FAL vs M14-type rifle

[ARCHIVED THREAD] - FAL vs M14-type rifle (Page 1 of 2)

Posted: 5/24/2009 1:53:13 PM EDT

Which would you get? I'm not asking which is "better" because in my experience they're pretty much equal all the way around. What I'm looking for is "cost to operate" - initial purchase price, cost of spare parts, mags, any special needs ammo-wise, etc. For example, I have 3K rounds CAVIM from when I used to have an M1A and I've heard FALs don't like it, so if that's true I'd need to fork out quite a bit of money for ammo a FAL does like. The FAL I'd be looking at would be a DSA standard carbine (16.25" barrel) with DSA MSRP of $1700, the M14-type would be an LRB M14SA "tanker" model with 18.5" barrel and LRB MSRP $2500. Last I saw CMI M14 mags were running about $40 each, I'm pretty sure FAL mags are less expensive but IIRC inch & metric patterns aren't interchangeable and one costs quite a bit more. I'm partial to the M14 mainly due to the excellent sights and ergonomics that I find to be better so I don't mind spending the extra $800. I'd probably get the FAL Dura-coated or something similar anyway, along with a few other options.

Posted: 5/24/2009 2:13:34 PM EDT

[#1]

I'm biased toward FALs but here's my take.

To clarify DSA builds metric rifles which use the cheaper mags.

They are a bit harder to come by than in the past but are still cheaper than M14 mags.

I like the M1A and it is a fine rifle that can be very accurate if paper punching is your thing, but there is a reason why 80 some countries adopted the FAL and only a few went with the M14.

Spare parts isn't even close you can still get a complete FAL parts kit for $300-400 if you look, milspec M14 parts are pretty hard to come by.

I don't think either rifle has a huge advantage in handling CAVIM ammo, but I do know that DSA specifically recommends against using it.

Bottom line if I were going to the range I'd take an M1A, if I were going into battle I'd take a FAL.

Posted: 5/24/2009 2:49:51 PM EDT

[#2]

I have a FAL and a M1A. The M1A trigger is 100% better and will out shoot the FAL, but I like the feel of the FAL better. You can buy M14/M1A magazine made by CMI from 44mag.com for $21.99 ea.

Posted: 5/24/2009 5:50:43 PM EDT

[#3]

Sounds like you already know you want the '14. Both are fine designs.

As far as the # of countries adopted it argument, the M14 wasn't exactly marketed to the world, so it's a moot point. Just because every third world banana republic bought FALs or G3s doesn't mean squat. I don't pay much attention to the preferances of countries that don't bother with chrome lined bores or producing their own ammo.

Posted: 5/24/2009 6:35:58 PM EDT

[#4]

Well, I DO want the M14 but I also want the FAL...and no, one of each isn't an option LOL (at least not right now.) I personally WOULD take an M14 to war, just like I'd take a FAL to war. I had my M1A for about 13 or 14 years, probably put 30-35K rounds through it in that time, and only had 2 malfunctions that entire time. One was a popped primer from some cheap Norinco that got into the trigger group, and the other was operator error - during a night fire at a friend's place I gave the op rod a twist while chambering a round and popped it loose from its disassembly notch, which prevented the bolt from going into battery. I've intentionally gotten my M1A so full of dirt & sand that I deserved to have my ass kicked, but it never jammed. During Desert Storm I found a FAL half-buried in the sand, and after just punching the bore it fired every mag I could find without a hiccup. I know both will be absolutely reliable. The only spares I ever had for my M1A were bolt roller & clip, op rod spring & guide, gas plug, and extractor, ejector, & firing pin. IIRC I had maybe $100 tops in spares, but I know USGI parts are harder to find now and quite a bit more expensive. I'd have to say my biggest beefs with the FAL are the sights - I don't remember them being much better than my Mini-14 Ranch Rifle's sights - and the ergonomics aren't that great for a lefty. Plus I really like a bolt hold open on a military-type rifle. The FAL's pistol grip is nice, and it's definitely more menacing in appearance than an M1A.

