Falklands 1982: which rifle would you choose, FAL or M-16?

Site Notices

[ARCHIVED THREAD] - Falklands 1982: which rifle would you choose, FAL or M-16? (Page 1 of 2)

Posted: 9/24/2005 9:16:30 AM EDT

Given the mission, tactics and terrain, which rifle would you have choosen if you had to fight in the Falklands Islands/Islas Malvinas campaign?

Keep in mind this was a classic Infantryman's fight...while the British forces had planned on covering the tens of miles from their landing beaches to the Argentinian positions by using helicopters for troop transport, most of the copters were lost when the Argies put an Exocet into the Atlantic Conveyor. So, the various British infantry units had to march many miles to engage the enemy; it was up to the individual soldier to carry his weapons, gear and ammo. The terrain was generally featureless and offered little cover to advancing troops, so firefights tended to begin at long range, last for hours as the infantry maneuvered to close with the enemy, then end with close combat. For this reason the British opted for night assaults, but given local conditions the battles often stretched on for hours, well into the daylight.

So, given these factors, and if given the choice, would you opt for the FAL, or the M-16? While the FAL was the standard rifle of the British forces, M-16A1s were available and were in fact used by Special Forces units (SAS and SBS).

Posted: 9/24/2005 11:19:47 AM EDT

[#1]

I figure I'd take the best of both worlds. I'd want an FN-FAL carbine. I could have the portability of the lighter rifle, close to the reach the long FNs have the potential for, and complete compatability with the Argy weapon/mags/ammo and that of the common ground pounder on my side of the line.

Posted: 9/24/2005 11:28:50 AM EDT

[#2]

Fal

Posted: 9/24/2005 11:35:06 AM EDT

[#3]

M14

In regards to your question: FAL.

Posted: 9/24/2005 4:20:23 PM EDT

[#4]

The FAL fires the 7.62, but the sights aren't really that great, so maybe the range advantage really isn't there. Though it was quite windy on the islands, not a good place for the 5.56 at longer ranges.

But...some of the British FALs were equipped with the 4X Trilux optical sight, so if you say you wanted one of those, you could have one! I've has one of these scopes, and was not impressed.

The FAL carbine is compact, yes, but is still heavy, and so is its ammo, something to consider given the long approach marches.

Posted: 9/24/2005 4:23:34 PM EDT

[#5]

FN FAL PARA

...................was that an option?

Posted: 9/24/2005 5:25:31 PM EDT

[#6]

Quoted:
FN FAL PARA

...................was that an option?

The Argies had them, so, yes.

Posted: 9/24/2005 6:07:07 PM EDT

[#7]

Fal.

Max

Posted: 9/24/2005 7:05:19 PM EDT

[#8]

Quoted:
FN FAL PARA

...................was that an option?

Posted: 9/24/2005 7:05:57 PM EDT

[#9]

M 16

Posted: 9/24/2005 11:16:55 PM EDT

[#10]

A Mirage with Exocet missles please.

Posted: 9/24/2005 11:27:21 PM EDT

[#11]

Quoted:
A Mirage with Exocet missles please.

Yep the only thing the Argentines could use to kill Brits.

Link

Interesting

Posted: 9/24/2005 11:34:35 PM EDT

[#12]

A scoped L1A1 would have been tempting:

Posted: 9/24/2005 11:35:16 PM EDT

[#13]

FAL w/ M16 sights

Posted: 9/25/2005 12:12:40 AM EDT

[#14]

Red Rider Daisy BB Gun, With the leather straps that hang down from the sides.
Man, they would see me coming with that killer rig and just shit themselves in fear.

Posted: 9/25/2005 12:17:32 AM EDT

[#15]

FAL indeed

Posted: 9/25/2005 1:50:16 AM EDT

[#16]

I'm with Lumpy, given the terrain, I'd lean towards the Fusil Automatique Leger.

Posted: 9/25/2005 1:55:33 AM EDT

[#17]

L96 or Enfield sniper variant and a shitload of good ammo.

Posted: 9/25/2005 8:55:16 AM EDT

[#18]

m16. From what i remember of that war the weather generally sucked which would eliminate any range advantage from the FAL. also with no helos i would be tempted to ruck in with all the ammo i could carry - advantage m16.

Posted: 9/25/2005 10:08:20 AM EDT

[#19]

Thanks for the pic, Lumpy! It really shows the type of terrain encountered on the island, open with little cover.

On the range issue...a lot of the fighting took place in darkness, so the FAL with irons would have its range advantage nullified, unless you are talking about area fire, or that nifty Trilux optic.

Surprised no one has mentioned the full-auto fire available with the M-16 when the combat closed into short ranges.

Posted: 9/25/2005 1:53:05 PM EDT

[#20]

Posted: 9/25/2005 2:18:40 PM EDT

[#21]

On the range issue...a lot of the fighting took place in darkness,

This is true.

