Go Back   CMP Forums > CMP Sales > M1A/M14
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Mark Forums Read

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #11  
Old 07-30-2017, 07:54 AM
rickgman rickgman is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Michigan
Posts: 798
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gewehr43 View Post
Alright Thanks!
I was trying to narrow the timeframe in talking to some friends about this..................
I would say that the timeframe was 1959 until 1970. Rick
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 07-30-2017, 01:26 PM
jimthompson502002 jimthompson502002 is offline
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: La Crosse, Wisconsin
Posts: 2,379
Default

I've had heavy barreled FAL's that would equal or exceed M14's in overall performance and accuracy.

Some of my standard specimens come close or equal the Garand derivative.

The British "inch pattern" and spinoffs were usually among the best, but the Austrian variants were also exceptional.

I've owned two Belgian versions, both new, and they were superb, too.

Thing is, a match-prepped M14 is a whole different critter.

Also, with the optical sight, as opposed to M14 iron sights, well...all equations change a little. There's a devil of sorts in the details.

The real advantage to the F.N. series is the ease of cleaning and long term ease of service.

Much of NATO and older Western Allied competition was done for morale purposes.

Tracking down some of it, one realizes a lot of it had to do with the participation and keeping folks busy.

Also: shooters matter a lot. Canadian volunteer units against U.S. draftees of the period could very well be an invalid comparison.

Bluntly put, the rifle types are a very small part of such a competition.

Last edited by jimthompson502002; 08-10-2017 at 09:45 PM. Reason: Important detail
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 07-31-2017, 09:23 AM
milprileb milprileb is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Stafford, Virginia
Posts: 2,229
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ceresco View Post
The FNFALs have a front sight on the barrel, a rear sight on the receiver and a hinge in the middle. Not an expert on them (I have two), but it does seem to be a problem.... Good Shooting. ...
Exactly !! That is why when hearing this comment from a buddy who served in Europe, I was amazed the M14 did not outshoot the C1 Canadian rifle.

So I had to ask here for comments. Personally, I am with you on the design challenges for accuracy of the FN FAL design. I own the Brit SLR model as well as a M1A, the M14 was service rifle for a few years of my initial service career, I know both rifles well and my thought was M14 was hands down a more accurate rifle / design.

If there was Voo Doo done on Canadian C1 rifles, I'd like to know what their witch doctors did to get them to out shoot M14"s
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 08-07-2017, 07:23 PM
Gewehr43 Gewehr43 is offline
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Denver, CO
Posts: 1,938
Default

OP:
So a couple of things:

-I did ask around with some of my CF friends and I didn't get any real info. What I mean is I did find a senior NCO that was in Germany during the time in question. He sortta remembered the matches but replied that "Of course we won. Our ammunition was better and we trained better."

-My personal experience........... So I lived in Canada during the "good times" of the early 80's. We could buy real M14's and FN FAL's. (The Canadian C1 was restricted since it was the duty rifle at the time). The M14 I owned was a true TRW with the welded selector lever, just like a USGI. They were called "Converted Autos" in that unlike here as long as the full auto function was permanently disabled, they were sold as a regular rifle.
What I remember was that as we shot these standard issue M14's (probably from Israel), L1A1's and FN FAL's, is they all shot about the same. 100-200yds with Ball ammo.... it was a toss up.

-When I was in the 11th RCA and we shot, I remember taking pieces of paper and attempting to shim the play out of the 2 receivers. That was with the "rear" locking lug. The other issue we were warned about was how the inconsistent upward pressure of the magazine (empty or loaded) would bear against the tilting bolt and affect accuracy.

You can read all about the FN FAL and its tweaks here:

http://www.ar15.com/forums/t_6_7/480...g-thread-.html
__________________
Service Rifle.... RIP .... 1884-2015
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 08-08-2017, 12:01 PM
Ted Brown Ted Brown is offline
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Jacksonville, OR
Posts: 337
Default

One has to keep in mind that the times were such that it was battle rifle against battle rifle and there is a great range of accuracy deviation between individual battle rifles. Early M14s were not known to exhibit the best accuracy and standards for battle rifles were not the tightest. In US tests between the T44E4 and the T48 (FAL) results were only slightly in favor of the T44E4 (M14). Ammunition played a significant role too and M80 Ball ammo was far from "Match Grade". Battle rifles were only expected to shoot within 5 to 6 inches at 100 meters.
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 08-24-2017, 09:44 AM
Short Round Short Round is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 811
Default

Also what kind of match was this? A high power style paper target match or a combat match on infantry pop targets.

If the latter the SLR was at no disadvantage in my eyes.


If we were using our old targets the 5v or 10 ring was plenty generous too.
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 08-30-2017, 08:33 AM
milprileb milprileb is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Stafford, Virginia
Posts: 2,229
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gewehr43 View Post
OP:

You can read all about the FN FAL and its tweaks here:

http://www.ar15.com/forums/t_6_7/480...g-thread-.html
Thank you Sir, for taking time to respond and give your perspectives and that source for more info. Greatly appreciated.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 07:55 PM.