The “Right Arm of the Free World” was up against made-here politics and was a pound heavier than the T44 (i.e. M14). We did not adopt it but a hell of a lot of others did. It saw service in Africa, Asia, the Middle East, and the Falklands. Haven’t heard anything bad reliability-wise from it’s endeavors in those environments. Yeah, it’s heavy and doesn’t have sniper-level accuracy but it’s robust and reliable. IMHO the ergonomics are better than an M14.
I have to confess to also liking M14’s so they flip my trigger too. Something about that FAL though…
For the record, and aesthetics don’t matter one iota, I think the FAL is probably the coolest looking long gun that I can think of; the M1918A2 BAR comes real close, but the FAL gets the nod.
We were always late to the game when adopting small arms and what it comes down to is people wanted a blue steel and wood gun. If you look at all the shit Stoner had to go through to get the M-16 adopted, you can only imagine what a foreign design was up against.
Quite honestly the UK had a brilliant design, the EM2 in .280 British that was sorta similar to the 7.62x39 that might have been a great contender. But when NATO standardized around 7.62x51 the EM2 wasn’t as effective so the UK when with the FN FAL design.
I think all things considered the FAL had more to offer than the M-14, however if we went to the FAL we’d have probably stayed with the FAL for a long time and the M-16 might never have happened. The FAL in Vietnam might have had some advantages, but it would have also come with some drawbacks.
We also need to consider that the same people who monkey’d with the specs on the M-16 and caused huge reliability problems might also have screwed with the US FAL rifle and given us all kinds of reliability problems.
The real problem is post WWII, the idea was to move to a select fire weapon that fired an intermediate cartridge and we never did that. We developed a new round, 7.62x51 that was essentially the ballistic equivalent of 30.06 and just as the germans couldn’t develop a select fire 8mm Mauser rifle that didn’t destroy itself, we didn’t have much more luck with the M-14 as a select fire assault weapon, it was little more than a product improved M1 Garand with a better feeding system and greater magazine capacity.
Tactical Impact w/ Larry Vickers did an episode on the Big 3 battle rifles and it had some great history and info.
Great points. I think the best thing about the M14 is that it was quickly replaced with the M16. With the updates to the G3, AR10 and other platforms I’m a little surprised the FAL hasn’t had a modernization.
The FAL probably didn’t get modernized because by the time it needed it, there was a better candidate. The same is mostly true of the G3, except Germany had to waste some time with the G36 before moving directly to the 416.
The M14 simply moved to a new role as the M 21.
The Updated FAL would be the FN CAL, which resulted in the FNC.
As a kid growing up I saw lots of M14s in Germany.
When Vietnam started ramping up the US Army started fielding the M16A1.
When my dad got stationed in Korea the UN Honor Guard would rotate through different forces. I always thought the fellas with the coolest rifles were the British, Australian, Canadian, and Gurkhas with their SLRs (FALs).
The Falklands was the first war where both armies went at each other with the FAL/SLR.
Yep, I remember footage of guys with FALs throwing other FALs on the pile. To this day I still don’t understand what Argentina was thinking. It’s like nobody paid attention to the Iranian Embassy incident.
We had them at a course I worked at. I think they’re pretty decent. The selector has a long swing, but who cares; use semi. Recoil isn’t bad. The gas adjustment isn’t quite Soldier-proof, but its simple enough. Dudes would goober up the spring disassembling and reassembling on the clock. Sights aren’t bad, but its not the best candidate for optics due to top cover. Accuracy is “acceptable”. It carries pretty well. I love the handguard, hate the grip. It seems reliable, with the right mags.
The G3 is better in some ways, worse in others. No top cover, for example. Some ergos were better and some were not. Recoil is more than it should be. They’re heavy and long-feeling. The bolt/carrier design isn’t Soldier-proof, except with lazy, non-curious types. The charging handles tore up my glove. The brass leaves a distinct signature, like the Famas and MP5. Its reliable. The sights are pretty decent. I love the handguard, don’t mind the grip. Speaking of handguard, the forward charging handle is sub-optimal, but was fine in its time. Either gun will work and was good in its time.
Eta: there’s a reason the FAL (and G3) is still being taught at that course. There are still FALs (and G3s) in use in various trouble spots. I think that says something.
I shot both the FAL and G3 in the Special Forces Qualification Course. The FAL impressed me immediately.
The G3 – not so much, only because when I fired it I got two distinctive recoil “Bumps”: once when the rifle rifle fired, and the second when that bolt carrier assembly hit the end of its travel in the receiver. An odd sensation.
Nothing that takes away from its value as a dependable 7.62 battle rifle, but notable.
Politics does funny things to history, Germany wanted the FAL but Belgium refused to licence production so we get the G3. Portugal was all in on adopting the AR10 but the Netherlands cut off supply due to their conflict in Angola, that effectively killed the AR as a MBR contender. If not for Belgium and Netherlands interference I think the MBR battle would have been FAL vs AR10 and that would have been interesting. As far as I know FAL’s are no longer in front line service anywhere but G3’s are so I guess they are the winner, ongoing modernizing the G3 the Swedish AK4C&D, Norwegian AG3F2 and I am sure others.
From all that I’ve read, the G3 seems to have the edge in adverse conditions reliability. The Portuguese used them in their African colonial wars, and in many instances conscripts only cleaned their rifles when they were ordered to.
Not only that but they are cheaper to make, folded sheet metal vs forged and machined again, also they tend to be more accurate. There is a lot I don’t like about the G3, no bolt hold open, stupid charging handle placement but like the AK47 for something to hand out to a conscript army it has a lot going for it.
that recoil sensation you describe might be what I was thinking about the recoil. Don’t remember… its been a while. I do think the FAL was a better rifle, but not enough better to be a “big deal”. But that is true of many rifles in the context of their times.
I forgot… no bolt hold open. Thats the thing I dislike most about the charging handle: having to use it.
After doing some research recently (I bought a DSA FAL) I read where FN/Belgium was going to let us use the design for free as a “thank you” for liberating them in WWII. However, the “not made here” monster reared it’s ugly head when it came down to the T-48/FAL vs the T-44/M-14 in the 1950’s trials. The FAL weighed a pound more so that was the final nail in the coffin (or excuse).
If you haven’t adjusted the gas on it yet, check the DSA manual rather than googling the procedure. There is more range of adjustment required before it’ll cycle.
Pretty sure everyone, including the Germans (G4) looked at the AR-10 and for whatever reason decided it wasn’t worth changing over because of costs or simply the fact that what they had now was working fine.
Anyone who wanted an AR-10 would have gotten one.
What did you think of the G3 on select fire? To me it’s the only one that is actually controllable.
Lot’s of people are of the opinion that for semi it’s the FAL and for select fire it’s the G3.
Pretty sure everyone knows I’m the resident HK fan so of the .308s it’s hands down my favorite. Even in semi auto it’s the one I prefer.
The T-48 was actually made by H&R. If we adopted the FAL, it would have been made here. The problem was it was a foreign design and I doubt it would have been licensed to us for free. There was also probably no way we weren’t gonna adopt the Springfield M-14 over some foreign system. I think the Beretta M9 was the first time we adopted a foreign firearm since WWI. Then the M249 and then the M240.
Again, one only need look at the problems Armalite had getting the AR15/M16 adopted due to them being an “outsider” and you can only imagine how well a foreign design would have been received. When the Brits showed us the EM2 we probably pissed ourselves laughing at it not knowing how ahead of the game they actually were.
