View Full Version : M14 and L1A1 in Southeast Asia
One of the knocks against the M14 rifle in Vietnam was that it was a bit long and clumsy in a jungle environment. The Aussies (who had troops there also) used the L1A1, which was itself not exactly a compact weapon but I haven't read that they had the same complaints. Different operating terrain or some other factor?
From reading, I don't think they turned down M16's if an option.
Not sure as to what the exact difference is, but (in my opinion packing them hunting and hiking) an L1A1 carries and handles better than a Belgian pattern FAL. They are about the same weight, but it sure doesn't feel the same in the hand. To me, either are more ergonomic than an M14(opinion based on only a range trip or 2 playing with 1).
I will say the L1A1 magazines are teetering on being like steel 7.62 AK mag in terms of design and weight though.
From reading, I don't think they turned down M16's if an option.
Not sure as to what the exact difference is, but (in my opinion packing them hunting and hiking) an L1A1 carries and handles better than a Belgian pattern FAL. They are about the same weight, but it sure doesn't feel the same in the hand. To me, either are more ergonomic than an M14(opinion based on only a range trip or 2 playing with 1).
I will say the L1A1 magazines are teetering on being like steel 7.62 AK mag in terms of design and weight though.
Although I like M-14's (the traditionalist in me I guess), I have to reluctantly admit that the FAL is more ergonomic. It's still long and just about as heavy, so.....
From reading, I don't think they turned down M16's if an option
From the book The Black Rifle
https://i.imgur.com/nQ9U6k9.jpg
Although I like M-14's (the traditionalist in me I guess), I have to reluctantly admit that the FAL is more ergonomic. It's still long and just about as heavy, so.....
Yeah, weight and length are a wash. 44" and 43" and both 9 lbs and change.
In most cases the M14 proved more accurate in semi auto fire but the FAL was more controllable in full auto, except of course the L1A1 which was only produced in semi auto because the Brits found it to be not very controllable in full auto.
Modern FALs have better scope mount options. I also personally believe the FAL is more comfortable in the shoulder and easier to tote in a sling so long as you are using USGI slings.
And assuming the soldiers were correctly trained in the adjustable gas operating system, the FAL should generally be more reliable.
MountainRaven
08-28-20, 22:23
The Aussies used different tactics in Vietnam than Americans did. This difference in tactics likely meant that American complaints about the M14 would have also applied to the L1A1/FAL, but that the Aussies wouldn't have complained about the M14.
And while the Aussies did have and use AR-15s, XM16s, XM16E1s, M16A1s, they were issued (mostly) to troops in lieu of Owen guns and F1s (IOW 9mm subguns). (The Aussies, notably, didn't seem to complain about the M16 the same way American troops did, either.)
The Aussies used different tactics in Vietnam than Americans did. This difference in tactics likely meant that American complaints about the M14 would have also applied to the L1A1/FAL, but that the Aussies wouldn't have complained about the M14.
And while the Aussies did have and use AR-15s, XM16s, XM16E1s, M16A1s, they were issued (mostly) to troops in lieu of Owen guns and F1s (IOW 9mm subguns). (The Aussies, notably, didn't seem to complain about the M16 the same way American troops did, either.)
I think sample size is also important. The number of M16 platforms vs. the number of FAL platforms. I seem to remember something from the first Persian Gulf War that stated the HK G3 had the best performance record of any rifle in theater, but you have to factor in that only the Paki's were using G3s (not counting the ones used by Adid's militia) and the fact that they had dramatically fewer engagements compared to US forces. So if G3s were only used 20 times and there were not any malfunctions, that would technically give them a 100% performance record.
By the same token is the US was running FAL type rifles and the Aussies were running mostly M16s, you probably see the reverse with a dramatic number of complaints about the FAL rifles and how we should have gone with M16s instead.
Part of me also wonders if we had gone with a more practical .308 rifle like the FN FAL or G3 if that would have improved things or not. Heavier ammo loads but also better penetration in dense brush and "maybe" a bit more reliable when compared to the M-16, especially the early M-16s before they got the M16A1s in inventory. Or would there have been more US casualties because you can't carry as much 7.62x51 as you can 5.56x45 and the rifle itself was almost twice as heavy.
