FAL vs G3 vs M14

[whitewolf001]

The only 7.62x51 rifle that SF uses is the SCAR.

 

That's bogus intel homeskillet.

 

MK11 Mod0

M110 SASS

SCAR H MOD 1/2/3

HK 417

M14EBR

[TMF]

That's bogus intel homeskillet.

MK11 Mod0
M110 SASS
SCAR H MOD 1/2/3
HK 417
M14EBR

Was not referring to sniper weapons systems, but be certain that US Army SF do not have HK 416s or M-14s. SEALs still sport some version off the M-14/M-21, but they are not SF... just ask them.

[whitewolf001]

Was not referring to sniper weapons systems, but be certain that US Army SF do not have HK 416s or M-14s. SEALs still sport some version off the M-14/M-21, but they are not SF... just ask them.

Sniper systems aside, for ONE, yes they do. There is a detachment of US Army special forces based in Okinawa that made a purchase of 87 416 uppers to equip to their Colt lower recievers, not to mention the weapons used to bring down Osama were HK416's. Seals are Special Warfare or Special Ops, the same fricking thing, you're nitpicking now. Now then, I also said HK417's not 16, the 417 is the 7.62NATO variant of the same rifle which is in FACT used by United States Special Forces.

Edited July 23, 2013 by whitewolf001

[SmokyBaer]

Just a quick Wiki check bounced a link of modern day M14 deployments to the Navy Seals.

Down at the bottom of the page, you will see what all configs each division has requested. 

[TMF]

Seals are Special Warfare or Special Ops, the same fricking thing, you're nitpicking now. Now then, I also said HK417's not 16, the 417 is the 7.62NATO variant of the same rifle which is in FACT used by United States Special Forces.

I am not nitpicking. They are not the same thing. And no, SF doesn't use them. It isn't on the MTOE.

[Spots]

Was not referring to sniper weapons systems, but be certain that US Army SF do not have HK 416s or M-14s. SEALs still sport some version off the M-14/M-21, but they are not SF... just ask them.

Seals are Special Warfare or Special Ops, the same fricking thing, you're nitpicking now. Now then, I also said HK417's not 16, the 417 is the 7.62NATO variant of the same rifle which is in FACT used by United States Special Forces.

You will never here any member of the special operations community refer to anyone other than Greeb Berets as Special Forces. Its not really nitpicking when you'vs served. They are all Special Operations, but 99% of military members will only use Special forces for Army Special Forces

Tapatalk ate my spelling.

[TMF]

You will never here any member of the special operations community refer to anyone other than Greeb Berets as Special Forces. Its not really nitpicking when you'vs served. They are all Special Operations, but 99% of military members will only use Special forces for Army Special Forces



Tapatalk ate my spelling.

Yep. I'd give one of my gold Pmags to someone who finds a legitimate SEAL who calls himself SF.

Like calling a Marine a Soldier.... nails on a chalkboard for both. Edited July 23, 2013 by TMF

[whitewolf001]

OK, point taken, they all serve under USSOCOM and the HK417 is used as a DMR under SOCOM, which branch, I'm not sure.

[TMF]

OK, point taken, they all serve under USSOCOM and the HK417 is used as a DMR under SOCOM, which branch, I'm not sure.

Probably those tiny little units under the SO umbrella that are secret squirrel or have a specific mission set that allows them access to special weapons orders. There are also non-standard weapons purchased for R&D. An example would be all the 6.8 uppers bought about ten years ago that never went anywhere due to ammo constraints.

[whitewolf001]

Probably those tiny little units under the SO umbrella that are secret squirrel or have a specific mission set that allows them access to special weapons orders. There are also non-standard weapons purchased for R&D. An example would be all the 6.8 uppers bought about ten years ago that never went anywhere due to ammo constraints.

I literally LOLed.

 

Yeah, I wanna know where those all went to, c'mon GOVdeals! :D

[Cruel Hand Luke]

The reason the M14 still gets play is NOT because it is so awesome.....it is because it is what we HAVE in inventory in a 7.62x51 rifle. They had all those rifles (well, at least the ones left that Clinton did not have cut up) left over from when we phased them out , stored in supply depots like Anniston. When GWOT (Global War on Terror) kicked off we could either take those out of mothballs and use them or we could WAIT for a new gun to be built. They did what they always do...use what they have until a better solution presents itself.

 

Sorry guys,the M14 is an OK sniper rifle and a fine target rifle,  but the M14 was obsolete as a battle rifle before it was ever even fielded. It was about 20 years behind on technology when it was adopted. The only other rifle that was so short lived as the official US rifle as the M14 was the Krag Jorgenson...ANOTHER rifle we adopted that was obsolete before it ever saw combat. We have historically had this habit of providing weapons that would have rocked...in the LAST war we fought. The Krag would have been awesome....in the Civil War...and the M14 would have dominated WWII. But when they were adopted they were already old news and better things were available.

