Which battle rifle is more robust? The M1 Garand or the M14-M1A? Your call

[gmerkt]

As I recall, the targets on army ranges where I qualified were not bull's eyes. They were electrically actuated flip down targets. Meaning, when the target panel was hit - anywhere - it flipped down, then reset. When the target dropped, you got credited with a hit. If you hit the dirt/gravel in from of this target and that material in turn hit the target, it would still go down whether the bullet hit or not, scored as a hit regardless. This may be a classic example of, "Close enough for government work."

I'm right handed, I still can't like the left side charging handle. Maybe it's because of my personal experience. Yes, the FAL, G3, even the MP44 have charging on the left. I guess you're supposed to hold the pistol grip with your right hand and charge with the left. Which you cannot effectively do with, say, the M14. But wait a minute, the highly regarded AK47 has the charging handle on the right side, too. So there you go. The Remington 740 and the Winchester 100 both charge on the right side, due to lack of pistol grip for holding; the presence of absence of a pistol grip being the defining criterion? But wait a minute, the G43 had the handle on the left and lacked a pistol grip. Or go in reverse again, and the G41W had one sort of biased to the right.

 

[Ura-Ki]

The FAL was meant to charge left handed while the rifle was still held to the shoulder, and every thing could be actuated left handed while the rifle remains on target, or close enough. It's also capable of taking a substantial amount of cocking pressure to extract a stuck case up to and including stomping the bolt open! It's Just how FN decided things should be! Left side charge, right side port just works for right handed shooters on the move. You don't really notice the advantages unless your running and running, then it makes perfect sence. Further more, the FAL placed the charge handle further aft of all the others, so it's easy to reach, unlike the G-3, where you have to really reach to cycle the weapon! Ever try and run an AK on the move, being right handed, you your at a distinct disadvantage. At least the AR is almost ambit friendly!

 

[Boboclown]

I'm right handed, I still can't like the left side charging handle. Maybe it's because of my personal experience. Yes, the FAL, G3, even the MP44 have charging on the left. I guess you're supposed to hold the pistol grip with your right hand and charge with the left. Which you cannot effectively do with, say, the M14. But wait a minute, the highly regarded AK47 has the charging handle on the right side, too. So there you go. The Remington 740 and the Winchester 100 both charge on the right side, due to lack of pistol grip for holding; the presence of absence of a pistol grip being the defining criterion? But wait a minute, the G43 had the handle on the left and lacked a pistol grip. Or go in reverse again, and the G41W had one sort of biased to the right.

Remington 740 and Winchester 100 were both civilian rifles, but I'll sort of include them in the post.

One of the complaints for the AK is the location of the charging handle. There's a reason why there are aftermarket products that put a charging handle on the left. As for the G43, and other similar semiautos of the time, are similar to the bolt actions with their stocks (in function at least). Keep in mind the only field assault rifle of this time had a pistol grip, and it was the STG-44. The STG-44 had the charging handle on the left. Let's go down a list of where most innovative rifles of that time period, let's say WWII to the end of Cold War (or shortly before). So ultimately, depended on design where the charging handle would be best suited. Pistol grip, left side (and when its on the right one of the complaints of a rifle is location). IMHO, a left side charging handle that can fold is the bees knees. Thankfully they do sell those for the FAL.

As designs moved on, they tended to favor the left side for the charging handle, as far as military rifles go. Nowadays they go for ambidextrous charging handles, or at least make it so you can switch what side its on.

As I recall, the targets on army ranges where I qualified were not bull's eyes. They were electrically actuated flip down targets. Meaning, when the target panel was hit - anywhere - it flipped down, then reset. When the target dropped, you got credited with a hit. If you hit the dirt/gravel in from of this target and that material in turn hit the target, it would still go down whether the bullet hit or not, scored as a hit regardless. This may be a classic example of, "Close enough for government work."

The whole whether or not they'll shoot under X inches is done before it gets to your hands. Once its in your hands, if you can qualify its good enough. Mil-spec was pretty loose for accuracy when it came to what gets shipped and issued. Nowadays it may be more strict, but I'd imagine 3 or 4 is the limit.

 

[Ura-Ki]

Keep in mind, then the M1 and later M-14 were designed and built, they were ment to augment and ultimatly replace the legendary 1903 Springfield bolt action battle rifle, and they were still not sure HOW a semi auto rifle should be built and configured! After WW2, much was studied, and lessons learned from such a vast pool of knolage was put to good use. Germany had a substantial lead in this new class of fighting rifles, but it was the Spanish who really gave us the first true modern fighting rifle that included every thing learned during the war, the awesome CETME, which went on to become the bases of THE most popular series of small arms in Europe EVER, the small arms manufactured by H-K, all based on the work of Mauser designers who defected to Spain during the final months of the war! FN started out designing it's entry for the new NATO battle rifle first making the FN-49, and finally the FAL! They went to great lengths to design a rugged and reliable rifle that was accurate and really serviceable in the field, arguably even easier then he AK! What resulted out classed every other fighting rifle design of the era, and that it could use the standard NATO 7.62X51 reliably was a serious bonus. It was selected to take part in the rifle trials for the U.S. to replace the Garand, but lose out to the "improved" M-14 not on the merits of the rifle or it' performance, but through political pressure from ONE army Colt. Who was hell bent to see Springfield get the rig contract at the expand a of the better rifle design. The FAL as tested out performed the M-14 in every aspect, and easily out shot it on the range, bettering the American design by a large marginal! What should have been adoptd by the U.S. was cast aside as inferior when in truth both the M-14 and later M-16 should have not been put into service! A sad twist of fate for what IS a better rifle!