The Argies would have done a lot better if they could have re-supplied (e.g. food) and if the fuses on their (fast mover dropped) bombs had worked reliably.

The Brits would have done a lot better if they had had vehicles or helicopters.

I bet the Royal Marines hated having to hump their L1A1s the distance they did and would have traded some or all for "Armalites" in a second.

Posted: 9/25/2005 2:30:06 PM EDT

[#22]

Quoted:
m16. From what i remember of that war the weather generally sucked which would eliminate any range advantage from the FAL. also with no helos i would be tempted to ruck in with all the ammo i could carry - advantage m16.

+1

Posted: 9/25/2005 2:32:18 PM EDT

[#23]

Quoted:
The Argies would have done a lot better if they could have re-supplied (e.g. food) and if the fuses on their (fast mover dropped) bombs had worked reliably.

I have a book on the subject where the Argies bitch about the fuzing on the bombs. The US had issued a notice about bad fuzes, but wouldn't give the fix to the Argies because of the embargo. The Argies claimed that was BS because they weren't buying a new weapon, and the upgrade was normal customer service.

Also, in the book, it mentions Brits armed with Sterlings throwing them away to pick up Argie FALs.

I'd take the FAL personally. From the pics I've seen there's a lot of open space.

Posted: 9/25/2005 2:34:51 PM EDT

[#24]

I am sure they would have wanted something light while on the "Great Yomp" across the island. Since the Brits often attacked with a whether advantage (in crappy weather and at night) to close with Argentinian in fixed defensive positions, I really don't think the longer range ability was needed.

Posted: 9/25/2005 3:43:32 PM EDT

[#25]

I read the same thing, but the reason given was that the Argie FAL's fired full auto. The L1A1 SLR is a semi only rifle. If I remember correctly some of the SAS forces were using the M-16 because they could. Personally, given the engagement ranges of the battles I'd take an M-16.

Quoted:

Also, in the book, it mentions Brits armed with Sterlings throwing them away to pick up Argie FALs.

I'd take the FAL personally. From the pics I've seen there's a lot of open space.

Posted: 9/25/2005 4:42:32 PM EDT

[#26]

I remember some interviews with British troops who had the SA80, they all said they wanted their FAL's back.

Posted: 9/25/2005 5:36:42 PM EDT

[#27]

It's the FAL-kland Islands after all

Posted: 9/26/2005 4:19:11 AM EDT

[#28]

Good point. Didn't think of that.

Quoted:
It's the FAL-kland Islands after all

Posted: 9/26/2005 10:25:04 AM EDT

[#29]

FAL w/o question.

Posted: 9/29/2005 11:13:40 PM EDT

[#30]

While the FAL is a great rifle (own one), you said the words "march". The FAL weights a freaken ton, I'm sure a BAR or M14 would be lighter.

What about a Garand? If where assuming you will be engaging the enemy at an extreme distance select fire will be pointless, stripper clips should be lighter then magazines.

Posted: 9/30/2005 7:14:00 AM EDT

[#31]

Corbic...the british FAL L1A1 or called the "SLR" by the troops ,is semi auto only. and is no heavier than a Garand or M14 and darn sure isnt the 18lbs of an M1918A2 BAR.
While both the M16 and the L1A1 are good rifles, one has to look at what the SAS do with an M16
most of the time....unlike infantry, they are commandos that pull suprise raids on airfields and the like in the middle of the night...the ranges are short and the high rate of fire help overcome defender and wreck equipment. and you can carry a lot of loaded magazines for 20pounds of weight.
A line infantryman will not be so far behind enemy lines as an SAS man. And has a better chance of resupply....the in falklands the wind blows like hell all the time and the heavier bullet doesnt deflect quite as much at 500-600 meters and penetrates items better at that distance, as well as being compatable with the ammo used by your section machinegunner. Each of the two rifle have thier uses as well as weaknesses.....and you are far from unarmed with either one. As with golf, the shot you have to take dictates which club is better at that moment.

This my L1A1, MK6 Kevlar and Hi Power

Posted: 9/30/2005 8:39:49 AM EDT

[#32]

Even though it's not one of the options, I'd say the HK91

Posted: 9/30/2005 9:29:53 AM EDT

[#33]

You know that was about as relevent when you said
"Even though it's not one of the options, I'd say the HK91"
that it would have ment just as much if you had instead said...

1.
Even though it's not one of the options, I'd say id take a baby asprin
2.
Even though it's not one of the options, I'd say the ford mustang
3.
Even though it's not one of the options, I'd say go for the deoderant ones
4.
Even though it's not one of the options, I'd say cambells chunky
5.
Even though it's not one of the options, I'd say a neutered civilian version of a military rifle

lol I swear if the subject was dog turds, somebody would pick wheaties....we are talking the falkland conflict and ISSUE equipment..not a single HK91 on anybodies TO&E anywhere there

Posted: 9/30/2005 4:09:07 PM EDT

[#34]

Quoted:
You know that was about as relevent when you said
"Even though it's not one of the options, I'd say the HK91"
that it would have ment just as much if you had instead said...

