M14/M1a v FAL/L1A1 What do YOU think is better - Page 2

[ARCHIVED THREAD] - M14/M1a v FAL/L1A1 What do YOU think is better (Page 2 of 4)

Posted: 12/10/2012 6:42:31 AM EDT

[#1]

Both rifles have served since the late 50s; both saw combat service, both are still in military service; both have a good following in the civilian world. Both are icons in their own way.

Is all a matter of what works for the individual.

I have an M1A, but I would love to have a FAL as well.

Funny factoid - The FAL fought on both sides of the Falklands War and in many brush wars in Africa.

Posted: 12/10/2012 6:43:20 AM EDT

[#2]

I'm still sorting this one out myself... The M14/M1a fits me like it was made for me. The FAL is an excellent example of forward thinking from the late 1950s/early 1950s.

I do like a LOT about the FAL. IMHO if the FAL had been adopted in an intermediate cartridge instead of the M14, I think we'd still be using it and updating it (Magpul would be making FAL furniture and mags

) to this day with no real end in sight.

Posted: 12/10/2012 6:56:27 AM EDT

[#3]

Better for what?

I personally prefer the M14.

If I were outfitting and Army and had a choice between the two, I'd choose the FAL.

Posted: 12/10/2012 6:56:34 AM EDT

[#4]

Had both.

Hard to decide between the two.

For a shooter the sights and trigger are superior on the M14.

I prefer the pistol grip of the FAL. I also prefer the ease of detail stripping and access to the breech on the FAL.

The adjustable gas system of the FAL was a big advantage in that the FAL was issued in all sorts of unsavory places where the only ammunition was often locally made. You could tailor the rifle to the ammo situation a bit more.

Both stink when it comes to mounting optics. Both are beastly heavy. Both have good quality magazines (a big deal!).

The M14 is a design study in how not to make a firearm. If when you get to visit the Springfield Arsenal Museum in Springfield, MA you will be treated to a series of displays that show how many different specific manufacturing steps went into manufacturing the M14. When you get to 1000+ you will see that "there has to be a better way."

Still, go to the Springfield Museum and feel the vibe. So many Garands, so many 1861 muskets, so many delicious firearms. Oh, and it is free. So go!

ETA: This should be an ARFCOM mandated field trip. Brown bag lunch, sensible shoes.

Posted: 12/10/2012 7:02:29 AM EDT

[#5]

I've never seen a Rhodie M14.

So FAL

Posted: 12/10/2012 7:02:51 AM EDT

[#6]

Quoted:
A well built FAL will run circles around a M1A.

BS, they each have their strong points, the 14 with better sights and better trigger (by far) is likely to get more first round hits at distance than the FAL. The FAL is a nice design, a little heavy and has a damn rough and heavy trigger. I like the ergonomics of the FAL. I have boxes of FAL parts waiting receivers so no, I'm not hating on the FAL.

So it depends how big your circle is.

Weight - they're both a bit piggish but the M14 with a GI glass stock handles better
Lenth - they're both obnoxiously long especially if you have to go urban kicking in doors
Ergonomics for combat - FAL wins with the L1A1 better than the FN FAL IMHO
Operation- magazine replacement nearly equal, FAL gets a nod with the port side op rod handle to keep your firing grip, FN FAl is better in operation here but the L1A1 folding knob carries better than the FN. As a former grunt, them little annoying protrusions matter on a long hump and are completely forgotten when bullets fly.
Accuracy- with sights and trigger the M14 wins hands down, The FAL sights are fine for 300 meter combat that one might expect in normal operations.
Cleaning and take down- roughly equal, field cleaning the FAL is stupid simple and the M14 is right behind it as long as you're not going into a detail strip, then the M14 wins. That said, the M14 with the wood stock is subject to wood compression over time. Great for soldier simplicity and take down w/o tools but over time it can kill accuracy. To me that is the achille's heel of the garand design relying on wood tension for consistent assembly. Glass was better the the forends were a touch too light.

