grip. EVERY battle rifle should have one.
6. Gas adjustment on the FAL, to meet field conditions, even to adapt to the sniper role by shutting the gas off. M1A's scope mount has too many parts to be lost. FAL's is integral.
Well, that's enuf.
Mind you, my favorite rifle of ALL TIME is still the M1. But I wouldn't be caught dead (or maybe I would [BD] ) with it on a battle field. Same with the M1A.
to the question posed in this thread - if your friend has ANY concerns about small caliber sizes, DEFINITELY go with the FAL.
May I recommend the DSA STG58???