When the FAL mogged it in every conceivable way? Easily the biggest display of fudd moronation in history.
Why did the US military go with the fudd-14?
When the FAL mogged it in every conceivable way? Easily the biggest display of fudd moronation in history.
>nationalistic dickswinging at an all time high
>choose home made service rifle or foreign made
Big think.
Not true. The FAL was better at first and the Army was in the motion of adopting it, but then the T44 (M14 prototype) started to perform more reliably after certain updates and the FAL never caught up. The M14 had a chrome lined 4150 CMV barrel (brand new for the time) and better metallurgy overall. It was also not hand fitted in the production line. The M14 was also a pound lighter than the FAL configuration that would have been adopted. Just look at the winter test where the FAL couldn't even gas itself correctly without beating itself to death over the poorer metallurgy.
Wasn't the original cartridge for the FAL supposed to be .280 British - an intermediate cartridge?
no, you're thinking of the british EM-2 bullpup that they were pushing. the original cartridge for the FAL was the 7.65x53 Mauser, which has only slight dimensional and performance differences from 7.62x51 NATO.
if they wanted a true contender to the FAL, they would've made one of these with a better compensator/flash hider.
Not even necessary. The T44 was a full pound lighter than the T48/FN FAL, better suited to US production methods (i.e. didn't require hand fitting), shared parts with the M1 Garand, had nearly half the malfunctions, less parts, and there were SOME cost savings (not as much as initially promised though) in adapting M1 production to M14.
Yeah proto-redditors b***h and moan their fanboy rifle was somehow treated unfairly since the Ordnance Corps team working on the T44 actually spent an appropriate amount of time preparing the rifles for cold weather tests while the completely separate Ordnance Corps T48 team didn't, and I guess FN didn't have a cold weather testing facility and consequently the actual FN rifles sucked, too? There's no reason why the FN supplied rifles couldn't have had the same level of preparation or more given that the Ordnance Corps teams were constantly underfunded it was up to FN how much they wanted to develop the rifle and it looks like they cheaped out on R&D for cold weather. They all went through the exact same tests.
>it looks like they cheaped out on R&D for cold weather
They also cheapened out the R&D for sandy enviroments. The israeli quickly found out this and ditched their FALs in favour of a westernized AK-47 that is strong enough to handle .308 with no problems.
The FAL is not a horrible gun, but it's mediocre.
The CETME C/G3 runs circles around the FAL.
>shared parts with the M1 Garand
Nothing that is significant is shared.
>cold weather cope
They built specific cold weather trials guns you homosexual. The T48 used the same guns for all the trials
Didnt the m14 also have some ~~*advantages*~~ during the weapons test?
The trials were objectively flawed, arguably on purpose. The Ordnance Board historically had a bad case of Not Invented Here Syndrome. Additionally, some questionable logic was used to justify the M14; for example, the argument that it would be simpler to train troops already used to the M1 (mostly true, but irrelevant), or that the M14's production would mostly use the old M1 tooling, thereby simplifying production (a complete lie).
However, like they say, the proof is in the pudding. The US got one result with their service rifle trials and adopted the M14 because of it. The rest of the free world got an entirely different result and went with the FAL. Coincidence?
>Coincidence?
M14 (M1A) is a far more accurate rifle. By your logic, the AK47 is the best rifle and its not.
>quality > quality, always
Theoretically perhaps. In my experience, not so much in practice. Add in the poorly spec'd flash hiders, delicate sights, and bedding issues (admittedly usually only a problem with wooden stocks) and accuracy quickly becomes a crapshoot.
>delicate sights,
If dropped on stone, yes. The rest are somewhat valid and easiy mitigated. There may be a bitter apple in any bushel. As with each design. But the fundamental accuracy of rotating bolt vs. tilting or roller lick is the foundational key.
>if dropped on stone
Or if bumped against something, like if you didn't bottom the rear sight before setting the M14 upside down on something to clean it. (You do clean it upside down, right? If not, RIP gas system.) Or if the front sight gets bumped against anything. Or if you shoot it enough for the front sight to loosen itself up, which most M1A owners never will because they don't spend any time carrying and shooting their rifles. The sights are crap, anon. Spend some time carrying it and shooting it and then get back to me. I'll give you some tips on how to mitigate the design errors, but the problems are not entirely correctible. A knowledgeable armorer can make things not as bad, but they're still bad.
>rotating bolt vs tilting or roller
Ah. You don't actually shoot. You just read books and watch Youtube. I wish that you'd started off with that. I wouldn't have effortposted in response. Forget what I said earlier. If you ever buy one, maybe some Youtuber will be able to help you. I won't. I already said that it's not a good rifle. That's as much help as you'll be getting from me.