Well that's my two cents.

Posted: 12/10/2012 7:31:04 AM EDT

[#7]

Quoted:
Had both.

Hard to decide between the two.

For a shooter the sights and trigger are superior on the M14.

I prefer the pistol grip of the FAL. I also prefer the ease of detail stripping and access to the breech on the FAL.

The adjustable gas system of the FAL was a big advantage in that the FAL was issued in all sorts of unsavory places where the only ammunition was often locally made. You could tailor the rifle to the ammo situation a bit more.

Both stink when it comes to mounting optics. Both are beastly heavy. Both have good quality magazines (a big deal!).

The M14 is a design study in how not to make a firearm. If when you get to visit the Springfield Arsenal Museum in Springfield, MA you will be treated to a series of displays that show how many different specific manufacturing steps went into manufacturing the M14. When you get to 1000+ you will see that "there has to be a better way."

Still, go to the Springfield Museum and feel the vibe. So many Garands, so many 1861 muskets, so many delicious firearms. Oh, and it is free. So go!

ETA: This should be an ARFCOM mandated field trip. Brown bag lunch, sensible shoes.

I always thought the M1 / M14 were difficult to manufacture due to the complexity of machining required to fabricate the receiver. One bad cut at any stage and the receiver was scrapped on the spot.

The FAL looked like it wasn't so simple itself, although I don't think the receiver was as difficult to machine as that of an M14. One thing that mitigated the challenges of fabrication was different sizes of locking shoulders to allow wider variances in manufacturing tolerances that affected headspace. The inch pattern FAL (or L1A1) used breeching washers to index the barrel properly as well, plus positioning washers for the flash suppressor to allow for the proper torque to get it TDC on the barrel.

None of these issues in manufacturing affected the end-user. All he cared about was if it worked when he pulled the trigger, and could he hit what he aimed at when he did fire it. All other considerations were of little importance.

Both rifles do well, but I'd give the edge in preference to the M14 due to better sights and the simple fact that I have absolute faith in the weapon. I wouldn't feel under-equipped with an FAL, however.

And because this is a discussion involving FALs, I'll post this just because I'm a really swell guy.

.

Posted: 12/10/2012 7:37:48 AM EDT

[#8]

Quoted:

Quoted:
Had both.

Hard to decide between the two.

For a shooter the sights and trigger are superior on the M14.

I prefer the pistol grip of the FAL. I also prefer the ease of detail stripping and access to the breech on the FAL.

The adjustable gas system of the FAL was a big advantage in that the FAL was issued in all sorts of unsavory places where the only ammunition was often locally made. You could tailor the rifle to the ammo situation a bit more.

Both stink when it comes to mounting optics. Both are beastly heavy. Both have good quality magazines (a big deal!).

The M14 is a design study in how not to make a firearm. If when you get to visit the Springfield Arsenal Museum in Springfield, MA you will be treated to a series of displays that show how many different specific manufacturing steps went into manufacturing the M14. When you get to 1000+ you will see that "there has to be a better way."

Still, go to the Springfield Museum and feel the vibe. So many Garands, so many 1861 muskets, so many delicious firearms. Oh, and it is free. So go!

ETA: This should be an ARFCOM mandated field trip. Brown bag lunch, sensible shoes.

I always thought the M1 / M14 were difficult to manufacture due to the complexity of machining required to fabricate the receiver. One bad cut at any stage and the receiver was scrapped on the spot.

The FAL looked like it wasn't so simple itself, although I don't think the receiver was as difficult to machine as that of an M14. One thing that mitigated the challenges of fabrication was different sizes of locking shoulders to allow wider variances in manufacturing tolerances that affected headspace. The inch pattern FAL (or L1A1) used breeching washers to index the barrel properly as well, plus positioning washers for the flash suppressor to allow for the proper torque to get it TDC on the barrel.

None of these issues in manufacturing affected the end-user. All he cared about was if it worked when he pulled the trigger, and could he hit what he aimed at when he did fire it. All other considerations were of little importance.

