View Full Version : M1A, FAL or HK 91?
Condition Yellow
07-26-09, 18:34
Who owns or has used one of these battle rifles? Opinions?
Excellent article by Larry Vickers:
http://vickerstactical.com/tactical-tips/battle-rifles/
Having owned multiple examples of all three systems, a quality FAL is probably the best blend of accuracy, reliability, ergonomics, sustainability, and shootability.
4thPointOfContact
07-26-09, 19:33
I am by no means an expert in the subject matter, but I have owned both a H&K-91 and am a current FAL/L1A1 (frankenrifle) owner.
For the H&K
I didn't care for the loong reach to the H&K's safety. It was simply unreachable when shouldered, and I had to carry with the buttstock outside of my arm to reach when in a patrol position. The magazine release as well, is practically unreachable, unless you install a Tac-Latch (http://www.taclatch.com/), and that only benefits right handed shooters. The forward slanted barrel for the rear sights didn't bother me much, except for when the light was directly behind and it emphasized the numbers on the sight, overwhelming the aperture.
The lack of a last round bolt hold-open was a bit of a disappointment, but not insurmountable.
Disassembly is a breeze and it was always reliable over the 6-7 years I had it in rotation.
For the FAL
Some have complained that the rear sight isn't hooded and therefore is difficult to use in some sun conditions. True enough, but easily solved with the addition of a hood which is installed in a tapped rear sight. I think mine was $30 for the complete thing.
The safety is much more ergonomic, especially if using the extended L1A1/Imperial pattern.
Metric and Imperial bolt hold-open controls are interchangeable, so there is a choice for last round hold-open, or not.
If one substitutes an Canadian receiver cover, you can even load the magazine via stripper clips, plus it gives a bit of a distinctive look.
I'm divided on whether to use an Imperial or Metric magazine release, the Metric allows one to release with the trigger finger, but the Imperial is more useful for retaining the magazine in the hand when doing a change.
Summary? Both there are domestic manufacturers for both patterns, but I'd give the nod to the FAL. It's the one that's stayed with me the longest.
Also used all three and imho the FAL is the best rifle for ME.If you can try and shoot all three rifles as much as you can and find the one that works for YOUR NEEDS/WANTS.They all have the good and bad points.. you have to decide what good/bad points you want to live with.
Also one more thing if you go with an FAL(i would go with a DSA)Try an 18in barrel version i think that has the best balance IMHO.(better then a 16in or 21in barrel);):cool:
4thPointOfContact covered it nicely. I owned all three rifles in the past. The only one I have now is the FAL. I agree on the 18 inch barrel. Magazines are relatively inexpensive and plentiful. Spend the extra bucks for a higher end gun (FN, DSA, or Springfield) and you'll never look back.
BLACK LION
07-27-09, 13:42
It has pretty much been stated above but I will go ahead and chime in anyway.
I never cared for the ergonomics and features of the HK...for whatever reason I never could take a liking to them.
I have used an M1a and a SocomII and it shot well but again the ergonomics and features were less than desirable. Modularity is also an issue for me.
One thing that really strick me as a negative was mag insertion with gloves... the rocking that needs to be done to seat the mag snagged my blackhawk solag gloves and pinched them inside the release somehow...so here I am with a hot rifle, round in the chamber and a hand stuck in the mag release...it took some careful fiddling to get me loose without sacrificing the utmost safety. F--- that.
I went with a DSA FAL.
As stated above it was the best in ergonomics, modularity, dependability and ease of maintenance... On top of that parts and mags were real cheap.
I changed many of the stock features to fit a 21st century role. I added a saw stock and grip as well as a picatinny reciever cover and a quad rail handguard.
I put a T.A.G. saw sling on it and it was gtg...
I agree with the 18" barrel comment as mine was 21" not including the long flash hider.... I think any way to save weight and not sacrifice accuracy is desirable with this rifle since it can become fairly heavy and cumbersome depending on the configuration. I cannot give overall accuracy to the FAL since mine wasnt a precision shooter....
