I know that there has been a lot of debate in certain gun and military circles about the AK-47 vs. the M-16 and which is a better service rifle, but what about the FAL?
How is it supposed to stack up againest the AK-47 or M-16? Have any comparisons been made(personally or more professionally)?
Got me. . .
But any gun that can be produced by the same company that makes unanatomically-correct Barbie dolls has my vote.
I don’t even know the politics of why we don’t use them anyway.
Tripler
Got me. . .
HPL, just curious- Do you play Raven Shield (Rainbow Six)? I ask because in that game, guns are rated on 5 different criteria (range, accuracy, damage, stability, etc…) and the FAL rates much higher in total then any of the other guns. For instance, the FAL rates a 340 out of possible 500 where the m16 and ak47 rate in the 310 area. Everything I know about guns I learned from a Tom Clancy game - and games are never wrong.
I used to have an FN-FAL. Great rifle, but of course I’d never used it when my life depended on it.
The Israelis were armed with FALs in the 1960s. They found that they were excellent for long-range shooting, but that they were prone to failure in sandy conditions. An FN-FAL might be a great rifle for western Europe, but they’re not so good in the desert.
The M-16 was also prone to stoppages when they were dirty. The problems were fixed to a large degree in the 1960s (chrome-lined chamber and barrel, different propellant in the ammunition, better training on routine cleaning and maintenance). Obviously they seem to be working well in today’s desert warfare. But they are still constructed to pretty tight tolerances. I don’t know, but I suspect that soldiers still need to be assiduous in their cleaning.
The AK-47 series is a fairly “loose” rifle. They might not be quite as accurate as an FN-FAL or an M-16, but they’re much less prone to failures when used in rough conditions or by poorly trained soldiers.
IMHO:
I have a FAL, and have shot AR15s and AKs. I may purchase another next week, and next year I am planning to build one from parts.
The effectiveness, accuracy, handiness, and reliability of the M16 vs. AR10 vs. FAL vs. M14 vs. AK47 vs. H&K G3 vs. Galil vs. SKS have been hotly debated for decades. Suffice to say, no single rifle is superior in all areas.
As for me, I love the FAL. It’s a 3rd-generation main battle rifle (MBR) that delivers a not-so-wimpy round (7.62 x 51). It’s reliable, battle proven, has excellent ergonomics, and can be field stripped by a drunken monkey. But it also has its faults… it’s somewhat heavy, has poor sights, and has a crappy trigger. It’s also expensive to manufacturer, though (surprisingly) parts and accessories are plentiful and relatively inexpensive.
The AK is a handy battle carbine, and is extremely reliable. But it’s not accurate and has lousy ergonomics, and delivers a mediocre round.
The M16/AR15 is a Mattel[sup]TM[/sup] toy that delivers an oversized .22 round.
The AR10 is an AR15 on steroids. Considered the only 4th-generation MBR, it is much too finely tuned for serious battle service.
The M14/M1A is a very nice rifle. Because of its superior sights and trigger, it has the potential to deliver the 7.62 x 51 with more precision than the FAL. I like to think of the M14 as a cross between a rugged MBR and sniper rifle. But for practical reasons I have little interest in owning one; only one company makes them, they’re fairly expensive, parts and magazines are very expensive, and they’re difficult to clean and repair.
Now to answer your inquiry… I’m aware of only one person who has performed an exhaustive, scientific, and objective comparison between the commonly-available battle carbines and MBRs. His name is Boston T. Party, and the name of the book is Boston’s Gun Bible. More info on the book can be found here:
Well there is no m16 in CS but there’s a colt Commando so that’ll do…
Now I’ve always claimed that the AK is superiour because of the simple fact that one headshot will always be enough to kill an opponent, even if he has a helmet. The colt is a bit more newbie friendly with its lesser recoil, but the AK’s accuracy on the first shot makes it better in the hands of a skilled user. The silencer on the colt reduces damage and ROF, something many people don’t know, so I don’t consider that generally useful unless being sneaky. The thing to realise with the AK is that the recoil after the first 4 shots is immense, which means you either have to control your bursting well or compensate a LOT.
In all the games I have played where the FAL has appeared, it has been superior to the AK and M16 though.
And yes I realise this is not the answer you’re looking for but I just like games!!
In reality I think that the AK is the more reliable, the m16 the lightest and the FAL the “best”.
I don’t think so. Even the Pentagon may at long last be seeing the light. M16s may soon be replaced. http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=540&e=4&u=/ap/20031122/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq_goodbye_m_16
Think of the FN FAL as the equivalent of the American m-14. The main reason those guns (m-14, Fn FAL, anything 7.62mm/ .308 in caliber) where put out of use was the size of the cartridge. The military discovered that most infantry engagement occur at around 400 yards. In order to create a casualty at that range the average soldier would be more likely to create a casualty with a smaller cartridge than the 7.62mm round. Anyone who shoots would have a lot problems with that statement because they know that the 7.62mm round is used in most sniper rifles because it is less affected by wind. But the normal soldier isn’t that good of a shot, so the most important part of creating a casualty for them is the volume of fire. The 5.56mm round is what modern NATO assault rifles use because it produces less recoil (faster follow up shot) and more rounds can be carried when compared to the 7.62mm round. Add that to the fact that the gun itself is much heavier than a modern rifle and the soldiers have to carry many miles each day and they finally sequestered the 7.62mm round, and the rifles that fire it, to light machine guns (m-60) and special use weapons. (m-14 is still used by some squad level snipers and special operation groups)
Yeah, they’re working really well:
“I did not shoot, not a round, nothing,” she tells Sawyer. “When we were told to lock and load, that’s when my weapon jammed … I did not shoot a single round … I went down praying to my knees. And that’s the last I remember.”