Both rifles do well, but I'd give the edge in preference to the M14 due to better sights and the simple fact that I have absolute faith in the weapon. I wouldn't feel under-equipped with an FAL, however.

And because this is a discussion involving FALs, I'll post this just because I'm a really swell guy.

http://i391.photobucket.com/albums/oo359/Gunny1812/L1A1Fence024.jpg

.

I've always loved that muzzle device on FALS.

Posted: 12/10/2012 7:40:49 AM EDT

[#9]

The FAL is superior in every way except for the sights. I'd have to go with the FAL.

However, the G3 is better than both.

Posted: 12/10/2012 7:44:26 AM EDT

[#10]

M1A vs FAL
9mm vs 45
Glock vs 1911

These always come up and they are always a pissing match. They are both great rifles, both proven rifles. Find what works best for you and is in your price point.

But seriously, go M1A

Posted: 12/10/2012 7:48:55 AM EDT

[#11]

Quoted:
Had both. Still have the 14.

THAT.

Posted: 12/10/2012 7:56:12 AM EDT

[#12]

Comparing a M1A to a FAL is like comparing a blond to a redhead. They both have their pros and cons and they both are great. Sometimes one may strike your fancy a little more than the other but it is all good.

I have both and I enjoy shooting both of them. I would give a slight edge to the M1A but only because I trained with the M-14 in the Army back in the day.

Posted: 12/10/2012 7:57:46 AM EDT

[#13]

Quoted:
M1A vs FAL
9mm vs 45
Glock vs 1911

These always come up and they are always a pissing match. They are both great rifles, both proven rifles. Find what works best for you and is in your price point.

But seriously, go M1A

http://i16.photobucket.com/albums/b10/androck238/photo.jpg

What kind of optic mount is that?

Posted: 12/10/2012 7:59:19 AM EDT

[#14]

Quoted:

Quoted:
M1A vs FAL
9mm vs 45
Glock vs 1911

These always come up and they are always a pissing match. They are both great rifles, both proven rifles. Find what works best for you and is in your price point.

But seriously, go M1A

http://i16.photobucket.com/albums/b10/androck238/photo.jpg

What kind of optic mount is that?

NightForce NXS 3.5-15x

Posted: 12/10/2012 8:03:23 AM EDT

[#15]

Quoted:

Quoted:
Had both.

Hard to decide between the two.

For a shooter the sights and trigger are superior on the M14.

I prefer the pistol grip of the FAL. I also prefer the ease of detail stripping and access to the breech on the FAL.

The adjustable gas system of the FAL was a big advantage in that the FAL was issued in all sorts of unsavory places where the only ammunition was often locally made. You could tailor the rifle to the ammo situation a bit more.

Both stink when it comes to mounting optics. Both are beastly heavy. Both have good quality magazines (a big deal!).

The M14 is a design study in how not to make a firearm. If when you get to visit the Springfield Arsenal Museum in Springfield, MA you will be treated to a series of displays that show how many different specific manufacturing steps went into manufacturing the M14. When you get to 1000+ you will see that "there has to be a better way."

Still, go to the Springfield Museum and feel the vibe. So many Garands, so many 1861 muskets, so many delicious firearms. Oh, and it is free. So go!

ETA: This should be an ARFCOM mandated field trip. Brown bag lunch, sensible shoes.

I always thought the M1 / M14 were difficult to manufacture due to the complexity of machining required to fabricate the receiver. One bad cut at any stage and the receiver was scrapped on the spot.

The FAL looked like it wasn't so simple itself, although I don't think the receiver was as difficult to machine as that of an M14. One thing that mitigated the challenges of fabrication was different sizes of locking shoulders to allow wider variances in manufacturing tolerances that affected headspace. The inch pattern FAL (or L1A1) used breeching washers to index the barrel properly as well, plus positioning washers for the flash suppressor to allow for the proper torque to get it TDC on the barrel.