If I had to choose one of the three it would be a FAL but it would come from DSA with NP3 coated parts and a match grade or premium contour fluted barrel and a speed trigger.
militarymoron
07-27-09, 15:17
having owned all three, if i had to start all over again i'd probably pick a FAL in congo configuration.
L1A1, then a G3, then a Metric FAL.
Condition Yellow
07-28-09, 00:30
Does anyone have pics? Militarymoron, what is a Congo configuration?
The only one of the three I've had the opportunity to shoot was a G3 when I earned the Schützenschnur while stationed in Germany, back before the Wall fell. I've handled an M1A some 3 or 4 times, and fumbled seating the mag every time I tried, because of the angle Lion mentioned.
Does anyone have pics? Militarymoron, what is a Congo configuration?
The only one of the three I've had the opportunity to shoot was a G3 when I earned the Schützenschnur while stationed in Germany, back before the Wall fell. I've handled an M1A some 3 or 4 times, and fumbled seating the mag every time I tried, because of the angle Lion mentioned.
http://www.dsarms.com/SA58-FAL-PARA-Congo-Rifle-308-Cal----SA58PCONGO/productinfo/SA58PCONGO/
http://www.dsarms.com/SA58-FAL-Congo-Rifle-308-Cal----SA58CONGO/productinfo/SA58CONGO/
I have the Congo version, great rifle.
I've had all three, still have the Congo if that tells you something.
In my opinion, if you want an iron sighted battle rifle, get the FAL. You can add optics, etc if that's what you want, mine is stock, just a light mount on the HG's
Hard to beat the G3/HK91, same thing, optics are easier. I do regret selling mine though and won't be spending money on one now.
From what I've seen and got first hand knowledge from people who've used in in harm's way-if you want an M1A, leave it stock. If you want a toy to brag about and fiddle with like a 1911, then it's for you.
Does anyone have pics? Militarymoron, what is a Congo configuration?
The only one of the three I've had the opportunity to shoot was a G3 when I earned the Schützenschnur while stationed in Germany, back before the Wall fell. I've handled an M1A some 3 or 4 times, and fumbled seating the mag every time I tried, because of the angle Lion mentioned.
You've got stuck picture threads in the Other Assault Rifles section here on the board, where this topic has been discussed a few times too.
Lots and lots of pics actually.
I, too, expected this to be at "Other Assault," but since you're here I'll ask, what is your interest in these choices? Is your choice of caliber firm? A year ago I asked the same question and decided on an AR-15 in 6.8spc. Just my 2 cents.
I, too, expected this to be at "Other Assault," but since you're here I'll ask, what is your interest in these choices? Is your choice of caliber firm? A year ago I asked the same question and decided on an AR-15 in 6.8spc. Just my 2 cents.
Moved over, thanks
The 6.8 option is a good one in a sense. To avoid a serious redirection of the thread, let's keep it on topic. The 6.8 comparison, that would be a whole other thread which I think has been discussed.
Mark
I currently have all three. Here are some things that haven't been mentioned yet:
The HK91 kicks like a mule compared to the FAL and M1A.
In my OPINION the M1A has the best sights.
The FAL feels lighter in the hand and the most like an AR of the three.
Current M1As lack a lot of USGI parts so it seems they are often hit or miss on reliability and function. You might want to look for an older rifle with more USGI parts.
Spooky
I currently have all three. Here are some things that haven't been mentioned yet:
The HK91 kicks like a mule compared to the FAL and M1A.
In my OPINION the M1A has the best sights.
The FAL feels lighter in the hand and the most like an AR of the three.
Current M1As lack a lot of USGI parts so it seems they are often hit or miss on reliability and function. You might want to look for an older rifle with more USGI parts.
Spooky
Big 10-4 on that, I've seen dozens of them self destruct when actually used.
The HK91 kicks like a mule compared to the FAL and M1A.
