Should we have adopted the FAL?

BattleRifleG3 · 12-06-2002, 02:31 PM

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?

NRAJOE · 12-06-2002, 02:47 PM

Should have kept the M-14 and fitted them with synthetic stocks! Would have saved a few lives early on!

PAPA G · 12-06-2002, 02:57 PM

other than being a bear in full auto, it had no problems. it was replaced by the M-16 because of the good old boy network of contractors, and military yesmen. there was no competion of contractors and designs. Gen LeMay wanted it for his flyboys, and finagled it into the US inventory, then like a cancer it spread!!!

another thing about the M-14, if for some reason the bolt doesn't go all the way to battery, a smack with the heel of the hand will finish the job. can that be done with the FAL???:nod:

jerry · 12-06-2002, 04:42 PM

PAPA G is right. POLITICS.
Not to mention LeMay wanted 80.000 of them for the Air Force.

Don · 12-07-2002, 10:51 PM

I slepped an FAL for 4 years when I was in the army. It is a fine MBR and extemely reliable. I don't remember ever having one jam or miss feed, when the ammo was good that is. You talk about about Vietnam, the Australians carried their's into battle over there and were very happy with their performance. Even when the M16 can into popularity over there, the Aussies had two per section (squad) as a light support initial spray gun to get their heads down; but when the business came, it was the FAL L1A1 to go in and shoot that b*stard THROUGH the tree. You'all missed out on a fine MBR.

Big Dog · 12-09-2002, 10:22 AM

Shoulda kept the M14 til we got the AR10 ironed out. Or even better, the AR15 (wood-stocked .308 progenitor of the AR18).

Stoner's designs were good, but we shoulda never switched to a varmint round for "big game".

BattleRifleG3 · 12-09-2002, 01:13 PM

Wood stocked 308 progenitor of the AR-18... you mean the AR-16, not the AR-15, right?
I'm sure it's just a typo.

Big Dog · 12-09-2002, 02:09 PM

OOPS! A case of cranial flatulence. You are correct, BR.

I'm old-fashioned - I like .308 and good wood.

:assult: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

BattleRifleG3 · 12-09-2002, 06:01 PM

I'm even more old fashioned... I like 30-06 and good wood. But as my name suggests, I like new stuff too, as long as it's good new stuff. But then again, if the G3 is new to us, man are we old, at least at heart. I never had the opportunity to buy weapons before the ban. I was too busy thinking about the girl in the other class.

oneastrix · 12-09-2002, 07:59 PM

Still think you need a girlfriend dude..................just joshin' woth ya!LOL

Big Dog · 12-10-2002, 08:49 AM

BR, I just recently added a Cetme .308 to the stable, so I'm kinda/sorta doing the G3 thing myself. The Cetme's got the wood furniture, so it meets my criteria.

Calvin · 12-10-2002, 09:56 AM

The M14 would have been the ultimate, had not someone said "Let's make it full-auto!". It was too much to control on full-auto, and it scared a few people when it would walk right out of their hands due to the recoil.
As far as adopting the FAL or the M-16, and the politics involved, the lowest bidder got the contract. I, personally, don't care for the AR-series. I don't have too much confidence in a rifle that requires a slap on a forward assist to make sure it's in battery. My M-16 in basic would never fire on full-auto. The armorer tried everything, but it wouldn't work. Had to use another guys' 16 to qualify with. The one I got issued once I was in my permanent party wasn't much better.
That being said, I would probably would have liked the FAL over the Mattel paperweight I had. Like Big Dog and Don said-the 7.62 round was plenty powerful enough, even if they were behind a tree...

oneastrix · 12-10-2002, 10:38 AM

I've always been curious about the M14's....would like to find somebody at my range who would let me put a few rounds through it to see how it does......I really like the looks of the Springfields......

PAPA G · 12-10-2002, 11:24 AM

the M-16 did not go through the usual competition, and bidding process. AF GEN. LeMay wanted it for his boys in the late 50's or early 60's. and with the Cold War going full blast, and having the discreationary funds, approved it for purchase. back then the Air Force usually got whatever it wanted as it was the first line in a Nuclear attack.

1*- a genuine full-auto M-14 is expensive to buy, lots of legalities, and paperwork. but it can be done. But for practical purposes a SA INC M-1a or one of the other clones is the way to go. they are as much fun as the real thing.

HeadShot308 · 12-10-2002, 10:24 PM

The M-14 fired full-auto is a handfull for most guys. I'm a big guy and I recently fired off a full mag on full auto . you better be holding it tight ! serious muzzle rise if your not paying attention !.
So... they were taking this into account when choosing the M-16 because it is MUCH easier for your average Grunt to stay on target when firing full auto. (also the reason the devised the 3 shot burst option ).

