The HK91 is a better rifle, but I am going to play devils advocate and say the M14 is better than the FAL. The only thing the FAL has going for it is ergos.
The other guy who answered wasn't me. Anyway, there's a few small problems with the FAL. The design doesn't lend itself to a high degree of accuracy, with it actually being the least accurate if the major cold war battle rifles. It's "accurate enough" in a sense, but to me it's silly having such a large rifle that can't be accurized much further. Every other major battle rifle had someone at least dabble in making a DMR or dedicated sniper rifle out of, but the entire free world looked at the FAL and said "nah this ain't it" when it came to such a thing. From a consumer standpoint it also suffers from one of the largest flaws of the AK rifles; varying specifications. There are many patterns and styles that have parts that don't quite interchange. That's always just annoyed me from the perspective of logistics and defeats part of the purpose of using the same rifle during the cold war. Reliability in sandy and dusty regions leaves more to be desired. Some parts are more fragile than you'd find in other big battle rifles, such as extractors, the piston spring wears very quickly which isn't very common for piston guns, among a few others. It's also more ammo sensitive than the rest.
All that said, I don't dislike the FAL. But it isn't the most accurate, it isn't the most reliable, it isn't logistically the most practical, it isn't the cheapest and easiest to produce, it isn't the lightest, it doesn't require the least upkeep, it... Well, simply put, it doesn't do anything the best of the cold war battle rifles other than feel good to use with a comfortable control layout. It doesn't do those things poorly, but it doesn't do anything the best.
FAL already has forward assist, just smack the charging handle forward. AR-15/M16 needed forward assist added because there isn't any other way to push the bolt forward besides the spring in the buffer tube. G3 also has a 'forward assist' of sorts, where there's a small hole in the bolt carrier that will fit the tip of a bullet and you use that to push it forward.
The FAL doesn't have a forward assist. If it did, the Israelis wouldn't have needed to make one for their FN FALs after they were often jamming in combat in the desert, which lead them to developt the Galil as well.
In this video with a Portuguese title you can see Mishaco give a quick explanation of the Israeli FAL forward assist, the only FN FAL issued that had this was the Israeli made one.
The main issue was that it wasn't the Ordnance Dept's preferred rifle. As long as that was the case, they were always going to make something up to justify their gun. The actual deciding factor in the trials was the cold weather tests, but obviously the FAL didn't perform horribly in cold weather, as the Canadians ended up adopting it.
1. G3 and FAL are better than M14 in every measurable way.
2. Poverty and institutional heel dragging
3. Expected warfare in open plains at long range rather than short range jungle fights.
I assume they didn't want to spend the money to completely change rifles again, just as they finished eaquiping themselves with G3s/FALs. If you look at the timeline, most countries had just barely finished rearming their militaries with 7.62x51 small arms when the US started issuing M16s in large numbers. Most countries aren't going to toss out their brand new rifles because an ally changed calibers, most can't afford to.
You're probably have a life - cursory interest in firearms or something, but the real reason the FAL was used for so long was because it was adopted by almost every NATO country that wasn't a super power (America).
fal is dogshit, and the only reason ppl like it is because of rhodesia pics, and the only reason they used it was because israel and others smuggled them because they couldn't get much of anything else with arms embargos
>and the only reason they used it was because israel and others smuggled them
Pretty sure its because they were originally a british colony, an inherited standard british equipment.
>massed intermediate rifle-caliber fire supported by full-power rifle-caliber machineguns is good for infantry fighting against malnourished, unarmored infantry with little mechanized support in a hilly jungle >vast sums of wealth inherited as a result of being near-unaffected by the biggest mass-casualty event since 1918 allows you to make the army you have into the army you want >massed full-power rifle-caliber fire supported by full-power or anti-material rifle-caliber machineguns is good for mechanized infantry fighting potentially-armored mechanized infantry on vast rolling plains, vast rolling forests, or massive alpine mountains >vast amounts of strategic poverty incurred as a result of being being a victim of the biggest mass-casualty event since 1918 makes the army you have incredibly difficult to turn into the army you want >the total lack of mechanical reliability of the M14 is not as significantly present within the G3 or FAL
Is 7.62 real fricking NATO really better than 5.56 for the average grunt in more open/mountainous terrain?
I get that a trained marksman with a scope will be able to make better shots with 7.62 at long range because it will be pushed around less by wind, and retain more energy at longer ranges, same goes for a machinegunner, but for a grunt thats probably going to have 4x magnification if at all and probably won't be shooting past 500m isn't the flatness of 5.56 more desirable?
