Armory Sponsor
Posted: 11/18/2010 6:43:21 PM EDT
| Of these two 7.62 battle rifles.... Which is the best and why? |
|
This topic is of interest to me too... however, I have yet to search other threads on this topic.
That said, from my understanding: The FAL has better ergonomics FAL has an adjustable gas system. (Nice if you have an understanding of how it works) Although quite debatable, I have heard the M14/M1A is more reliable. I do not have experience with either platform, so I will not attest to the reliability of either. My big question: Which is more rifle for the buck? I've got my eye on an M1A Scout Squad (composite stock). From looking around, it appears like a similar DSA FAL would be a lot more money. |
| The FAL is better no question in terms of performance. However the M14 is cool for collector purposes. The FAL is lighter and better ergos and controls and sights and it's just a more modern design with pistol grip and closed action. The M14 has a heavy wood stock and be careful where you put your hand when shooting. |
|
Get both. I feel competent with either of them. Both of them are reliable and accuracy between the base models is going to be the same. The FAL is easy as hell to maintain, and has the adjustable gas system. Sights are more easily adjustable on the M14.
To me, both rifles have character, unlike an AR10 (barring the originals). While the AR is undoubtedly more accurate and easier to scope, I wouldn't want one. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
The FAL operates faster, What does that mean? I'm fairly certain both actions cycle at roughly the same speed. Not that matters, because both will shoot faster than you can pull the trigger. Ergonomically. Mag changes are faster; drop-free, relief cut, etc.. Since you brought it up, the FAL you can adjust the ROF in full auto using the gas adjustment. |
|
I have both, but I'll probably sell my FAL. The M1A is basically an improved version of the Garand. The Garand proved extremely reliable in both WW2 and Korea. A recent American Rifleman had an article about how the Garand was one of the only reliable arms we had in the frozen conditions of Korea, for example.
My unit had a number of M14's when we deployed to Iraq in 2005, and though it was pretty large, a number of our gunners kept them outside the turret for firing warning shots (this was because at that time we had 50 cals, but later went to M249's). Everything exposed would get a fine coat of dust plastered to it in about 10 minutes of driving. The M4s would not function then, the M14 would. Even then, the dust coating could jam it up if not cleaned off each day. Other than that, I just like the M1a. |
|
I own both and love both - however, I must admit, if I had to pick only 1 for a SHTF scenario...it would be my FAL. Why, I personally shoot it better and it feels more comfortable shooting. Like stated above, the ergonomics fit me just perfect. I've been shooting AR's for quite some time, so, perhaps having the pistol grip on the FAL feels more natural to me?
my $0.02 Sakic #19 
 
|
|
Quoted:
I know it may be a little like apples and oranges, but what would the equivalent FAL be for the M1A Scout Squad model? Scout Squad: 18" bbl choice of walnut or composite stock picatinny rail about midpoint of handguard for optics mount Probably the DSA SA5818 with the rail upgrade and SA58 FAL Extreme Duty Extended Scope Mount. That would provide a continuous rail. |
Personal preference, but the FAL sure is ugly IMHO. But I'm MORE than willing to look into them if they're an all around better fit for me!
I really like the looks of the M1A Scout, but for a SHTF and KISS weapon, if it's more work to field strip and clean, that may be a deal breaker. |
|
The M1A is not difficult to fully strip, but it is more complicated than the FAL. It does require tools. Also cleaning from the muzzle is frustrating.
With the FAL, you can push a lever, pull out the carrier, and do all your important maintenance from there. And the piston pops right out with a button, so you can easily wipe it down. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
The FAL operates faster, What does that mean? I'm fairly certain both actions cycle at roughly the same speed. Not that matters, because both will shoot faster than you can pull the trigger. Ergonomically. Mag changes are faster; drop-free, relief cut, etc.. Since you brought it up, the FAL you can adjust the ROF in full auto using the gas adjustment. Gotcha. I agree, too, although the difference between the two is slight. |
|
I have both and each is different
Ergonomics - FAL less recoil - M14 Better balance for off hand shooting - M14 Better iron sights - M14 easier to clean -FAL Accuracy - M14 It really depends on what you want to do with it. Also as someone said before both are no match for a 308 AR |
| I own and like both. If the question is which is more bang for the buck, it's a used FAL off the EE or FALfiles Marketplace. You can buy a lot of gun for $800 with FALs. A basic Springfield M1A goes for $1200-$1300. I think there's a factory DSA STG-58 on the EE now (or at least in the last few days) for $800. |
|
One thing I will add is that the M14 is much lighter than the FAL (rack grade USGI M14 rifle with synthetic stock is just under 8 lbs. empty!!!), is shorter in standard configuration, and has less parts.