[TMF]

The reason the M14 still gets play is NOT because it is so awesome.....it is because it is what we HAVE in inventory in a 7.62x51 rifle. They had all those rifles (well, at least the ones left that Clinton did not have cut up) left over from when we phased them out , stored in supply depots like Anniston. When GWOT (Global War on Terror) kicked off we could either take those out of mothballs and use them or we could WAIT for a new gun to be built. They did what they always do...use what they have until a better solution presents itself.

I believe this to be the case. I still see conventional Army guys sporting a couple of M14s in the EBR config per platoon. I suppose if they had SR 25s or whatever the Army calls them now, they'd be taking those out. Other than a bolt gun, the M14 is the only semi auto long range rifle they have.

I recall before all that EBR stuff came out came out seeing a female soldier from the 101st in a chow hall nearly 10 years ago with an old school M14 slung over her back. She was about 5 ft tall and maaayyyybe 100 lbs, so you can imagine how ridiculous this looked, the rifle barrel almost dragging the ground as she walked since it was nearly as long as she was. I asked a guy that worked up at BDE about it and he said that many support folks were issued these since they didn't have enough M4s at the time for the ash and trash. Don't know if that is true or not, but I know for certain if she fired that weapon standing up she would be knocked to the ground.

[~48_South~]

For me without doubt, the M1A/M14/M25 is the best choice for accuracy, reliability, sights, ergonomics and options.  These days, you can modernize your M14 with military EBR chassis' or target stocks or bed a lightweight USGI birch or fiber and get outstanding results.  Once set up, you cannot beat a man who knows his M14 in and out.  That's why the military has not shelved it yet.  They just keep finding ways to make it better than the new commercial contenders that come and go. 

My favorite M14 has a laminated and bedded E2 pistol grip stock from LAW483.com which has made the rifle I built into a custom shooter that fits me, as it should be.  To throw in a plug, that stock guy is a perfectionist and one-on-one consumer driven like all vendors should be. 

Bottom line is... 

if you want the best, forget the budget and look at what our Special Forces are using to preserve and protect our freedom.

 

http://sageebr.com/2010/10/09/httpsageebrcom20101009usmc-m39-emr-in-okinawaaspx.aspx

 

 

 

 

 Definitely cannot agree with you on the M1A/M14 reliability aspect over the other 2 choices. I mean the G3/91 style rifles are straight up tanks,and the FAL's adjustable gas system really helps it out when running in the funk or crappy ammo. Also from my experience the M1A's accuracy really isnt that much better than the PTR 91 if at all, accuracy with the FAL isnt super bad considering the factory trigger on my DSA Para Tac 16"  was 10+lbs(Ordered a Jard). Ive owned 5 or 6 M1A's over 4 different models and compared to my FAL or PTR they just dont do it for me. Can the M1A be made more accurate...sure with a one off build or maybe picking up a Super Match or National Match, even then the only ones that are known for reliability are custom built M14's like LRB or Smiths with forged receivers and actual USGI parts to which a Springfield M1A has neither last I checked. Even then your spending $2,500+ to try and get the kind of reliability that the 91/G3 and FAL's already have then consider that $2,500+ LRB has horrible ergo's compared to the other two so you have to spend another $1,000 on a good chassis at this point you have $3,500+ invested to make it on par with the other 2(IMO),and even then the accuracy isnt going to be anything to write home about and at this price point you are now in Scar 17s,and LaRue OBR/PredatorOBR territory and though LRB's and Smiths are great I personally decided to go with a more modern platform at that price point so I have the 17s and if I decide to spend that much on another 7.62 platform I no doubt will be ordering a LaRue. Also there are plenty of options for FAL's and G3/91's  the only thing I can remotely think of thats more available for the M1A than the other 2 are chassis systems and well the other 2 rifles designs prevent the need for them so thats kind of null and void. Everyone is understandably going to have varying opinions on which weapon platform they prefer however I just dont think its as cut and dry as you make it sound in favor of the M1A/M14 series.

[SmokyBaer]

 .......... Everyone is understandably going to have varying opinions on which weapon platform they prefer however I just dont think its as cut and dry as you make it sound in favor of the M1A/M14 series.

 

........... the only ones that are known for reliability are custom built M14's like LRB or Smiths with forged receivers

 

Agreed on that point.  Cut and dry is perhaps a bit of a stretch.  However, my FALs and SARs were nothing to brag about.  My 91 was a brass eater and didn't shoot a lot better than the FAL so it didn't find a place in the herd either.  My M14 passion evolved from a bit of homework because I agree the M1As and M14s for the most part are not MOA outta the box.  In fact, the only semi auto I have ever pulled off the shelf and shot MOA is my ugly FNAR.

 

For the M14, a few cheap tweaks like shimming the gas cylinder to adjust you bolt timing ($15), clearancing the handguard and stock rubs (free), installing a Sadlak spring guide ($35), a good trigger job ($65-80) then a bit of JB Weld to spot bed your action for increased ferrul draw ($5) and you've created yourself a damn fine, repeatably accurate yet rugged rifle to be proud of.  In my opinion, that's the reason the M14 platform is still around after 57 years. 