1.
Even though it's not one of the options, I'd say id take a baby asprin
2.
Even though it's not one of the options, I'd say the ford mustang
3.
Even though it's not one of the options, I'd say go for the deoderant ones
4.
Even though it's not one of the options, I'd say cambells chunky
5.
Even though it's not one of the options, I'd say a neutered civilian version of a military rifle

lol I swear if the subject was dog turds, somebody would pick wheaties....we are talking the falkland conflict and ISSUE equipment..not a single HK91 on anybodies TO&E anywhere there

Ok, I'll take the FAL then.

And some baby aspirin. St. Josephs if you please.

Posted: 9/30/2005 4:13:33 PM EDT

[#35]

FAL 100% even though I own an AR

OR

We did it without any help

AND
You guys were so impressed with our bird you bought a few too

Taffy

Posted: 9/30/2005 6:17:05 PM EDT

[#36]

I've used them both. I would have to choose the SLR for the greater stand off range.

Posted: 9/30/2005 8:26:43 PM EDT

[#37]

Okay I'll confuse the issue a bit...

I've heard from ONE SOURCE that the Argentine 25th Infantry Regiment had a SMALL number of M-14s fitted with AN/PVS-2 night scopes. So there you go, but sorry no G-3s allowed.

Posted: 9/30/2005 11:45:46 PM EDT

[#38]

Maybe the question should be......who would fight for such a barren God-forsaken rock? Did you see a picture of that terrain?

Posted: 10/1/2005 1:21:02 AM EDT

[#39]

Scoped FAL

Posted: 10/1/2005 1:37:19 AM EDT

[#40]

I own a FAL and several ARs. I'd take the M16 personally. Purely an ergo issue for me. I shoot the M16 platform better and feel more confident with it.

Posted: 10/1/2005 1:39:53 AM EDT

[#41]

Well, as a line "Squadie" in the British Infantry you wouldn't have a choice anyway... You are stuck with the SLR....

The Brits used inch pattern FALs, and the Argentinians used metric. The mags are not 100% compatable if I am not mistaken.

Posted: 10/1/2005 4:05:42 AM EDT

[#42]

scoped FAL para would be ideal!

If unavailable - L1A1 with the compact 4x sight

Posted: 10/1/2005 5:05:43 AM EDT

[#43]

This chairbourn ranger would pick he M16 as that is what I am most familiar with. I would not be upset to have a mix of M16'S and FAL'S

Posted: 10/1/2005 6:10:55 AM EDT

[#44]

The weather that time of year was pretty bad making for limited observation and the Brits normally attacked at night to preclude the ability of the Argentinians to place withering fire on open terrain if the weather did clear. I really don't think the FAL would do any better for "Long Range" shooting since the rack grade L1A1s weren't all too accurate, slapping on scope on it would do little for inherent accuracy of the system.

Posted: 10/1/2005 7:06:58 AM EDT

[#45]

Quoted:
Maybe the question should be......who would fight for such a barren God-forsaken rock? Did you see a picture of that terrain?

You obviously don't know the British national character...

It had a Union Jack sticking it, and the Argies knocked it down. That was enough reason.

Posted: 10/1/2005 8:53:25 AM EDT

[#46]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Maybe the question should be......who would fight for such a barren God-forsaken rock? Did you see a picture of that terrain?

You obviously don't know the British national character...

It had a Union Jack sticking it, and the Argies knocked it down. That was enough reason.

Gotta respect that

Posted: 10/1/2005 2:57:03 PM EDT

[#47]

Actually, the HK was available, at least to the SAS. I had a cousin in Belfast who did some plain clothes work with SAS backup - he was drooling over the HK rifles (not MP5's) that they were carrying "brilliant piece of kit - power of an SLR, half the size" His words, not mine.

Posted: 10/1/2005 2:58:51 PM EDT

[#48]

I just sent an email to a retired British SGTMAJ who fought there, hope he will come online and let us know what he thinks

rk

Posted: 10/1/2005 3:14:20 PM EDT

[#49]

Quoted:
Maybe the question should be......who would fight for such a barren God-forsaken rock? Did you see a picture of that terrain?

Go visit Mr Google and find out what it was all about before you make stoopid remarks like that...

Taffy

Posted: 10/1/2005 3:34:32 PM EDT

[#50]

The British national character - "Fight? OK! - Oh, by the way when +where"
- born there, understand that - not born there, you probably don't get it!

[ARCHIVED THREAD] - Falklands 1982: which rifle would you choose, FAL or M-16? (Page 1 of 2)

Armory » General Firearm Discussion

Warning

Confirm Action

About AR15.COM

Stay Connected

Newsletter

Contact Us