We definitely suffered by beta testing a new rifle in a conflict like Vietnam, add in changes to powder and lack of chrome chambers, etc.
The Portuguese used the G3 in their colonial wars in Africa around the same time as our involvement in Vietnam. It proved a solidly reliable rifle for them.
The Portuguese used the G3 in their colonial wars in Africa around the same time as our involvement in Vietnam. It proved a solidly reliable rifle for them.
I believe they were used extensively in El Salvador for quite a while also, albeit a little later than the 60's.
If the FAL (T48) is adopted by the US Army, how does the AR-15/M16's storyline play out?
Grand58742
08-30-20, 11:18
If the FAL (T48) is adopted by the US Army, how does the AR-15/M16's storyline play out?
I think the USAF still pushes ahead with the purchase of the M16 in the early 60s since the Air Police (at the time) were still using M1 Carbines as the primary long gun until the M16 FOW was adopted. Plus, the ones sent to SE Asia to test came back with glowing reports from Special Forces advisors on the ground.
Remember, the Big Army rigged the tests as much as possible against the M16 to try and keep the M14 in production. Even if they had adopted the FAL, the lighter weight, ease of control and ability to carry more ammo meant it would (and eventually did) serve well in the close jungles of Asia.
El Pistolero
08-30-20, 13:51
I used to have an L1A1. It was a fine rifle and one of the only guns I ever regret selling.
MountainRaven
08-30-20, 14:05
I've mentioned elsewhere that I think if the T48 had been adopted that the AR-15 still would have been adopted, but it would have remained in 222 Remington and been relegated chiefly to a replacement for M1/M2 Carbines and M3 submachine guns (the latter probably replaced - outside of infantry units - by something similar to an XM177).
I've mentioned elsewhere that I think if the T48 had been adopted that the AR-15 still would have been adopted, but it would have remained in 222 Remington and been relegated chiefly to a replacement for M1/M2 Carbines and M3 submachine guns (the latter probably replaced - outside of infantry units - by something similar to an XM177).
Yes, eventually. Not sure I agree with the follow-on statement about 222 Remington and it being a secondary-type gun. Vietnam was coming no matter what weapon was adopted and that put both the M-14 or FAL in the same "It's too heavy and long for the jungle" category. M16 for the win either way due to SE Asia.
MountainRaven
08-30-20, 14:55
Yes, eventually. Not sure I agree with the follow-on statement about 222 Remington and it being a secondary-type gun. Vietnam was coming no matter what weapon was adopted and that put both the M-14 or FAL in the same "It's too heavy and long for the jungle" category. M16 for the win either way due to SE Asia.
The 222 Remington is based on a lack of interest from the US Army. The 223 was basically developed because the 222 struggled to punch through an M1 helmet at 400 yards, something the Army wanted but the Air Force didn't care about. With the AR-15 remaining in 222, it never develops the issues with bolt durability the OG M16 has/had. Without the push to get the AR-15 into service, the Whiz Kids never try to make the AR-15 cheaper, without the push to issue out 223 in lieu of 7.62x51, the ball powder originally intended for 7.62 never gets into 223 which means the AR-15 doesn't have it's cyclic rate thrown out of whack...
The FAL and M14 weren't too long and too heavy for the jungle. The FAL was adopted after experience in Malaya and used in Malaya by British, ANZAC, and Rhodesian troops (ANZAC and Rhodesian troops would continue to use the FAL in the jungles of Vietnam and forests of Rhodesia) and many American soldiers and Marines preferred the M14 to the M16 (even before the M16 began developing issues). As I recall, the chief reason the M16 was adopted was because of production numbers: The M14 couldn't be produced in the numbers necessary to arm the US armed forces, but the M16 could. All the production issues with the FAL had already been worked out by the Canadians, Israelis, and Belgians in the early-to-mid 50s, meaning the T48 wouldn't have had the same teething issues the M14 had which resulted in the poor production numbers of the M14, and thus no reason for McNamara to force the M16 to replace the M14.