“They were coming from everywhere. We had vehicles getting stuck, vehicles running out of gas … our weapons were jamming.”
“In the chaos of the ambush, Lynch says, she discovered that her gun was jammed and she was unable to defend herself. She was never able to fire her weapon.”
http://abclocal.go.com/kgo/news/entertainment/110603_ent_jessica_lynch.html
I figured that this was all sparked by this story, but just in case not:
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=540&e=2&u=/ap/iraq_goodbye_m_16
Bottom line: m16’s being phased out.
Though apparently it’s being replaced by the OICW, which seems to be far heavier and rather overcomplicated for a battle rifle.
The OICW has been put on the backburner, from my understanding. Too heavy, and the 20mm ‘smart round’ doesn’t perform as advertised.
The Army is testing 6.8x43 versions of the M-16, M4, and the HK XM-8 (which formed the 5.56 portion of the OICW). 6.8 is already in use by benchrest shooters. Of course, one day, the Army will see the light, and just bring back the M-1 Garand. Good enough to thwart the Nazi and Imperial Japenese warmachines, good enough for Al Queda… 
As for the FAL, it is (was) one of the most widely used rifles in the world. Nations that didn’t use the AK generally used either a version of the FAL or the HK G3. Depending on the variant of the FAL in question, many had grooves to channel away debris, and they all have an adjustable gas system that allows you to shoot through some nasty conditions. Some of the many factors that allowed the FAL to flourish.
Bottom line, of course, is that comparing the FAL (say, the L1A1), to the AKM to the M-16A2 doesn’t provide a clear picture of which is better.
-The AK is the simplest, and probably the most reliable, but is certainly the least accurate. Also, the 7.62x39 ball round is not exactly God’s gift to terminal ballistics.
-The M-16xx is fairly reliable, pretty accurate, but the same 5.56x45 round that makes it easy to shoot, also limits its effective ‘engagement envelope’.
-The FAL fires among my favorite rounds, the (by todays standards) powerfull 7.62x51. It is fairly accurate and reliable, as well.
Pure personal prefernce knocks the FAL down towards the bottom of the list. I prefer the M1A. But as long as you are in America, and not in California, go nuts, and buy one of each. Over the past few years, I did.
TIJ: The official “party line” of the military is that the .223 allows the soldier to carry more ammo (vs. the .308), and is very effective up to 400 yards. But as you said, those who shoot know this is a crock. As any hunter will tell you, the .223 is inadequate for deer hunting. In fact, the game laws of many states even forbid its use for hunting deer. Would it not reason that it’s also inadequate for small arms purposes?
Volumes of material have been written on why we (and others) switched to .223. I’m not sure if anyone knows the real answer, but theories abound.
I’ve never had any problems with 5.56.
First of all, I don’t mind of the hit only wounds, and doesn’t kill - all I need is for it to keep the enemy on the ground long enough for ne to confirm the kill. Besides, wounding can have several advantages over killing outright. It can keep comrades busy, for instance, or the screams can help give away positions.
Second of all, I don’t want to engage the enemy at over 250m - taht’s what machine guns, mortars, snipers and rockets are for. They keep the enemy busy so the infantry can to what it’s supposed to, namely flank and assault.
Lastly, I’d rather carry a nice, light M-4 with 240 rounds of ammo than a 8kg broomstick and 100 rounds for the same weight (not that reservists get M-4s, of course; I’m speaking hypothetically). I’m the one who has to carry this shit.
Was the FAL the basis for the British Army’s ultra-reliable L1 rifle, replaced by the piece-of-crap SA80?
Yep. Measurements were in inches, rather than metric, but pretty much the same thing as the Fabrique National models.
Which is why the SAS use the M16 (IIRC)
And, aditionally, the Brits built the L1 as a semi-only weapon (SLR), much the same way as the USA did with the M14. The full-auto versions were modified and redesignated L2 and M15 for use as Squad Auto Weapons. The 7.62/51 cartridge was too powerful for “assault rifle” use. Which does point to a problem with comparisons here: the FAL/M14 are really a different category of weapon than the AK(aka Valmet, Galil) or M16.
It used be said that the FN-FAL was “the Cadillac” of MBRs and the G3 was “the Chevrolet” of MBRs. The M14/M1A is a very good MBR, but it’s so freakin’ heavy, in comparison to others out there. My favorite version of the M14 is the Beretta BM59, with the M1A Scout running a close second in that platform.
The FN-FAL/SLR/etc. has several good things going for it, including the adjustable gas system and the low centerline of the bore (in relation to the receiver). It is a robust design and very reliable. It is, however, expensive to manufacture and relatively complex in assembly.
I settled on the H&K line several years ago; it’s what I am familiar with and the G3 is a rifle that’ll get the job done. It has an innovative but simple design and is not costly to make. The G3 is found literally all over the world, since it has been made, under license, in several countries on nearly every continent.
In today’s environment, I believe that a unit should be free to choose it’s weapons based on the mission involved (see the comment above, re: the SAS). A good mix of weapons chambered for 7.62 NATO (AKA 7.62 X 51mm and .308 Winchester), 5.56 NATO (AKA 5.56 X 45mm and .223 Remington), and 9 X 19mm (AKA 9mm Luger and 9mm Parabellum) would, in my opinion, comprise a more sensible strike force. And then, of course, there is the M82A1M…