M1A or CETME/FAL?

[tINY]

Apparently, you can pick up a nice M1a used at an excellent price...

I have a Springfield M1A match rifle with the California front end on it. The other one gets used and she sits in the safe. So, I was going to do some horse trading and found out that value on a 90% M1A NM is about $800.

So she's going back in the safe.

On the other hand, I don't see a lot of used M1As for sale either - maybe people who have them think they are worth more than the book says.

The thing to learn here is that you probably can pick up a good used M1A for about $1k if you find someone who needs the money...



-tINY

 

[45_Shooter]

I own an M1A, and absolutely love it so far. Will put them all inside of an inch at 100 yards if you do your part. Reliable, controllable, excellent ergonomics and handling. Would bet my life to it if I had to, and would reach for it instead of the AR if the shots got long or the targets got thick skinned.

I really don't understand why more countries didn't adopt this weapon? I don't see a downside besides weight so what did the rest of the world dislike about it?

 

[FALPhil]

M1A all the way...it has so much more character and an elegant beauty the FAL couldnt dream of reaching...

I actually see it the other way around.

I prefer FALs because a person with only average mechanical skills can repair one with minimal tools. An FAL may be completely disassembled and reassembled with a bench vise and hand tools. The ergonomics cannot be beat.

That being said, the average M1A is probably more accurate than the average FAL. That doesn't mean that an FAL can't be accurate; you just have to work a little harder to make it accurate.

 

[onthejon55]

M1A all the way...it has so much more character and an elegant beauty the FAL couldnt dream of reaching...

If anything that makes it worse.

If you want a rifle that's going to perform go with the FAL

 

[trippingpara]

Love the M14 but I just picked up a PTR 91K (H&K91 clone) and it is a beauty! Feels great and shoots like a charm! The PTR is slightly cheaper than the Springfields (at least in my area) and accepts all H&K parts and accessories since it is completely built on H&K tooling.

 

[Ridge_Runner_5]

I guess that's true enough.

So if you pick your personal military style rifle on the basis of "character and elegant beauty" then I guess you are good to go. I must have other criteria since I have two FAL's and no M14 style rifles. I do have a Garand though!

When those 80 countries were adopting the FAL as standard, they were perfectly well aware of the M14. They could have purchased M14's if they thought they were better. They didn't so they didn't.

I think the M14 style rifles are very fine rifles for the range and competition. For actually living in the mud and fighting people, not so much. IMO.

I have a CETME and enjoy it for what it is. But I would reach for an AK or FAL if TEOTWAWKI actually happened.

Gregg

Not even the slightest bit possible that they were all looking for a higher capacity weapon?

 

[tINY]

I really don't understand why more countries didn't adopt this weapon? I don't see a downside besides weight so what did the rest of the world dislike about it?

The M1a requires a lot more skilled labor to put together than an FAL. It also is more complicated to machine.

The FAL was adopted because it was easier to manufacture in large numbers and more ergonomic for people of varying sizes and shapes with little or no shooting experience.

You have to remember how much of an anomaly the USA is in the world in the last 50 years.



-tINY

 

[azredhawk44]

more ergonomic for people of varying sizes and shapes with little or no shooting experience.

+1.

Not everyone in the world is a 6' or taller red blooded, hormone-laden-red-meat-eating American male. The M14 fits us gigantor males better than the FAL, IMO. My buddy who lent me his FAL to shoot is about 5'8" or so. Fits him a LOT better than me.

 

[tulsamal]

The thing to learn here is that you probably can pick up a good used M1A for about $1k if you find someone who needs the money...

That's pretty bad when $1000 for a 1950's design is "a great deal." I got both my FAL's (STG58 and Imbel) and my CETME for less than that combined! If we consider three for the same price as one, which is the "better deal" then?!

And don't even get me started on how little I paid for my three AK's!! The AR cost more but I couldn't live without that one. Too many years in the US Army. So I understand people who carried an M14 wanting to own that style of rifle. But that can't be that many of you guys!!

G

 

[RT]

"Be a Man Among Men."

http://www.vickerstactical.com/TacticalTips/BattleRifles.aspx

My favorite FAL setup would be a Para with an 18 in barrel.

http://www.olegvolk.net/gallery/d/24194-3/FAL1306.jpg

 

[ROCK6]

I'm no expert, but I have owned both (and still do).