Ukrainians have been requesting M14s from the US and Estonia plus FN FALs and G3s because of shooting in flat wide terrain and facing oponents with armor plates so yes. Also the US issued .300 caliber sniper rifles due to similar circunstances in Afghanistan where 7.62 NATO didn't have enough range in certain extreme distances.
Because the G3 and FAL were good, and the M14 was only wearing the Garand's corpse like a freaky skin suit stitched together by autistic ordnance board fudds.
It really is fricking crazy that they were working on the M14 since 1945 and only ready in 1957. Must have been a unionized job for it to have taken that long to add a mag and a gas cutoff to an existing rifle.
American views on this are skewed by the M1 Garand being sent to them from decades in the future, but as late as 1957, every British, Australian and Canadian infantryman had a Lee-Enfield and every German had a K98
Frick, Argentina and Brazil were still handing out Mausers to recruits well into the 1960s, and India Enfields even longer
Black person are you moronic?
India still manufactured a variant of the SMLE Mk.3 until the mid 70's for their military and their border cops still use them sometimes
Remember when that Muslim terrorist group, frick if I can remember the name but I think the abbreviation was LET attacked Mumbai? Shot up a whole bunch of shit for ages before they eventually were stopped and one of them was captured? Point of bringing that up was I remember seeing pictures of some of the poor sirs that responded to that attack STILL carrying Enfields.
He said India military had Enfields, patently untrue.
>He said India military had Enfields, patently untrue.
https://i.imgur.com/ihxZb7S.jpg
American views on this are skewed by the M1 Garand being sent to them from decades in the future, but as late as 1957, every British, Australian and Canadian infantryman had a Lee-Enfield and every German had a K98
Frick, Argentina and Brazil were still handing out Mausers to recruits well into the 1960s, and India Enfields even longer
>handing out Mausers to recruits well into the 1960s, and India Enfields even longer
No, he said India had them until some time after the mid 60s.
idk when the army stopped, but Indian police used them as recently as 2020.
>thinking the LE and K98 are even close to as effective as an M1
Then everyone besides Americans were either poor or stupid. What the frick am I reading right now?
>thinking the LE and K98 are even close to as effective as an M1
Then everyone besides Americans were either poor or stupid. What the frick am I reading right now?
Because in terms of winning battles (never mind wars), service rifles are simply a box that can be checked by any design from the Cold War or later. The pursuit of incremental improvements is an expensive hobby for overfunded agencies, countries with a well developed military industrial complex, or enthusiast gear queers that are geeking out and/or pursuing a minor edge (sometimes imaginary) in whatever gayme they're playing on the weekends.
Had the US gone to Iraq with only the M14 as the issued service rifle, the outcome would not have been measurably different. Either time. And the M14 was a shit service rifle.
>THA M14 WAS OUTDATED BY VIETNAM!
It wasn't. It just wasn't utilised well. Grunts with m16 and marksmen with m14 would be ideal. But then logistics and stupidity came along. Different ammo when you introduce a new main rifle is not insignificant, but stupidity of kids doing full auto on m14, with it's small mag, and high recoil, did major damage to it's reputation.
The ordnance board. The flip-up buttplate and aborted A1 were supposed to make it workable, but didn't. Apparently someone had second thoughts, because by 2003 or so, most of them had the selectors blocked. >most were blocked >we had a few unblocked ones on my last ship >unblocked ones were not supposed to be issued, but occasionally they were >fond memory of junior sailor accidentally receiving unblocked rifle for qualification at camp wesley harris in 2002 >shot string of holes in ceiling of alpha range and broke down crying >the trick was to unsnap the rear sling swivel, extend the sling, and step on the end while going full auto >not practical for combat but fun as hell on the range >sometimes design committees get it right, but not always for the reasons they thought >actual technique in the fm was to use the sling buckle to form a hand-sized loop in the sling just below the forward swivel and use it as a vfg >that didn't work either but it was kind of fun >yfw you're doing stupid shit with guns and taxpayers are covering the bill >many such cases >and you thought people enlist for free college
>>the trick was to unsnap the rear sling swivel, extend the sling, and step on the end while going full auto
Took me a few seconds to process this, that's funny.
It wasn't the soldiers' fault they had been issued full auto M1 garands with box magazines. The rifle being good for snipers (designated marksmen didn't exist in the Vietnam Era US Military) was not its original intention, its original intention was being a general purpose service rifle and if it wasn't good as a service rifle than it wasn't good.
