Excellent article. I agree with many of your pros and cons, I think the new(sic) Scout/Squad models with synthetic stocks address many of the cons. Also needs to be mentioned that the FN/FAL suffered greatly at the hands of the U.S. Gov't. Springfield Armory for having NMH (Not Made Here) disease as did the original AR15/M16. It should also be noted that the U.S. forced the 7.62x51mm cartridge down NATO's throat and then did the same thing with the 5.56x45mm cartridge just a few years later.
"Then in 1964, President Kennedy’s whiz kid in charge of the Defense Department, Robert MacNamara decided to halt orders for the M14, and go with a revolutionary new rifle developed by Eugene Stoner, the M16."
I was reading a blog that talked about MacNamara's analytical experience with USAAF bombers during WW2. They'd slapped an AAF uniform on him and set him to analyzing the failure rate of bombing missions. The bombing success rate went up after his analysis, but so did the casualty rates. I guess Old Mac learned the lesson that tinkering with a crappy idea, like strategic daylight bombing without fighter support, was better than scrapping said crappy idea and going with something that might have cost less lives while shortening the war. 🤷♂️
And, speaking of WW2 bombers, it was Curtis LeMay, head of SAC, who made the first purchase of the M16 for his bomber base security, IIRC. 🤔
I obtained my FN made FAL over 2 decades ago and long before it I bought an M1 Carbine followed by a Colt SP-1 AR 15. All are interesting designs with differing design requirements. Im a geek when it comes firearm designs and mechanics. Theres something about a wood and steel rifle, but Im old school. But my queen is the FAL, one of the last imported into the US.
That's awesome. I'd be interested to hear your thoughts more fully on the fal. I don't think that I've ever seen one in the flesh, as it were, let alone handled or fired one.
I loved my M-14. Power and range were excellent, and as young Marine I could shoot dinner plate sized groups at 500 yards. Weight and ammo weight, not so much. Out to 250-300 meters 5.56 and the AR works well. It’s a well proven system. If I have to shoot past that or through something (even auto body) 7.62 x 51 is a must. I really like the Tavor-7. Perhaps not quite as accurate at 500 yards, but shorter and easier to manipulate. Much better for urban or vehicular use.
IMHO M-14 was the finest service rifle produced. The M-16 was adopted because of light weight and cheaper production. In the end it's always the $$$ that determines
Good rifle . Needed synthetic stock for environment. But that said one can't do all things. Ambushed or sniping yes open targets sure , thru cover absolutely. Auto fire like a subjunctive not so well. Ww2 we had Thompsons and carbines. Mix to different jobs. M1 for distance and stopping power. Dmr m14 pistol grip and m16 would have been fine.
I was issued M-14 in Vietnam in October 1967 when I arrived and the company commander had about 25 of us firing into the bush simultaneously to test the weapons emptying a couple magazines. The sound was deafeningly loud beyond anything you could imagine.
Never used one as they are a direct trip to multiple decades in prison in Australia, but this has to be one of the most beautiful rifle designs ever. I also love 30-06, a great cartridge (it's even fun to pronounce!)
That is so unfortunate. For a long time, the Canadians couldn't buy AR type rifles, but could get these. Their import regulations were different, so they could get the Chinese production guns pretty affordably, even. I think that's changed, now.
Sadlak Industries makes a replacement mag release. Larger so easier to press, mags load easier (10 round still a pita), and an empty 20 round will fall out on its own.
I was able to fire an M1A at an impromptu/unauthorized Springfield Factory Demo Day at my then-favorite LGS (I've since moved away a few years ago). To clarify, it was impromptu/unauthorized because it was Launch Day for the Echilon, but Springfield only sent them a demo gun. No factory rep, no other SA firearms to try. So management pulled all of their SA rentals down off the wall and hosted a "Springfield Demonstration Event."
Anywho, one of their rentals was an M1A. Full-size, wooden stock, don't know if it was a Standard, Loaded, or National Match model. I'd been hankering for a full-size battle rifle for a while, so I asked to try it. Was able to put 5 rounds through it. That was enough for me to figure out why it didn't last very long in US service.
It's big. It's heavy. It's awkwardly balanced when fired from the shoulder. The safety is non-intuitive and arguably dangerous. And it kicks like a moose.
And you know what? I don't care! I want one so freaking bad!
But not a Springfield. I've had poor experiences with their QC in the past, so I'm saving up for a Fulton Armory or an LRB, and I'm going to do it up as an homage to Randy Shughart's rifle. Scope mount with an Aimpoint 9000, paint the stock in desert camo, put some sort of shooting sling on it.
Kudos to the management, that sort of thing is always good pr. I can't really argue that the M14 isn't big and heavy, although I can think of a long list of things that kick harder. LOL
I'm chalking up both the excessive recoil and my inability to shoot anything resembling a grouping to my way-too-wide over-the-ear hearing protection. Couldn't get anything even close to a decent cheek weld. Plus my shooting glasses were all old and scuffed up (so I had a hard time picking up the front sight).
Excellent article. I agree with many of your pros and cons, I think the new(sic) Scout/Squad models with synthetic stocks address many of the cons. Also needs to be mentioned that the FN/FAL suffered greatly at the hands of the U.S. Gov't. Springfield Armory for having NMH (Not Made Here) disease as did the original AR15/M16. It should also be noted that the U.S. forced the 7.62x51mm cartridge down NATO's throat and then did the same thing with the 5.56x45mm cartridge just a few years later.