That was one of the major factors that led me to the FN. I borrowed an H&K 91 and shot it side by side with a buddy's Belgian FN 50.61 Para. The H&K has a fairly violent recoil impulse (unpleasant) while the FN's recoil impulse is considerably softer.
Another major factor was price, availability of parts and mags. At the time, original H&K mags were going for $30 each while DSA had mint Austrian surplus magazines for $7 each.
Big 10-4 on that, I've seen dozens of them self destruct when actually used.
I'm not sure I'd go that far... They do cause issues with part compatibility - it is often difficult to get Smith Enterprises scope mounts to fit correctly. That and those old GI parts were tested pretty thoroughly before being accepted...
The H&K has a fairly violent recoil impulse (unpleasant) while the FN's recoil impulse is considerably softer.
Another major factor was price, availability of parts and mags. At the time, original H&K mags were going for $30 each while DSA had mint Austrian surplus magazines for $7 each.
I think the mag situation has taken a 180! I was lucky to get a good amount of mags when I bought my Springfield Armory SAR48 a couple years back. It was a little over a grand and in great shape from a production line that built "mil-spec" FALs...
Spooky
I have owned all three for a long time, my favorite is the HK 91.
The HK91 kicks like a mule compared to the FAL and M1A.
Spooky
I find just the opposite. M1A kicks the worst, then the FAL then the HK.
And in the select fire versions the HK is the only one controllable on full auto.
I'm not sure I'd go that far... They do cause issues with part compatibility - it is often difficult to get Smith Enterprises scope mounts to fit correctly. That and those old GI parts were tested pretty thoroughly before being accepted...
I think the mag situation has taken a 180! I was lucky to get a good amount of mags when I bought my Springfield Armory SAR48 a couple years back. It was a little over a grand and in great shape from a production line that built "mil-spec" FALs...
Spooky
Trust me, I've personally seen plenty of op rods fly off, bolt rollers fall apart, bolts come out, pieces of same fall of. And yes, they where lubed properly.
As stated, have the proper spec parts in it and it's a different story.
A wise Operator once told me-keep it as designed and it will work. Try to make it something it's not and it won't. To bad he didn't follow the same advice with his 1911's.
https://www.cogunsales.com/index.php?page=shop.product_details&flypage=shop.flypage&product_id=82&category_id=1&manufacturer_id=0&option=com_virtuemart&Itemid=1
http://www.dsarms.com/DSA-L1A1-Inch-Receiver-762-Cal---029L1A1/productinfo/029L1A1/
build your own inch pattern L1A1
http://www.discountgunsales.com/ds-arms-sa58cp18-c-227-p-1-pr-712.html current price
I would like to see DSA build a complete inch pattern L1A1.:D
variablebinary
08-04-09, 21:42
I would probably go FAL personally
Buckshot TX
08-05-09, 19:50
I've put in a little time humping all 3 of these at different points & I'll take an FAL followed closely by the M-14. The G3 is plenty tough & mechanically very accurate, but handles the worst IMO. Muzzle heavy, unnecessarily rough working the operating handle & a safety that even my simian digits can't reach. The M14 has an accuracy advantage over the FAL & handles fine, but the FAL is just about the smoothest handling rifle I've used & shoots better than I do most days.
Having said that - if I was needing a rifle & any of the 3 were what was available, I'd be tickled as they're all very worthy weapons. Figure out which of them feels & operates the best for you, because you really can't go wrong with any of the three.
geminidglocker
08-05-09, 19:59
I've only owned the FAL. It was century arms import on an Imbel receiver. I liked it. The first time I pulled the trigger I thought something had gone wrong, there certainly should have been more recoil, this was not the case. One of the most enjoyable rifles to shoot. I had to sell it back in 2000. I wish I still had it.
I've shot all three of them. HK, FAL, M14 is the order I would choose. BTW I currently have a broken M1A Scout. :( With >100 rds down range.
