[BattleRifleG3]

The US tested the FAL right beside the M1 derived variant that became the M14. Yes, that was a fine rifle. But something made it undesirable in Vietnam.

But when we deployed the M16, it was unproven, unrefined, and underpowered. Some say we should have stuck with the M14.

What I propose (not assert, propose) is that given the situation in Vietnam and the demand for a new rifle, the US military should have, as a situationally neccessarry decision, issued the FAL rifle to our forces in Vietnam. Yes it's heavier and bulkier than the M16, well tough. As far as function goes, I believe it's a better MBR than the M14, the M14 excelling in accuracy. Basically a step closer to the AK, which excelled in that conflict. With most of the AKs advantages (ruggedness, reliability) and lacking many of its drawbacks (inaccuracy, ergonomic repulsiveness), I think it would have stood very well in the hands of our troops against the AK.

While issuing the FAL as a transitional gun, we should have taken our time developing an assault rifle of our own. Perhaps the AR system could have been made to fire a cartridge in between 308 and 223, which could be a compromise between light recoil and high capacity on one side and durability (larger parts), bullet energy, and long range accuracy on the other.

So what does everyone else think?