JavaScript is disabled
Our website requires JavaScript to function properly. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser settings before proceeding.
I think the M14 beats its contemporaries in the sense of action strength, gas system and ease of field stripping (even better than the M1), better sights, better trigger out of the box. I think the only place the FAL might beat it is in ease of manufacture. The M14 (and Garand) receiver is a fairly exotic part. Some may like the ergonomics of the FAL better but I think some of that is what you're used to. I do like it the best of pistol grip stocked rifles. The FAL was also about a pound heavier than the M14, at least in the form tested in our service rifle trials.
The M14 wins as being a DMR. But being a battle rifle? As in one to bring to hell and back, the G3 and FAL win that. The FAL; however, is accurate enough to still be used as a dmr today but the old battle rifles of old are being phased out one way or another. The whole point of the gas system was that you just close it if it gets so dirty that you need the extra oomph. Which will affect accuracy, but then again the FAL is a war horse of a battle rifle. As for simplicity of manufacture, I don't think any of the old battle rifles can get that. DSA cuts corners to even get their voyager line at a grand. I will admit for a battle rifle for those who have very little care for ergonomics, the G3 beats em both.

That being said, my FAL would be much lighter if I stick to iron sights and did not have the useless bipod on it.

Tl;dr, M14 wins at being a DMR and competition, but straight up battle rifle its contemporaries get that.
 

Upcoming Events

Tillamook Gun & Knife Show
Tillamook, OR
"The Original" Kalispell Gun Show
Kalispell, MT
Teen Rifle 1 Class
Springfield, OR
Kids Firearm Safety 2 Class
Springfield, OR

New Resource Reviews

New Classified Ads

Back Top