Posted: 5/24/2009 6:43:56 PM EDT

[#5]

Quoted:
and the ergonomics aren't that great for a lefty. .

Being lefty friendly is at least part of what I like about the M14 type. FALs do pretty much suck in that regard. My outlook might change if DSA ever sends the ambi selector that's been backordered for five months. The hard to find FSE magazine catch helps also.

Posted: 5/24/2009 7:28:21 PM EDT

[#6]

Quoted:

Sounds like you already know you want the '14. Both are fine designs.

As far as the # of countries adopted it argument, the M14 wasn't exactly marketed to the world, so it's a moot point. Just because every third world banana republic bought FALs or G3s doesn't mean squat. I don't pay much attention to the preferances of countries that don't bother with chrome lined bores or producing their own ammo.

The number of countries that adopted FALs is a very relevant point when a guy specifically asks about spare parts and magazine availability.

Of course popularity does not always indicate quality but dismissing it without consideration does indicate something.

You should also educate yourself a little more on the FAL before you post, some countries opted for chrome lined barrels and some didn't. That does not mean one design is better than the other.

Also I'm pretty sure that many of the countries that adopted the FAL produced their own ammo - hint the CAVIM ammo mentioned in the OP was made in Venezuela for thier FALs.

Posted: 5/24/2009 7:37:17 PM EDT

[#7]

Quoted:

Well, I DO want the M14 but I also want the FAL...and no, one of each isn't an option LOL (at least not right now.) I personally WOULD take an M14 to war, just like I'd take a FAL to war. I had my M1A for about 13 or 14 years, probably put 30-35K rounds through it in that time, and only had 2 malfunctions that entire time. One was a popped primer from some cheap Norinco that got into the trigger group, and the other was operator error - during a night fire at a friend's place I gave the op rod a twist while chambering a round and popped it loose from its disassembly notch, which prevented the bolt from going into battery. I've intentionally gotten my M1A so full of dirt & sand that I deserved to have my ass kicked, but it never jammed. During Desert Storm I found a FAL half-buried in the sand, and after just punching the bore it fired every mag I could find without a hiccup. I know both will be absolutely reliable. The only spares I ever had for my M1A were bolt roller & clip, op rod spring & guide, gas plug, and extractor, ejector, & firing pin. IIRC I had maybe $100 tops in spares, but I know USGI parts are harder to find now and quite a bit more expensive. I'd have to say my biggest beefs with the FAL are the sights - I don't remember them being much better than my Mini-14 Ranch Rifle's sights - and the ergonomics aren't that great for a lefty. Plus I really like a bolt hold open on a military-type rifle. The FAL's pistol grip is nice, and it's definitely more menacing in appearance than an M1A.

Your paragraphs seem to have run together but it looks like your saying that one of your beefs with the FAL is lack of a bolt hold open.

If I read that right, you will be happy to know that metric FALs do indeed lock back on an empty mag.

If you're eventually planning to "Get Both" I would suggest that the FAL has more evil features than the M1A. I would without hesitation get the one that is most likely to be

effected by a renewed AWB.

Posted: 5/25/2009 7:34:45 AM EDT

[#8]

I'm a lefty and I just fell in love with a DSA Para after finally handling one and was very impressed with the ergonomics of it as well as the placement of controls for left handed shooters. The safety never bothers me since I've always adapted to use most right handed setups (with the exception of a 1911). The bolt stop/ release is perfectly placed so my LH index finger can engage and disengage it no problem.

Posted: 5/25/2009 6:34:40 PM EDT

[#9]

Quoted:

You should also educate yourself a little more on the FAL before you post, some countries opted for chrome lined barrels and some didn't. That does not mean one design is better than the other.

Trust me, I know enough about FALs to post. It's a simple fact that not all militaries opted for chrome lined bores, and thus you can not count on a FAL to necessarily have one. Sorry if I didn't say something like "54% of adopting countries did not opt for chrome lining, while 46% did."

