I dont know about which would be the best, but I have a question: Dont full-battle rifle (FBR) rounds like 7.62mm NATO require a longer barrel than a standard G3 has to be really effective? With M-14 I dislike seeing big detachable mags in a rifle w/o a pistol grip, and the tinder-box like lock makes it look awkward in anyone's but the biggest hands. Or maybe just its me who has grown used to seeing M-16s & AKs on one hand or hunting rifles... and M-14s falls in neither shape.

>>Dont full-battle rifle (FBR) rounds like 7.62mm NATO require a longer barrel than a standard G3 has to be really effective?<< G3 has a 17.7" barrel, apparently (going by the info at HK PRO), while the FAL and M14 both have 22" barrels . . . I've never fired a G3, but would note that the FAL 50.63 (the folding stock paratrooper version) has about the same barrel length of the G3, and has a sight selectable only for 150 meters and 250 meters, whereas the standard FAL with longer barrel has a sight that graduates out to 600 meters. So maybe there's something to it. On the other hand, a buddy of mine who was an officer in the El Salvadoran army during their civil war pretty much swears by the G3 and considers it in about the same quality category as George Patton considered the M1 Garand . . .

For a 7.62x51mm rifle, the optimum barrel length for velocity is 21-22 inches, while accuracy will not improve any past 16-17 inches.

>>For a 7.62x51mm rifle, the optimum barrel length for velocity is 21-22 inches, while accuracy will not improve any past 16-17 inches.<< But anything over 13" on the barrel and you're just sacrificing cool points. See, for instance: http://www.dsarms.com/item-detail.cfm?ID=SA58OSWNFA&storeid=1&image=sa58osw.gif

I think the FAL overall is probably the best, given its far more widespread adpotion by various countries than either the M-14 and the G-3. The M-14 was really just an updated Garand, chambered in a new round and with a 20-rounder instead of the 8-round clip. The FAL also seemed more ergonomically designed - with pistol grip, a carrying handle, and the charging lever on the left side (enabling right-handers to charge the rifle without removing the dominant hand from the grip.

You don't have to use your right hand to c0ck a weapon with the c0cking handle on the right hand side, just reach over with the left hand....

>>You don't have to use your right hand to c0ck a weapon with the c0cking handle on the right hand side, just reach over with the left hand....<< Not exactly an arrangement likely to win the Nobel Prize for Ergonomics . . .

It is how everyone in the British army is trained to make ready the SA-80, and I never hear anyone whining about it, it's easy.

>>It is how everyone in the British army is trained to make ready the SA-80, and I never hear anyone whining about it, it's easy.<< I can see it not being especially vexing with an L85, it being compact and equipped with a pistol grip and such, though I'd still not be overly taken with the whole idea when dealing with a failure to fire, etc. I was envisioning a wooden stocked, 22" barrel equipped, M14 when you suggested it, however, which makes the idea seem like less of a workable one, I think you'll agree.

Come on, the M14 was far and away the most reliable of the three. I will take reliable and mechanism immune to dust and sand any day over ergonomics. The reason it was just a mag equipped Garand mechanically was because the Garand was so good.