A for effort. LOL!

You forgot, one country right next to France and Belgium (same thing, bunch of french vagoos as established...) didn't fall for the FAL crap! Yes, my wonderful fatherland.

In November 1956, however, West Germany ordered 100,000 additional FALs, designated the G1, for the army. G1s served in the West German Bundeswehr for a relatively short time in the late 1950s and early 1960s, before they were replaced by the Spanish CETME Modelo 58 rifle in 1959 (which was extensively reworked into the later G3 rifle).

 

The truth sometimes hurts :

 

Getting your fabulous FN FAIL (sp?) rifle replaced by the G3 must really hurt.

 

Obviously the FN FAIL couldn't hold the brass of the M14 or G3. 9 out of 10 Africans agree. Prove me wrong!?!

here's a doozy...

The first 7.62mm FALs were ready in 1953. Belgium was not the the first country to adopt their own rifle in 1956.

LOL. The Canadians are thought to be the first to adopt the FN FAIL... That's wonderful.

 

LOL. The Canadians are thought to be the first to adopt the FN FAIL... That's wonderful.

Well, Everybody knows the Canadians are always at the forefront of weapons technology :xeye:

 

9 out of 10 Africans agree.

LOL! Spray & pray, Baby!:rofl:

 

Wow, I just got through reading the Fn Fail history on frenchFAILlovers.info.
It's pretty awesome, check it out;

The Fossil Auto-antique Léger, or FN FAIL, also known as "tas de merde" is a self-loading, selective fire battle rifle produced by the French wankers in Belgium over 150 years ago. During the Cold War, it was basically given away to many NATO countries who just didn't care at the time, though apathy wore off and later the FN FAIL was replaced with the far superior G3 in countries that actually care about their Military. Germany, the country that is known best for it's unique design of firearms that actually work despite always being the bad guy, supplied these nations after the FN Fail handouts were no longer worth the going rate of $50. The USA also rejected the FAIL after it was shown in extensive testing to not be able to "hold the brass" of the M14.

The FAL was predominantly chambered for the 7.62x51mm NATO round, though when it was first designed the French speaking wankers stole the German 7.92 intermediate round. Because of the French handouts to little European countries who can't design their own firearms, it was nicknamed "The most overated prosthetic arm of the Free World". A little nugget of information which is funny, is that the Frenchy bastards didn't even adopt their own rifle until half the world over accepted them as gifts.

Soon after the FN FAIL's 100th birthday, every reputable first world country awoke from their slumber and decommissioned the FAL entirely from their armories and sold them en masse to United States importers as surplus to be put back together to sell to unsuspecting yuppies. Naturally, the most prevalent FAILs in the U.S. are FrankenFails built off worn out $50 parts kits, and $10 Enterprise and Imbel receivers, marked up to $1,500 to convince people that they belong in the same arena as a quality MBR. Such as the HK91, PTR91, or SA M1A.

This trickery of course worked, because Americans continue buying overpriced Fails imported from Sudan and India. Naturally one website grew out of this, this website is called Failfiles.com (http://www.falfiles.com/index.php) This is a place where all Fn Fail lovers can go to seek remedies, and ask FAQs such as "how can I fix my adjustable gas system?", "Why the hell don't my magazines fit?, "why is my Fail short stroking?", "why the crap can't I zero my rifle?" Luckily, there are many experts in the field of overrated firearms to profess the fixes to "little and meaningless issues" on the otherwise Ak47 of battle rifles.

In the year 2011, it was confirmed that the Fail actually sucked, but the reason so many Countries used it for so long was because Germany was too busy making scheissporn and living in guilt to promote and give away the H&K, and the U.S. just didn't care to sell their M14s because they knew they had the obvious winner of the bunch and wanted to keep it all to themselves.

The end.

 

I would have to disagree. Your criterion was not for the "worst" MBR, but for our "Least Favourite". My least favourite MBR is undoubtedly the Federov Avtomat. Not that there's anything wrong with it. In fact, it was a very forward-thinking design, being not only the first selective fire battle rifle with a detatchable box magazine decades before its time, but also because it had an integral vertical front grip and was very ergonomically accommodating.

The problem is that those dang Russians stopped the production run after only 3000 units, halting small arms advancement for half a century. Just because a few Bolshies and a few Commies staged a little tantrum and murdered, dismembered, and/or decapitated everyone and anyone even remotely associated with previous governments is no excuse to set the small arms field back 50+ years.