If you equal up price from DSA or a Springfield, both will serve you well for hunting or SHTF. It really comes down to ergonomics and comfort to you and I hope you've had a chance to hold and shoot both.

My hunting rifle is still my M1A bush/scout. My recommendation to fellow troopers is the M1A model as the FAL stuff is starting to dry up. If you plan to add a scope, it's actually easier with the FAL, but I still consider the M1A stock iron sights better. I have added peep sites to a couple of my FAL's. For field maintenance, I prefer the FAL system as it is closer to the M16/M4 variety that I've used over the past 22 years. Again, if you go DSA, accuracy will be on par with the stock M1A and will give you a better platform for accessories; Springfield now has more options for the M1A, but I think it detracts from the clean lines of the original. Either will fill the hunting and SHTF role fine, it really comes down to what is more comfortable with you. ME? I'd go with the M1A even though I own 3 FALs.

ROCK6

 

[matthew6060]

I have all 3, (fal, m1a, and ptr-91)

If I had to take one with me and leave the rest I'd take the M1A. The M1A is amazing and more accurate than I would've imagined. I bought the M1A scout squad with the forward scope mount and mossy oak stock. My gunsmith told me that the shorter 18 inch barrel would be more accurate than the longer barrels. I have yet to mount on optic on it as I am undecided in which way to go BUT with iron sights small baseball sized rocks were no problem at 230 yards at the range.

My brand new PTR91 is a real beauty but right now it won't push 5 rounds through without a fail to extract.

I have yet to fire my FAL but other posts are accurate, the stock is short and mounting a scope seems kinda weak when you consider that the scope mount squeezes on two skinny sides on top of the receiver. Seems like if it were dropped it might pop right off...

 

[Huey Long]

I own a FAL, and it's a great rifle, but if I had it to do all over again, I'd get a PTR-91, instead. They're supposed to be more reliable. I'd avoid the CETME, as quality is hit-and-miss.

 

[44 AMP]

Fal, Hk 91, M1a

Have owned all three. Liked the HK least. Rough on brass, trigger only fair, as heavy as the M1A, but with less barrel, non-captive take down pins, safety lever out of reach without shifting grip, and small fragile seeming actuating handle. Sights functional, but crude, adjustment limited. My rifle was also somewhat ammo sensitive.

FAL, my biggest faults are the sights, trigger pull, weight and balance. Not a bad rifle, but not as good for me as the M1A. Also, I found those models with the slim forend to get pretty hot to hold after only 20 rnds.

M1A - the refined garand. I will admit that as the #2 graduate of the last class at USAOC&S trained on the M14, I do have a certain bias. The M1A has fine easily adjustable sights. Fair to good triggers (without work), is rugged, and dependable. More accurate than I am, easily. And it is shaped like a rifle. The op rod handle is large, and works in both directions, something that might just be a lifesaver under very adverse conditions.

When those 80 countries were adopting the FAL as standard, they were perfectly well aware of the M14. They could have purchased M14's if they thought they were better. They didn't so they didn't.

Actually, no, they could not have purchased M14s. Unlike the FAL, which was marketed to the world, the M14 never was. We did give Taiwan the machinery to make M14s, but that was a political deal. The US was not interested in arming the world with M14s. We were quite happy just to shove the 7.62x51mm Nato down everyone's throat (for which we agreed to adopt the 9mm in return). We didn't try to sell the M14. We recognised that getting a standard rifle round was enough, without trying to undercut our allies arms industry at the same time.

Never ceases to amaze me how some people can praise the Garand, but bash the M14. The M14 was designed to use much of the same machinery used in making the Garand, and eliminates the majority of small flaws in the Garand design.

You people today looking at the price as a measure of the quality amuse me. Unless you are planning on becoming the arsenal of democracy, you are only going to buy one of these guns, once. I paid $500 for each of mine, back when that was MSRP. Today, they work just as good (maybe a bit better) than they did then. Unfortunately, I no longer do. And just FYI, my M1A is "rack grade" with GI parts, including the stock with the cutout for the FA switch. 1.5-2MOA, depending on the ammo, and my failing eyesight.

Spend the extra money for a NM gun if you want, but if you can't shoot well enough to take advantage of it, is the money really buying you anything?