Because the US didn't want to sell the M14 or its TDP to anyone. By that logic the F22 is a shit jet and worse than the F35 since it's been exported more. Also a lot of that free world picked the G3, some the AR-10, hell Italy told HK and FN to eat shit and made the BM59. Are you trying to imply all the nations that didn't get FALs also rigged testing against it and were biased towards the rifle they picked? And what about the nations that did adopt the FAL, was there no corruption in that, nobody in those nation's governments actively rigging competitions in favor of the FN rifle?
>literal walls of cope
Go away, fudd.
>explaining reality is cope
Okay FALggot
Corruption which directly led to the disbanding of the department who pushed through the shit log we call the m14. On youtube there are two videos called why i hate the m14 one is by chris bartocci watch them.
Lmfao dipshit ignorant lying motherfricker, cope and seethe only people stupider than you could believe that and luckily there are very few people in the world who fit the bill. Frick you and educate yourself loser. You're literally wrong in every fricking way its sad.
>Lmfao dipshit ignorant lying motherfricker, cope and seethe only people stupider than you could believe that and luckily there are very few people in the world who fit the bill. Frick you and educate yourself loser. You're literally wrong in every fricking way its sad.
I'm literally quoting first hand, authoritative, accounts of the matter you moron. Pic related. I'll sure be coping and seething when the M14's bore is actually chrome lined and your euro reddit gun's bore is rusting away.
The FAL that the US would have adopted had even more wooden parts than the M14. I was talking about hand fitting/selecting metal parts off the production line than the Belgian industry designed for with the FAL.
>The Ordnance Board historically had a bad case of Not Invented Here Syndrome.
The T48 (FAL prototype) was entirely developed by the ordinance board past the original FN submission. They did just as much in house development on the FAL as FN did on their own rifle and as much development as the ordnance guys did on the T44. That was the point of the "not invented here" is that the ordnance board DID have TDP ownership and involvement with both rifles equally that did not happen with the M16 (which later had problems like unlined chrome chambers/bores that ordnance required.
>production would mostly use the old M1 tooling... (a complete lie).
That's not true they share some parts and the M14 did have savings by using that, just not as much as initially promised. Part of the confusion behind this is that people cite the noncompetitive contracts as the cost for the M14 when the competitive contracts were cost effective
You have a good point. That hinge mechanism that made it easier to strip also costs the FAL about half a pound in extra weight (the other extra half pound of weight comes from the tilting bolt receiver reinforcements.) It did make a lot more sense for our soldiers back then who had been familiar with the M1 at least.
The seethe you're generating here is truly impressive. tbh I still prefer the FAL even now, but what I'm taking away is that the FN FAL and M14 are not the same as the T48 and T44 that actually went into trials, and judging the trial results by comparing the production models can only leave me with a false impression of how things transpired.
The M1 (acting as the control), T47 (dropped), T20E2, T44, T48, and FN FAL built by FN were all submitted. FN was actually even invited by the Army to come to the trials, which isn't something an agency would do if they wanted their own gun to win "no matter what." The T48 was always performing equally compared to the actual FN rifles, which means there isn't some special sauce euro magic gun that was better. These even had the sand cuts and everything. Often times Springfield Arsenal was helping FN with firing pin hardness heat treatment specs and so on to make the competing gun more reliable. I've shown you some of the results here which were consistent during the later part of the test and it was only during the early parts of the test that the FAL was ever performing better.
Go ahead show me some InGayTV video or some reddit post about how the FAL is better. There isn't any data out there to say the FAL is a better rifle. The early M14 categorically performed better than the FAL at the conclusion of the trials - end of story.
Why are you going off about literal whos and sites that nobody visits on the only person ITT so far to even admit that you're making good points? Calm down anon, take a chill pill.
I just like talking about it after having read the book. I used to think the FAL was the better rifle until I read it. I think it's a shame that the rifle gets such a bad rap when it really was the better tested and engineered product.
>having read
This is where you lose 75% of /k/ and 100% of M14 haters.
