AHC/WI: The US adopted the FN FAL

[Rickshaw]

But to get back to the OP, any impartial consideration of the FN FAL at the time of its development should have led to its acceptance by the U.S. military. The fact that it wasn't was due to military parochialism and myopia. Makes me wonder how the Korean War would have turned out if the U.S. forces had been equipped with it.

The use of the terms "impartial consideration" and "by the US military" in the same sentence are an oxymoronic statement as we both know. Particularly in the 1950s. There was no way the FN-FAL was going to get a fair hearing. It would have needed to be up against a weapon that frequently jammed, was uncontrollable on fully-automatic and had poor quality control and was unuseable to even get a remote chance. Oops, oh...

 

[Peabody-Martini]

I think both the FN FAL and the M14 have their strengths and weaknesses. The AK barrows a lot come the Garand just as the M16 does from the FAL. Direct impingement only works in regards to saving weight. It has been argued that not having a piston reduces the actions impact on the barrel thus improving accuracy. My opinion is that the FAL derived IMBEL MD-97 is the best of all worlds, if only it were chambered in a different cartridge. Regardless the 7mm intermediate cartridge would have been a better choice for both rifles.

Does anyone know if a prototype M14 in 7 x 43mm was ever tested?

If the US had adopted the FAL rather than M14 what would have changed? Very likely, not very much, in the 1950s the US Army wanted a rifle that would be all things to all people. In the end they went too far in the other direction and got a rifle of debatable utility, that is perfect in the event that you are attacked by rabid gophers. I cant see them taking a different course of action considering that the AR-10 prototype was one of the competing designs along with the M14 and the FAL.

Note: The current rifle used by Venezuelans is the AK-104 not the AKM.

 

[Landshark]

Does anyone know if a prototype M14 in 7 x 43mm was ever tested?

I doubt it. The USArmy had always argued against the .280 so they're hardly likely to build a prototype in it and Churchill killed the EM2 in 1950.

 

[Antipater]

So do people think that it would take borderline ASB intervention to get the US military to not adopt the M14? Was there some sort of study done that found "We will absolutely lose the next war if we don't issue fewer types of guns to our men?" Or was it it just some popular trend in the US high command? (which the brass in every other major power did not succumb to)

Also, why exactly did the USMC go along with this? "Every marine is a riflemen" seems kind of tough with a full auto capable weapon. The FN FAL would seem to be right up their alley, so long as it was reliable was shown to be reliable, which it appears to have been.

Note: The current rifle used by Venezuelans is the AK-104 not the AKM.

I see. It may sound ignorant, but all the AK 47 derivatives look a lot alike to me; the AK 104 has nearly the same profile and fires the same rounds as the AKM, which, externally, is indistinguishable from the AK 47 to my untrained eye.

 

[Mad Missouri]

What set of political/military considerations could have led to the US Army adopting the FN FAL battle rifle as its standard infantry weapon? What would be some foreseeable effects of such a decision?

How would the US military be better off with the FN FAL? They would have switched to the M16 in Vietnam either way.

Have you ever looked at what requirements the infantry branch asked for in a rifle to replace the M1? The FAL didn't really meet them; neither did the M14. In the US Army/US Marine testing the T 48 FN FAL didn't preform any better than the T44/M14. If I remember right the US Army called it a draw, and the Marines gave it to the T44/M14 due to weight

If you really want the US to field a better rifle have the Ordnance Department put all it's recourses into the T25/T47 rifle project. That would have produced a weapon better than the FAL.

But if you must have the FN FAL the first step is have the Government shut down Springfield Armory earlier. That would kill the T44 program so it couldn't mature into a working design.

 

[Mad Missouri]

Well maybe not quite that bad but the relative strengths and weaknesses of the two rifle can be seen by the fact that the FAL was adopted by 90 countries and the M14 by less than a dozen.

On to the second question. Quite a bit depends on which version of the FAL is adopted, whether it's the full auto continental job, or the semi auto Commonwealth one.