Sorry to rain on your FN FAL hate party, but I blame the Red Menace for making the Federov Avtomat a story of failure, when it should have been a glaring success. This is why the Federov Avtomat is undoubtedly my least favourite.

 

Well for me the least favorite MBR is the G3 because as a lefty the ergonomics suck big time. I've owned a L1A1, a G3 copy, and a M1A. The M1A is the one I kept.

 

My least favorite MBR to shoot would have to be the Mosin Nagant. ( In short.....we dont have a very close relationship.


Not to split hairs or anything, but the T44E4 won out in the end, and was adopted as the M14........ which would have to be my favorite outa the bunch.:thumb:

I might be mistaken, but I believe that the FAL was originally chambered in .280 British.

11B

 

The FN huh? Reminds me of this old " under floorboard termite sprayer " I found at an abandoned farmhouse. Once I figured the thing out and what it's actual purpose was.....I tried using it.....and then realized why it was left behind. The farmhouse had collapsed from termite damage.
Speaking of the FN as a firearm, there are far better tools with a better design that do the job more efficiently.....the M-14 comes to mind.
I would however put in an order for 1,000 or so of those surplus FN's.....I found they make really, really good T-Posts. What with those pencil barrels and ready made boat oar stocks..............Really now,...what else are they good for but hammering into the ground???:thumb:

 

Hmmm, I will gladly take any operating FALs any of you want to give away.

I value the opinion of someone like Gabe Suarez: "IMHO the M1A is an attempt by the US MIL Machine to update the Garand. It is not and will never be, the rifle that the FAL is."

 

I would have to agree with you. I believe that it was gunwriter Dave Arnold who was a former member of the famous Rhodesian Selous Scouts (considered at one time to be among the best trained of all the world's Special Forces) who spoke of the FAL with very high praise. He said that the scouts loved that rifle.

He also rated it higher than the M14 because the gas system was adjustable. If you needed to use lighter or heavier bullets you adjusted the gas and the bullet would cycle the action whether light or heavier. With the M14 you have to use a particular weight, velocity etc. bullet or the action will not cycle. The FAL had no such problem.

For most of my life the FAL was always spoken of with highest regard. I am surprised at all the anti FAL rhetoric. For many years this rifle was considered one of the greatest battle rifles of all time.

 

My least favorite is the M16A2. Its only pro, accuracy. Now if it was accurate, reliable, and had a larger caliber, then it would be cool.

 

Let's keep the "better than thou" to a low people. There is no perfect country on this planet. They all have their pros and cons. Besides, this site is about SURVIVAL and not Patriotism regardless what Gunny Ermey categorized this site as.

 

I challenge all of you ****-house engineers to come up with something better than the FAL. :

On a serious note, the FAL is my favorite MBR - followed closely by the G3.

 

My answer to that it depends on what menaing you put in MBR ( A mbr in my eyes uses a full power rifle cartridge ) A 5.56 is not a MBR if u use that term

Personly my favorite is G3 /or MBRs based on it ( The reson is simple thats what im trained to use )

I follow the device that you are not better then the system you are trained on and training makes practice ( Besides that i have noticed that the G3 outshoots more then 50% of its users ) Propobly the same with every Mbr ( training gives result )

If we count 5.56 to MBR i would say that i would really like to twist a FN FNC around the responcible enginers throat/neck

Damn lousy excuse for a rifle its to heavy for using 5.56 and its a nightmare to clean and keep working ( and you complains over the M16 that is 70% moore reliable )

 

I don't know what you guys are complaining about. From everything I've read, the FN FAL was and still is an excellent rifle. If you want to see a truly bad MBR, look at the Chinese bullpup QBZ 95 I believe it's called. The SA80 was also pretty bad before they had H&K fix it a couple years ago.

 

Interesting G3 vs FAL thread here.

http://www.newrhodesian.net/viewtopic.php?f=17&t=59

 

THe FAL and here why:

Stock design: The M14 stock design far supassed the awkward straight designed stock of the FAL. This type of stock is only needed for full auto rifles and being that both guns were total failures in full auto the convention stock of the M14 allowed quick snap shooting v/s the akward stock of the FN FAL that actually had to be carried but up over the shoulder to allow soldier even half a chance to snap the gun to their shoulders.

