"I have a funny feeling that long after the last FAL is melted down there will be thousands of M-14s floating around. I personally hated the L1A1 SLR. Loved the Gimpy though."

Would be because of the gun cultural in the US or fact that 5.56 isn't powerful enough to get the job done and the US had 1000's of unused and surplus M-14 kicking about, and gun industry ready to make more.

The M-14 is a failed service rifle that get a second life as DMR. Where as the FAL was a very successful service rife use din over 70 countries and if Nato had stuck with 7.62 it would still be there. That can't be said for M-14.

I like both but as a personal opinion I feel the FAL wins hands down.

Not if DSA has anything to say about it... If the US gun culture had it's way, we'd take in all y'alls orphaned SLRs...

And, actually... There aren't that many M14s around. One of Bill-boy Clinton's high crimes as president was to appoint an asshole who thought it was a brilliant idea to scrap much of the M14 stock we had left. Many, many of those weapons were melted down. I'm not sure how many are left, but it's a fraction of what was produced.

Even if the US and UK had agreeded to disagree on the M-14 and FAL, they should have agreeded on a common magazine. It would also have been nice if the H&K G-3 had used the same "NATO standard" magazine. I once saw a drawing of a common FAL/G3 magazine which was actually two magazines end to end with two sets of feed lips, one on the top for FAL and one on the bottom for G3, two followers and a single magazine spring.

I have heard that manufactures want to use their own proprietary magazines because they can make more money selling them.

Seems like a good business model--give the razor away, and make your money on the blades. However, the .gov isn't playing by the same rules as the consumer marketplace. What winds up happening is that you sell your weapon, they buy the technical data package, and then the whole thing goes out for competitive bid, eventually. Colt hasn't made magazines for the government for decades, and I'm pretty sure they're not getting any royalties, either. Lowest bidder wins--which is how the M9 wound up with crappy Checkmate magazines that didn't work worth crap, in the opening phases of OIF-I.

RE: Checkmate M9 mags--Even the "lowest bidder" has to meet specs. The rub occurs when situations are encountered that were not considered when specs were written. The parkerized M9 mags were fine until the "talcum" dust of Iraq was found to jam them*. This has since been corrected (by spec) Of note is that Checkmate also makes M14 mags, which work fine, by all reports.

*Understandably, this is small comfort when it's your mags that are malf'ing.

It wasn't just the dust that screwed those mags up, Shep. The last M9 range I ran at Fort Lewis (in the rain, I might add), immediately prior to OIF-I, I had to remove every one of those frickin' things from the range--they were causing jam after jam. Something about the interaction of the spring, follower, and lips resulted in many, many failures to feed, so I segregated them, and ran with the original Beretta magazines. No problems with those, despite the fact they were pretty worn out. Reports were submitted, and we got all new, "improved" magazines for everything when we deployed. Nobody that I know of in our unit ever fired a Beretta in extremis, but then again, we weren't kicking in doors, either.

Checkmate may have made good M14 magazines. I've never fired one, and, in fact, I don't think I've ever even seen one. All my M14 experience came from sixties-era magazines.

My personal experience, with the M9? If I had to take one to war, it's magazine will be either Beretta or Mec-Gar.

Perhaps failed on the political front, but in its brief life in active service the troops were pretty happy with it. Killed a lot of bad guys in RVN. Doesn't matter how many nations use a weapon, what matters is whether it performs the needed function properly.

Some of the net rifle comparisons can be difficult.
I qualified with the M-1 and fired familiarization with the M-14 plus fired a AR-15 in 2.23/5.56 .
Whether the M-14 was a great rifle or not I cannot say but it was one helluva improvement over the M-1 rifle.
The main problem with the M-14 was in the SAW role not in the battle rifle role. In the SAW role it wasn't an improvement of the BAR. As it's lighter weight was a disadvantage in control and barrel heating . They did come out with one improved for the SAW role but the M-16 was already being touted as the next battle rifle at that point in time. Light weight , ammo load per troop and auto fire made the M-16 preferred over the M-14.

So where does the Italian Beretta BM59 fit in here, especially in comparison to the M14? The Italian armed forces used it much longer as their main rifle than the US armed forces used the M14.

I was under the impression that the BM59 was a much more straightforward adaption of the M1 Garand than the M14. Beretta even offered a low-cost modification of existing rifles, the Beretta BM59SL or "Type E", which really looked like an M1 Garand fitted with just a box magazine. Why wasn't such an approach adopted on a large scale, considering the huge amounts of older M1 Garands available after WW2?

It also seems that the BM59 enjoyed a much bigger success on the export market than the M14. I read that it was produced under licence in Indonesia and Nigeria, and it was used in Algeria, Argentina, Ethiopia, Libya and the Sudan.