Both rifles are very reliable, though there have been reports of the FAL having difficulty in extreme sandy (often cited by the Israeli's) and arctic climates. However, the M14 is not as easy to swap parts out on and repair when something DOES fail, IE extractors, ejectors, etc. The FAL has an adjustable gas system with 10 settings, where as the M14's gas system is self regulating so no manual adjustments are needed. The M14 has much superior iron sights, and the stock and rifle are designed and set up for shooting in field positions with a sling. The FAL clones can usually be found much cheaper in a quality set up than an M14 clone, and FAL mags are much cheaper too. M14s are running for $1,200+ for base rifles made with cheap, not as reliable, CAST parts! I would not buy an M14 clone made without USGI forged parts (or modern forged equivalents). Best thing to do if you want to buy an M14 is to scower the local gun shops and gun shows. Old Springfield M1As (when they were made with all, or mostly all, USGI parts) pop up every now and again. Same with old built Armscorps, Fed-Ords, etc. though you have to be able to identify USGI parts on a rifle. Since most of the uninformed view these M14s as "older, used" rifles they will sell them for as much or less than a base new Springfield M1a (even though the "older" M1a made with USGI parts is vastly superior in every way). If you are looking to buy one or the other, I would try to handle (and fire if possible) both rifles and then decide for yourself which one you like best. Even though you're looking at around a $300 price difference on average between the two rifles ($900 for a FAL, $1,200 for a USGI parts M14), it really comes down to that you have to go with the one you really like. If you're already spending around $1k for a FAL, what's another $200 or so if you really prefer the M14? |
|
Quoted:
One thing I will add is that the M14 is much lighter than the FAL (rack grade USGI M14 rifle with synthetic stock is just under 8 lbs. empty!!!), is shorter in standard configuration, and has less parts. The FAL with combo device (the majority of muzzle attachments) is three inches shorter than a standard M14. The amount of moving parts is roughly equal in each. Just get both and be done. |
|
I've owned at least three examples of both, and have decided that while both are excellent rifles, the true winner to this never ending debate is the FN Scar 17s:
Seriously. For me it runs circles around both the FAL, and M1A. I can't wait to get one of the forth coming 20" barrels for it. Then it will be a no brainer replacement for either. 
|
|
IMO top shelf M14 and FAL clones are TIED for most practical purposes. Eventually, I will own both.
I will get an M14 clone FIRST, however, because I really enjoy shooting with iron sights, and M14 clones have better sights, a longer sight radius, and the sights are closer to the bore. IMO M14 clones also shoot better from a sling. That said, a Para Congo is also in my future. |
|
Owning a pre-Ban SA Supermatch (lightly tweaked) and a DSA StG 58A (heavily tweaked), I'd say it's a toss-up between my two rifles.
The M1A does not need much tweaking, out of the box, to get the most out of it. The FAL does, but it is less expensive to start with, IIRC. Given un-tweaked, good examples of both rifles, I'd go with the M1A. YMMV. |
|
I have a chicom M14/S, an M14 (a real one) and an FN/FAL with a selector switch.
I almost never shoot either the M14 or the 14/S, the FAL is just so much more fun to shoot. I've never weighed them, but the FAL seems lighter to me, perhaps because it handles better? I also get less recoil from the FAL. Since I'm not shooting competition with them the FAL sights sure seem to work just fine out to 300 yds - which is as far as I usualy shoot. But, as others have said you should buy the one that suits YOU best! Unless you can afford both that is. Sarge |
Armory Sponsor