None of these issues in manufacturing affected the end-user. All he cared about was if it worked when he pulled the trigger, and could he hit what he aimed at when he did fire it. All other considerations were of little importance.

Both rifles do well, but I'd give the edge in preference to the M14 due to better sights and the simple fact that I have absolute faith in the weapon. I wouldn't feel under-equipped with an FAL, however.

And because this is a discussion involving FALs, I'll post this just because I'm a really swell guy.

http://i391.photobucket.com/albums/oo359/Gunny1812/L1A1Fence024.jpg

.

I've always loved that muzzle device on FALS.

The Commonwealth L1A1 only had one type of flash suppressor for general issue that I can think of, except for the shorter F1 FS developed for export. That said, the Brits had two variations of the same basic type: One with five ports, and the other with only three.

I pulled this pic off FAL Files (not mine), but it shows how much shorter the F1 version is compared to a standard L1A1. F1 on the bottom-barrel length is the same as the standard L1A1, but combined with the F1 flash suppressor and "S" (short) buttstock, it made for a weapon 2.75 inches shorter overall.

Metric pattern FALs OTOH were available with a multiple variety of flash suppressors and muzzle brakes.

Posted: 12/10/2012 8:08:28 AM EDT

[#16]

Of the two, I prefer the M14, and I love FALs. Honestly, I think both are second to the AR-10.

Posted: 12/10/2012 8:24:15 AM EDT

[#17]

Both are excellent rifles with cool histories. Neither outshine each other for the weekend shooter.

Both are dated designs with substantial drawbacks that limit their capabilities, and neither adapt well modernization.

Posted: 12/10/2012 8:32:22 AM EDT

[#18]

Have had two of each.

The rifle that's still in my safe is an M1a Bush rifle, but that's mostly because I happened to find an all-GI safe queen I could trade a FAL for.

AR10 is a superior platform for optics, M1a is the superior platform for irons, FAL is the superior platform for running full of mud.

They're all good rifles and are within the manufacturing tolerances of one another in most respects.

I think the M1a has a perception advantage in the US, with it's aesthetics and affiliation with the USMC, maybe that's meaningless but maybe not.

Posted: 12/10/2012 8:32:38 AM EDT

[#19]

Quoted:

Of the two, I prefer the M14, and I love FALs. Honestly, I think both are second to the AR-10.

this!

Posted: 12/10/2012 8:53:44 AM EDT

[#20]

M1a, because most FAL's do groups no tighter than about 4 moa, and some are way worse.

Posted: 12/10/2012 9:06:29 AM EDT

[#21]

I will happy lay down my 1,000th post to go to bat for the FAL.

The M1A is a nice rifle with good sights, a nice trigger, and admirable accuracy.

The FAL has to-hell-and-back reliability, superior ergonomics, and more modularity at less overall cost.

Disclaimer: I have one M1A...and two FALs, plus one LAR-8.

Posted: 12/10/2012 9:09:28 AM EDT

[#22]

I like the ergonomics of the FAL better.

Posted: 12/10/2012 9:10:12 AM EDT

[#23]

Quoted:
The FAL is superior in every way except for the sights. I'd have to go with the FAL.

However, the G3 is better than both.

You were doing so well until you brought up the G3.

Worst. Ergonomics. Ever. Oh yeah, and a proprietary tool just to adjust the frickin' rear drum sight? Get real.

ETA: Yes I am well aware of the rifle I'm shooting in my avatar; they're great as shooters, and terrible as anything else.

Posted: 12/10/2012 9:10:24 AM EDT

[#24]

Quoted:
M1a, because most FAL's do groups no tighter than about 4 moa, and some are way worse.

I've had two FALs and both shot better than 2moa with aussie f4 surplus. I'm hesitant to post the groups I got with my scoped imbel/G1 build because people wouldn't believe it. A lot of the rep for really bad accuracy on the FAL comes from rifles built with worn bolt groups that tend to string.

