Little point of history, the folks at FN originally wanted to chamber the FAL in a .280 (or .260 I can't recall) intermediate cartridge, same as the British EM2. Duideonne Saive meant for it to be a true assault rifle. It was the U.S. that wanted the .308, and since they are the backbone of NATO, everybody else followed suit. The FAL was rechambered and scaled up accordingly. John Garand also chambered his original gun in a .280, the Army shot that down on account of all the existing stores of 30-06. Some people are just ahead of their times.
Yes, the M14 is produced on different tooling, but at the time the good folks at the Pentagon were under the impression that it would be the same as the M1. Plus they wouldn't have to modify drill.
I will however disagree with the idea of the FAL or the M1 being obsolete. (I saw a Chuck Taylor article a few days ago when he said that and it bugged the heck out of me). Either of these "obsolete" guns will have a much lower MRBFR than an M16.
Current military doctrine is heavily slanted towards the assault rifle concept. But there is still a place for battle rifles. Notice the Marine Corps and the designated marksman program, they are bringing back an M14 per rifle squad. As was pointed out earlier by another poster, some special operations groups still use the venerable .308. Heck, if I knew that I was going to be creeping around the woods, and my enemies were going to be armed with AK47s, then I would especailly want a .308, to I could try and pick engagement distances to my relative advantage.
Yes, armies do train towards the lowest common denominator and that is one of the biggest reasons for light, high capacity, assault rifle kinds of guns. They are easier for in-experienced recruits to shoot well. But most of us here are civillians, or at least ex-military. (I'm a cake eating civillian myself
) And, since this is The Firing Line, I'm willing to bet that most of us are relatively serious gun people. In my personal choice of weapon it is utterly irrelavant wether recruit A or recruit B can handle the recoil or shoot in anything less than bursts. As long as I can shoot the gun well personally. Hell, there are folks on this board who think shooting 100 rounds of .338 Lapua in one range session is a "light" afternoon. What works well for a 3rd world conscript who has never heard of field stripping may not be the best choice for an American gunnut.
Between the FAL and the M1a, I think that it all comes down to personal preference. Get a hold of one of each and shoot the hell out of them, see which one works better for you. When I was looking for a battle rifle I played with the M1a loaded model, a G3 clone, an AR10, a standard Vepr, and a few FALs. I picked the one that worked best for me. They all have their pros and cons. How one snaps into position for one person may be drastically different for somebody else.
I even have one of those ridiculous thumbhole stocks on mine, and I'm the only person I know who can actually operate the safety with out shifting my grip. But I'm a big dude, everybody is different. Try many guns, and pick the one that floats your boat.
Yes, the M14 is produced on different tooling, but at the time the good folks at the Pentagon were under the impression that it would be the same as the M1. Plus they wouldn't have to modify drill.
I will however disagree with the idea of the FAL or the M1 being obsolete. (I saw a Chuck Taylor article a few days ago when he said that and it bugged the heck out of me). Either of these "obsolete" guns will have a much lower MRBFR than an M16.
Current military doctrine is heavily slanted towards the assault rifle concept. But there is still a place for battle rifles. Notice the Marine Corps and the designated marksman program, they are bringing back an M14 per rifle squad. As was pointed out earlier by another poster, some special operations groups still use the venerable .308. Heck, if I knew that I was going to be creeping around the woods, and my enemies were going to be armed with AK47s, then I would especailly want a .308, to I could try and pick engagement distances to my relative advantage.
Yes, armies do train towards the lowest common denominator and that is one of the biggest reasons for light, high capacity, assault rifle kinds of guns. They are easier for in-experienced recruits to shoot well. But most of us here are civillians, or at least ex-military. (I'm a cake eating civillian myself
) And, since this is The Firing Line, I'm willing to bet that most of us are relatively serious gun people. In my personal choice of weapon it is utterly irrelavant wether recruit A or recruit B can handle the recoil or shoot in anything less than bursts. As long as I can shoot the gun well personally. Hell, there are folks on this board who think shooting 100 rounds of .338 Lapua in one range session is a "light" afternoon. What works well for a 3rd world conscript who has never heard of field stripping may not be the best choice for an American gunnut.Between the FAL and the M1a, I think that it all comes down to personal preference. Get a hold of one of each and shoot the hell out of them, see which one works better for you. When I was looking for a battle rifle I played with the M1a loaded model, a G3 clone, an AR10, a standard Vepr, and a few FALs. I picked the one that worked best for me. They all have their pros and cons. How one snaps into position for one person may be drastically different for somebody else.
I even have one of those ridiculous thumbhole stocks on mine, and I'm the only person I know who can actually operate the safety with out shifting my grip. But I'm a big dude, everybody is different. Try many guns, and pick the one that floats your boat.