I own a FAL and Springfield M1 garand. Also, shot a M1A and Scar 17. All great shooting guns. Still haven’t handled a G3 or clone yet. I actually found the M1A more comfortable than it gets credit for and my favorite. I’ve never had issues with any of my rifles but I guess my previous opinion comes from all the reliability tests that most battle rifles fail miserably. My biggest fear is a rifle jamming when my life depends on it.
>ok why did Europe keep the G-3 and FN-FAL until the 1980s?
Because they were both better than the M14 at everything except being converted to Marksman rifles.
>>THA M14 WAS OUTDATED BY VIETNAM! >ok why did Europe keep the G-3 and FN-FAL until the 1980s?
In the 1970s nEuros were cooler than Americans. That shift towards Americans being cooler than Euros only started in the 1980s and peaked in the 1990s. Now both sides are a parity and use remote control toys operated using xbox and PlayStation controllers not guns to kill Russans
Because those aren't the M-14
The HK91 is a better rifle, but I am going to play devils advocate and say the M14 is better than the FAL. The only thing the FAL has going for it is ergos.
What's wrong with the FAL?
Heavy as balls and 21 inch standard
Gun heavy is not an argument when you're talking battle rifles
Its a service rifle....
The only alternative that can compete in that regard is the AR-10, but I haven't any idea about them because I only own and am familiar with FALs
yes it is you dumb LARPer
The other guy who answered wasn't me. Anyway, there's a few small problems with the FAL. The design doesn't lend itself to a high degree of accuracy, with it actually being the least accurate if the major cold war battle rifles. It's "accurate enough" in a sense, but to me it's silly having such a large rifle that can't be accurized much further. Every other major battle rifle had someone at least dabble in making a DMR or dedicated sniper rifle out of, but the entire free world looked at the FAL and said "nah this ain't it" when it came to such a thing. From a consumer standpoint it also suffers from one of the largest flaws of the AK rifles; varying specifications. There are many patterns and styles that have parts that don't quite interchange. That's always just annoyed me from the perspective of logistics and defeats part of the purpose of using the same rifle during the cold war. Reliability in sandy and dusty regions leaves more to be desired. Some parts are more fragile than you'd find in other big battle rifles, such as extractors, the piston spring wears very quickly which isn't very common for piston guns, among a few others. It's also more ammo sensitive than the rest.
All that said, I don't dislike the FAL. But it isn't the most accurate, it isn't the most reliable, it isn't logistically the most practical, it isn't the cheapest and easiest to produce, it isn't the lightest, it doesn't require the least upkeep, it... Well, simply put, it doesn't do anything the best of the cold war battle rifles other than feel good to use with a comfortable control layout. It doesn't do those things poorly, but it doesn't do anything the best.
The main issue is the lack of forward assist...
FAL already has forward assist, just smack the charging handle forward. AR-15/M16 needed forward assist added because there isn't any other way to push the bolt forward besides the spring in the buffer tube. G3 also has a 'forward assist' of sorts, where there's a small hole in the bolt carrier that will fit the tip of a bullet and you use that to push it forward.
The FAL doesn't have a forward assist. If it did, the Israelis wouldn't have needed to make one for their FN FALs after they were often jamming in combat in the desert, which lead them to developt the Galil as well.
In this video with a Portuguese title you can see Mishaco give a quick explanation of the Israeli FAL forward assist, the only FN FAL issued that had this was the Israeli made one.
The main issue was that it wasn't the Ordnance Dept's preferred rifle. As long as that was the case, they were always going to make something up to justify their gun. The actual deciding factor in the trials was the cold weather tests, but obviously the FAL didn't perform horribly in cold weather, as the Canadians ended up adopting it.
1. G3 and FAL are better than M14 in every measurable way.
2. Poverty and institutional heel dragging
3. Expected warfare in open plains at long range rather than short range jungle fights.
I assume they didn't want to spend the money to completely change rifles again, just as they finished eaquiping themselves with G3s/FALs. If you look at the timeline, most countries had just barely finished rearming their militaries with 7.62x51 small arms when the US started issuing M16s in large numbers. Most countries aren't going to toss out their brand new rifles because an ally changed calibers, most can't afford to.
Because they're actually well designed and reliable conscript proof rifles.
because they were fricking poor
You're probably have a life - cursory interest in firearms or something, but the real reason the FAL was used for so long was because it was adopted by almost every NATO country that wasn't a super power (America).
