I find the FAL to be a superior weapon.  Sorry, but the US Army doesn't always make the correct decisions when adopting equipment, and Garand was a Canadian .

The FAL is just a more streamlined design.  Reloads are quicker, the safety is more ergonomic and SAFER (who puts a safety INSIDE the trigger guard, for the love of GOD), and you will never notice an accuracy difference in rack grade models.  The sights are a non-issue as both weapons are battle rifles.  Target sights on a combat weapon are ancillary and pointless, and the rear sight of an M14 has way to many parts, and get knocked out of adjustment easily (at least the do on my M1A and both of my Garands).  

No on sells a truly accurized FAL that I know of (that's accessible), but guys have no problem comparing them to their butt-bedded, unitized, unmaintainable "match" rifle .  

Sorry, but I like the idea of being able to field strip a weapon to clean the damn thing.

Even when not "match tuned" field stripping the M14 is a kind of a PITA, and you need special tools to perform even the most routine of maintenance and parts replacement.  (I need a wrench to clean my gas piston ?)

The FAL literally falls apart in your hands (only when you want it to of coarse) for a field strip, and you can replace most of the operation components with either no tools, or the tip of a bullet.

This should be a no-brainer unless you want a $4000 "match" rifle.

I've owned both and the above are my findings as well.

I still have the FAL....

Well, until the advent of the FAL battle rifles had long-range sights, so I'd say the M14/M1A fits the mold. I can honestly say I've never had a problem with my sights being knocked out of adjustment, and I sure didn't baby that rifle (I did split my chin open on the rear sight hitting the dirt once, though .) I've never had a problem with the ergonomics or the safety factor of having the safety inside the trigger guard, and I've fired it in all climate conditions wearing heavy gloves and mittens - even had the winter trigger mounted to a white-painted fiberglass stock without any AD/ND. As far as reloads go, it takes longer to roll to one side and pull the new mag out of the pouch than it does to insert the new mag. If you practice regularly it's no more difficult than a mag change on an AR15/M16.

No match M1As here, mine was bone-stock and shot 2MOA with surplus ammo when I did my part. The only tool I ever needed to do anything was the combination tool, and since that was the cleaning rod handle I don't call it a special tool. Reassembling the bolt IS a major PITA if you only have 2 hands and a combo tool, though, I'll definitely give you that! But short of breakage you don't need to take it apart, and in 30-35K rounds I never had any breakage except for the previously mentioned bolt roller circlip. I too it apart just to take it apart, and that taught me the lesson LOL. Cleaning the gas piston is a non-issue, really, unless you're shooting Norinco junk you'll be able to go thousands of rounds without having to bother with it. Field-stripping an M1A always seemed easier to me than an AR15/M16, and maybe only a little more involved than an AK. Most of the time you can give it a field cleaning without even stripping it just by locking the bolt back on an empty mag and doing whatever needs to be done.

Things I'd change on the M14/M1A are: The mag release would be about 1/4" - 3/8" longer to make it easier when wearing gloves, there'd be a little more beef on the bolt release, the cocking handle would be upturned to make it ambidextrous (I'd kinda like to see it moved to the front of the op rod, too), and the standard barrel length would be 18", with 22" being optional.

None of this was intended to cast doubt on the FAL's suitability as a combat weapon, just my thoughts & opinions based on my experience with an M1A. I probably trained as hard with that thing as I ever did with my issued M16s, and was just as proficient with it. If I could have gotten away with bringing it to Desert Shield/Desert Storm, I would have in a heartbeat!

Good post, good debate... these kind sometimes turn into a "shouting match", which is a bummer, because there's a lot to like about both rifles, and some stuff not to like about both rifles.  I should clarify to the OP, I was talking about not being able to strip a BEDDED rifle, not a bone-stock gun.  I actually do like the sights on the M1A/M14 though despite my luck as they are perfectly sized for precision AND speed (rare), and in fact I really like the rifle a lot, and would NOT feel even remotely under-armed with one.  The FAL just "fits" me.  But the OP has some good info on each weapon.

