[Howzat]

Should the Amercians have gone for the FN FAL instead of the M14 rifle ? Was it a case of "it ain't made here in the good old US of A" mentality ? Similarity with the Model 1917 rifle and the 03 Springfield.

What do you guys think ?

[thomas.tmcc]

Howzat, on Sun 16 Jan 2005 1237, said:

Should the Amercians have gone for the FN FAL instead of the M14 rifle ? Was it a case of "it ain't made here in the good old US of A" mentality ? Similarity with the Model 1917 rifle and the 03 Springfield.

What do you guys think ?

Hi well considering the standard NATO round was 7.62mm ,the USA usually does what it feels like ,when NATO still had the 7.62mm america decided to go with the M16 and the 5.56mm ,so yes I would say it should have gone for the FN FAL or SLR aswhat us brits called it ,this would have standardised weapons with a countries ,also since when has the USA really bought anything from europe in the last 50 years ? .

Thomas

[R011]

The M1917 was not notably better the the existing M1903. They only bothered with a second pattern of rifle because it was already being manufactured in .303 for the British. After the Great War, they didn't need two different rifles in production and returned to their pre-war standard.

I'm not so sure that a standardized NATO rifle would ahve made much of a difference, especially as most nations would have insisted on making their own and parts for each version might not be interrchangable in any event. (Were Belgian, British, and Canadian FAL's interchangeable? I get the impression they were not but could be mistaken.)

As far as I can tell, performance of M14 and FAL were close enough to be identical. Unless the FAL would have been notably cheaper, there isn't any other reason to pick it over the M14 or vice versa.

What does seem to have been a mistake, was going to the M60 instead of the MAG 58, but they finally gave in on that one.

As for European small arms bought in the last half century, there is the Beretta 92F pistol and both the MAG and the MINIMI.

[thomas.tmcc]

R011, on Sun 16 Jan 2005 1420, said:

The M1917 was not notably better the the existing M1903.  They only bothered with a second pattern of rifle because it was already being manufactured in .303 for the British.  After the Great War, they didn't need two different rifles in production and returned to their pre-war standard.

I'm not so sure that a standardized NATO rifle would ahve made much of a difference, especially as most nations would have insisted on making their own and parts for each version might not be interrchangable in any event.  (Were Belgian, British, and Canadian FAL's interchangeable?  I get the impression they were not but could be mistaken.)

As far as I can tell, performance of M14 and FAL were close enough to be identical.  Unless the FAL would have been notably cheaper, there isn't any other reason to pick it over the M14 or vice versa.

What does seem to have been a mistake, was going to the M60 instead of the MAG 58, but they finally gave in on that one.

As for  European small arms bought in the last half century, there is the Beretta 92F pistol and both the MAG and the MINIMI.

Hi the only thing different that the british one from the fn fal was we couldnt fire on automatic ,unless you knew how to do it that is ,everything else was the same .

[Chris Werb]

thomas.tmcc, on Sun 16 Jan 2005 1433, said:

Hi the only thing different that the british one from the fn fal was we couldnt fire on automatic ,unless you knew how to do it that is ,everything else was the same .

The L1A1 had diagonal milling cuts in the bolt carrier to carry dirt away. IIRC it also lacked the hold-open feature found on metric FALs.

[thomas.tmcc]

Chris Werb, on Sun 16 Jan 2005 1441, said:

The L1A1 had diagonal milling cuts in the bolt carrier to carry dirt away.  IIRC it also lacked the hold-open feature found on metric FALs.

Hi you could open and hold on the SLR ! ,I fired it enough when I was in the TA for 15 years ,the SLR was my weapons before we got the SA80 .

[Chris Gould]

I have read that the M14 was choosen because it was close in manufacturing to the M1 and would not require as much retooling. The Fal tested better than the M14.

[BillB]

Chris Werb, on Sun 16 Jan 2005 1441, said:

The L1A1 had diagonal milling cuts in the bolt carrier to carry dirt away.  IIRC it also lacked the hold-open feature found on metric FALs.

Depends what you mean by "hold-open", Chris. There was a catch to hold the working parts back for inspection or changing mags, but the bolt carrier did not automatically lock to the rear after the last round. Which I assume is why they had the cunning bit of the APWT where you engaged a series of six targets with double-taps using a mag of five and a mag of seven... :)

all the best

BillB

[edited for appalling numeracy :( ]

[Briganza]

BillB, on Sun 16 Jan 2005 1819, said:

Depends what you mean by "hold-open", Chris. There was a catch to hold the working parts back for inspection or changing mags, but the bolt carrier did not automatically lock to the rear after the last round. Which I assume is why they had the cunning bit of the APWT where you engaged a series of six targets with double-taps using a mag of five and a mag of seven... :)

all the best

BillB

[edited for appalling numeracy  :( ]

All that was needed was the insertion of a pin about 5mm long by 1mm in the holing open devise. All the mags had the cut away in them for the pin to be operated by the plate as it came up. I acquired my holding open devise from an FN DP. The SLR could easily be modified to fire auto, but you better not get caught. :D another difference was that early FNs had only half the top cover, at the point where the ejection opening was on the SLR the cover was cut away and two prongs stuck out. This enabled you to charge the mag from clips through the top with out removing the mag. It had a fixed post in the rear sight and the gas plug was different.