 

As for reliability, my LRB is the ultimate factory smooth action but the Fulton and Springers have all functioned flawlessly.  With over 30 years of my own personal testing of different M1A, M14 and M25 actions, I believe the cast versus forged argument is hogwash marketing.  Thousands of rounds downrange have shown me even the cast Springfields will last a civilian shooter a lifetime.  Only reliability issue I have hit is running heavy bullets which may goof the op rod.  Use 175s or less and she will run like a top. 

 

Grease what slides and oil what rotates and you have a winner.  :up:

Edited July 25, 2013 by SmokyBaer

[viscero]

I keep seeing references to MOA and accuracy in this thread.  I thought this was about battle rifles and not DMR's?  I love seeing the varying opinions on this - just think its gotten a little bit away from the boundaries of the base question.  Maybe my definition of "battle rifle" is off base.  To me that means stock or very close to stock as issued to a major military force, able to hit minute of man, rugged/reliable, and combat-proven.  What is your all's definition?

 

This is where the M14 fails in my mind.  It's HEAVY and cumbersome as a battle rifle.  I believe it had its shot in a combat theater and was replaced pretty quickly.  I think the reason its still around after 57 years is that the weapon did find its true calling as a DMR and the military already had thousands of them on hand and couldn't sell them to the public due to NFA laws that were on the books by the time they were being traded out for better battle rifle choices.  They had no choice but to keep them, melt them down, or sell them to other countries who were already more than happy with their HK's, FAL's, and AK's.

 

To me it really boils down between the '91 and the FAL but my personal experience with the FAL is that they can be very picky on the ammo that they eat.  Also, the mags are an issue; heavier on the FAL and not all are interchangeable depending on the origin of the upper.  Lastly, the optics are an issue with the FAL.  On the '91 you can take an out of the box rifle and clamp down an out of the box HK optic and are ready to go.  On the FAL you would need at least an aftermarket dust cover or similar to mount something.  I know that doesn't seem like a big deal but just trying to think of how much difference that would make to the soldier who couldn't just hop onto the web and order whatever his issue rifle was missing.

[DMark]

1.  FAL

2.  M14

3.  G3

 

I have carried and fired all three in their military issued configuration.  Today I own all three in their semi-auto civilian version. 

 

-  The FAL is the best overall battle rifle due to its ergonomics, ease of maintenance, tough reliability and "minute-of-chest" accuracy.  It does everything well.

-  The M14 is the most accurate battle rifle due to its great trigger and outstanding sights.  A very good choice for a DMR.

-  The G3 will shoot any sorry-ass ammo that you can put in it, it does not care.  Has poor ergonomics for "running the gun" and the most felt recoil.

 

None of them are worth a SH*T firing full-auto.

All of them are heavy to carry as well as the ammo to feed them (one of the reason that the Infantry is a young man's sport). 

 

JMHO....., but based on my real experiences with each weapon.

[dcloudy777]

I felt so sorry for the Turkish soldiers I saw in Bosnia.  The biggest one I saw in the whole unit was about 5'9"... the average height was probably about 5'4", and they all had G3s.  Some of the really short guys very nearly had rifles scraping the ground slung. 

[1gewehr]

1.  FAL

2.  M14

3.  G3

 

I have carried and fired all three in their military issued configuration.  Today I own all three in their semi-auto civilian version. 

 

-  The FAL is the best overall battle rifle due to its ergonomics, ease of maintenance, tough reliability and "minute-of-chest" accuracy.  It does everything well.

-  The M14 is the most accurate battle rifle due to its great trigger and outstanding sights.  A very good choice for a DMR.

-  The G3 will shoot any sorry-ass ammo that you can put in it, it does not care.  Has poor ergonomics for "running the gun" and the most felt recoil.

 

None of them are worth a SH*T firing full-auto.

All of them are heavy to carry as well as the ammo to feed them (one of the reason that the Infantry is a young man's sport). 

 

JMHO....., but based on my real experiences with each weapon.

 

Ditto!

BTW, I saw more out-of-action G3s due to Snuffy damage than I ever saw on the FAL or M-14.  A decent whack on the receiver while entering or leaving an armored vehicle will put a G3 out of action until the unit armorer can run the dent remover through it!  Marder APC doors and hatches will put a G3 out of action in a heartbeat!

 

On the other hand, I saw FALs that anyone with half a brain would disassemble for parts that were still running fine. 

[scoutfsu]

I believe this to be the case. I still see conventional Army guys sporting a couple of M14s in the EBR config per platoon. I suppose if they had SR 25s or whatever the Army calls them now, they'd be taking those out. Other than a bolt gun, the M14 is the only semi auto long range rifle they have.
 

 

They're 110's and you'll generally see them with the BN Scouts / Sniper sections.  The 14 will be far more prevalent for for line platoons, almost always w/ the SAGE stock.

 

I rocked a wood stock 14 w/ a Mk4 Leupy on top and a KAC rail for close to a year.  The M14 can eat a big fat dick as far as I'm concerned. 

[Guest The Itis]

Always liked the G3, no rhyme or reason