FALPhil · 12-11-2002, 06:33 AM

The M14 was given extra points because the DoD was "sold" on the dubious concept that the M1 tooling could be easily and cheaply retrofitted to build M14s because of the similarity in the weapons. Along with that notion, came similar ones concerning maintenance and training.

The M14 has got a lot going for it - when compared to the Garand. However, when you compare it to the FAL, the FAL appears to have an edge.

Ergonomics: When compared to traditional designs, the M14 has got very good ergonomics, but it is still a tradtional ergonomic design that had not changed in 85 years. The FAL is a pistol-grip assault style design. That means it's easier and faster to bring into action and easier to control. Cleaning is much easier and the barrel can be cleaned from the breech end.

Sights: The M14 has the best battle sights, hands down. Unless the FAL is equipped with an optical sight (which, BTW, is much much easier than the M14) or a non-standard peep sight, FAL sights suck in comparison.

Accuracy: The M14 can be made into a highly accurate platform with a lot of work. FALs can be made just as accurate, but it takes even more work. The difference between the two is in maintainability of that accuracy. M14s have a definite deterioration curve when it comes to accuracy. FALs, OTOH are pretty consistent through their serviceable lifetime. My experience with real M14s and M1As has been that rack grade M14s and rack grade FALs have about the same level of accuracy.

Simple and Complex Field Maintenance: What can I say? Anyone who says the M14 has an advantage in this area eoither has never performed any on a FAL or is suffering from cranial rectosis.

Armory maintenance:There is no qestion that the FAL has an advantage here. A FAL can be completely disaasembled and rebuilt in about the time it takes to get M14 disassembled. It is a much more forgiving design, which is why they are so popular among the homebrew set.

I love the M14. To me its a prettier rifle. But let's face facts: the FAL has more going for it as a long term solution.

jerry · 12-11-2002, 06:52 AM

Good solid logical points Phil. Also;
Eugene Stoner concived while working for ArmaLite a half century ago the AR-10. The AR-10 lost out to the M14 due to it's then unproven "space age" design, plastic furniture, and vastly different appearance from what the U.S. armed forces held dear in a battle rifle. When the U.S. Army adopted the M-16- the M-14 service rifle joined the ranks of the M-1 in long term storage. The AR-10 was simply a rifle before it's time, and to date remains one of the most unjustly-neglected rifles in American firearms history.

I have often thought of the same question BattleRifleG3 posed in the opening post about caliber choice. I believe a .243/6mm Rem or some type of 7mm design would have been a good spilt between the .308 & 5.56

oneastrix · 12-11-2002, 10:08 AM

TRhat's what i was talking about Papa......I have a catalogue with all their 1911's and M1A's in there...they sure look good to me but those M1A's are pretty steep in price....

FALPhil · 12-11-2002, 05:27 PM

Well, I don't have near as big a problem with the 223 now that I can get heavier bullets and barrels with the twist to support them. With the new, advanced bullet designs in the 80gr range, they can be pretty effective against soft targets.

However, against armored targets and materiel, I would say that the 308Win/7.62 NATO would be about minimum. A 300 WinMag would be even better, and a 338 Lapua Mag would handle about 95% of the chores. The problem is, you don't get something for nothing. That extra power costs weight. I've lugged 16 FAL mags (20 rounders) for about 4 hours in an RSA "hippo" pack. I don't want to have to do it again!

All that being said, I think the best compromise would be a 6.5-08.

Quote:

Originally posted by jerry
I have often thought of the same question BattleRifleG3 posed in the opening post about caliber choice. I believe a .243/6mm Rem or some type of 7mm design would have been a good spilt between the .308 & 5.56

jerry · 12-12-2002, 12:50 PM

Two votes for a 6.5-08!

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

12-06-2002, 02:31 PM	#1
BattleRifleG3 Super Moderator Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: Western PA Posts: 11,397 Images: 13	Should we have adopted the FAL? 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? __________________ Trust is earned, not... GIVEN away. - Worf

12-06-2002, 02:47 PM	#2
NRAJOE Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2002 Location: Toledo,OH Posts: 18,662 Images: 5	Should have kept the M-14 and fitted them with synthetic stocks! Would have saved a few lives early on! __________________ U.S. Army 1976-1979 237th Combat Engineers Heilbronn, Germany