Posted: 5/26/2009 4:47:19 AM EDT

[#10]

Get the FAL. I have both and enjoy both, but it is easy to expect too much from the M1A. First of all, yes it can be accurized to be much more accurate than a FAL. But it costs money to do so and it doesn't last. The M1A is more complicated to strip and removing the action from the stock affects the zero. Rocking the mag in a FAL is almost effortless and is very difficult to screw up. The M14 is easier to miss the front lug and mess it up. The M14 sights are better, but you can get replacement sights for the FAL that don't wobble. The FAL is easier and cheaper to scope. The FAL's adjustable gas system allows it to handle a wider range of ammo. Depending on the day, either one feels better to shoulder than the other. Get both.

Posted: 5/26/2009 5:07:25 PM EDT

[#11]

Damn you all! I was trying to save up cash for a M&P 40, but after reading this now I'm gonna get a FAL.... I already have the M1A.

Posted: 5/26/2009 5:19:43 PM EDT

[#12]

good question
I've been wondering the same

Posted: 5/26/2009 6:12:45 PM EDT

[#13]

Quoted:
Get the FAL. I have both and enjoy both, but it is easy to expect too much from the M1A. First of all, yes it can be accurized to be much more accurate than a FAL. But it costs money to do so and it doesn't last. The M1A is more complicated to strip and removing the action from the stock affects the zero. Rocking the mag in a FAL is almost effortless and is very difficult to screw up. The M14 is easier to miss the front lug and mess it up. The M14 sights are better, but you can get replacement sights for the FAL that don't wobble. The FAL is easier and cheaper to scope. The FAL's adjustable gas system allows it to handle a wider range of ammo. Depending on the day, either one feels better to shoulder than the other. Get both.

I don't have any problems with the stock affecting the zero on the M1A when I strip it to clean.

The M1A is easy as pie to field strip as well as the FAL.

I agree the mag changes with the FAL are much easier and positive. Both are very comfortable to shoot however the FAL's pistol grip makes it a tad nicer.

Posted: 5/26/2009 7:05:54 PM EDT

[#14]

Well now I'm more seriously considering one of each LOL

As far as cleaning an M14, you don't even need to separate the action from the stock to clean it in the field - just pop the trigger group out, give that a brushing-down & some lube, then lock the bolt back & swab the bore. Hit the inside of the receiver with a toothbrush & Q-tips, place a couple drops of oil on the recoil spring & op rod, then a drop or 2 on the shiny areas on the bolt & receiver. Release the bolt & you're all set.

I never had any accuracy issues from separating the barreled action from the stock, either. Maybe it was due to having a USGI fiberglass stock instead of wood, I don't know. I know this was a problem with bedded stocks, but the service rifle shooters I knew only took the barreled action off once a year and rebedded the stock at that time. With iron sights I had no problem shooting eggs at the 100m line, and keeping my shots in the smooth center portion of a paper plate at 250m wasn't particularly difficult when shooting off a rucksack.

My experience is that M14-type rifles beat FALs hands down when it comes to absolute accuracy, but a FAL with stock sights is more than capable of hitting a man at any realistic combat range - and that, IMO, is the only criterion that matters.

I think what it's going to boil down to is whichever I can get a better deal on. Is DSA the only FAL manufacturer worth considering, or are there others?

Posted: 5/28/2009 10:23:53 AM EDT

[#15]

ME2112
Love both rifles, plan to get a FAL in the future,
though I'm biased to the M1A.
Granted its not a normal M1A but the mods
bring it into 21st century capabilities.
M1A
Better sights, Iron sights are retained with the Sage chassis
Pistol grip, any grip you like thats compatible with AR weapons.
Any stock thats compatible with AR weapons
Lefty friendly
Bolt hold open
Direct connect suppressor ready( Just an option)
More Menacing than a FAL
NAVALSPECIALWARFARE Approved

Posted: 5/28/2009 4:18:59 PM EDT

[#16]

Get the M14. One less person I'll have to worry about looking for kits and parts.

Posted: 5/28/2009 5:42:23 PM EDT

[#17]

FAL
Justincase Ilike that avatar

Posted: 5/28/2009 6:50:48 PM EDT

[#18]

If I had to choose just one it would be the following one.....

