Deleted member 1487
Modern accurized models are fine, which is why the US military uses them today (and because they were they were left over). But by all accounts the 1960s version left a LOT to be desired compared to say the Garand.M-14 was/is actually an excellent weapon, especially in the hands of a well trained rifleman. In WW II or Korea with would have kicked ass. Had the Red Army tried the Fulda Gap it would have been the right weapon. The complaints about it being unstable on full auto are sort of silly, good luck controlling any rifle as you burn through 20 rounds. Best you can do is start firing low and keep the barrel pointing at the target as the the muzzle walks the rounds up (hence the comment about well trained rifleman; they can snap off 2-3 rounds, even in a full auto weapon, diring the 2003 Iraq War you could always tell when the U.S. or UK troops were firing: "bip-bip or bip-bip-bit" Iraqi Army AQAP "rat-at-at-at-at-at-at..." spray & pray until the bolt locked open)
As to controllability in full auto, the FG42 achieved that with a more powerful cartridge than the M14 and one with heavier bullets, which means more recoil. Of course trying to make it a stand in for the BAR was a mistake, but with an efficient muzzle brake it was achievable. The US military should have known that given how much they tested the FG42 and worked on a comparable design.
The Aussies apparently were just fine with their equivalent SLRs:Unfortunately a 9.2 pound wooden stock battle rifle with a loaded magazine weighing in at 1.5 pounds each wasn't the right weapon for Vietnam where you had LURPing and even basic patrols out of contact for a couple days at a time in the jungle. M-16 came in under 6.5 pounds, with each mag coming in at 1.2 pounds. An M-16 and 60 rounds weighs less than an M-14 and 20 rounds. With a standard load of 120 rounds an M-14 carrier has a total weight of over 18 pounds, the M-16 comes in at under 14. That's two frag and two smokes, or two quart canteens or a full days rations or...
https://www.wearethemighty.com/gear-tech/australian-sawed-off-machine-gun
https://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog...nough-the-australian-btch-variant-of-the-slr/
They went even harder and cut off the barrel to make it loud and nasty sounding.
The South Africans and Rhodesians apparently loved the FAL (and G3) while fighting in pretty tough bush against guys with AK47s:
https://nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/gun-nato-loved-meet-fn-fal-rifle-52362
https://www.kommandoblog.com/2017/0...rief-history-and-how-to-spot-one-in-the-wild/
Indeed, which is why the M16 was the military's preferred rifle for decades, though it had it's how hideous issues in the jungle. It would have been better in .270 or .280 British, but we don't always get what we want.Four pounds is a LOT if you are humping bush. Even if all you do is carry three more mags you are way ahead and those extra rounds may just bring you home.
Did the Italians use it in combat?The BM59 saw some combat use with the Argentinians in the Falklands, with Indonesia and by several former Italian colonies in Africa including Ethiopia and Eritrea. The weapon was also well regarded by the Italian army.
BTW doesn't seem to helped the Argentinians in the Falklands...just saying.