M14 vs FAL

G

glock glockler

New member
I want a full battle rifle and Ive narrowed it down to the above two. I've tried an HK91 clone and I dont like it. The FAL I've tried was very sweet but I also like the M14. Im looking for a rugged, dead-on relable, easy to maintain, and fairly accurate gun. Which one is better?

Thanks
 
I have a Springfield M1A and I have had a few different FAL variants (and hope to get a Belgian preban sometime before November).
The FAL is more durable, MUCH easier to disassemble and maintain, spare parts are readily available and mags are cheaper.
The M1A is more accurate, has better sights and is very well balanced, but mags are about 3-4 times what FAL mags cost.
For a good postban FAL you will pay around a thousand, and a postban M1A goes for around $1200-1300.
If I could only have one it would be the FAL.
Of course, I hope to soon have both. :D
 
Suggested reading: The Great Rifle Controversy by the late Dr. Clinton Ezell. There's probably no finer writeup on the testing and procurement of the M14 over the FN that this book, which incidentally, was the basis of his doctoral dissertation.
 
"Gun Tests" Magazine did an article a few months ago (I'll get the exact date and post it later) on the best .308 battle rifle, the M14, FAL, or HK91. They tested two rifles of each type, different manufacturers of each as well. You've already ruled out the HK, as did they. The M14 got the vote, but by a narrow margin. Accuracy on the M14 was better, and it was a bit more comfortable, but the FAL was a little more financially reasonable, and by no means a distant second.
I went with the Springfield M1A myself, BUT as you can see... http://www.thefiringline.com:8080/forums/showthread.php?threadid=42800
(somebody PLEASE tell me if that's bad etiquette, and I'll never do it again. :) )
 
I have both and much prefer the M1A. The M1A is better balanced. The action on the FAL is too long, and it puts your weak hand way, way out there when shooting off-hand. The M1A also has better sights and a better trigger.

Jared
 
The M14/M1A has slightly better iron sights, it is true, but the FAL has a MUCH better allowance for mounting scopes accurately.
The DS Arms scope rail for the FAL is IDEAL.
The FAL trigger is a pain in the butt to do a good trigger job on, but it can be done, and done well. the factory trigger on my Belgian heavy was right at NINE pounds. Oink.
I have at three pounds now, and it is very accurate and easy to hit with.

The FAL is my far and away favorite of the two. Better ergonomics, better design, cheaper mags, plentiful (well designed) accessories.
 
I think you get the picture: the FAL is probably a bit better battle rifle, but the M14 has a better trigger, a more familiar balance and is more accurate and easier to hit with.
 
Here's my $.02

1- Mad Dog to the contrary, the DS mount is good but hardly IDEAL. Ideal is an integral flattop like on an AR15, not a clamp on dustcover. The Brookfield mount for the M14 is as good or better.

2- The M14 comes with a good trigger right out of the box. A great trigger can be had for less effort than an FAL.

3- I believe the FAL to be as accurate as the M14.
4- Personally I can shoot the M1A/M14 a lot better under field conditions than any the FAL, HK91 or AR10.
5- The FAL requires less maintenance than an M14 and is easier to maintain. Magazines ae a lot cheaper at this point in time.

HTH, really you can't go wrong with either one. :)
 
Perhaps I should have been more clear on the scope mount issue.
I meant that the DS Arms mount was *ideal* for the FAL, given the inherent design considerations extant there. True, it clamps on, but their design really works. The clamping system is superb.
They are rock solid when installed properly, and will hold zero as well as any integral flatop base. They require no drilling or tapping, and are very ruggedly constructed.
Also, you can still use the iron sights with them in place, which is nice.
(Other similar mounts sold by copycat companies do NOT work anywhere near as well)

I wonder if I could mount an M16A3 type carry handle with sights on the DS Arms rail... ;)

I have yet to see any M1A mount that will really hold zero well in field conditions.
I like M1As a lot, and think that they are great rifles. I just like the FAL better for a lot of reasons, many of which I have already enumerated.

BTW: If you want to have some real problems, try mounting an *accurate* scope/mount of some sort on a Galil or Valmet. :(
The incredibly cheesy Galil offset scope mount is probably the worst thing I have ever seen, and making anything that works really well for them or other AK variants is a real PITA.
 