Powerful enough to do the job
Good long range
Accurate enough for a man size target out to 300 meters
One of the most reliable rifles ever built

This is one I built from a matching STg58 kit. But I have had 2 Century builds FALs and both were great guns.

The FAL's were adapted by over 90 nations for their Armies. What better endorsement can you get then that....

Posted: 5/29/2009 12:02:52 AM EDT

[#19]

Quoted:

The FAL's were adapted by over 90 nations for their Armies. What better endorsement can you get then that....

Does that also mean you'd choose an AK over an AR, since more nations have adopted the AK?

Posted: 5/29/2009 7:13:27 AM EDT

[#20]

AK's were not adapted, they were given........

Posted: 5/29/2009 3:04:06 PM EDT

[#21]

A FAL will run CAVIM all day. I have put thousands of Cavim rounds thru a bunch of different FAls. The brass is great to reload also. It was the HK's that didn't like the Cavim because the sealant used to seal the bullet got into the chamber flutes and gummed up the works. DSA is covering their butts when they say not to use it. The FAL rifle will digest an amazing variety of ammo, from good to garbage. I actually got some decent accuracy from Cavim, and a friend of mine is still running it in his DSA carbine he has had for 10+ years. Use it and enjoy!

Posted: 5/29/2009 3:45:26 PM EDT

[#22]

Thanks freewilly, even though I "only" have 3K rounds of CAVIM it's nice to know I'll be able to use it reliably if I get a FAL.

Posted: 5/29/2009 6:50:14 PM EDT

[#23]

Quoted:
Thanks freewilly, even though I "only" have 3K rounds of CAVIM it's nice to know I'll be able to use it reliably if I get a FAL.

I've run plenty of it through my M1A, never had a problem.

Posted: 5/29/2009 7:45:18 PM EDT

[#24]

With regard to MBR's, I don't have a Springfield, but I have shot them before, and can say they are definately a fine rifle that is tried and true. To me the Springfield is kinda like the 1911, in that it's old technology that was made so good, it's still in use today.

However, I do have the other three common MBR"s.....a 20" barrel AR-10, a 16" barrel PTR, and an 18" full stock FAL. Hands down, I think the 18" barrel full stock FAL is the best all around MBR. I like the reliability, the light weight, the good balance, the low recoil, the BHO, the charging handle position, the rear site, the 1:10 twist, etc. In fact, the only thing I don't like about it is that the charging handle knob can sometimes stick you in the side during sling carry. But I guess that's miniscule. Plus they make folding charging handles.

If hell ever freezes over, and I need to get outta Dodge, the two rifles that come with me are my 7.62x39 Krink and my 18" FAL. I just need to slap a bipod and fixed 4X scope on her.

But hey, I also have to admit the my MBR collection is still lacking a Springfield. I really want the standard full size rifle with Walnut furniture.

Posted: 5/29/2009 7:59:14 PM EDT

[#25]

Let me expand on my earlier statements. First of all, I shot the M14 long before I ever shot a FAL. I qualified on the M14 and that was the rifle I carried on the occasions I was issued a rifle. I've always thought they were a great feeling rifle and I have always enjoyed shooting them.

That said, they have advantages and disadvantages over the FAL. You need to decide which ones are more important to you. The M1A/M14 is capable of superior accuracy if you put the $$$ into it. Bedding, unitizing the gas system, stock ferrule, match flash suppressor, etc. When you get done, you have a very accurate rifle, but it requires some tender care to keep it that way.

Cleaning from the breech is the recommended way of cleaning a rifle because it minimizes the possibility of damage to the crown. You can't do that to the M14. When you remove the trigger group and then reassemble, the pressures between stock and action change. With a standard rifle, you probably won't notice. That's a good thing. With a match grade, its a different story. Here is where I'm going. One of the perceived advantages of the M14 over the FAL is accuracy. Yes it is possible, but it has drawbacks. A standard M14 has about the same accuracy as a standard FAL. Maybe a little better because of the wobbly FAL rear sight. But that is a cheap fix.

Bottom line, get both.