I would go with the M1A. Mags seem to be a bit more plentifull now. I also have a preference for wood over plastic. A gun just looks sexier with wood on it. Plastic sort of makes it look like a piece of tupperware. As far as the availability of parts and the world wide use of the FAL: It is a fine rifle, but I would not buy one just because Liberia or Zimbabwe use it. Buy one of each and appreciate the diversity in your gun safe.

I'm the OP, and from what service rifle shooters I've talked to have told me you disassemble a bedded rifle ONCE per year, after the match season is over, and you re-bed the stock before reassembling. That's too much of a hassle for me, especially for an infantry rifle. If I'm going to need a semi-auto 7.62x51 rifle with sniper-grade accuracy I'll use an SR25 or something else built on the AR action, there's no doubt they stay accurate far longer.

I like these kinds of debates, and to be totally honest I'm a little surprised it's stayed civil. No offense to anyone who's posted, but I've noticed a lot of AR15 owners tend to be pretty thin-skinned when someone "badmouths" their rifle.

Congrats on your choice. I'm sure your M14/M1A will work out just fine for you if that's what you truly desire and fits your needs.

However, nothing wrong with picking up a FAL if you have the opportunity.

My FAL (Imbel Carbine) is my most cherished firearm I own. If the SHTF, it's in a ready state along with all my SHTF preps. It's the rifle that I have the most confidence if I'm forced into an engagement.

It's "The One" rifle that fits all my needs. I can hunt, defend my home, or wage war with it if necessary. It just feels right for "me".  

Functional simplicity is how I would describe the FAL.

Yo

The thing about a match grade M1A is that under match shooting conditions, you really don't need to disassemble the rifle but once per year unless you get it wet.  Even if you take the action out of the bedding more frequently, you're just gradually loosening up the bedding causing the rifle to no longer hold the x ring at 600 yards but will still outshoot an unbedded rifle.  With today's steel based bedding compounds, the bedding is much more durable than the old fiberglass bedding compounds.

I do enjoy shooting my match M1A in high-power matches but for a rifle to get down and dirty with, I'm still partial to my FALs.

I used to shoot my M1A every Saturday at the Medicine Bluffs rifle range on Ft Sill, regardless of the weather - torrential downpours, frigid cold & gale force winds, or temps well over 100F didn't keep me away. The only thing that did was being physically unable to go due to my number coming up on the duty roster, field exercises, etc. That rifle (and all my others) definitely got wet on a regular basis!

I had an M-14 and it was a more accurate rifle by far when compared to my FN.  However, the ergonomics, reliability and looks of an FN got me hooked when I was in my teens and got to shoot one.

For match, DMR, or fun, an M14 type. Can be used in combat, but shares some unhelpful foibles of the Garand.

I think I'd take the FAL as an all-around type. It's not a match-accurized rifle, but it's pretty good and it'll likely work well enough out to 400-500m. It's not a CQB carbine, but with an 18" barrel and a short stock, it might be workable in a pinch. It's pretty ergonomic, at least for righties, reliable, combat-accurate, decent optics platform (especially compared to an M14-type, though that can be adapted in various ways).

though I'd bet that all else equal, the M14 type will have a somewhat better trigger, and I'm pretty certain it has better iron sights.

It'd be a fairly close call. My experiences with both have universally been quite positive.

Still, if I had to pick one, not knowing what I'd need to do with it, I'd probably pick the FAL, especially with the financial setup as described in the OP.

I used to have an M1A with all GI parts (minus the receiver.) It was a great rifle, and was slightly more accurate than the StG that I had at the same time. However, parts are more expensive, mags are more expensive, and it is a LOT harder to detail strip should you decide to do that. I sold it and kept the StG. The FAL has a lot more parts to it than the M1A/M14, but it is a lot easier to maintain, too. I think the FN is a superior rifle in most respects.

I've owned a heck of a lot of M14s and FALs. I like the FAL better, the ergos are more like my AR15 and I can do mag changes the same. The mag well on the FAL is easier to find and insert a mag in under stress, and the cocking handle can be maniplulated with the off hand while maintaining trigger control and sight picture. The gas system is better on the FAL too, and a heck of a lot easier to maintain then the wrench/drillbit business on the M14.

All that said, I've always been able to hit pretty much whatever I wanted to hit with the M14. They are heck of a good shooting rifle. Just never warmed up to them.