Safey lever.: Again the FN was not a well thought out design. The safety is so far forward almost all have to shift their grip to snap it off in a hurry v/s the in the trigger guard and lightning fast safety of the M14.

Gas System. Again a failure in the FN FAL. The gas system in both the short tube and long tube FN FALs has given the gun nothing but touble. The short tube versions have a really bad habit of of coming loose due to recoil or just plain rusting away of the ultra thin tube that is only silver soldered on to keep it from leaking. The long tube version has no soldier and leaks even when new. Once it gets loose and starts to leak the weapon will malfunction. The troublesome adjustable gas system at first glance would seem to be an advantage over the M14's non-ajustable gas system but one of lifes great surpises is that the M14's non-ajustable gas system would work with under as well as full power ammo with no problem while the FN's system is so finicky that if it is not ajusted just right to the ammo used it will either not eject the cases strongly enough to prevent jamming or it will eject them so violently that it will start to batter the weapon to death. As a matter of fact the ejection pattern of the FN is also very poor. It will throw one emty close to the weapon giving rather weak ejection and then the next case will be thrown almost 20 feet away. The M14 does not have this design problem.

Reliablilty in Sand and Cold temperature: Once again the FN FAL fails compared to the M14. In tests conducted by the U.S. army the M14 proved the superior weapon when used in extremely cold environments. The British had so much trouble with their FN's in the desert that they had to put sand cuts in the bolt of the FN to get it to work somewhat more realiably in the sand of the desert and one of the main complaints of the Israilies is that they to could not get the weapon to work when it got sand in it. The M14 worked 100 per cent better when contaiminated with sand because of its rotating bolt that actually threw off sand rather than trap it like the bolt of the FN Fal.

Strip down: Although the FN looks like a dream to strip down it is anything but a dream to strip. The stock if broken must be removed with a special tool and even using this tool can be a nightmare to the person who has seldom done this job. Contrast this to the instant take down of the M14. The trigger group on the FN must be taken out piece by piece for cleaning if the rifle is really full of mud or sand compared to the instant modular drop out trigger of the M14.

Sights: Here again the FN fails as compared to the M14. You will not find better or more instantly ajustable precision made sights on any battle rifle like the M14. The crude sliding rear sight or the other model flip up sight of the FN Fal is fine for blast em quick senarios but for precision long range shooting the fully ajustable rear sight of the M14 is superior to the FN which also must have a special tool to adjust the front sight.

Trigger pull: ON average almost all the M14 rifles I have personally fired had better trigger pulls than any FN Fal rifle I have ever fired.

Accuracy: Both rifles can shoot very acurately but the M14 has it all over the FN Fal and when the M14 is used in its sniper version called the XM21 it is by far one of the worlds premier sniper weapons. The FN Fal can be made in an all heavy barrel as opposed to the M14 that usally because of its gas system must have only a half heavy barrel to clear the operating mechanism, so some heavey barrel FNs may, if tricked out with a good trigger shoot very accurately indeed.

Scope mounting both night vision and daylight scopes: Here again the M14 is superior to the FN Fal. The FN being a hard gun to scope and it provides a less than stable plantform when the thin sheet metal dust cover is used as a base for the scope mount. A mount could be designed that would be attached to the side of the reciever like the M14 for quicker and more stable mounting but it seems that most of the popular military mounts were on the unstable and loose fitting top dust cover. Screws have been installed on some civilain mounts buy they are a pain to loosen up to remove the scope and once this is done the rifle may loose zero.

HH54r

 

Couldn't have said it better HH54r :thumb:

The FAL is the biggest hoax ever played upon the small arms market!

"Right arm of the Duped world" :rofl:

 

My favorite is the Kel-Tec RFB and here is why ...

1) Ambidextrous - no loss of controls or brass in the face no matter what side.

2) Gas piston operated which equals more reliability and like with most gas piston systems, there is a gas regulator in the front.

3) It comes with a picatinny rail. In addition, you can purchase a picatinny rail that will fit over the muzzle for more accessories.

4) It is compact so it can be fired more easily in tight quarters.

5) It uses 7.62x51 mm NATO the same round as the M1A/M-14 and the M60E4+. Although the round is usually terrible for CQB\CQC because it "keeps on giving". If you use Boat Tailed Hollow Points, CQB applications should be improved or so they say.