Hey Mad Dog, I was just taking a stab at you. :)
No flame intended here and no disrespect to the DSA mount. However, you'll have to work a lot harder to convince me that a removable dustcover, and it must be removed to field strip the rifle, will hold zero over time, after repeated installation and removal,as well as a mount integral to the receiver.
 
The October issue of SOF has an article on the DSA SA58. There are comments comparing the pluses and minuses with the M-14.

FWIW, Art
 
I have less experience with the M1A, but my vote would be for the FAL. The one I fired had a trigger job and grouped 1 MOA at 100 yards. It was a parts gun built on a DSA receiver by a very good gunsmith. The whole thing was parkerized--a real beauty!

You probably won't go wrong with either, but my money would go for the FAL.
 
Who builds up a good FAL from parts? I just bought a STG-58 "kit" and an Imbel receiver and need someone to put it together.

The guy Tango27 mentioned sounds pretty good, as his rifle has the qualities I'm looking for.
 
Mark "the gunplumber" Graham, over at Arizona Response Systems is supposed to do outstanding work. It isn't exactly cheap, but you won't be disappointed.

Derek from Azex Arms used to work the the 'plumber, I believe, and is supposed to have done most of ARS's FAL work. By all accounts, he's good.

Mike Prewitt of Machine Services Center (MSC) is supposed to be very good as well. I guess he's moving next week, so he's not accepting new jobs until he's finished the move. He's pretty flexible about parts and whatnot.
 
Strider,
Any of your inaccurate stabbing aside, the DSA dust cover/scope mount does not need to be removed to "field strip" the FAL for basic cleaning and maintenance.
All of the parts slide right out the rear of the receiver, as they were intended to.
Access to the breach is no more or less difficult with the mount in place.

To detail strip the rifle, removal of the dustcover would be necessary.
Anytime I detail strip anything, I re-zero it anyway.
 
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by George Hill:
The FAL Bested the M14 during US ARMY trials.
On all counts.

The M14 was still selected due to FREAKIN POLITICS.[/quote]

I'll agree with you in principle, but it wasn't the FAL and the M-14, it was the T-44 and the T-48 rifles. While the T-48 was the standard production version of the FAL, the T-44 was a developmental step to the M-14 which was standardized some 5 years later.

That having been said, the M-14 was the result of Freakin' Politics and a testing program designed to get the T-44 to MEET the same level as the T-48. I think we got screwed in the deal.
The FAL should have been improved at the same time. It has remained largely unchanged ever since. With a few changes like an Aluminum lower receiver and better pistol grip, the T-48 would have made the weight and probably been serving to this day.
The FAL has the advantages today of price, reliability, comfort, economy of magazines ($10 vs. $50 or more for the M-14) and parts availability. 80 countries that adopted it can't be wrong, can they?

------------------
God made us in his own image.
Thomas Jefferson made us free.
John Browning made us equal.

Without Browning, we might not know about the other two...
 
The FAL is even better than its closest competitor - the HK91.

I especialy love how FN told Germany to Step Off when Germany requested liscense to build FALs... FN said FORGET IT and HK looked to SPAIN for a rifle design... hence the Spanish bred, German born HK91... That most HK guns are desended from.

I'll put an FAL up against any battle rifle.
 
I own and shoot all three (FAL, HK91, M-14).
I've found all to be exceptionally accurate with the appropriate ammo.

The M-14 (Smith Ent dbl Lug) was used for DCM & NRA comp and is excellent in that role. With an original 3-9x BDC military ART & dbl pt mount it becomes the most unwieldly of the lot. It needs a ltwt bipod in that role and a cheekpad to accomodate the high axis of the exit pupil.

The biggest advantage of the FAL, in my experience, is the ability to adjust for a wide range of ammo by use of the gas regulator. It is also ergonmically the most comfortable. I used a 8x56 Kahles on the Steyr competition model & iron sights on the Browning Para.

The robustness and accuracy of the HK91 is excellent. However, HOT loads will cause the case brass to actually flow into the chamber grooves. It is a pain to anneal and resize, and usually results in some diminished case life. I have a footlocker full of such brass, from when I used the '91 to launch very fast 110gr pills at praire poodles on Fort Sill's east range. Scope is Kahles Zf-69.

[This message has been edited by Mykl (edited August 29, 2000).]
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top