The M14 uses a White tappet gas system whereas the Garand uses a long op rod that is directly actuated via gas. Much more recip mass in a Garand. The M14 also uses a roller cam locking bolt, the M1 uses a direct acting cam, no roller involved.

The BM59 would have never handled the SAW/AR role that the US envisioned for the M14. As it was, the M14 didn't handle it either. S/F....Ken M

The M14 has been 'exported' to FAR more countries than the BM59 but AFAIK with the exception of Taiwan, who bought a production line, the vast majority were MAP/MDAP - not commercial exports. OTOH I don't remember any of the above standardising on the BM59 with the possible exception of Nigeria. Indonesia bought firearms from everywhere - they were a post war equivalent of pre-war Yugoslavia in that respect. I can't remember seeing Ethiopians with BM-59s but they had plenty of M14s c/o Uncle Sam.

When US adopted the M14, it was as if the MP43/StG44 never happened.

The M14 was in the end really nothing more than a mag-fed M1 Garand.

Since the SLR (FN FAL) & M14 share the same powerful ammo, both are nothing more than new versions of WW2-era semi-auto rifles as they are uncontrollable in full auto.

That both can kill people is not in doubt, but both were still weapons well behind the times. If you ask me, the guys wearing sandals and pith helmets had much more modern/better infantry weapons especially if you also count the RPGs.

As reliable as the FN FAL is known to be every where in the world, the IDF found that they jam in the desert and as a result its service in IDF was very short.

I don't know the details of the above but I find it very hard to believe that the FN FAL had a particular problem with dust/sand. The South Africans used it for decades in the Bush as the R1 without any reports of reliability problems.

Maybe wrong/insufficent maintenance training?

There was also Yugo prototype based on converted Garand (some 6000 or 9000 Garands were delivered to Yugoslavia in 1956.). It had somewhat shorter barrel (20" IIRC), 20 round mag. and used 7.9mm Mauser. It was accepted for service as Rifle, 7.9mm M58, but with normalization of the relations with the Soviets, they gave us whole SKS production line for free, so it was decided that SKS would be cheaper to produce. One detail that was however accepted and adopted for use on M48 and M59 was grenade launching spigot.

I know, I find it hard to believe, too. But I read in more than one book on the Six Day War that IDF found
their FN FAL were great weapons until the sand got in. It was too sensitive to the dust or something.

Even this website said so, though its credibility is up to you to judge.
http://www.israeli-weapons.com/weapons/sma...alil/Galil.html

"The experience, gained by the Israeli Defense Forces (IDF) during the Six Day War (1967), showed the deficiencies of the FN FAL rifles, which were the main armament of the IDF infantry. The FAL rifles were too sensitive to fine sand and dust of Arab deserts, and too long and bulky to carry and maneuver."

An interesting argument on an exact same topic by 2 people who seem to know both weapons intimately:

http://newsgroups.derkeiler.com/Archive/Re...1/msg01622.html

Again, the FN FAL's failure in the desert is mentioned, with the info that the Brits had to add "sand cuts" in the bolt to solve this problem.

Years ago I had a Beretta BM62, which was a semi auto only commercial version of the BM59 that was sold to civilian shooters in the USA. Instead of the grenade launcher it had a short flash hider, which was not very effective. There was a lot of muzzle flash with all brands of ammo.

The gun also had expensive magazines that cost about $25.00 each in the early 1980's. The gun was brand new in the box when I purchased it, but one odd feature was that it had a bolt made by Springfield Arsenal.

It was well made but at the range it was not as nice to shoot as a Springfield Armory M1A. At the time new M14 magazines were $2.00 each.

I finally swapped it off.

The only reason the BM59 was used by Italy for so long was a dearth of defense spending. It was certainly a very obsolete rifle by the 1980s.
Just to give you an idea, the BM59 barely lasted logner in Italian service than the uncomfortable M1933, M1935 low-powered hand grenade and other WW2-era equipment.

Aside from the condition they were in (25 yrs in the hands of draftees...), my main issue with the BM59 was that the grenade aiming device and the bipod made it fiddly and un-ergonomic at the front end. The folding stock version somehow felt "righter" but I never fired it (just carried it on guard duty)

The absic BM59 fired pretty well in SA. If one had just adapted a 20-round box mag to the M1 that would have done us. In FA the BM59 was not that great (like the M14 I guess). The "doctrine" when I was in was very much centered around the MG3 (MG42/59 to us) as the main source of firepower.

Trivia: in the Itie army, the BM59 was almsot universally referred to as the "FAL" (fucile automatico leggero", not sure who came up with the 'leggero' part...).