6) It does kick and it is loud, but with a silencer (of course, a legal one), it mitigates the issues and makes it more accurate because of less kick.

7) So far, the rifle has awesome reviews.

8) Made in the USA and with quality.

9) You can still find an awesome deal, price wise, than most MBRs.

My second best is converting a M1A into the Bulldog 762, however there are no ambidextrous features and the rifle will run you close to $3K without optics.

Afterwards, the PTR-91 KFM4, Bushmaster ACR (the price is outrageous - if it could make coffee, I would reconsider.), FN SCAR-17, M1A SOCOM II, LWRCI PSD (Civilian model when they make it), the FN FS2000 (my only full 5.56mm).

 

Whether militaries adopt a gun, drop it later, or whatever, is completely irrelevant as to whether the gun is a failure or not. Militaries the world over have made blunder after blunder in their weapons system choices. Most of those choices being political in the first place and have very little to do with the weapon itself.

If a gun is inaccurate or unreliable, then it's a failure, whether or not it has been adopted. Plenty of them have been. The FAL is reliable and fairly accurate. To me, that makes it a success.

I don't subscribe to the "best" gun theory. Better and best are individual choices. I prefer the M1A to the FAL for accuracy and ergonomics. That doesn't make it a better choice to someone who prefers the FAL. Same goes for the G3 or anything else.

 

LEAST FAVORITE MBR :thumb:


I thought the ACR was recalled?


11B

 

Oh dear, where to start...

Here is a copy of my post to a recent previous discussion re the FAL

"An interesting read of the aside thread re the FAL v m14.
I carried a FAL.. L1A1 SLR, for four years during which my life and that of those around me depended on it. There was not one single instance of malfunction, missfeed or missfire during that whole time, and this includes the same weapons carried by the rest of my squadron. It worked in the Artic Circle in Norway, the sands of Muscat and Oman, the rainforests of Belize and the mud and cow droppings of Northern Ireland.

My own opinion is that the M14 was only in front line service as a MBR for a very short period of time compared to other US and other countries MBR. If it was such a paragon of virtue, so supremely capable why was it dropped by the only country to use it extensively?

As far as accuracy goes, my SLR was regularly engaging "targets" at 600 m without a miss, fitted with a SUIT at that time. It did all that was required and I am still alive, which is sufficient proof for me.

The very few M14s I encountered, mainly in Germany while part of the BAOR, were comparable to the SLR when used semi automatically but were a real spray and pray, where did that one go? weapon when used full auto. (I was spoilt as we were issued with the LMG, a bren converted to 7.62) There were several problems I observed while on the ranges and in the battle areas of Sennenlager with M14s. Mainly related to magazines, dirt related stoppages, FTF and FTE that caused me to form the opinion that they were not the best of the best. This is based on my own experience and direct observations. I would add that the vast majority of US troops I met were equipped with the M16 and they had far more problems in the mud of the North German plain.

The FAL, particularly the L1A1, is a good MBR. It was never intended to be a snipers weapon, a carbine or a light machine gun, it was a reliable, sturdy, effective weapon used and respected by professional soldiers the world over.( Maybe I should also add that my first small arms instructor, a rather grizzled Sargent major, was convinced that the SLR was outclasses by the SMLE.. )"

When the SLR/FAL was replaced by the SA80, many units were less than happy, to say the least. However, those who fervently support the M14 forget the most important aspect of the weapon, as a MBR it was a failure, and one of the biggest failures in American military history. It had the shortest life as a MBR, not because it was an inferior weapon but because it could not forfill the army's stated requirements. The downfall was it's full auto use and the demand for a heavy caliber round. If it had remained semi auto only it may well have been at least as successful as the FAL.

In its more recent reincarnation as a DMR it can well cope as its primarily used semi auto in those situations. It is a decent design that was over extended in an attempt to get it to be something it was not, a full sized assault rifle, a real oxymoron, and like all such attempts if failed.

Praise the M14 for its fine qualities by all means but do not blind yourself to its failings and faults. Critisising another weapon, the FAL, because it was not an M14 makes no sense and diminishes your argument.
My personal preference would be a FAL over an M14 but it would be an M14 before an M16, in the military versions.

