question on m14/ fal type/ g3 type/ ar10 type

C

Come and take it.

New member
I have owned all these guns at one time or another and had questions

Which is most resistant to wear and tear, without the need to replace parts and springs?

The most durable i.e. being dropped, ran over etc etc

which is most reliable under adverse combat conditions?

Just considering a purchase of one of these in the future.
 
For me, it would be a DSA FAL. Very tough question to answer though.

I have had all the mentioned guns. And my FAVORITE would be an M14. For reliability and parts acquisition, I would choose a well built FAL. FAL's are just so plentiful, that if I had to pick ONE, it gets my nod.
 
I have an pre-94 M14s polytech which I have owned for at least a decade. It has been a good gun but I always questioned how tuff a gun like that would be. Also even though this particular gun has never had any wear issues it seems I read a lot about m1a/m14 rifles needing parts and repairs.

Got to love the Chinese attention to detail with the tough reciever and chrome lined barrel and chamber.

It does seem that DSA is the company to deal with on the fals even on the import kit guns. I had a century arms l1a1 back in the 90s and it was a good gun but lately it seems I have heard a lot of bad press on century arms guns.

I guess the G3s and cetmes are the cheapest to build with stampings and welds which makes me wonder how tough the gun would be under torture.

I did read in a book recently where the cubans are still using fal rifles that were purchased in the 60s. That most of those guns still have the same parts and springs that were in them when they were delivered from belgium.
 
The Israelis had a lot of difficulties with sand and dust getting into their FAL's.

The FAL is still a pretty good gun, though. Uncle Sam only chose it over the M14 since he thought he could recycle M1 Garand tooling and since the manual of arms is similar.

Not all G3 type guns are CAI junkers. The PTR-91 series is fairly well regarded.
 
FAL

I have a Belgian FN FAL my father bought in the late 1980's (Gun South import). It is solid, elegant, amazingly well built and pretty much useless. Realistically, I have no need for a military style battle rifle - can't hunt with it and its not as accurate as a $399 .308 bolt gun. I'm not sure if the thin metal receiver cover is suitable for optics. The FAL sights are no where near as good as the M1A iron sights (probably the best iron's available).

If I had to have a .308 semi-auto I'd go Browning BAR or M1A just for parts availability.
 
Last edited:
wwd88888 said:
If I had to have a .308 semi-auto I'd go Browning BAR or M1A just for parts availability.
Click to expand...

I'll second that!!
My FNAR is a close cousin to the BAR and accurate as can be.
My M1As take a lot of abuse and just great fun to shoot.
What more can you ask?
 
I think I will just stick with the gun I have or get an AR-10 type again sometime.
Click to expand...

What gun is that BTW?

I sold both my Garand and M1A to buy a .308 AR LAR-8 from Rock River. It is a very nice rifle and is easily scoped and easily accessed to clean. I don't know that it's durability is not on par with that of the Garand or M1A rifles. But its a soft and accurate shooter and know that I don't have to worry about dry or wet wood stocks bending or warping, knocking off my poi. I also don't have to worry about the exposed reciprocating op rods and bolt handles, not that it was a very big deal anyway.
But being able to be scoped was the biggest reason I left the Garand/M1A style rifles and went to the AR.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top