Army Chief
08-09-09, 15:34
I've only got experience with the M1A and HK G3/91, and I opted for the Springfield. All else being equal, I would make the same purchase decision today, though I certainly wouldn't mind putting a FAL through its paces.
AC
LoneStarM1A
08-12-09, 03:52
M1A, FAL, then G3. I've fired 3500 rounds through my springfield scout without any problems, save for 4 or 5 various cycling failures from a batch of ammo I shot through it with excessively dirty cases (LC surplus brass with goo on them). It'll do 1.5 MOA with match ammo to boot, and only weighs 8lbs empty. Great iron sights also, but I do use a scout scope on mine.
Gutshot John
08-12-09, 08:34
DSA FAL.
Lots more gun for the money, cheaper, made on original equipment to original specs, more available parts, more ergonomic, comparable accuracy to an off-the-shelf M1A, more ability to upgrade with OEM parts.
Tough choice, they are all great rifles. :) If you're willing to pay the tab, I think I'd maybe go with the M14. There are several companies that make them right here in the U.S., so there are lots of parts and accessories you can get for them and availability is good. Plenty of brand new U.S. military contract magazines (for combat use in Afghanistan and Iraq) are available, too. It's a highly reliable weapon, accuracy is generally excellent, even more so if you go for a match barrel. You can't go wrong with a quality M14. :)
Someone earlier mentioned about the desirability of forged parts, and I agree. If you want the best, I've heard very good things about LRB arms, they make real forged M14 receivers for their M14 rifles. Gotta love that. :) You can check out their M14's here. http://lrbarms.com/
Definitely an 18" FAL. After that, probably an 18" M1A w/GI parts.
QuickStrike
08-14-09, 03:43
I'd pick the M14 styled rifle.
Of course I'd have to add a few things to it:
Winter safety- it's outside the trigger guard = a little less retarded
Vltor stock- stock more in-line with the barrel = maybe less muzzle flip??, adjustable LOP, easier to reach winter safety while holding the pistol grip
Extended bolt release
If they made a fixed synthetic stock for the FAL that wasn't so long (about 13" LOP) I'd SERIOUSLY consider getting one too...
Having shot all three, It is a toss up for me between the M1A/M14 and the FAL.
The HK was a no go for me. I didn't like the ergonomics and the recoil, for me, was more noticable than either the FAL or the M1A/M14.
For FAL's you cant go wrong with DSA and LRB and SAI both make nice M1A/M14's.
Rich
LRB M-14SA forged receiver USGI parts and MADE IN THE USA! No stamped metal and still drops em!
torquemada055
08-23-09, 08:07
Hmm, after shooting all 3 and having to worry about what my family would handle best I guess you could say we are a FAL family since we have 6 in the safes!
Couple of Para's, an L1A1, and some metrics, but all FAL's.
And for giggles and grins we have a couple of AR's also...
But my favorite is my short gas Inch Para. Big boom, little package.
RAM Engineer
08-23-09, 08:52
Inch pattern FAL.
I'm curious as to why you prefer an inch pattern over a metric pattern FAL. Could you educate me please? Thanks
Jason
Gutshot John
08-23-09, 10:06
Maybe there should be an "G3/M1A/FAL" sticky?
Having owned multiple examples of all three systems, a quality FAL is probably the best blend of accuracy, reliability, ergonomics, sustainability, and shootability.
the fal is best so far and very well battle proven over 85 nations still use the fal , not to be too hard but M-14 has many troubles by design like the op-rod and bolt design also the bedding headaches - now parts specs too ok sorry but its true ............misfire again !read the book ''misfire'' ........
QuickStrike
08-23-09, 16:50
M-14 has many troubles by design like the op-rod and bolt design
Bolt rollers???
I recall saying that the FAL wasn't as reliable in dust/artic, no one backed me up on that (even though some probably already knew) so I had to buy a freakin' book that talked about the trials to see for myself. :rolleyes:
Gutshot John
08-23-09, 17:56
Bolt rollers???