Its equally as ubiquitous as the AKM.
fal is dogshit, and the only reason ppl like it is because of rhodesia pics, and the only reason they used it was because israel and others smuggled them because they couldn't get much of anything else with arms embargos
>and the only reason they used it was because israel and others smuggled them
Pretty sure its because they were originally a british colony, an inherited standard british equipment.
Because the US forced them to adopt 7.62x51 to begin with, so they had to make the best of it.
Also the G3 and FAL works as intended.
>massed intermediate rifle-caliber fire supported by full-power rifle-caliber machineguns is good for infantry fighting against malnourished, unarmored infantry with little mechanized support in a hilly jungle
>vast sums of wealth inherited as a result of being near-unaffected by the biggest mass-casualty event since 1918 allows you to make the army you have into the army you want
>massed full-power rifle-caliber fire supported by full-power or anti-material rifle-caliber machineguns is good for mechanized infantry fighting potentially-armored mechanized infantry on vast rolling plains, vast rolling forests, or massive alpine mountains
>vast amounts of strategic poverty incurred as a result of being being a victim of the biggest mass-casualty event since 1918 makes the army you have incredibly difficult to turn into the army you want
>the total lack of mechanical reliability of the M14 is not as significantly present within the G3 or FAL
Is 7.62 real fricking NATO really better than 5.56 for the average grunt in more open/mountainous terrain?
I get that a trained marksman with a scope will be able to make better shots with 7.62 at long range because it will be pushed around less by wind, and retain more energy at longer ranges, same goes for a machinegunner, but for a grunt thats probably going to have 4x magnification if at all and probably won't be shooting past 500m isn't the flatness of 5.56 more desirable?
5.56 failing to kill people isn't desirable.
>Nah bro of course I didn't miss the running insurgent at 200m I was shooting at under stress, I swear its just 5.56 thats too weak to stop them
Ukrainians have been requesting M14s from the US and Estonia plus FN FALs and G3s because of shooting in flat wide terrain and facing oponents with armor plates so yes. Also the US issued .300 caliber sniper rifles due to similar circunstances in Afghanistan where 7.62 NATO didn't have enough range in certain extreme distances.
RIGHT ARM OF THE FREE WORLD
Because the G3 and FAL were good, and the M14 was only wearing the Garand's corpse like a freaky skin suit stitched together by autistic ordnance board fudds.
It really is fricking crazy that they were working on the M14 since 1945 and only ready in 1957. Must have been a unionized job for it to have taken that long to add a mag and a gas cutoff to an existing rifle.
Springfield was full of hacks in cozy nepo positions.
American views on this are skewed by the M1 Garand being sent to them from decades in the future, but as late as 1957, every British, Australian and Canadian infantryman had a Lee-Enfield and every German had a K98
Frick, Argentina and Brazil were still handing out Mausers to recruits well into the 1960s, and India Enfields even longer
India equips its soldiers with AK-203's, you moron.
Where did he say that they don’t?
He said India military had Enfields, patently untrue.
Black person are you moronic?
India still manufactured a variant of the SMLE Mk.3 until the mid 70's for their military and their border cops still use them sometimes
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ishapore_2A1_rifle
Remember when that Muslim terrorist group, frick if I can remember the name but I think the abbreviation was LET attacked Mumbai? Shot up a whole bunch of shit for ages before they eventually were stopped and one of them was captured? Point of bringing that up was I remember seeing pictures of some of the poor sirs that responded to that attack STILL carrying Enfields.
>He said India military had Enfields, patently untrue.
>handing out Mausers to recruits well into the 1960s, and India Enfields even longer
No, he said India had them until some time after the mid 60s.
idk when the army stopped, but Indian police used them as recently as 2020.
Illiterate anons having a little moment.
>thinking the LE and K98 are even close to as effective as an M1
Then everyone besides Americans were either poor or stupid. What the frick am I reading right now?
Because in terms of winning battles (never mind wars), service rifles are simply a box that can be checked by any design from the Cold War or later. The pursuit of incremental improvements is an expensive hobby for overfunded agencies, countries with a well developed military industrial complex, or enthusiast gear queers that are geeking out and/or pursuing a minor edge (sometimes imaginary) in whatever gayme they're playing on the weekends.
Had the US gone to Iraq with only the M14 as the issued service rifle, the outcome would not have been measurably different. Either time. And the M14 was a shit service rifle.
Actually we would've been able to hit the goatmen across the valley much easier. Suck it 5.56 gays.
