So as not to totally highjack the M1A thread I'm starting this one. I found a video from Forgotten Weapons where Ian and Larry Vickers talk about Larry's T-48 and some of the history of the T-44, M-14, and the T-48.
FAL History
- Thread starter Robert
- Start date
- Status
Thanks for that, I never saw that before.
Conelrad
Member
Back in the 70's, my local S. O. had a T-48 in their arsenal. They wanted to trade it for an M-16.
I offered one straight across, but a local NFA dealer made an offer including lots of extras.
Drat. It was nice.
Conelrad
I offered one straight across, but a local NFA dealer made an offer including lots of extras.
Drat. It was nice.
Conelrad
dh1633pm
Contributing Member
I had an L1A1 pattern FAL. It was interesting. But it wasn’t love at fist sight. I had always wanted one. Sure it was reliable. Was accurate enough but nothing to write home about. I just never fell in love. I can see why one would like one. For me I sold it and kept the M14. Yes, like Eileen, I miss her sometimes.
JCooperfan1911
member
- Joined
- Oct 8, 2020
- Messages
- 2,709
While the FAL was a serviceable enough rifle, the M14 was the better weapon. We made the right choice.
Speedo66
Member
I remember seeing for the first time an FN FAL broke open for cleaning, thought it was amazing.
This is before the M-16 come out.
Got to try a later version, suppressed, in .308. Nice rifle, but heavy.
This is before the M-16 come out.
Got to try a later version, suppressed, in .308. Nice rifle, but heavy.
Garandimal
member
Conelrad
Member
M14's need an armorer.
FALs need an owner.
Conelrad
FALs need an owner.
Conelrad
tark
Member
Your point is.......what?
Garandimal
member
Agree.
Most of the improvement incorporated into the M14 were moot, as they so botched the design requirement of an intermediate cartridge full-auto assault rifle.
For a semi-auto .30... the M1 Rifle, clip or box fed, would have worked fine.
GR
d2wing
Member
- Joined
- Nov 10, 2008
- Messages
- 6,430
I was issued an M-14 and liked it. Contrary to what someone posted, every M-14 I shot was very accurate and my buddy was a Sniper with an upgraded scoped one. I was also stationed with AMU in Mannheim and they shot them everyday. My sniper buddy is in a couple history books. I shot my brother in laws FAL and liked it. As a battle rifle the M-14 had much better accuracy and was also better as a marshal arts weapon. If you are not trained and skilled then it doesn't matter. They were both good weapons but have been obsolete since the Korean war. The upgraded M-14 is still in use last I heard for it's long range ability. The FAL wouldn't work in that role.
DustyGmt
Member
I would have actually thought it was the other way around....
lysanderxiii
Member
A few points:
1. There are parts on an M14 that are made on M1 tooling, these are the parts that the two share: extractor, extractor spring and plunger assy, the 14 parts that make up the rear sight assy, the butt plate assy, rear sling swivel, hammer, trigger, their associated pins and the safety. And someone will say these aren't important parts, but try and shoot an M14 without them. (Also, over half of those parts are forgings, broachings, or both, so you are saving quite a bit in tooling, as well as keeping the subcontractors experience.)
2. The reason the FAL did not get adopted was due to FN not taking the arctic test seriously. In 1953, a report from the Office of the Chief of Army Field Forces stated: "In the event that the arctic tests results substantiate the results of the Fort Benning tests, no further consideration be given the US. Rifles, Caliber .30, T44, and T44E1."
The 100 FN manufactured T48s that had been used in the temperate weather testing at Fort Benning in the summer of that year had been returned to FN to correct the minor deficiencies identified during testing. These were the small modifications that show up in later FALs: the three piece extractor, the two piece firing pin, sand cuts in the carrier, etc. FN should have known that arctic temperatures would reduce gas pressures, and rented a climate chamber and tested their design in sub-zero arctic temperatures.
3. We would still have the M16. All of the early problems with the M14s were quality related, to assume that Springfield, Winchester and/or H&R would not have suffered quality issues producing the T48 is unrealistic. These quality issues were brought about by the mindset/culture existent in the workforce of gun manufacturers in the late 1950s/early 1960s. In fact, due to the condition of the drawings in 1957 being only partially converted to US standard, coupled with funding issues with the Army's small arms programs, would have resulted in more delays in fielding a T48 than the M14.
Further, H&R never managed to make rifles that were as reliable as those made by FN. Contrary to popular belief, only the FN made T48 were tested head-to-head against the T44. The H&R contract for T48s were only made to work out the bugs in converting the drawings from metric to US standard, and proving regular production was possible. The fact that you have a mix of Canadian-style parts and Metric-style parts in the H&R T48 shows the state of the drawings. What the Army actually was looking for, was Metric-style FALs, made to inch drawings. If anything, finishing up the drawing conversions and solving the reliability issues with American manufactured FALs would have made delays more likely.