 

[tulsamal]

Never ceases to amaze me how some people can praise the Garand, but bash the M14. The M14 was designed to use much of the same machinery used in making the Garand, and eliminates the majority of small flaws in the Garand design.

Since I mentioned the Garand, I'll answer that one! Yes, I like the Garand and own one. Bought it from DCM for $160 when I was deployed to the 25th ID. It was a rush to have the Postman shows up at my front door on post with a long brown cardboard box with a SA Garand in it!

But there is a big difference to me. I can't dispute the fact that the Garand was "state of the art" when it was being bought and deployed. That would be the 1930's. During WWII, we had the top infantry rifle because of the Garand. So I love my Garand at least partly because of the history. Granted, the Garand could still be used in a "serious social situation" in an effective manner by somebody who knew what they were doing. Despite that, it is hard to imagine somebody trying to argue the Garand design isn't actually obsolete. Doesn't mean "bad and worthless." Just means that you wouldn't actually consider arming a battalion with them today unless you had no choice. And the M14 is really a product improved Garand. A 1930's design updated through the middle 1940's. Again, I think the M14 is a sweet rifle. But is that really "state of the art" in 2009?!

IMO, the FAL is a more modern design than the M14. But you would be quite right to point out that it is quite dated as well. It still works and works well. I could see arming a battalion with it in some situations. True, we are using the M14 in combat again but that seems to me to be more about the desire for 7.62 NATO rather than the M14 design itself.

Unless you are planning on becoming the arsenal of democracy, you are only going to buy one of these guns, once.

This ties in with my earlier comment. I own a Garand. I own a couple of FAL's. I do shoot them and enjoy them but I mostly own them as part of a larger historical collection. The CETME is the same way. And my M1 Carbine. And all of the other C&R guns. I own a heck of a lot more than one. And I'm not alone. Price did matter to me several years ago when I started getting serious about buying them. I got a pristine SGT58 kit for $250. Imbel gear logo receiver for $170. I put it all together and had a really nice rifle for far less than a SA M1A. Doesn't mean I wouldn't like to own one someday. But if I bought one it would take a big chunk of gun money. One gun instead of two or three other ones.

In my case, I prefer to have my "serious rifles" in a little later vintage. I wouldn't feel unarmed if I had to fall back on a FAL or even the Garand but my normal "go to rifles" are AK's and the AR-15. I might even consider spending $1500-$2000 on a totally modern battle rifle. (I could list out several but you know what I mean.) So I agree you don't buy that sort of rifle based solely on price. But I wouldn't put the M1A in that category. Or the FAL! Or even the AK. I've spent as little as $199 on an AK. They aren't $750 rifles!

Oh, and the short stock thing on the FAL. I've heard that but never noticed. I'm 5'11" so more average sized. I haven't shot my Imbel FAL that much but I've got a lot of trigger time on the stock STG58. Never had a problem with the stock length. I will grant you the Garand/M14 sights are better than a FAL. But.... that would be more for target shooting. I find the stock FAL peep sights to be just fine for combat style shooting.

The best and most impartial advice is to find a way to shoot several different types of rifles yourself. It is almost for sure that you will personally like one of them more. Could be appearance, could be the way it fits your body, whatever. Find some guys that own the rifles you are considering and put a magazine or two through each. I bet you won't need our advice after that.

A true gun collection has room for everybody's favorites!

Gregg

 

[Polar Express]

Not too long ago, I asked a similar question. I was considering the Armalite/AR-10, vs. DSA/FAL vs. SA/M1A. The Armalite was dismissed first, mostly because of cost for not just the rife, but the support accessories, and of the 3, it was the most environmentally sensitive.

I respect the heck out of the FAL, especially for what it is to the rest of the 'free world', but I decided to go with the M1A. Haven't made the time to go shoot it yet, - I'm still waiting on the SAGE stock for it. But, I field-stripped it in my LR w/o any tools, so it's pretty easy to do that. Because I decided to go with the M1A, I didn't really do much study into the exact differences between the 'imperial vs. metric' FALs, so if you decide to go that route, I'd suggest really digging for the facts on that question. I believe that the general consensus is the metric ones are the ones to own. (I'm pretty sure DSA is MFG to the metric specs)

I also respect the G3/HK design for what it is, but the ergonomics just didn't feel good in my hands, and especially didn't care for the charging handle location and function. Just my personal preference.