MountainRaven,
I still say lighter weapon and more ammo eventually wins the day as it seems to be the natural evolution of weapons.
.58cal muskets, 45-70, 30.06, 7.62x51, 5.56mm......see the natural trend?
Just for the record, I personally don't think the M-14 or FAL was too heavy or long for the jungle (of course I wasn't humping one either, but did carry an M16A1 when I was in the jungles of Panama). Those are the most common complaints you hear though.
Grand58742
08-30-20, 15:22
and many American soldiers and Marines preferred the M14 to the M16 (even before the M16 began developing issues).
3 out of 2,100 soldiers is "many"?
Page 20 of the link below. 38 soldiers interviewed wanted another weapon than the M16. 35 of the 38 wanted a CAR-15/XM177.
https://apps.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a953117.pdf
If nothing else, you would think that the 7.62mm NATO round would have better penetration through jungle/foliage. Whether that made any actual difference in engagements is debatable (I'm guessing).
If nothing else, you would think that the 7.62mm NATO round would have better penetration through jungle/foliage. Whether that made any actual difference in engagements is debatable (I'm guessing).
I have a Lyman reloading manual that has an article where they tested the smaller/faster vs. Heavier/slower projectiles accuracy being affected by hitting stuff and there wasn't any difference. 7.62×51 has an edge on punching through a tree trunk/wall and hitting whatever is immediately on the other side of it, but 7.62 or 5.56 clipping a twig halfway to a target 100 yards away is likely going to end in a miss.
I've mentioned elsewhere that I think if the T48 had been adopted that the AR-15 still would have been adopted, but it would have remained in 222 Remington and been relegated chiefly to a replacement for M1/M2 Carbines and M3 submachine guns (the latter probably replaced - outside of infantry units - by something similar to an XM177).
You seem to be combining categories.
There was a M1, M2 (select fire M1) and an M3 (M2 with giant IR setup) carbines that preceded the M4.
Regarding subguns, there was the M1 (Thompson), M2 (Reising) and M3 (Grease gun).
This is still why we have a rifle classification M16A4 and a carbine classification M4A1. To the best of my knowledge we never adopted a M4 subgun.
So if we did go with the T 48 (H&R FAL) that would have been a M designation rifle and probably would not be in service along side a M-16 designation rifle unless the M-FAL was being phased out. But we could have had an M-FAL and XM177 which was refined into the M4 carbine. Of course the M-FAL would probably be something like a M-FAL A4.
MountainRaven,
I still say lighter weapon and more ammo eventually wins the day as it seems to be the natural evolution of weapons.
I think once the Germans showed us a mid caliber / carbine size rifle with a select fire capacity was the best "all in one" that you can hope for, the M-16 was just where things were going no matter what. The only reason the UK held on to their FALs and the Germans held on to their G3s was because they made so damn many of them. It was a lot like us with our stock of M1911s, we took it through four wars because they still worked and we had them.
Steve Shannon
08-31-20, 01:06
Originally the NATO ammunition for the FAL was agreed upon to be the intermediate .280 caliber which would have eliminated the pressure to adopt the .223. The U S insisted on 7.62x51.
Now they’re back looking at 6.8.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Originally the NATO ammunition for the FAL was agreed upon to be the intermediate .280 caliber which would have eliminated the pressure to adopt the .223. The U S insisted on 7.62x51.
Now they’re back looking at 6.8.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
That was more about the British EM2 rifle. And while FN did produce a bullpup version of the FAL in .280 as a prototype it was quickly abandoned and FN returned to their more conventional rifle in .30 cal and even offered a deal to the US where they could produce them royalty free given the expectation that the British were going to adopt the EM2 in .280. Politics changed once again and the UK agreed to standardize around the 7.62 NATO round.
