Should we have adopted the FAL? - Page 3

jerry · 01-20-2003, 07:21 AM

I went to the desert on a horse with no name,
It cost me 10 bucks to get out of Bahrain.

(a little tune we made up for the coutry exit fee)

Another thing thay don't care for is the MRE bombs. I'd still like to shake the hand of the genious who thought that one up. LoL

Take care REM.303

Gyrene · 01-30-2003, 01:50 AM

I'll still choose the M1 Garand, even though it was not one of the choices. I carried it and a lot of ammo (sometimes as many as 15 bandoliers), and I never thought about the weight, which just was not the issue. Survival was the issue, and when you knew you could knock the enemy down, even through light barricades, you know you can survive. They don't ask if they've been hit, they just go down.

If the 3 round burst had been employed on the M14, I think it would have been kept by the Army and USMC, and left the Air Force with their M-16, to protect their Aircraft on the ground, after all it was supposed to replace their M1 Carbine.

I have the rifles in question, and I still prefer the M1 Garand in .30-06 and a walnut stock, over the M14 (the advantage lies with the .30-06). The FN-49 is a close third in my mind. It would be a great rifle with a select fire 3 round burst, in 7 x 57mm Mauser, which was built for the Venezuelan Army (not with 3 round burst) only in semi-auto. I like it in 8mm Mauser, and .30-06, as it will definitely do the job. The strange thing with it, the Belgies did make the .30-06 available in select fire, semi or full auto, and that was a handfull too. It, too, has a walnut stock!

jerry · 01-30-2003, 06:48 AM

Interesting perspective Gyrene.

View Poll Results: What should we have done?
Kept the M14 longer.	6	33.33%
Switched to the M16 like we did.	4	22.22%
Adopted the FAL as an emergency transitional rifle.	8	44.44%
I hate FALS, they suck. So do you, BattleRifle. Get a girlfriend.	0	0%
Multiple Choice Poll. Voters: 18. You may not vote on this poll

01-20-2003, 07:21 AM	#41
jerry Senior Member Join Date: Mar 2002 Posts: 10,750	I went to the desert on a horse with no name, It cost me 10 bucks to get out of Bahrain. (a little tune we made up for the coutry exit fee) Another thing thay don't care for is the MRE bombs. I'd still like to shake the hand of the genious who thought that one up. LoL Take care REM.303 __________________

01-30-2003, 06:48 AM	#43
jerry Senior Member Join Date: Mar 2002 Posts: 10,750	Interesting perspective Gyrene. __________________

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

01-30-2003, 01:50 AM	#42
Gyrene Senior Member Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: CA Posts: 886	I'll still choose the M1 Garand, even though it was not one of the choices. I carried it and a lot of ammo (sometimes as many as 15 bandoliers), and I never thought about the weight, which just was not the issue. Survival was the issue, and when you knew you could knock the enemy down, even through light barricades, you know you can survive. They don't ask if they've been hit, they just go down. If the 3 round burst had been employed on the M14, I think it would have been kept by the Army and USMC, and left the Air Force with their M-16, to protect their Aircraft on the ground, after all it was supposed to replace their M1 Carbine. I have the rifles in question, and I still prefer the M1 Garand in .30-06 and a walnut stock, over the M14 (the advantage lies with the .30-06). The FN-49 is a close third in my mind. It would be a great rifle with a select fire 3 round burst, in 7 x 57mm Mauser, which was built for the Venezuelan Army (not with 3 round burst) only in semi-auto. I like it in 8mm Mauser, and .30-06, as it will definitely do the job. The strange thing with it, the Belgies did make the .30-06 available in select fire, semi or full auto, and that was a handfull too. It, too, has a walnut stock!