 

[Boboclown]

Even if the FAL was adopted, it would have been chambered in 7.62 NATO. At best it would have kept the U.S from adopting the M16 by a few years. 7.62 NATO, no matter the rifle, did not suit what the U.S government wanted; which was a rifle that was relatively easy to handle in full auto. Had the FAL been adopted in .280 British (which had half the recoil of the M1 Garand) then the M16 likely would not have been accepted.

The FAL, however, worked great for the Australians in Vietnam because their logistics were different, and each shot mattered. Compared to the U.S who, at least in comparison, had better logistics. In addition to that, the vast majority of the NATO forces used the G3 or FAL (more of the latter, hence the earned nickname Right Arm of the Free World).

 

[The Heretic]

I've owned and shot the following in 7.62x51:

M1A
M1 Garand
FN-FAL
Valmet M78 and M76
HK91

For robustness/reliability, I would rate them in the following descending order:

Valmet (Kalashnikovs), but would prefer a Galil - another Kalashnikov based battle rifle similar to the Valmets
FN-FAL
HK-91
M1A
M1 Garand

I have never owned or shot an AR-10 variant (I have shot AR-15/M-16s), but I am not a fan of ARs in general when it comes to durability or reliability.

In general, the FN-FAL is my current favorite battle rifle because the relaibility/etc., parts and mags and accessories in the USA make it a winner in my book.

The Valmets and Galils are superior in design with regards to reliability, being a Kalashnikov variant, but good luck getting parts and mags for them here. Just the same, I wish I had kept my Valmets.

 

[Capn Jack]

Words, words, words...

U.S Cal. .30 M1 <> 5.56 M4.....The M1 makes a better club.

 

[gryghin]

When you yell "Fixed bayonets"

It just looks that much cooler on an M1 Garand due to the wood furniture.

 

[Ura-Ki]

Agreed, i would also say the 1903 looks pretty wicked with the origional 16 inch toad stabber afixed! Then there is the 1897 Winchester scattergun, also a wicked looking fighting gun with bayonet! Heck, any thing with one of those older blades mounted would be nasty!

 

[Boboclown]

But nothing looks better than a FAL sniper... If only I had a non bipod cut barrel and a Hensoldt. Or even a L1A1 with the SUIT scope.

It was certainly not the best rifle for a DMR, but when it was available it certainly did the job!

 

[Ura-Ki]

You mean like this!

 

[Boboclown]

Just need a STANAG mount, Hensoldt, and a non bipod cut handguard.

 

[Ura-Ki]

Kinda thinking I wanna replace the furniture with the "Pebble Grain" stuff, and yea, a non bipod forend! Got the better tip off mount for it, but I kind of like the south African repop that's on it. Can still use the irons with a smaller scope, and may change the charging handle to a folder, cause that knob sure digs into your back when slung! Other wise it's a rockin FAL! And it's the most accurate of all of mine!

 

[Boboclown]

I'm happy with a STANAG mount... Limits what scopes I can use, but it looks nicer. Kinda liking the SVD reticle too.

 

[ron]

You FN/FAL lovers talk is cheap. More accurate than a M1A??
Throw down time. My iron sight M1A vs. Iron sight FN/FAL at
an "Across the Course" match. 200-300-600 yards anyone?
Who is up for the challenge? I'm an old man I'm sure
some young buck with better eyes can out shoot me?

 

[Boboclown]

Pay my flight ticket both ways, and talk my professors into giving me an A in my classes and I might consider it.

Though no one brought up accuracy except my mention of the U.S army having low standards at the time. Given the conditions, the M14s of today are better than the ones of back then. Keep in mind, there was a lot of stuff we know now that they did not back then.

That being said, as a battle rifle, the FAL was better in that role, and was able to be used as a DMR for a while. Still do in some cases (mostly countries who can't replace them). An accurized M14 would be a nicer DMR, but as a battle rifle it was outdated by the time it was made. Aside from the option of being accurized, the M14 just doesn't offer much over the FAL.

 

[Boboclown]

Also keep in mind I'd much prefer a Galatz over both any day, just not the price tag!

 

[The Heretic]

But nothing looks better than a FAL sniper... If only I had a non bipod cut barrel and a Hensoldt. Or even a L1A1 with the SUIT scope.

It was certainly not the best rifle for a DMR, but when it was available it certainly did the job!

I don't know. I am kind of partial to the looks of the Valmet M78:



Rare belt fed:

 

[Andy54Hawken]

While the M1 and the M14 were before my time in the Army... I did carry and use the M21 for a bit.
I found the M21 to be accurate and reliable....If I did my job right the target went down.

What I think it boils down to is:
Use what you have...
Practice with your rifle , until shooting , carrying and maintaining it are second nature...
Learn your rifle and yourself...know what you can do and strive to be better each time you practice...
And if found on a battlefield , don't curl up and wait to die , 'cause of the rifle you have...
Andy

 

[Boboclown]

No offense, but the M21 was not the typical M14. Similar to the Mosin Nagant, accurate samples would be used as "snipers" (when they decided to start having them that is). Originally accuracy standard was 5.5" and they would ship the rifle out, that would change (for the worse) until they replaced the M14. That doesn't mean they were all bad, some were accurate (otherwise the M21 would not exist). But as far as standard issue went, I would discourage holding your breath for an accurate one.

Legends have myths and facts. The idea that all M14s were accurate, however, is on the myths side.