[Arminius]

Wow, a real "classic" thread :-)

IMHO: the FAL had a pistol grip - good
easier cleaning - good
anybody nowadays around useing the M 14 got it for free, LOTS of nations paid to get the FAL - ???
Scope mounting sucked with both

If only it would have been accepted with 7 mm reduced power round ( British ) and 25 to 30 round mags, it still would be king. Who the hell insisted on .308 ( not that its a bad round, just slightly too powerful )???

I would love a FAL ( even semi - no problem ) for pig hunting in .308, but the laws are against it!

H

[Yama]

thomas.tmcc, on Sun 16 Jan 2005 1433, said:

Hi the only thing different that the british one from the fn fal was we couldnt fire on automatic ,unless you knew how to do it that is ,everything else was the same .

Although Commonwealth and Metric FALs are very similar, they share only few interchangeable parts. In addition, inch pattern magazines do not fit to metric FALs; metric mags fit to inch pattern FALs but may not work properly.

As for the NATO standard rifle; I am unsure whether US decision had much real effect. I believe CETME/G3 was actually more popular within NATO than FAL. M14 and FAL test results were relatively close; the big factor in favour of M14 was it's supposed commonality with Garand and hence cost savings in manufacturing, but it appears that in reality such savings were relatively minor or non-existing. History has judged FAL as superior weapon as M-14 didn't score any real successes in export markets, but there may be other factors there.

Overall, the real blunder was already done when NATO failed to adopt 7*49 as their standard calibre, so whatever rifles were adopted in already-obsolete 7.62*51 was largely superfluous.

[aevans]

Yama, on Sun 16 Jan 2005 1927, said:

Overall, the real blunder was already done when NATO failed to adopt 7*49 as their standard calibre, so whatever rifles were adopted in already-obsolete 7.62*51 was largely superfluous.

Would this be the same "obsolete" caliber that lasted well into the 1990's as a first line service rifle caliber, and which is still the standard machinegun caliber all over the world?

[Yama]

aevans, on Sun 16 Jan 2005 2105, said:

Would this be the same "obsolete" caliber that lasted well into the 1990's as a first line service rifle caliber, and which is still the standard machinegun caliber all over the world?

Exactly. Notice the long-lasting effects of that fateful decision.

[Arminius]

Notice I meant its not the perfect Assault rifle caliber. Its a great caliber. Good for the GPMG.

But the good ole ´06 would have done nicely for the GPMG ( even better IMO ) and the 7.62x45 CZ or 6.5 mm Mannlicher Schönauer ( spitzer bullets ) or the 7 mm British or even the 25 Rem for the assault rifle.

Fine thread!

H

[gewing]

250 savage would be better imo than the 25 remington. though the remington had a smaller diameter case, it was iirc longer.

Arminius, on Sun 16 Jan 2005 2118, said:

Notice I meant its not the perfect Assault rifle caliber. Its a great caliber. Good for the GPMG.

But the good ole ´06 would have  done nicely for the GPMG ( even better IMO ) and the 7.62x45 CZ or 6.5 mm Mannlicher Schönauer ( spitzer bullets ) or the 7 mm British or even the 25 Rem for the assault rifle.

Fine thread!

H

[aevans]

Yama, on Sun 16 Jan 2005 2113, said:

Exactly. Notice the long-lasting effects of that fateful decision.

What effects? How "fateful" was the decision? The M-14, FAL, and G3 were all good, serivceable rifles. I would gladly carry any of them in combat. This whole discussion is about personal preference, not about anything real.

[Yama]

aevans, on Sun 16 Jan 2005 2155, said:

What effects? How "fateful" was the decision? The M-14, FAL, and G3 were all good, serivceable rifles. I would gladly carry any of them in combat. This whole discussion is about personal preference, not about anything real.

Nobody disputed those rifles weren't good. But they would have been lighter and handier with smaller caliber, with more useful automatic fire. Not to mention ammo being lighter and cheaper. Only advantage which 7.62*51 has is power, which I see as very trivial. It ain't coincidence that pretty much everyone has abandoned full powered battle rifles.

[aevans]

Yama, on Sun 16 Jan 2005 2205, said:

Nobody disputed those rifles weren't good. But they would have been lighter and handier with smaller caliber, with more useful automatic fire. Not to mention ammo being lighter and cheaper. Only advantage which 7.62*51 has is power, which I see as very trivial. It ain't coincidence that pretty much everyone has abandoned full powered battle rifles.

So? A "fateful" decision, in this context, would be one that made a difference to military operations at some point in time. I can't see that the initial or continued issue of 7.62mm battle rifles ever had that kind of effect. If anything, the issue of the M16 prior to being ready for prime time is the one small arm decision in recent history that qualifies as "fateful".

[Yama]

aevans, on Sun 16 Jan 2005 2337, said:

So? A "fateful" decision, in this context, would be one that made a difference to military operations at some point in time. I can't see that the initial or continued issue of 7.62mm battle rifles ever had that kind of effect.

Yes, and Americans would have won in WW2 even if they had retained M1903 and never adopted Garand. So what? It doesn't mean that latter is not a superior weapon.