M1a is definately a more accurate platform though, if it's in any sort of tune, and my choice.

I think being a lefty changes my perception of the ergonomics question, but I prefer the M1a.

Posted: 12/10/2012 9:33:12 AM EDT

[#25]

Quoted:

Quoted:
M1a, because most FAL's do groups no tighter than about 4 moa, and some are way worse.

I've had two FALs and both shot better than 2moa with aussie f4 surplus. I'm hesitant to post the groups I got with my scoped imbel/G1 build because people wouldn't believe it. A lot of the rep for really bad accuracy on the FAL comes from rifles built with worn bolt groups that tend to string.

M1a is definately a more accurate platform though, if it's in any sort of tune, and my choice.

I think being a lefty changes my perception of the ergonomics question, but I prefer the M1a.

My L1A1 shoots sub-2 MOA groups with M80 Ball, using the TRILUX optical sight (that was off the hood of a Ford Bronco, and not sitting down at the bench so I couldn't really "settle in" with the weapon to squeeze out the last iota of accuracy). The barrel was NIW when I purchased it, so it probably helps that it isn't used to shit and bent, corroded, or otherwise unserviceable as I suspect some of the barrels were that came with the kits sold in the past.

My UK kit I purchased from CAI came with a decent barrel after I sent the first two back. Some customers were getting brand new barrels with their orders. I wasn't so lucky. That's next on my list of project rifles as soon as Coonan Arms offers their UK inch-pattern receivers to the market.

Posted: 12/10/2012 9:38:39 AM EDT

[#26]

i have neither

in fact, the only semi auto rifles i have are a 10/22 and a 6920

if i had to pick one though i would prolly go with the m1a. i just like the way they look. a lot. i have actually been strongly considering getting a garand from camp perry for a while...just never got around to it.

Posted: 12/10/2012 9:51:16 AM EDT

[#27]

Quoted:

Quoted:
The FAL is superior in every way except for the sights. I'd have to go with the FAL.

However, the G3 is better than both.

You were doing so well until you brought up the G3.

Worst. Ergonomics. Ever. Oh yeah, and a proprietary tool just to adjust the frickin' rear drum sight? Get real.

ETA: Yes I am well aware of the rifle I'm shooting in my avatar; they're great as shooters, and terrible as anything else.

Yeah but G-3 is made using modern sheet metal construction. An advantage for production. I also think it is the more reliable 7.62 NATO semi.

Posted: 12/10/2012 9:54:37 AM EDT

[#28]

Quoted:

Yeah but G-3 is made using modern sheet metal construction. An advantage for production. I also think it is the more reliable 7.62 NATO semi.

The G-3 is a moderately improved last ditch German WWII design.

It has some moderate advantages over the FAL and AR-10 for cost, and over neither for actual usage.

I remember when G-3s/HK91s were the tits, especially in the 1980s. Now, I can have a PTR for 1k, and have no interest.

Posted: 12/10/2012 9:54:39 AM EDT

[#29]

Quoted:
M1a, because most FAL's do groups no tighter than about 4 moa, and some are way worse.

Well, an M1A would be only a bit more accuate than a Garand on average, and the Garand's accuracy requirement was three 10 shot groups at 100 yards with an average group size no worse then 5.2" and max size no more then 8".

Posted: 12/10/2012 9:58:23 AM EDT

[#30]

Quoted:

Quoted:

Yeah but G-3 is made using modern sheet metal construction. An advantage for production. I also think it is the more reliable 7.62 NATO semi.

The G-3 is a moderately improved last ditch German WWII design.

It has some moderate advantages over the FAL and AR-10 for cost, and over neither for actual usage.

I remember when G-3s/HK91s were the tits, especially in the 1980s. Now, I can have a PTR for 1k, and have no interest.

Improved over Stg-45(m)? I don't know, Stg-45(m) was a true assault rifle, G-3, FAL and '14 don't really know what they are . . .

G-3 has cost advantages and I think reliability advanteges as well.