12-06-2002, 02:57 PM	#3
PAPA G Guest Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: somerset, kentucky Posts: 12	THE M-14 IS A FINE RIFLE.............. other than being a bear in full auto, it had no problems. it was replaced by the M-16 because of the good old boy network of contractors, and military yesmen. there was no competion of contractors and designs. Gen LeMay wanted it for his flyboys, and finagled it into the US inventory, then like a cancer it spread!!! another thing about the M-14, if for some reason the bolt doesn't go all the way to battery, a smack with the heel of the hand will finish the job. can that be done with the FAL???:nod:

12-06-2002, 04:42 PM	#4
jerry Senior Member Join Date: Mar 2002 Posts: 10,639 Images: 9 Blog Entries: 1	PAPA G is right. POLITICS. Not to mention LeMay wanted 80.000 of them for the Air Force. __________________

12-07-2002, 10:51 PM	#5
Don Member Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: Moose Jaw, Saskatchewan Posts: 56	I slepped an FAL for 4 years when I was in the army. It is a fine MBR and extemely reliable. I don't remember ever having one jam or miss feed, when the ammo was good that is. You talk about about Vietnam, the Australians carried their's into battle over there and were very happy with their performance. Even when the M16 can into popularity over there, the Aussies had two per section (squad) as a light support initial spray gun to get their heads down; but when the business came, it was the FAL L1A1 to go in and shoot that b*stard THROUGH the tree. You'all missed out on a fine MBR.

12-09-2002, 10:22 AM	#6
Big Dog Moderator Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: Tallahassee, Florida Posts: 9,463	Shoulda kept the M14 til we got the AR10 ironed out. Or even better, the AR15 (wood-stocked .308 progenitor of the AR18). Stoner's designs were good, but we shoulda never switched to a varmint round for "big game". __________________ Moderator of: AR15/M16, M14/M1A, New/Beginning Shooters and Militaria/Collectables.

12-09-2002, 01:13 PM	#7
BattleRifleG3 Super Moderator Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: Western PA Posts: 11,397 Images: 13	Wood stocked 308 progenitor of the AR-18... you mean the AR-16, not the AR-15, right? I'm sure it's just a typo. __________________ Trust is earned, not... GIVEN away. - Worf

12-09-2002, 02:09 PM	#8
Big Dog Moderator Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: Tallahassee, Florida Posts: 9,463	OOPS! A case of cranial flatulence. You are correct, BR. I'm old-fashioned - I like .308 and good wood. :assult: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . __________________ Moderator of: AR15/M16, M14/M1A, New/Beginning Shooters and Militaria/Collectables.

12-09-2002, 06:01 PM	#9
BattleRifleG3 Super Moderator Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: Western PA Posts: 11,397 Images: 13	I'm even more old fashioned... I like 30-06 and good wood. But as my name suggests, I like new stuff too, as long as it's good new stuff. But then again, if the G3 is new to us, man are we old, at least at heart. I never had the opportunity to buy weapons before the ban. I was too busy thinking about the girl in the other class. __________________ Trust is earned, not... GIVEN away. - Worf

12-09-2002, 07:59 PM	#10
oneastrix Moderator Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: San Antonio, TX Posts: 5,213	Still think you need a girlfriend dude..................just joshin' woth ya!LOL __________________ There's no one more thankful to sit at the table, than the one who best remembers hunger's pain.

12-10-2002, 08:49 AM	#11
Big Dog Moderator Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: Tallahassee, Florida Posts: 9,463	BR, I just recently added a Cetme .308 to the stable, so I'm kinda/sorta doing the G3 thing myself. The Cetme's got the wood furniture, so it meets my criteria. __________________ Moderator of: AR15/M16, M14/M1A, New/Beginning Shooters and Militaria/Collectables.

12-10-2002, 09:56 AM	#12
Calvin Senior Member Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: Dayton, Ohio Posts: 1,964	The M14 would have been the ultimate, had not someone said "Let's make it full-auto!". It was too much to control on full-auto, and it scared a few people when it would walk right out of their hands due to the recoil. As far as adopting the FAL or the M-16, and the politics involved, the lowest bidder got the contract. I, personally, don't care for the AR-series. I don't have too much confidence in a rifle that requires a slap on a forward assist to make sure it's in battery. My M-16 in basic would never fire on full-auto. The armorer tried everything, but it wouldn't work. Had to use another guys' 16 to qualify with. The one I got issued once I was in my permanent party wasn't much better. That being said, I would probably would have liked the FAL over the Mattel paperweight I had. Like Big Dog and Don said-the 7.62 round was plenty powerful enough, even if they were behind a tree... __________________ I've gone to look for myself. If I should return before I get back, please ask me to wait.

12-10-2002, 10:38 AM	#13
oneastrix Moderator Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: San Antonio, TX Posts: 5,213	I've always been curious about the M14's....would like to find somebody at my range who would let me put a few rounds through it to see how it does......I really like the looks of the Springfields...... __________________ There's no one more thankful to sit at the table, than the one who best remembers hunger's pain.