All armys are attempting to square the circle and find the one size fits all weapon, so far with limited success. For CQB a SMG, for urban warfare a selective fire carbine, for open warfare a MBR. The bull pup is the nearest we have got so far but they come with their own problems.

 

All armys are attempting to square the circle and find the one size fits all weapon, so far with limited success. For CQB a SMG, for urban warfare a selective fire carbine, for open warfare a MBR. The bull pup is the nearest we have got so far but they come with their own problems.

===================================================================================

.....And the primary reason that all armies are looking for this, has to do with logistics, more than any other reason. You should already know this, but combat units in the field will eventually wither on the vine, if not supported with "beans and bullets". From a logistical standpoint, the "one gun fits all " concept is a good argument on paper.
Which brings us back to the M14. It was supposed to be able to not only replace the M1 Garand, but also replace the M1/M2 Carbine, M3/M1 Submachine guns, and the 1918A2 BAR. So.... in the end you have the M14, M60 Mg. in the line units.

7.62x51mm replaces 30-06, 30CAR, and 45 Auto, with exception of 1911 side arms. Spare parts are much easier to manage, as the M14/M60 is all one has to worry about.
BTW, the BAR was supposed to be replaced by a version of the M14 called the T44E5, later adopted as the M15. ( Basically an M14 with a heavy chrome lined bbl, and a bipod.) It was superceeded by the M14E2, which was adopted as the M14A1. .....( Everyone still trackin?)
In the end, the " M14 SAW" was let go as the M60 MG was deemed to be GTG all by itself.

Fast fwd a few decades, and we are armed with the M16,M4,M249, and M240, along with the M14, M21, M24, M110, and M107, not to mention the shotguns. ( Talk about a full circle)
I have also seen 3 different types of sidearms in 3 different calibers in use by the Army.

I'll leave it as this..... logistics vs combat effectiveness.

I would argue that the M14 in and of itself was not the failure here, and if it was left in place, we might have seen other versions of it in service, such as 16 and/or 18 inch bbl versions. ( Socom and Scout)

The rifle itself was built specifically for 7.62mm Nato, and was built with select fire in mind, and as a combat weapon for U.S. forces to depend on anywhere the fight takes them. It's been doing this since it was adopted, and is still doing it today, and in the forseeable future until someone somewhere decides that there is someting better.

The design also lends itself well for use with either hand as compared to the other semi automatic MBR,s mentioned here, as well as the bolt action designs.

I'm not dogging the Fal either. The British Infantry that I have worked with overseas do not care much for the SA80, but the ones that are old enough to have been issued a Fal hold it in high regard. ( After firing the SA80, I can see why they dont care for all that much.)

If all things are equal, and all rifles in question are well built from the get go, I believe that the M14 has more going for it than the others....... as in more options for the end user/personal owner.

With that being said, the more important thing to consider is that of personal preference, and ones own budget.

Get a hold of all of them if possible, and shoot them for yourself. ( This is how I found out that the Mosin was just not my cup of tea.)..... IE.... least favorite to shoot, which is what this thread is about.

How else are ya gonna know what your least favorite rifle is?

Research can only take a body so far, then it comes down to parting with the cash necasary for purchase, and trying on for size. :thumb:

11B

 

ROFL!!!!! A good one! Thank you for the entertainment but it also caused me to think for which I am also grateful.

 

Gecko45 is that you?



Is that you gecko45? Did you change your name?

 

Personally, I can't stand the M-14. Overpriced,Overweight, overrated. Uncontrollable, and already 25 years obsolete as it was being designed. It's just an M-1 Garand that someone chewed up, swallowed, and then retched back up after a night of drinking straight tequila.
The FN FAL, on the other hand-was a fresh approach to weapons design, and they got it right.

 

The only logical improvement to the M-1 Garrand is the .308 and a box magazine.

I could care less about pistolgrops and so-called ergonomics. I like the M-1A/M-14 platform and prefer it to other Battle Rifles. If I could afford one that is what I would use. Currently I am sporting a Saiga with original stock for my MBR.

I think an MBR is a personal Choice and "it will do if you will do" to Quote Col. Cooper. I don't grudge others for thier choice. If you think yours is the best choice well who am I to argue. Mine is my best choice.

 

Wow. Ouch. Good thread, kind of, sort of. Interesting, but contentious - definitely disputatious. A lot of missing perspectives forgotten because of the emotion perhaps?