Posted: 12/10/2012 10:00:51 AM EDT

[#31]

The US Army tested FAL and '14 and concluded they were equal. I personally think they came to the correct conclusion.

Posted: 12/10/2012 10:05:42 AM EDT

[#32]

M1A guy here...

Posted: 12/10/2012 10:07:40 AM EDT

[#33]

I only own an FAL.....for now. I will be having me an M14/M1A.

Posted: 12/10/2012 10:11:07 AM EDT

[#34]

Quoted:
I've owned both. FAL is better. Only the sights are'nt as good, but those can be changed out with aftermarket. Fieldstripping and cleaning is way easier. Scoping a M1A/M14 sucks.

I can disassemble and reassemble a m-14 in 37 seconds including function check. Cant get much easier than that.

Posted: 12/10/2012 10:13:58 AM EDT

[#35]

Quoted:
FAL is better because it was used all over the world as a battle rifle, while the M14 was thought heavy and unwieldy and dropped. They're both good rifles, but comparing the records of both is not possible due to the lack of use of the M14. The FAL proved itself in some very bad places. Someone will comment that the M1A can be an outstanding match rifle, and that's true. But that's not why it was built.

Both were dropped because they were heavy and unwieldly compared to 5.56 rifles.

Most countries that used FAL didn't amount to anything. FAL won out in the marketplace because it was the first 7.62 NATO rifle out on the market. No one could buy M14s. Italy did make something close to the M14 leveraging off of the Garand.

There were countries that replaced the FAL with G3s. Mexico, for example, used both. Back in the 90s I would see Mexican troops armed with G-3s and an odd one mixed in armed with a FAL.

FAL was used all over the world because it hit the market first.

The M14's usage in Vietnam is arguably as significant as FALs usage worldwide.

Posted: 12/10/2012 10:17:11 AM EDT

[#36]

Both turn cover into rubble.

Posted: 12/10/2012 10:19:55 AM EDT

[#37]

Quoted:

Quoted:

Yeah but G-3 is made using modern sheet metal construction. An advantage for production. I also think it is the more reliable 7.62 NATO semi.

The G-3 is a moderately improved last ditch German WWII design.

It has some moderate advantages over the FAL and AR-10 for cost, and over neither for actual usage.

I remember when G-3s/HK91s were the tits, especially in the 1980s. Now, I can have a PTR for 1k, and have no interest.

Improved over Stg-45(m)? I don't know, Stg-45(m) was a true assault rifle, G-3, FAL and '14 don't really know what they are . . .

G-3 has cost advantages and I think reliability advanteges as well.

"Full-power" battle rifles.

Posted: 12/10/2012 10:20:34 AM EDT

[#38]

FAL.

Anyone that thinks you can't mount optics on one is FOS too

Posted: 12/10/2012 10:20:37 AM EDT

[#39]

My vote:

Posted: 12/10/2012 10:20:41 AM EDT

[#40]

The FN FAL is the original BLACK RIFLE. I prefer the FAL and would have to say field stripping a FAL is a breeze.

Posted: 12/10/2012 10:21:31 AM EDT

[#41]

Owned both like the M1A, love the FAL.

Posted: 12/10/2012 10:24:10 AM EDT

[#42]

Both are good rifles. The FAL is easier to clean and maintain and I prefer the ergonomics.

Posted: 12/10/2012 10:25:59 AM EDT

[#43]

I don't think this discussion has much to do with the technical merits of the actual rifles.

I tend to prefer FAL because it makes me think of African brush wars, British SAS, "Mad" Mike Hore, and Rhodesia.

M14 makes me think of the early Vietnam era US Army and competition shooting.

But the M14 also reminds me that we pushed NATO into the 7.62 round they didn't want, and then we quickly switched to the 5.56 round and AR15/M16 for use in Vietnam and then general issue.

On the merits the two rifles are essentially equal. An M14 with wood stock has the potential for warping and such, but go fiberglass and the problem is fixed. Besides that the differences don't much matter.