I recall saying that the FAL wasn't as reliable in dust/artic, no one backed me up on that (even though some probably already knew) so I had to buy a freakin' book that talked about the trials to see for myself. :rolleyes:
I've read a lot of books about a lot of different guns. Usually they contradict each other. Which book are you referring to and what methodology/study did they use?
The FAL platform is far more battle-proven than the M14 and reliability issues with the latter have been pretty well documented.
Nobody backed you up because it was a dubious conclusion.
QuickStrike
08-23-09, 18:14
I've read a lot of books about a lot of different guns. Usually they contradict each other. Which book are you referring to and what methodology/study did they use?
The FAL platform is far more battle-proven than the M14 and reliability issues with the latter have been pretty well documented.
Nobody backed you up because it was a dubious conclusion.
U.S Rifle M14: from John Garand to the M21- R. Blake Stevens (Also wrote a similar FAL book)
Adoption trials between the two rifles in the 50's. Pages 172-173, and more.
The FAL platform is far more battle-proven than the M14 and reliability issues with the latter have been pretty well documented.
More battle proven, yes. Reliability problems from issued rifles or springfield armory's rifles with questionable parts?
The FAL = more ergonomic, widespread, etc.. the M14 doesn't/can't have anything going for it huh? :rolleyes:
Not really interested in this debate (again). Get the book if you wanna read about the trials. Also had info on how the M16/AR-15 beat out the M14's.
Gutshot John
08-23-09, 18:28
U.S Rifle M14: from John Garand to the M21- R. Blake Stevens (Also wrote a similar FAL book)
Adoption trials between the two rifles in the 50's. Pages 172-173, and more.
So what makes this book any better or more relevant than others?
More battle proven, yes. Reliability problems from issued rifles or springfield armory's rifles with questionable parts?
From my understanding it was issued rifles as well. I don't think Springfield Armory M1As have ever seen combat.
The FAL = more ergonomic, widespread, etc.. the M14 doesn't/can't have anything going for it huh? :rolleyes:
Huh?
Not really interested in this debate (again). Get the book if you wanna read about the trials. Also had info on how the M16/AR-15 beat out the M14's.
I don't want to read about the trials, but then I'm not making any assertion that the FAL is more reliable. Why don't you just explain to the rest of us what methodology the trials used and why one is "superior"?
QuickStrike
08-23-09, 19:15
...
Just read the book. I already gave you the title, author, etc..
And then what? You'll just nit-pick at some other crap. I don't need to convince you.
I've wasted enough on the internet as is.
Gutshot John
08-23-09, 19:22
Just read the book. I already gave you the title, author, etc..
And then what? You'll just nit-pick at some other crap. I don't need to convince you.
I've wasted enough on the internet as is.
I usually read reviews of any book before I decide to buy it. Let's just say I don't want to spend money on a book that I have no reason to. If however you'd like to send me your copy I'll give it a once over. Citing a book that cites a 50 year old survey isn't exactly "current" literature.
If you're going to cite a source I don't think it's too much to ask to give a review of the material.
Anyone can say "such and such is correct because I read it in a book". Lots of books say lots of things...much of it wrong.
I certainly can't nitpick something I haven't even read.
For a battle rifle I'd go FAL. If this is more of a DMR type setup then the M1a is the better choice.
SGT D USMC
09-03-09, 02:52
I carried a M14 in viet nam. We never discussed it's relieability or It's stopping power. I only saw one failure, we were taking fire while crossing a wide stream and crouched as low in the water as possible. A Marine in front of me fired his 14 just as he was coming out of the water and evidently the barrel was full of water. He got alot of bad wood splinters in his left forarm. and droped the rifle we just pushed him on to cover and never retreived his rifle, probably ruptured the rounds brass base and the gas splinered the stock.
None of the above makes the m-14 superior. Fals did get a bad rep in the first gulf war because they were allurgic to sand. What few m-14's are left have done very well in the mideast.
However they are m-14's not m1a's.
He went into younder village and never returned
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.