And last - the AR-15 came onto the stage due to the USAF looking to replace the M1 Carbine in 1958, this is after the Lightweight Rifle Program concluded, so its appearance is independent of the result of the T44-T48 competition. All of the comparative testing done between the M14 and AR-15, would have had the same results, as all of the factors against the M14 would have still been held against the T48, even more so, as the T48 was a pound heavier. The new administration that came into office in 1961, would have still pushed for an AR-15 buy, which is what starts the ball rolling for a standardized M16A1 infantry rifle. Remember, the user, the infantryman, never stated, or requested that the M14 be replaced. In fact, some users (notably the USMC), would say the M14 was replaced against their will.
1. There are parts on an M14 that are made on M1 tooling, these are the parts that the two share: extractor, extractor spring and plunger assy, the 14 parts that make up the rear sight assy, the butt plate assy, rear sling swivel, hammer, trigger, their associated pins and the safety. And someone will say these aren't important parts, but try and shoot an M14 without them. (Also, over half of those parts are forgings, broachings, or both, so you are saving quite a bit in tooling, as well as keeping the subcontractors experience.)
2. The reason the FAL did not get adopted was due to FN not taking the arctic test seriously. In 1953, a report from the Office of the Chief of Army Field Forces stated: "In the event that the arctic tests results substantiate the results of the Fort Benning tests, no further consideration be given the US. Rifles, Caliber .30, T44, and T44E1."
The 100 FN manufactured T48s that had been used in the temperate weather testing at Fort Benning in the summer of that year had been returned to FN to correct the minor deficiencies identified during testing. These were the small modifications that show up in later FALs: the three piece extractor, the two piece firing pin, sand cuts in the carrier, etc. FN should have known that arctic temperatures would reduce gas pressures, and rented a climate chamber and tested their design in sub-zero arctic temperatures.
3. We would still have the M16. All of the early problems with the M14s were quality related, to assume that Springfield, Winchester and/or H&R would not have suffered quality issues producing the T48 is unrealistic. These quality issues were brought about by the mindset/culture existent in the workforce of gun manufacturers in the late 1950s/early 1960s. In fact, due to the condition of the drawings in 1957 being only partially converted to US standard, coupled with funding issues with the Army's small arms programs, would have resulted in more delays in fielding a T48 than the M14.
Further, H&R never managed to make rifles that were as reliable as those made by FN. Contrary to popular belief, only the FN made T48 were tested head-to-head against the T44. The H&R contract for T48s were only made to work out the bugs in converting the drawings from metric to US standard, and proving regular production was possible. The fact that you have a mix of Canadian-style parts and Metric-style parts in the H&R T48 shows the state of the drawings. What the Army actually was looking for, was Metric-style FALs, made to inch drawings. If anything, finishing up the drawing conversions and solving the reliability issues with American manufactured FALs would have made delays more likely.
And last - the AR-15 came onto the stage due to the USAF looking to replace the M1 Carbine in 1958, this is after the Lightweight Rifle Program concluded, so its appearance is independent of the result of the T44-T48 competition. All of the comparative testing done between the M14 and AR-15, would have had the same results, as all of the factors against the M14 would have still been held against the T48, even more so, as the T48 was a pound heavier. The new administration that came into office in 1961, would have still pushed for an AR-15 buy, which is what starts the ball rolling for a standardized M16A1 infantry rifle. Remember, the user, the infantryman, never stated, or requested that the M14 be replaced. In fact, some users (notably the USMC), would say the M14 was replaced against their will.
I like the M1A for precision shooting iron sights, My AR10 has it beat in accuracy with a heavy barrel and a 1x8 scope. I like the FAL for putting rounds downrange at Minute of Man. If you can why not own all three? If I could only take two to the range it would be the AR10 and the FAL.
daniel craig
Member
- Joined
- Dec 23, 2009
- Messages
- 2,815
You were around BEFORE the m16?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?
Speedo66
Member
You kidding, I watched Raymond Burr duel Hamilton.
Last edited:
daniel craig
Member
- Joined
- Dec 23, 2009
- Messages
- 2,815
This dude is me but 20 years older
daniel craig
Member
- Joined
- Dec 23, 2009
- Messages
- 2,815
I was gunna say!? Were you around for the migration across the bearing land bridge? What was the ice age like?
Nature Boy
Member
- Joined
- Apr 21, 2015
- Messages
- 8,258
Speedo66
Member
D'oh!! Aaron Burr and Hamilton. LOL
Ice age was great, never ran out of cold drinks. You'd be surprised how good dinosaur meat is, if prepared properly.
DocRock
member
Speedo66
Member
Were probably due for a new one anyway.No offense intended, but you owe me a new keyboard. Mine is now full of coffee
tark
Member
Interesting. I didn't know this. We have a couple of H&R FALs in the arsenal museum and the book says they were actual trials guns. The book has been wrong before. Based on what Larry Vickers said in the video I get the impression that the H&R guns kinda sucked. Maybe if the museum ever re-opens I can do some research. Our archives section in the basement will have copies of every report submitted on the trials.
OP
OP
Now that would be my kind of research.
- Status