I am interested in how the number of countries FN was able to sell it product to means it was the better design? The rights to the M14 were owned by the US Government. Did the US even allow any of the private manufactures of the M14 to attempt foreign sales? Let face it none of the US firearms companies have even been very successfull making foreign sales on their own after 1920 or so.

The T48 was a inch pattern design not a metric one.

 

[Mad Missouri]

I see. It may sound ignorant, but all the AK 47 derivatives look a lot alike to me; the AK 103 has nearly the same profile and fires the same rounds as the AKM, which, externally, is indistinguishable from the AK 47 to my untrained eye.

You're not ignorant. Peabody is just splitting hairs. The AK-104 is the same weapon as the AKM with new style black plastic stock/handguard and the muzzle break from the AK74.

 

[Mad Missouri]

I never got to Vietnam (Air Force instead), but many many of my friends and schoolmates did. Several of them came back with stories about Australian units carrying on a fight with their L1s while their American counterparts were frantically clearing jams in their M-16s, particularly during the monsoon season. Two of them to this day credit Aussies with making it possible for them to come home alive because of the reliability of the L1 in firefights compared to the M-16 piece of trash. Given what they told me and what I've learned since, IMHO the civilian officials and military officers who tested and approved the M-16 for military use should have been put on trial for treason and murder, starting with McNamara.

Did your friends tell you how the South Koreans in Vietman armed with the M16 didn't have any of the problems the US Army had with it?

 

[Cash]

Did your friends tell you how the South Koreans in Vietman armed with the M16 didn't have any of the problems the US Army had with it?

Nope. You have details?

 

[Mad Missouri]

The use of the terms "impartial consideration" and "by the US military" in the same sentence are an oxymoronic statement as we both know. Particularly in the 1950s. There was no way the FN-FAL was going to get a fair hearing. It would have needed to be up against a weapon that frequently jammed, was uncontrollable on fully-automatic and had poor quality control and was unuseable to even get a remote chance. Oops, oh...

Please show in which areas the FN FAL didn't get a fair hearing? From what I have read the US Ordnance allowed more than one flaw in the test FN FALs to be corrected before the final tests. I guess that you could complain about the fact that the two rifles didn't get a full length test period. But seeing as the those tests showed it was mainly a draw between the two rifles I don't see how the FAL was hurt by that.

 

[Mad Missouri]

Nope. You have details?

I did. I am looking for the story now. It was in a article I read some years ago on how horrible the US Army ran the M16 program.

 

[Mad Missouri]

Nope. You have details?

Cash,

Sorry but I can't find the article right now. From what I remember the SOuth Korean Officers/NCOs forced their troops to clean their weapons right from the beginning. And that got crome lined barrels sooner.

 

[Mad Missouri]

My opinion is that the FAL derived IMBEL MD-97 is the best of all worlds, if only it were chambered in a different cartridge.

If the US had adopted the FAL rather than M14 what would have changed? Very likely, not very much, in the 1950s the US Army wanted a rifle that would be all things to all people. In the end they went too far in the other direction and got a rifle of debatable utility, that is perfect in the event that you are attacked by rabid gophers. I cant see them taking a different course of action considering that the AR-10 prototype was one of the competing designs along with the M14 and the FAL.

From what I read the MD-97 has some major reliablity issues.

As to the AR-10, I guess when your barrel brusts during firing it doesn't really look good to the testers.

 

[Mad Missouri]

Also, why exactly did the USMC go along with this? "Every marine is a riflemen" seems kind of tough with a full auto capable weapon. The FN FAL would seem to be right up their alley, so long as it was reliable was shown to be reliable, which it appears to have been.

From what I have read the USMC locked out the full auto function on most of the M14 rifles ii issued by removing a part. The FAL wasn't really a good fit for the Marine Corps. One of the moving forces behind rifle design in the Marines is the rifle teams. The sights on the FAL are no where near as good for match shooting as those on the M14.