Posted: 5/29/2009 11:59:05 PM EDT

[#26]

Quoted:

Quoted:
Thanks freewilly, even though I "only" have 3K rounds of CAVIM it's nice to know I'll be able to use it reliably if I get a FAL.

I've run plenty of it through my M1A, never had a problem.

That's not the issue here, in my post that started the thread I mentioned using it in my M1A with no problem. What I was saying is that after having heard from several sources that FALs didn't like CAVIM at all, it was nice to hear that people WERE using it in FALs without any issues.

Posted: 5/30/2009 9:44:07 AM EDT

[#27]

This is arf.com....get SEVERAL of each.

Nothing wrong with either rifle. I've engaged man sized targets out past 500 yds with both rifles with good success.

The M1A is the better long range choice. The sights are easier to adjust and are more precise in their adjustment. The trigger is better in the Stock M1A than the FAL. It's more "refined".

The FAL is tough, looks "cooler", and is reliable. It's not quite as accurate or refined as the M1A, but it's close, at least in terms of accuracy.

Both are fine, reliable, and accurate rifles.

It comes down to personal preference. Which one's ergonomics suit you better? Which one makes you drool when you look at it? Which one can you best afford?

Oh, you'll end up with both, eventually. And then you'll need a G3 clone....and then you'll need an AR10....and then....well, you get the point...

Posted: 5/30/2009 10:55:16 AM EDT

[#28]

Well, I'm not really a G3 fan, I fired a couple while stationed in Germany and it didn't do anything for me. I've only got a few hundred rounds through a FAL (one in decent shape that I found in a bunker along the "Highway of Death") which isn't enough to even form a valid opinion about the ergonomics - at that point I was still bitching more about it NOT being an M1A than forming an objective opinion LOL

The AR10 is a definite possibility, though, and maybe a 20" A3 at some time. But other than that 1 of each is enough for me.

Posted: 5/30/2009 11:12:36 AM EDT

[#29]

I have 2 of each and I prefer the FAL over the M1A in almost every way. Only department the M1A got the FAL beat is in accuracy, but neither are precision bench shooting rifles so accuracy is really good enough for either. Only thing I'll take over my FAL is my AR-10.

Posted: 5/31/2009 4:32:51 AM EDT

[#30]

Get both them all.
Otherwise flip a quarter.
My M14 LOVES Cavim. I bought all I could find.
If your handy around the work bench you can bed your M14 type yourself, do the one piece gas cylinder mod and a few others.

Posted: 5/31/2009 5:04:20 AM EDT

[#31]

CAVIM was the majority of what I fired through my M1A. If only I'd bought 10 or 20 cases back when it was going $140 shipped!

No need for bedding, my M1A was PLENTY accurate in its stock form. I wouldn't have wanted to be 500m away from someone who wanted to shoot me with it and only had 2 rounds left in the mag. Unless it was a windy day and he was as bad as me or worse at adjusting for wind LOL

Posted: 5/31/2009 6:53:54 PM EDT

[#32]

i have a S.A. M1A with the green synthetic stock,. and a 18in DSA para carbine.

both are great rifles and while i have not put either on paper to see how they stack up on accuracy,. i can tell you just from blasting bowling pins at the local coal hole & at random places off in the woods they both hit what i aim them at,.BUT i like the para FAL alot better,. it is almost perfectly set up for me (right handed) so i rarely have to take my fireing hand off of the PG to work the rifle. the adj. gas system makes the rifle recoil like a kitten when set up properly,. and now that i have the DSA scope mount on it i am runnig a red dot until i can save up for some better optics. about the only special tool i need is a coin of some type to split the upper & lower apart,. other than that i can use everyday cleaning supplies to maintain the FAL

the M1A as you should know needs certain special tools,. and lubes to be maintained properly,.. while i have only had the M1A a short time,. i do belive it is a more accurate rifle,.. it is certainaly a more fussy rifle in that i have to go buy this that and the other,. and keep extras of a few key parts just in case..... scoping the M1A is possible but expensive.

i would try both side by side if possible and see which one you like better.

Posted: 7/7/2009 5:19:35 PM EDT

[#33]

I have not had good luck with the FAL personally, but I do like the simplicity.