>the better tested and engineered product
both rifles have shitty accuracy the m14 is cheaper yet most countries that wanted a battle rifle choose the fal or g3
>yet most countries that wanted a battle rifle choose the FAL or G3
You do realize we only dropped the M14 down to substitute standard in 1967 with the adoption of the M16A1 and they were still in active use into the early 1970s, right? By the time we were ready to give away M14s as military aid, most countries had adopted a battle rifle a decade prior. Your statement is completely without context as at the time most countries were even considering FAL/G3 adoption, M14s weren't even an option as we were keeping them for ourselves and weren't planning on giving up the TDP. The reason the FAL and G3 spread so far and wide was because HK and FN were actively seeking to sell them globally. Springfield Armory (the gov't arsenal) and the 3 commercial contractors were solely producing M14s for the US government with no clauses or intentions to sell them abroad during the production period of the M14.
other countries have been able to get m14 since vietnam
and most countries that adopted the fal did so in the 60s to 70s
Taiwan got the M14 production line from Harrington & Richardson in 1968 and started making their own M14s in 1969 which is the first foreign country to adopt the M14. We gave M14s to the Philippines in the 1970s iirc which is when other countries got the opportunity to acquire M14s. FN and HK pretty much had the entire 1960s to sell contracts and production licenses to foreign powers. The UK and Commonwealth had the FAL adopted by 1967 with quite a few other adopters in the 60s. The M14 was, to my understanding, given away as military aid later on in the 1970s and 1980s to poorer countries.
>It was also not hand fitted in the production line.
You expect me to believe a rifle with wooden furniture can be assembled entirely by machines with no hands-on gunsmithing required whatsoever?
Yes, you fricking moron. god, I can't stand you fricking morons that spout off without knowing the first thing about the subject matter. The M1 Garand had no hand-fitting whatsoever and had total parts interchangeability except for bolt>barrel fit which was achieved by reaming the chamber on production machinery.
Zoomerlore is getting bad, bros.
The M14 should have been disqualified for the moronic disassembly method alone. The FAL isn't great, but at least it comes apart for cleaning in a second with no force required too great to be applied with two fingers.
The usual complaints are all either bullshit or "that's all battle rifles", but the thing just does not come apart and go back together in a way that makes sense for an issued rifle.
>another m14 hate thread
You say it like it doesn't deserve it. It's a great target rifle but even the US military admitted that it was less effective than the M1 Garand and they had adopted a rifle that couldn't properly fit any single role of the slew of weapons it replaced.
>M1 Rifle
Other than having a larger capacity, it was heavier, not as well balanced, less accurate, and had more felt recoil even slightly less powerful cartridge.
>M1 Carbine
Twice the size, nearly twice the weight, cumbersome for roles that needed a smaller weapon
>M1A1 SMG
More firepower, range, and for the same weight but too cumbersome for a CQB weapon plus completely uncontrollable in full auto with only 2/3 of the capacity of the M1A1
>M3 SMG
See M1A1 comparison
>M1918 BAR
Same capacity and lighter but completely uncontrollable in full auto which made it useless as a support weapon. Some BARs had full and semi auto modes while the LMG BARs had a fast auto and slow auto and while being heavier could still be fired from the shoulder with reasonable accuracy.
>had more felt recoil even slightly less powerful cartridge.
>heavier
>"less powerful" cartridge
>more recoil
What the frick kind of fudd physics is that? M80 also perfectly replicated .308 longfudd performance in all common military grain weights.
Yes the increased recoil is due a rifle that is more balanced to the rear not to mention the difference in the gas system which actually vents gas directly downward out of the piston housing right below the gas block which actually forces the barrel upward. Not to mention the fact that it kicks up more dust when firing in the prone position.
>even more fudd cringe
Imagine being an unironic M-fuddteen shill. Probably the biggest failure in military small arms development in Western history.
You know the reason the m14 “failed” was because it was a battle rifle right?
Like all it’s “problems” are inherent to the battle rifle archetype of weapons.
>the US military admitted that it was less effective than the M1 Garand
Not true. They thought of it as slightly better but not SPIW or M16 better.
>that couldn't properly fit any single role of the slew of weapons it replaced.
The M14 is lighter than the M1 and the FAL would have had the same problems """replacing""" the other weapons.
>They also cheapened out the R&D for sandy enviroments.
Somewhat true. While the Israelis and commonwealth countries adopted the versions without sand cuts, the US would have at least had the version with sand cuts. This is of course a poor showing when the T44 is able to beat it in reliability without putting soldiers in harm's way to figure it out after the fact.
>They built specific cold weather trials guns you homosexual. The T48 used the same guns for all the trials
All the teams were working on their rifles prior to each test and there were constant iterative changes to ALL rifles throughout the testing. The T48 had multiple rifles tested with iterative developments such as extractor spring changes. FN and the T48 team could have done the same sort of preparation and FN was even allowed to modify their rifles DURING the winter test. Furthermore, the T48 team always managed to have just as reliable rifle as FN ever submitted. Considering the T44 used a 30-06 magazine with a spacer block and a prototype 30-06 spec'ed receiver I'd say that FAL really is the worse rifle considering that it had much more sources of development (T48 team, FN, and commonwealth input).
m14 has less recoil and is more reliable
>inb4 mud test
don't drop your rifle in mud
The FAL would have only been relevant until the AR-10 was made.