 

[Rickshaw]

Please show in which areas the FN FAL didn't get a fair hearing? From what I have read the US Ordnance allowed more than one flaw in the test FN FALs to be corrected before the final tests. I guess that you could complain about the fact that the two rifles didn't get a full length test period. But seeing as the those tests showed it was mainly a draw between the two rifles I don't see how the FAL was hurt by that.

The US military went through the motions. Political considerations far outweighed any military ones in this decision. Nationalism and pork-barrelling were more than sufficient to prevent the adoption of the FN-FAL.

 

[Rickshaw]

From what I have read the USMC locked out the full auto function on most of the M14 rifles ii issued by removing a part. The FAL wasn't really a good fit for the Marine Corps. One of the moving forces behind rifle design in the Marines is the rifle teams. The sights on the FAL are no where near as good for match shooting as those on the M14.

Depends upon what ranges you believe normal firefights will occur. Having a weapon with sights designed to hit targets 1,000 metres appears rather pointless when the overwhelming majority of engagements occur at ranges considerably closer. In the Australian Army, which was did encourage marksmanship, the L1a1 was taught as having an effective range of 300 metres for individual, aimed fire and 600 metres for section fire. Having fired the L1a1 extensively, I used to be able to get a 12 inch grouping at 600 metres utilising the fairly primitive aperture sights provided. For most firefights that is more than adequate. Battles are not match shooting.

 

[Mad Missouri]

The US military went through the motions. Political considerations far outweighed any military ones in this decision. Nationalism and pork-barrelling were more than sufficient to prevent the adoption of the FN-FAL.

And you are basing that on what? The fact you're favorite didn't win? Again I have to ask where was the FAL cheated during the testing?

 

[Mad Missouri]

Depends upon what ranges you believe normal firefights will occur. Having a weapon with sights designed to hit targets 1,000 metres appears rather pointless when the overwhelming majority of engagements occur at ranges considerably closer. In the Australian Army, which was did encourage marksmanship, the L1a1 was taught as having an effective range of 300 metres for individual, aimed fire and 600 metres for section fire. Having fired the L1a1 extensively, I used to be able to get a 12 inch grouping at 600 metres utilising the fairly primitive aperture sights provided. For most firefights that is more than adequate. Battles are not match shooting.

So your point is what? The USMC rifle teams didn't really give a damn what the Australian believed. Come shoot division matches this year with me and talk to those guys.

 

[Cash]

Cash,

Sorry but I can't find the article right now. From what I remember the SOuth Korean Officers/NCOs forced their troops to clean their weapons right from the beginning. And that got crome lined barrels sooner.

Regular cleaning would have made a difference. Chrome-plating the chambers, bolt carriers, and barrels made an even bigger difference when the U.S. military finally realized the problem. Redesigning the bullet so that it tumbled rather than went through and through also mattered.

There were just so many things wrong with the weapon that it should never have been issued to combat troops in Vietnam before a complete and realistic series of field tests. And even then ...

Remember the M3 grease gun? Stamped metal, open bolt, front-line soldiers in WWII distrusted it because it occasionally fired accidentally from the open bolt. (My father hated it!) But in Vietnam some soldiers actually favored it over the M16 because the damn thing always worked and the .45 ACP slug had real knockdown power. They'd buy them from tank crews if they couldn't find one any other way. The ones I spoke with actually preferred the AK-47, but carrying one in the field was a court-martial offense in some units.

 

[Gridley]

The US has historically used non-US (Euro in fact) designed weaponry fairly frequently. Examples range from the Swedish Bofors (used with great success by the navy in WWII and also by the army), to the Belgian Minimi (which became the modern M249 SAW) and the Beretta 92 (the M9 pistol).

That doesn't mean there isn't prejudice, or that some contests aren't rigged, but making a blanket assertion that the US only uses US-designed weapons just doesn't stand up to examination. Heck, look at the current USAF tanker competition.

Now, the US would certainly have assigned the FAL a US reporting number and demanded a production license for a US company. Since the subject has come up, I also don't see the adoption of the FAL butterflying away the adoption of the modern M16, though the exact dates would almost certainly change.