"Then in 1964, President Kennedy’s whiz kid in charge of the Defense Department, Robert MacNamara decided to halt orders for the M14, and go with a revolutionary new rifle developed by Eugene Stoner, the M16."
I was reading a blog that talked about MacNamara's analytical experience with USAAF bombers during WW2. They'd slapped an AAF uniform on him and set him to analyzing the failure rate of bombing missions. The bombing success rate went up after his analysis, but so did the casualty rates. I guess Old Mac learned the lesson that tinkering with a crappy idea, like strategic daylight bombing without fighter support, was better than scrapping said crappy idea and going with something that might have cost less lives while shortening the war. 🤷♂️
And, speaking of WW2 bombers, it was Curtis LeMay, head of SAC, who made the first purchase of the M16 for his bomber base security, IIRC. 🤔
I obtained my FN made FAL over 2 decades ago and long before it I bought an M1 Carbine followed by a Colt SP-1 AR 15. All are interesting designs with differing design requirements. Im a geek when it comes firearm designs and mechanics. Theres something about a wood and steel rifle, but Im old school. But my queen is the FAL, one of the last imported into the US.
That's awesome. I'd be interested to hear your thoughts more fully on the fal. I don't think that I've ever seen one in the flesh, as it were, let alone handled or fired one.
I always admired the Garand. Funny-to almost everyone who ever picked one up, it fits perfectly.
I thought the M-14 was a great weapon.
I loved my M-14. Power and range were excellent, and as young Marine I could shoot dinner plate sized groups at 500 yards. Weight and ammo weight, not so much. Out to 250-300 meters 5.56 and the AR works well. It’s a well proven system. If I have to shoot past that or through something (even auto body) 7.62 x 51 is a must. I really like the Tavor-7. Perhaps not quite as accurate at 500 yards, but shorter and easier to manipulate. Much better for urban or vehicular use.
IMHO M-14 was the finest service rifle produced. The M-16 was adopted because of light weight and cheaper production. In the end it's always the $$$ that determines
Good rifle . Needed synthetic stock for environment. But that said one can't do all things. Ambushed or sniping yes open targets sure , thru cover absolutely. Auto fire like a subjunctive not so well. Ww2 we had Thompsons and carbines. Mix to different jobs. M1 for distance and stopping power. Dmr m14 pistol grip and m16 would have been fine.
I was issued M-14 in Vietnam in October 1967 when I arrived and the company commander had about 25 of us firing into the bush simultaneously to test the weapons emptying a couple magazines. The sound was deafeningly loud beyond anything you could imagine.
Wow, I bet that would be.
Never used one as they are a direct trip to multiple decades in prison in Australia, but this has to be one of the most beautiful rifle designs ever. I also love 30-06, a great cartridge (it's even fun to pronounce!)
That is so unfortunate. For a long time, the Canadians couldn't buy AR type rifles, but could get these. Their import regulations were different, so they could get the Chinese production guns pretty affordably, even. I think that's changed, now.
It gets worse. They've designated lever and pump action as "rapid fire" and states are banning those too.
That is distinctly ungood. 😱
M14 was my favorite;
45 was a good sidearm.
Military influence…
A friend of my father in law’s showed me his M1A when I was sighting in my bolt action. Nice rifle, but surprisingly heavy.
Yeah. "Lighter than a Garand," is not the same as "light."
You really know your weapons, Jesse. Great post.
Thanks!
Sadlak Industries makes a replacement mag release. Larger so easier to press, mags load easier (10 round still a pita), and an empty 20 round will fall out on its own.
Another great post! Thank you!
Never shot an M14, but love the Mini14! Fun to shoot and accurate.
I'm the other way around. I've never shot a mini 14, although it's definitely on my list. Especially want a folding stocked SBR version.
I was able to fire an M1A at an impromptu/unauthorized Springfield Factory Demo Day at my then-favorite LGS (I've since moved away a few years ago). To clarify, it was impromptu/unauthorized because it was Launch Day for the Echilon, but Springfield only sent them a demo gun. No factory rep, no other SA firearms to try. So management pulled all of their SA rentals down off the wall and hosted a "Springfield Demonstration Event."
Anywho, one of their rentals was an M1A. Full-size, wooden stock, don't know if it was a Standard, Loaded, or National Match model. I'd been hankering for a full-size battle rifle for a while, so I asked to try it. Was able to put 5 rounds through it. That was enough for me to figure out why it didn't last very long in US service.
It's big. It's heavy. It's awkwardly balanced when fired from the shoulder. The safety is non-intuitive and arguably dangerous. And it kicks like a moose.
And you know what? I don't care! I want one so freaking bad!
But not a Springfield. I've had poor experiences with their QC in the past, so I'm saving up for a Fulton Armory or an LRB, and I'm going to do it up as an homage to Randy Shughart's rifle. Scope mount with an Aimpoint 9000, paint the stock in desert camo, put some sort of shooting sling on it.
Kudos to the management, that sort of thing is always good pr. I can't really argue that the M14 isn't big and heavy, although I can think of a long list of things that kick harder. LOL
I'm chalking up both the excessive recoil and my inability to shoot anything resembling a grouping to my way-too-wide over-the-ear hearing protection. Couldn't get anything even close to a decent cheek weld. Plus my shooting glasses were all old and scuffed up (so I had a hard time picking up the front sight).
That would definitely do it.