12-10-2002, 11:24 AM	#14
PAPA G Guest Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: somerset, kentucky Posts: 12	CALVIN.................... the M-16 did not go through the usual competition, and bidding process. AF GEN. LeMay wanted it for his boys in the late 50's or early 60's. and with the Cold War going full blast, and having the discreationary funds, approved it for purchase. back then the Air Force usually got whatever it wanted as it was the first line in a Nuclear attack. 1*- a genuine full-auto M-14 is expensive to buy, lots of legalities, and paperwork. but it can be done. But for practical purposes a SA INC M-1a or one of the other clones is the way to go. they are as much fun as the real thing.

12-10-2002, 10:24 PM	#15
HeadShot308 Member Join Date: Dec 2002 Posts: 17	The M-14 fired full-auto is a handfull for most guys. I'm a big guy and I recently fired off a full mag on full auto . you better be holding it tight ! serious muzzle rise if your not paying attention !. So... they were taking this into account when choosing the M-16 because it is MUCH easier for your average Grunt to stay on target when firing full auto. (also the reason the devised the 3 shot burst option ). __________________ REMEMBER TUTOR. BE WHAT YOU IS, NOT WHAT YOU IS NOT. FOLKS THAT DO THIS ARE ZE HAPPIEST LOT.

12-11-2002, 06:33 AM	#16
FALPhil Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2002 Location: Occupied Confederacy Posts: 242	Should we have adopted the FAL? The M14 was given extra points because the DoD was "sold" on the dubious concept that the M1 tooling could be easily and cheaply retrofitted to build M14s because of the similarity in the weapons. Along with that notion, came similar ones concerning maintenance and training. The M14 has got a lot going for it - when compared to the Garand. However, when you compare it to the FAL, the FAL appears to have an edge. Ergonomics: When compared to traditional designs, the M14 has got very good ergonomics, but it is still a tradtional ergonomic design that had not changed in 85 years. The FAL is a pistol-grip assault style design. That means it's easier and faster to bring into action and easier to control. Cleaning is much easier and the barrel can be cleaned from the breech end. Sights: The M14 has the best battle sights, hands down. Unless the FAL is equipped with an optical sight (which, BTW, is much much easier than the M14) or a non-standard peep sight, FAL sights suck in comparison. Accuracy: The M14 can be made into a highly accurate platform with a lot of work. FALs can be made just as accurate, but it takes even more work. The difference between the two is in maintainability of that accuracy. M14s have a definite deterioration curve when it comes to accuracy. FALs, OTOH are pretty consistent through their serviceable lifetime. My experience with real M14s and M1As has been that rack grade M14s and rack grade FALs have about the same level of accuracy. Simple and Complex Field Maintenance: What can I say? Anyone who says the M14 has an advantage in this area eoither has never performed any on a FAL or is suffering from cranial rectosis. Armory maintenance:There is no qestion that the FAL has an advantage here. A FAL can be completely disaasembled and rebuilt in about the time it takes to get M14 disassembled. It is a much more forgiving design, which is why they are so popular among the homebrew set. I love the M14. To me its a prettier rifle. But let's face facts: the FAL has more going for it as a long term solution.

12-11-2002, 06:52 AM	#17
jerry Senior Member Join Date: Mar 2002 Posts: 10,639 Images: 9 Blog Entries: 1	Good solid logical points Phil. Also; Eugene Stoner concived while working for ArmaLite a half century ago the AR-10. The AR-10 lost out to the M14 due to it's then unproven "space age" design, plastic furniture, and vastly different appearance from what the U.S. armed forces held dear in a battle rifle. When the U.S. Army adopted the M-16- the M-14 service rifle joined the ranks of the M-1 in long term storage. The AR-10 was simply a rifle before it's time, and to date remains one of the most unjustly-neglected rifles in American firearms history. I have often thought of the same question BattleRifleG3 posed in the opening post about caliber choice. I believe a .243/6mm Rem or some type of 7mm design would have been a good spilt between the .308 & 5.56 __________________

12-11-2002, 10:08 AM	#18
oneastrix Moderator Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: San Antonio, TX Posts: 5,213	TRhat's what i was talking about Papa......I have a catalogue with all their 1911's and M1A's in there...they sure look good to me but those M1A's are pretty steep in price.... __________________ There's no one more thankful to sit at the table, than the one who best remembers hunger's pain.

12-12-2002, 12:50 PM	#20
jerry Senior Member Join Date: Mar 2002 Posts: 10,639 Images: 9 Blog Entries: 1	Two votes for a 6.5-08! __________________

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