The AR-10 is always the right answer
By the time the AR-10 was developed out of its initial shitheap state it weighed just as much and had nothing more to show over the M14 and cost more, too. The AR-10 wasn't close to ready either by 1957 when commies had the AK, NATO is getting battle rifles, we'd still be stuck with the M1 while we waited on the AR-10 to not explode spontaneously.
Here's a fun fact, Armalite's original composite barrel was a stainless steel and aluminum sleeve to save weight which blew up of course. The ordnance guys went and gave Stoner a fluted 4150CMV barrel within 3 days that was the exact same weight for free just because of how much they liked his design and ideas. Guess what was the next AR-10 overseas sale using? The fluted design the ordnance corps made for him since Armalite couldn't figure out how to do it right the first time.
This is correct.
>Here's a fun fact, Armalite's original composite barrel was a stainless steel and aluminum sleeve to save weight which blew up of course
Stoner opposed this decision from the beginning. It was George Sullivan's idea and he was the boss, unfortunately it blew up in his face.
Stoner opposed the decision, but also couldn't come up with a barrel as light as the ordnance guys could either. They wouldn't have bothered if stoner was as good at implementing his gas system into a final design as Springfield was with their designs.
The FAL was kinda meh and was quickly beaten out in every relevant by the G3.
The m14 was also continuously improved while the FAL just stayed kinda shitty and there was an obviously bias towards the homegrown gun.
Tldnr: FAL never stood a chance.
There was a lot more development and improvement for the FAL than there ever was for the M14.
>"bro can i borrow your FAL for a moment, i wanna take a photo"
>t. NoFAL
The biggest FAL fans have never touched one, same with the loudest 10mm fans
Your mom touches my wiener.
Could it be that you can't shoot?
>mfw massive fal shill
>mfw massive ak shill
In truth I love my fal and AK too, more than my AR if I'm being honest. I'm just more willing to admit that they're not great by any objective metric
Very nice collection! Are you stopping or what's next?
I'm not sure what's next but I don't think I'm done quite yet. I find those P50s neat so maybe that or some other bullpup to expand my repertoire. If only Springfield brought in the hellion with that intergal scope the Croats use, I'd have bought that
>FAL mogged it in every conceivable way
>20 round detachable magazine
>select fire
>comparable reliability
They weren't grading them on aesthetics, sadly.
Imagine lugging around some 5 moa piece of shit meme rifle
Imagine lugging around your absolute diabetic unit of a mom.
Your favorite gun sucks balls b***h
Your mom sucks my balls.
Imagine not being able to handle a 20 pound rifle
This post brought to you by US Army Board of Ordinance, try the new and improved 1918 BAR A2 today
during the trials the Army asked for 6 waffle magazines to come with each rifle and the belgians sent actual waffles shaped like magazines. it was a huge clusterfrick and sank the bid
The ordinance department convinced the government they could re-use M1 tooling and save a bunch of money vs re-tooling for a completely different gun.
This was a lie.
Don't mind me, I'll just be over here being better than both of you.
>posting the kraut autism FAL cope
>be West German
>realize fal is trash after using it as standard rifle
>make something much better
The only cope here is you with your inaccurate piece of shit, go jerk off to short shorts and killing African monkies.
>battle skirt
He cute.
I love that you worship the good old BRD, but the reason the FAL wasn't kept was because the Belgians had hard feelings about WW2 and wouldn't let >us license produce them
The G3 is a fine rifle and was a more than worthy replacement
The one that's still in service today while the other two aren't? That one?
>What is the M14 EBR
>What is Ireland and Brazil
>What is budget constraints
I really want to shoot the M14 EBR some time, my favoritism towards the FAL really comes from how well the grip fits my hand compared to the other cold war rifles but the EBR's pistol grip might change my mind on it.
It's an improvement to the Garand, best rifle ever. But we.
The fuddnand is absolute garbage. It's been nothing but a blight upon the gun world shooting its moronic glorified .308 longfudd.
Read my post.
>we
>It's an improvement to the Garand, best rifle ever.
There's a qualifier there, can you guess what it is?
>best rifle ever
I suddenly want to buy an m14
who fricking cares
>comes to discussion board
>doesn't discuss
>feels the need to post same
Weirdo.