It is noteworthy that Israeli FALs were original Belgian type whilst South African rifles were Commonwealth pattern ones. However, I have no experience about how effective those "sand cuts" actually are in their supposed purpose. I've read that length & weight of the FAL contributed more to its downfall in Israeli than jamming problems.

I've got an L1A1. I don't have experience on metric FALs or M14. I've been under impression that M14 selection over FAL largely came down to M14 being slightly lighter, and supposed (largely illusoric) economic advantages with its Garand legacy. I think L1A1 is very easy to disassemble and clean, except gas system is bit bitchy (but AK is even easier). Trigger group - who cares? Ergonomics are excellent, except magazine release is cumbersome, esp. for someone with small hands, like me. Safety is perfectly positioned at least in L1A1. I don't get the argument about stock and whatnot. All modern (non-bullpup) assault rifles have relatively straight stocks and separate pistol grips, just like FAL. Sights are not all that great. Scope is fairly easy to install (at least compared to AK). Adjustable gas system - IMO, largely unnecessary on military rifle, but perhaps nice for civilian hobbyist. Accuracy is fairly good. It's fun rifle to shoot, but for military service I prefer AK which is just handier and simpler.

FAL safety lever is fine for righties, worthless for lefties. One advantage of the M14 is the safety; easily accessible from either side. Its surprising to me that there isn't a plethora of ambi safeties available for the FAL, but I've never even seen mention of one.

Not sure about the first bit, IMO the criticisms of the SLR are complete bollocks based on my TA service with the weapon in the late 1970s. The stuff about adjusting the gas system is nonsense - gas stoppage = click the setting up a notch or two, job done. If you crank it wide open to setting No.6 (IIRC) I can't see anything clogging it up as it kicks almost like a Lee Enfield. Same for the stuff about the SLR safety and it being awkward (certain death? Please) to carry and shoulder. Personally I'd reckon the guy has never handled one, never mind fired it. Ref the sand cuts, the BA used SLRs extensively in the ME (Oman, Dhofar, Aden) in the 1960s and I've never seen any reference to dust/sand problems in any accounts of that or from blokes who served there. Ref the zig-zag cuts on the bolt carrier, I thought they were the result of Australian experience in Vietnam and were to stop the working parts getting clogged with mud and jungle debris rather than sand. I thought there was something in McAulay's "Battle of Long Tan" about it but I can't see it now, although the SLR's reliability is praised in there.

BillB

Serves the southpaws right for being the Devil's children, along with folk with ginger hair.

BillB

I would agree with that and add that I’m sure it went from 0 to 9. The picture referred to may be from the time when the rifle was carried across the body, not for quick reaction but to provide protection to vital organs before the INIBA plate. I found that having the mag at the point of balance enabled me to pivot the rifle quickly from right to left shoulder as and when needed. As for safety, on many occasions I found myself flicking it on and off as I walked. The gas system was never a problem and I used weapons at the depot that had rounded gas piston following long years of over cleaning.

Basically he talks crap.

What is with the Yugo penchant for grenade launchers?

I carried the FN C1A1 and the C2A1 (automatic) and it fired really nice. Gagetown in mud and rain...worked fine. Used it in Wainwright and Borden... Sandy... worked fine

Found the Carrying handle was great,,, hooked right onto the webbing and was easy to use. the Winter trigger was really great with mittens on.

I had a few jams after hundereds on rounds fired... poured oil on her and away she went again.

And I did not find them heavy... just manly

0 to 11, and there's unnumbered 12th notch...

Somewhat counter-intuitively, 0 is the setting where all gas goes to power the action, notching it up gradually opens the gas bypass hole...(whatever it's called).



There is nothing like Usenet speculation based on a .JPG of the gun he once saw in the 'Net...

I am pretty sure that South Africa used Metric pattern FALs.

I found a link with some info about the SA FALs:

http://www.saaaca.org.za/links/SIG/fal/fal.htm

They didn't mention inch-pattern FALs for SA. At first SA recieved its FALs directly from FN before starting to manufacture them under licence.

Another interesting NATO-calibre battle rifle would be the Swiss SIG 510-4, sold in some quantities to Chile and Bolivia.

Hmm, the pics clearly do show a metric-pattern FAL...

I can't find much information on the M15 version, which had a heavier barrel and stock,and originally intended for the light auto weapon. Might it have been a workable SAW?

Also, I have seen heavy-barrel FALs, presumably for the same purpose. The ones I am aware of were linked to the Israelis. How well did they handle FA?

Finally, what is the least weight weapon that could be accurately fired FA, using 7.62 NATO?