Maybe its cause my uncle made me carry one around for a number of years

I have a real fear that when the SHTF I will be standing in front of my safe trying to decide whether to grab an FAL or and M1-A.

I have built and shot more than 3 of each rifle, in different configurations. The reason this discussion has stayed civil is the fact that you cannot fault either gun. They are both better than most any shooter.

I pains me greatly to say this because I have a soft spot for the M1-A but the FAL is a better choice given the OP's considerations. Parts availability and magazine avail. as well as price of pretty much everything favors the FAL. The sights issue can be addressed. The FAL will never have as good a set of sights as the M14, but you can get close(unless you want to shoot NRA Highpower matches) Fal sights are for battle not paper punching at 2,3 and 600 yards.

OP, if you want a rifle to love and cherish, caress, shoot matches, wax nostalgic, feel the walnut against your cheek, not worry that you pay too much for parts, magazines, etc.......Get the M1-A that you know you love.

If you want a cost effective tool, (that admittedly looks pretty mean) that accepts optics readily, has good parts availability, is easier to work on and maintain, then get the FAL.

It's like the difference between a 1911 and a Glock. I carry a 1911. But recognize that I do so out of sentiment and not practicality. I realize it is irrational to have an emotional connection to a tool but that is a longstanding tradition. I think perhaps guns maybe more than just tools.

I won't even try to deny that I still have an emotional attachment to the M14/M1A after having to sell mine, an that regardless of all the other guns I get I'm still eventually going to get another. It's the same reason that someday I will have another IH Scout II - a Scout was the first vehicle I ever BUILT and the one I learned to do most repairs on. Not to mention that it was so much damn fun to thrash through mudholes and down tank trails!

A man after my own heart...Scouts and M14's.  

Fal, easier to control.

I have a M1A and I would say the FAL is probably a better rifle.

I have an LRB M14SA (milspec, not NM with all GI parts except receiver & barrel) and a DSA-receiver FAL that a close friend put together for me...DSA Type II, Imbel kit, DSA stocks, 21" barrel, Smith Ent flashhider, Bill Springfield Triggerjob.

I've shot them side by side at the same target, same conditions, and same ammo.

The LRB M14 is easier to get hits with out to 500 meters on steel Rams.  MUCH easier.

I shoot both prone, with a snug loop sling and the M14 is plain eaiser to get hits with.  This is mostly due to the superior sights on the M14...possibly partly due to the sling swivel location on the FAL.  A part of it could also be the superior barrel on the M14 (Criterion barrel).

And this isn't tuned match ammo.  I'm shooting my run of the mil US milspec handloads, Hornady 150 gr FMJ over 44.5 gr of Varget in Winchester brass.  Pretty basic.

I like  both rifles and I'm keeping them both.  The mag price issue isn't an issue now with CMI mags at 44mag.com for $20.49 for the M14.  Long gone are the days of excellent FAL mags for $7.

In my experience, an M14 is a 600 meter rifle.  A FAL is a 400 meter rifle.  Both with Iron sights, of course.

The LRB set me back $2100 delivered.  I've got $800 in the FAL with all the DSA compliance parts and a Bill Springfield trigger job.

-David
Edgewood, NM

I have both an STG Carbine and an M-1A Scout. Well full disclosure: I just ordered another STG from AIM so I wont have the Scout for long.

In the interest of streamlining my collection I wanted only 1 type of 7.62 rifle to keep parts cost down. Between the two, the FAL owns without mercy in this category. Parts are everywhere and not too expensive, while quality M14 parts are very expensive. Ive been using M14's in the Navy for 10 years, and I have a huge soft spot for them in any flavor but the FAL is just better overall for my needs.

Accuracy-M1A
Reliability-Draw
Ergo-FAL
Parts-FAL

The FALS have it, YMMV.

Actually the US went with the M14 because of less parts, easier to shoulder for carry and LESS BREAKAGE in tests. The FAL is no more reliable than a M1 or M14.

The one thing the FAL has over the M14 is,,,,,it;s less accurate.

Reference?

well,  this book....




I like them both.
Both are fine durable, reliable battle proven weapons.