Love the M1A/M14. Just feels right to me. I also like the G3, they'll eat anything.

Posted: 8/5/2009 12:46:47 PM EDT

[#34]

[span style='font-weight: bold;']
the M1A as you should know needs certain special tools,. and lubes to be maintained properly,.. while i have only had the M1A a short time,. i do belive it is a more accurate rifle,.. it is certainaly a more fussy rifle in that i have to go buy this that and the other,. and keep extras of a few key parts just in case..... scoping the M1A is possible but expensive.

Well, I had my M1A for about 15 years and never needed any "special" tools, just a USGI cleaning kit. Same goes for lubes, I used LSA everywhere with no trouble at all. The only problem I ever had with it was the bolt roller circlip broke and the roller would fall off during disassembly. After a couple years of dealing with it I called Springfield Armory to get an RMA, sent the rifle off to them via UPS, and a couple weeks later it was back via USPS with a new bolt - in the middle of National Match season, no less. I was in the army at the time and the rifle came to the orderly room, where nearly everyone in the unit had to handle it. I had company at the range every Saturday for the next few months LOL

I most likely wouldn't be scoping either of them, but if I did it'd be a red dot sight. The M1A's iron sights are plenty precise for shooting out to the MER.

Posted: 8/5/2009 5:39:08 PM EDT

[#35]

Quoted:

Quoted:

The FAL's were adapted by over 90 nations for their Armies. What better endorsement can you get then that....

Does that also mean you'd choose an AK over an AR, since more nations have adopted the AK?

In a heartbeat.

I'd take the FAL over the M14/M1A

Posted: 8/5/2009 7:20:20 PM EDT

[#36]

Definitely FAL. I have three BTW: Argentine, DSA Stg 58A, and G1 built on Imbel receiver. I thought about getting M-1A once, but after handling it, I decided not to. I never like traditional stock, always a pistol grip type person. It's either FAL or HK/Cetme for me. If not, then AK......

FAL ergo is way better than anything, except AR. Rear adjustable sight? DSA has some like that just like A2 for FAL. Plus, I have option to go w/ 21"-13" barrel w/ FAL.

Posted: 8/6/2009 5:10:01 AM EDT

[#37]

I traded a very nice Armscorp M-14 clone for my current FAL and have no regrets.

Although I do really like the M-14/M1A rifles very much I just prefer the FAL.

Posted: 8/6/2009 6:09:23 AM EDT

[#38]

Quoted:

Quoted:
Thanks freewilly, even though I "only" have 3K rounds of CAVIM it's nice to know I'll be able to use it reliably if I get a FAL.

I've run plenty of it through my M1A, never had a problem.

That's not the issue here, in my post that started the thread I mentioned using it in my M1A with no problem. What I was saying is that after having heard from several sources that FALs didn't like CAVIM at all, it was nice to hear that people WERE using it in FALs without any issues.

So funny thing. I got a FAL a few weeks back. Tried to run some of this though it...no go. Unfortunately thats all I had at the range with me, so I'm not sure if it's a ammo problem, or gas problem. I should be back out shooting in a week or two to figure it out.

Posted: 8/6/2009 7:21:03 AM EDT

[#39]

I picked up an M1A a couple of years ago and everytime I shoot it I am still amazed with it's accuracy and general awesomeness. Right about the time I picked up the M1A I decided I needed to get the rifle of the rest of the free world, the FAL.

I picked up an R1A1, on a Century build. Shoots like a dream but due the the infamous Century "uni-brow" it doesn't like to feed soft point rounds.

As far as an overall choice and I could only have one, I would take the M1A but not by much.

Posted: 8/6/2009 9:14:10 AM EDT

[#40]

FAL,I got rid of my Scout Squad.The Fal is easier to maintain,Mags are cheaper.Can be made to be a very accurate rifle.Not that it isnt accurate now.

Posted: 8/6/2009 10:15:14 AM EDT

[#41]

For cost to operate your choice should be the FAL, no question.

You can do all your own gunsmithing too.