Steve Shannon
08-31-20, 07:02
That was more about the British EM2 rifle. And while FN did produce a bullpup version of the FAL in .280 as a prototype it was quickly abandoned and FN returned to their more conventional rifle in .30 cal and even offered a deal to the US where they could produce them royalty free given the expectation that the British were going to adopt the EM2 in .280. Politics changed once again and the UK agreed to standardize around the 7.62 NATO round.
https://youtu.be/HhUfBfr2OBA
Not a bullpup, definitely a FAL.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
MountainRaven
08-31-20, 14:18
You seem to be combining categories.
I'm not.
I said: M1 and M2 carbines and M3 submachine guns.
So if we did go with the T 48 (H&R FAL) that would have been a M designation rifle and probably would not be in service along side a M-16 designation rifle unless the M-FAL was being phased out. But we could have had an M-FAL and XM177 which was refined into the M4 carbine. Of course the M-FAL would probably be something like a M-FAL A4.
I'm not sure I can parse what you're trying to say. Are you saying that the AR-15 would have been adopted as the M4?
What I'm saying is that the AR-15 in the form we know as the M16 would likely have been adopted as a replacement for the M1 and M2 carbines and, in certain roles, as a replacement for the M3 SMG. Which is a role the AR-15/M16 was intended to play for the Air Force and initially played for the Army (the XM16E1 being originally issued to Special Forces and airmobile troops as a replacement for M1 and M2 carbines) and did play for countries that issued both 7.62 rifles and AR-15s simultaneously (such as the ANZACs in Vietnam, where the grunt infantryman was issued an L1A1, but troops who had previously been issued F1 SMGs and Owen guns received AR-15s/M16s/M16A1s).
However, the AR-15/M16 is a bit long to function as a replacement for the M3 SMG in all roles and thus something similar to the XM177 (classed originally by both Colt and the US armed forces as a submachine gun) would likely serve.
https://youtu.be/HhUfBfr2OBA
Not a bullpup, definitely a FAL.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
Interesting. Forgotten Weapons always has good stuff.
I'm not.
I said: M1 and M2 carbines and M3 submachine guns.
But you didn't mention the M3 carbine and that is how it looked.
I'm not.
I'm not sure I can parse what you're trying to say. Are you saying that the AR-15 would have been adopted as the M4?
What I'm saying is that the AR-15 in the form we know as the M16 would likely have been adopted as a replacement for the M1 and M2 carbines and, in certain roles, as a replacement for the M3 SMG. Which is a role the AR-15/M16 was intended to play for the Air Force and initially played for the Army (the XM16E1 being originally issued to Special Forces and airmobile troops as a replacement for M1 and M2 carbines) and did play for countries that issued both 7.62 rifles and AR-15s simultaneously (such as the ANZACs in Vietnam, where the grunt infantryman was issued an L1A1, but troops who had previously been issued F1 SMGs and Owen guns received AR-15s/M16s/M16A1s).
However, the AR-15/M16 is a bit long to function as a replacement for the M3 SMG in all roles and thus something similar to the XM177 (classed originally by both Colt and the US armed forces as a submachine gun) would likely serve.
I was saying IF we adopted a M-FAL (and I'm not sure what the adopted designation would actually be), we probably would NOT have adopted the rifle that became the M16 except maybe as a carbine platform similar to the XM177 / M4. Of course that would be difficult because we had to develop the M16 / M16A1 before we could arrive at a carbine version.
But this is the problem with hypothetical counter factuals.
HardToHandle
08-31-20, 19:14
MountainRaven nailed his commentary.
https://tenor.com/view/old-oldschool-debate-will-ferrell-gif-12797063
SecDef McNamara and his goon squad had reached the limits of their patience with the Army Ordnance Branch too.
The type specified M14 had been slow to roll out to the commercial manufacturers, inexplicable because it was a product improved M1. During the Berlin Wall Crisis, the tip o’ the spear Berlin Brigade were still carrying the same rifle that was issued in 1938, but the Russkies had been through three new generations of infantry weapons by then.
The inability to scale production for 30 year old design was a national embarrassment. The classic Army-run Arsenals as small arms design and production centers were soon to disappear. The move to the commercial-based system of small arms design and manufacturing seems to have been a pretty impressive outcome for the US - what percentage of total new small arms being purchased today are based on Stoner and Sullivan’s work?
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.