But the M14 ergonomics are perfect for me.
It's like it was custom made for me.

The FAL feels clunky and heavy, slow to bring up from low ready.
I was always worried the gas system would get inadvertently mal-adjusted

the M14 gas system automatically adjusts itself.


Either are easy to field strip and clean. FAL can be bore brushed from the chamber, which is nice.

I've heard rumors that the Israeli's were not happy with FAL desert reliability,  but mine was very reliable.

I like the long sight radius and sights of the M14.

It makes me smile to see todays troops using the old M14

I went from the Garand to the M14 to the M16 while wurking fur Unkle S.  The 14 did not impress me at all!  I never got to fire it on full auto either.

I have owned a Garand, M14/S, M14, FN FAL/selector switch and AR 15 for many years.  I have shot them enuf to know that I would rather have an FN FAL 10 to 1 over the M14 types.  I have not found any military ball that my FAL did not like.  Many complain about the FAL sights, but I have no problem with them, they are just like my early M1 Carbine and M1A1 Thompson sights.  I personaly believe that windage adjustable sights on any military rifle is STUPID!  When under fire I have never worried about windage problems, spot the fall of shot and correkt - called "Kentucky windage!"  

All of the technical reason for owning/shooting this rifle or that rifle are totaly wasted on me.  I like a rifle that I can shoot and that is comfortable to shoot.  For me that is the FAL hands down.  That is all I need to know about that rifle!  
Sarge

You didnt miss much, a FA M14 is like a coked up fat chick. Too much for my skinny ass to handle.

I prefer the FAL.

The M14 doesnt automatically adjust itself. The gas valve is adjusted to NATO ammo and left alone.

I think what he means is that gas fills the gas cylinder until pressure is high enough to overcome inertia & the recoil spring and move the op rod & bolt, and any excess is bled off. So maybe "self-adjusting" isn't quite accurate, and it's more like "self-regulating."

What gas valve?  which part is that ?

when the bullet passes the gas port, gas expands through the port, into the hollow gas piston, gas cylinder, and plug as the expanding gas forces the piston rearward, the port is closed off as the piston forces the op rod back.

As I understand it,  as the piston moves rearward, and it's port is no longer aligned with the port in the barrel,  it effectively closes off the port, regulating the gas that goes into the system.

Right; the entire assembly (thats the valve, sorry) is designed to a specific interior volume, that volume is correct for NATO M80 ball ammo. These guns have difficulty running properly on ammo loaded to different pressures (like heavier ammo, M118). Back in the day, the guys that built the M21s at Benning drilled a small hole in the plug to vent gas for M118 ammo. An ingenious fellow named Schuster came up with a nifty gas plug that that has adjustable ports, and tune the gas system to whatever. Nowdays I think Sadlak makes a grooved piston that can be used that adjusts the volume for M118 ammo as well.

just some thoughts on the M1-A vs fal decision.  If sights are a question and your having DSA make your FAL get the Hampton lower reciever that has the M-16 A2 back sights. they are fast to adjust and have the protection I like to see on the back sight.  for patroling, the fals ergonomics can't be beat. your wrist on the fal is natural with the pistol grip, and the saftey is in the right spot. "although pushing forward in the trigger well isn't a bad location either"
with all the focus on heads up sighting system lately that make in close shooting very fast. such as the ACOG, Eotech, Aimpoint. you do have the option of the rail system on the FAL going from front to back and then putting Troy Industries sights as co-witness system.  Your sight line on the M1A  in my opinion is awful.  unless you get a special stock or some sort of stock pad, your cheek weld is more like a bottom of your chin weld. My national match M1A was bought to put a third generation mount on and a springfield scope on. the scope was so high up I ordered the cheek piece.. it never was a solid as I wanted and I took the whole thing off and use it for good old open sight shooting on the range, of which it excels.
for great optics mounting right on the barrel axis.. a good old Armalite AR10T model can't be beat.
But back to the fal. I think you have much more options with it than you do with the M1A.  
All are excellent weapons.  one ideas is what do you have access to the quickest.  And as far as CAVIM goes. never had any problem with anything except for my HK91. it will jam up the blow back system in less than 300 rds.  no problem with the fal or M1a