Posted: 8/7/2009 8:07:30 AM EDT

[#42]

I own/owned both, so here are my anecdotes:

-Springield Armory "standard model" M1A; without any accurizing, consistently shot 1 moa with match ammo. I found it to be non-ergonomic; especially when scoped. The rear sight would change elevation under recoil. The gas plug was always coming loose. Magazines were (are?) expensive.

-"parts kit" FALs; at best a 3 or 3.5 moa rifle. Much better ergonomics. Inexpensive magazines and parts. Some would argue this point, but I think a FAL is easier to scope than the M1a.
I kept the FALs and sold the M1A.

Posted: 8/7/2009 1:28:49 PM EDT

[#43]

I don't have a lot of experience with FALs but I found the M1A to be a very ergonomic rifle. As a lefty the safety was in a great place, the bolt catch was easy to hit with my palm after a mag change (I did strong hand changes), and the charging handle was easily accessible to my left hand simply by rolling the rifle to its left. I found mag changes to be very easy but I can see how people would find the rock-in style more awkward. I guess it all goes to show that if you practice often enough anything can be easy.

I never shot match ammo through mine but with CAVIM I was getting about 2MOA w/irons. Never had a problem with the gas cylinder plug or rear sight backing off.

I probably will do the right thing and get both at some time, but the M1A will probably be first simply because I wouldn't have to learn anything about it if TSHTF.

Posted: 8/7/2009 3:16:36 PM EDT

[#44]

The only correct answer is "both".

I can't decide which one I like more. Prolly my FAL's simply because of the history associated with them (Rhodesian conflict).

Posted: 8/8/2009 12:45:15 PM EDT

[#45]

I've got both, haven't had either of them for long though. I got the Springfield M1A Loaded in January IIRC and fell so in love with 7.62 that I had to get the DSA STG58 FAL a couple months later. I can't imagine getting rid of either of them EVER. So far, I'd say my preference is M1A for distance, FAL for inside 200 maybe. Not that the M1A wouldn't be splendid inside that or that the FAL wouldn't be great outside that––-I'm just saying, if I had to pick a purpose for each. You absolutely MUST get them both, though.

Posted: 8/8/2009 1:46:29 PM EDT

[#46]

I can hit a 4" piece of steel at 200 yards with my Loaded M1A.

I cannot do the same thing with my DSA FAL.

open sights on both.

that's my experience.

take what you want from it.

Posted: 8/8/2009 4:20:35 PM EDT

[#47]

I've posted this before, but I think it's germane.

Standard M1A, iron sights, CAVIM, shooting off my ruck at an estimated 225-250m. 19 of 20 rounds on target. I figure that's 1/2 MOPP (Minute Of Paper Plate) shooting.

Posted: 8/8/2009 6:31:01 PM EDT

[#48]

got two of each

paid out the anal cavity for the M!a's

built the 2 FAL's for a 3rd of the price.

both are reliable, prefer FAL's > M1A's any day of the week

Posted: 8/8/2009 6:54:28 PM EDT

[#49]

I have one of each. I have a SA standard, and a bastard build from a century receiver, and Imbel parts kit. I like both, I am partial to my M1a, if a budget is in mind, the FAL has quality parts for less money. But the same thing applies to Harley Davidsons, there are other bikes that look just as good and sound nice, but it aint a Harley. And This is America WE adopted the M14. just my .02$

Posted: 8/9/2009 10:06:41 AM EDT

[#50]

I love LRB's and if you are going to go M-14 (or M-25 better yet) they are the way to go. I had an LRB on order two years ago, I added so much stuff to it to get the ergo's just right and it came to almost $3K (then). I looked closer at the FAL and realized that I was trying to make an AR/FAL out of the M-14 so I canceled my order and bought a DSA FAL and AR and lots of mags/ammo with the money I was going to spend on the LRB. I have been really happy though it is a battle rifle and not a sniper rifle.

[ARCHIVED THREAD] - FAL vs M14-type rifle (Page 1 of 2)

Armory » FAL Discussions

Warning

Confirm Action

About AR15.COM

Stay Connected

Newsletter

Contact Us