>goatmen across the valley
>Iraq
this
flatter than Kansas
Get fricked nogunz tourist homosexual
Did zoomers forget about Afghanistan already...?
>Had the US gone to Iraq with only the M14 as the issued service rifle
>bUt WhAt AbOuT aFgHaNiStAn???
Reading comprehension, homie, they're talking about Iraq.
I don't come to PrepHole to read, I come to be angry and interject my unquestionably correct opinion.
Understandable, have a pleasant nonspecific segment of linear time.
I disagree.
>THA M14 WAS OUTDATED BY VIETNAM!
It wasn't. It just wasn't utilised well. Grunts with m16 and marksmen with m14 would be ideal. But then logistics and stupidity came along. Different ammo when you introduce a new main rifle is not insignificant, but stupidity of kids doing full auto on m14, with it's small mag, and high recoil, did major damage to it's reputation.
>full auto on m14
I didn't know this was even an option. Who thought this was a good idea?
Full auto is the main reason the M14 was developed. They wanted to replace the BAR and Garand with one weapon that can fulfill both roles.
They wanted to make a combo rifle BAR so they could do rifle stuff and also have a dogshit walking fire lmg that was outdated 30 years earlier?
Your extensive experience handling large volumes of full auto fire across multiple weapons makes you an expert I assume
Yes.
FAL was supposed to be adopted. Ordinance conflicts of interest went over and above trial results.
Same people that thought 'walking fire' would be a thing with the BAR
The morons from the US Army Ordnance Board.
The ordnance board. The flip-up buttplate and aborted A1 were supposed to make it workable, but didn't. Apparently someone had second thoughts, because by 2003 or so, most of them had the selectors blocked.
>most were blocked
>we had a few unblocked ones on my last ship
>unblocked ones were not supposed to be issued, but occasionally they were
>fond memory of junior sailor accidentally receiving unblocked rifle for qualification at camp wesley harris in 2002
>shot string of holes in ceiling of alpha range and broke down crying
>the trick was to unsnap the rear sling swivel, extend the sling, and step on the end while going full auto
>not practical for combat but fun as hell on the range
>sometimes design committees get it right, but not always for the reasons they thought
>actual technique in the fm was to use the sling buckle to form a hand-sized loop in the sling just below the forward swivel and use it as a vfg
>that didn't work either but it was kind of fun
>yfw you're doing stupid shit with guns and taxpayers are covering the bill
>many such cases
>and you thought people enlist for free college
>>the trick was to unsnap the rear sling swivel, extend the sling, and step on the end while going full auto
Took me a few seconds to process this, that's funny.
It wasn't the soldiers' fault they had been issued full auto M1 garands with box magazines. The rifle being good for snipers (designated marksmen didn't exist in the Vietnam Era US Military) was not its original intention, its original intention was being a general purpose service rifle and if it wasn't good as a service rifle than it wasn't good.
From everything I’ve read and watched online, they were all shit. Stoner got it right the AR-10
>i have never shot any of the rifles listed
buy a gun if youre too poor for a br go to /arg/
No, no, the man has a point.
I own a FAL and Springfield M1 garand. Also, shot a M1A and Scar 17. All great shooting guns. Still haven’t handled a G3 or clone yet. I actually found the M1A more comfortable than it gets credit for and my favorite. I’ve never had issues with any of my rifles but I guess my previous opinion comes from all the reliability tests that most battle rifles fail miserably. My biggest fear is a rifle jamming when my life depends on it.
Tell me /k/, why the bongs used a semi-auto only FAL copy and not the full auto one?
>ok why did Europe keep the G-3 and FN-FAL until the 1980s?
Because they were both better than the M14 at everything except being converted to Marksman rifles.
>everything except being converted to Marksman rifles.
See H&K PSG
Why are there suddenly so many M14 apologists threads? Everyone pretty much agreed it was shit half a century ago already.
Because it was always based. This isn't sudden, everyone already knew this.
Because they were poor.
>>THA M14 WAS OUTDATED BY VIETNAM!
>ok why did Europe keep the G-3 and FN-FAL until the 1980s?
In the 1970s nEuros were cooler than Americans. That shift towards Americans being cooler than Euros only started in the 1980s and peaked in the 1990s. Now both sides are a parity and use remote control toys operated using xbox and PlayStation controllers not guns to kill Russans
Because eurogays don't into defense spending
Because G-3 and FAL are actually good.
*drops mic*
Because the G3 and FAL weren't M14s? moron.
>The M14 sucks.
but why does it suck?