G3 vs. FAL vs. M-14

Email Me When A New Comment Is Made
Show Only Poster Name and Title Newest to Oldest

Pages: PREV 1 2 3 4 NEXT

Horsesoldier RE:G3 vs. FAL vs. M-14 2/16/2006 8:13:06 AM

>>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.<< I would again point out that one (1) nation bought into your line of thinking, and then only briefly, whereas seventy (70) nations found the FAL to be the more reliable, etc., weapon, and over a dozen other nations preferred the G3. That's very nearly a 100 to 1 vote against the M14. To which one can and should add the weapon's very limited use even by the United States, with the M14 lasting for all of nine years as the standard US service rifle (including time after adoption before production tooled up enough for mass fielding). This is, quite simply, not a picture of a big winner as infantry rifles go. The M14 does continue to soldier on in limited numbers, but I'd note that when people have a choice they tend to pick the SR-25 rather than M14s dragged out of some warehouse for a semi-auto 7.62mm long gun . . .

Quote Reply

ShinyTop RE:G3 vs. FAL vs. M-14 2/18/2006 12:13:44 AM

I am and was comparing the M14 to the G3 and the FAL. They were marketed by marketing manufacturing concerns while the M14 was not. I repeat, it was by far the more reliable of the three. I may have misunderstood the question. I thought it was about the best, not the most popular.

Quote Reply

Horsesoldier RE:G3 vs. FAL vs. M-14 2/18/2006 9:37:54 AM

>>I am and was comparing the M14 to the G3 and the FAL. They were marketed by marketing manufacturing concerns while the M14 was not.<< That doesn't really cut it. The US has aggressively marketed its kit around the world since the end of World War 2. As a consequence, US small arms have tended to be ubiquitous and dominant in the marketplace within the Free World, whether they were the products of the US arsenal system or produced by the commercial defense industry. The M1 and M1 carbine had worldwide distribution, likewise the M1911A1, and likewise the M16/M4. The significant underperformers were the M14 rifle and the M60 machinegun, though the latter is not germane to the topic at hand. It is conspicuous as the weapon no one (not even the US military, as it turned out) wanted. Which brings up to the other issue -- the M14 lasted something like eight years in US service before being replaced by the M16. It's combat record was even weaker, something like 12 months in SE Asia before it was tossed. >>I repeat, it was by far the more reliable of the three. I may have misunderstood the question. I thought it was about the best, not the most popular.<< My point is that you claim it was more reliable. Seventy odd nations, to include the US (if one discounts gunsmith tuned M14s in rigged competition) found the FAL to be the more reliable and preferable service rifle. A dozen or more discovered the same thing in comparison to the G3. The US itself, even after adopting the M14 as a result of rigged and unethical competition, kicked it to the curb as rapidly as possible. A few M14s got dusted off and brought out for use as DMRs in Iraq and Afghanistan . . . but they appear destined to go right back into storage in favor of the SR-25. This is not the record of a successful infantry rifle, no matter how nostalgic some people may be for it or its 7.62x51 cartridge.

Quote Reply

BasinBictory RE:G3 vs. FAL vs. M-14 2/18/2006 1:49:40 PM

I think Italy and the Philippines are the only two countries besides the US to widely use the M-14 design. (And actually, the Italian ones were just gunsmithed Garands, IIRC). The Philippines, by virtue of being a long-time ally of the US, gets a lot of older US military hardware, and when the US dumped the M-14 in favor of the M-16, it probably made more sense to give them to a client state than to warehouse them.

Quote Reply

ShinyTop RE:G3 vs. FAL vs. M-14 2/18/2006 3:15:10 PM

Eight years in US service is badly computed. The Garand mechanism went from 1937 til at least 1968. I was an officer in a unit in Vietnam that exchanged its weapons in 1968 for the M16. Again, you are talking popularity and marketing not reliability. Ask the Israelis why they designed the Galil, first in 7.62, instead of keeping the FAL.

Quote Reply

BasinBictory Galil 2/18/2006 4:11:19 PM

One of the primary reasons that Israel developed the Galil was to curb their dependence on imported arms and to have their own home-grown military rifle. It is a similar mindset that led to the development of the Merkava tank and the Kfir fighter/bomber. The fact that the Galil was originally chambered in 7.62NATO was to take advantage of the stocks of that caliber they had left over from using the FAL as their primary rifle up to that point.

Quote Reply

Yimmy RE:Galil 2/18/2006 4:54:28 PM

"Ask the Israelis why they designed the Galil, first in 7.62, instead of keeping the FAL." I don't have to, I already know. The Israeli Fal did not have the grooves cut, as to allow fine dirt and sand to fall into, which other FAL's such as the British SLR had, and so the Israeli FAL had difficulty in the desert. Personally, I think the only thing which really held the M14 back, was the lack of a pistol grip, which makes a rifle far more controllable when shooting rapidly.

Quote Reply

Horsesoldier RE:G3 vs. FAL vs. M-14 2/18/2006 7:06:07 PM

>>I think Italy and the Philippines are the only two countries besides the US to widely use the M-14 design. (And actually, the Italian ones were just gunsmithed Garands, IIRC). The Philippines, by virtue of being a long-time ally of the US, gets a lot of older US military hardware, and when the US dumped the M-14 in favor of the M-16, it probably made more sense to give them to a client state than to warehouse them. << The Italians used the BM59 -- exact same idea as the M14, but a local design. The Italians at least had the excuse of needing a cheap, somewhat modernized weapon at the time.

Quote Reply

Horsesoldier RE:G3 vs. FAL vs. M-14 2/18/2006 7:31:00 PM

>>Eight years in US service is badly computed. The Garand mechanism went from 1937 til at least 1968.<< Now you're just cooking the books, and being anachronistic. Yes, the M14 did slavishly draw on the M1, but a) It is a seperate and distinct design, not a variant of the M1, and b) Had the M14 appeared in 1937 it probably would have been considered a superlative weapon. Appearing in the late 1950s it was badly dated the day the first unit equipped started cleaning the cosmoline off their weapons.

Quote Reply

Yimmy RE:G3 vs. FAL vs. M-14 2/18/2006 8:11:46 PM

Just to add 2 cents more, there were other semi-automatic battle rifles in addition to the FN FAL, H&K G3 and Springfield(?) M14 in use post WWII, which everybody seems to forget. There was also the French MAS49(/56) (including service in Indo-China and Algeria), the Belgian FN49 (base rifle of the FAL, saw service in Korea), that Japanese one (vague I know, I don't think it saw action), the Spanish CETME (all be it similar to the G3), the American Armalite AR10 (saw service with the Spanish Foreign Legion), the Russian SVT40 (used in Vietnam and Korea), the Swiss Sig510 (in my opinion the best of its era), and that is just on the top of my head.

Quote Reply

PREV 1 2 3 4 NEXT