Eventually, like many have mentioned on this thread, I would really like to have at least one FAL in my personal collection; maybe an original one for the 'world history' factor, and a DSA for the 'go out and shoot' factor.

I found a SA/M1A Standard new-in-box for 1200. Even at that price, I think that's inflated from the current market, but it was a smokin' deal given the current market. Everything's inflated, because they CAN. I don't regret the choice, and I still have more things to decide, like optics and other accessories.

Again, I feel very comfortable I made the best choice for me, (first 7.62 NATO gun in the safe) and I look forward to getting to know my gun very well. I also look forward to the day when I can spend the $$ and add some FALs to the collection.

I know I am just new to this, and am no expert, but having recently been in your position (i perceive), feel free to PM me and I'll be happy to share with you what I found, why I did what I did, and why I did it.

44 Mag and Tulsamal, I really enjoyed your posts, thanks for sharing. With regards to the rest of the world and the FAL vs M1a, I am under the impression that the USA originally agreed to adopt the FAL, but then reneged on our agreement and went with the M1A. Political arrangements, just like cost don't always correlate to the best tool for the job. Here in America, because of capitalism, and private industry making things under contract, we actually have a vested interest in NOT adopting other designs, and/or purchasing from other countries, but rather making our own, and selling them to others.

Tulsamal: sure neither the FAL or the M1A, or even the G3 or the AR now, are not 'state of the art' designs for 2009. But, just because something is or is not 'state of the art' for the current time period, does that alone make it better? I humbly suggest that answer is 'no'. Sure, there are collectors that like the historical importance, nostalgia, etc. But, we are mostly private citizens here, and we do not have the relatively unlimited funding of a government, and as such, 'current technology' has some drawbacks: Replacement parts/accessories may not have penetrated the civilian market yet, (or at least as much) operational testing in the field may not have been as thorough, etc. I'm not saying older is better, or newer is better, just that 'state of the art' is not necessarily better. When we first went to the 'Sandbox' weren't they pulling older aircraft out of mothball to use when the 'state of the art' helo's were having trouble? (I saw a lot of pics of cobras and hueys when the apache and blackhawk were 'state of the art') If the only thing the ground troops wanted was the 7.62 Nato round, they could use the bigger AR, but no, they WANT the different mechanical function that the M1A provides. Am I saying it's better? NO!, just maybe 'better, over there' Another non-gun example; current auto designs use independent front suspension for 4x4, but in certain applications, the 'old' straight-axle is MUCH more desirable. So, thanks to capitalism, (I thank God for it daily) we constantly have a stream of new ideas. Some turn out to be way cool, others don't. And that's OK. Unfortunately, many are put into use without complete testing, for a number of reasons.

Best wishes, and I'll try and shut up now.

 

[RT]

What about a LaRue OSR.
http://stores.homestead.com/Laruetactical/Detail.bok?no=268

 

[tINY]

Just means that you wouldn't actually consider arming a battalion with them today unless you had no choice. And the M14 is really a product improved Garand. A 1930's design updated through the middle 1940's. Again, I think the M14 is a sweet rifle. But is that really "state of the art" in 2009?!

Well, lets see:

1930's & early 40s

- Garand - M1 Carbine - grease gun -


Late 40's / 50's

- AK47 - M14 - FN49 - AR10 - FAL - G3 - M16


60's / 70's

- AUG - AR18 - AK74


80's / 90's

- SCAR - P90 - FNC - G36 -


Really, all of the common 30 caliber battle and asault rifles were designed before 1960. So, calling the FAL more modern than the M14 is really just silly. They have different aproaches, though.

There have been other semi-auto rifles available to the public, but none with wide military usage. So, while they may well be great rifles, they were never proven by military standards and surplus parts are not available.




-tINY

 

[Dobe]

Really, all of the common 30 caliber battle and asault rifles were designed before 1960. So, calling the FAL more modern than the M14 is really just silly. They have different aproaches, though

I believe what was meant was that the M14 is actually a modification of the M1. Therefore, as far as technology goes, the M14 is M1 era. And while I love the M14, it is basically a modified M1.

 

[tINY]

So it's 30's vintage unstead of 50's vintage... Both seem pretty old. Neither was designed to make use of more recent developments like MIM, CNC, or EDM. Not to mention recent materials which could be employed....




-tINY