American FAL?

[Minchandre]

I figured this was probably a question that had been asked in the past, but a quick search didn't turn up anything, so...

What would be required to cause the United States to adopt the "Right Arm of the Free World"? After all, the FAL was chambered in 7.62x51 instead of 0.280 British specifically to conform to American preferences/demands.

The US toyed with a local variant for a bit (the T48), and it participated in trials against the T44 (a selective-fire variant of the M1 that would eventually become the M14), and apparently did as well or better than the T44 in almost all trials, with allegations of cheating on the part of Springfield Armories there (by testing specially modified cold-weather variants instead of standard rifles). I think there was also a claim that M1 machinery could be modified to manufacture the T44 as well, though this ultimately proved untenable.

Now, in my mind, the choice to go with the T44 was pretty obviously a political one; probably driven by chauvanism and probably protectionism (for all that the T48 would have definitely been manufactured in the US, the design would have been Belgian and some royalty payments would presumably flow to Herstal as well). In the 1950-1955, when the Army was trying to replace the M1, is there any political will that could have lead to the T48 winning out over the proto-M14? Maybe some sort of order from MacArthur or Eisenhower to lead to greater integration with NATO? Or some sort of quid pro quo seeing Europe adopt some American equipment instead of their own? (though I have no idea what - maybe the adoption of Pattons instead of local tanks?) Is there any way that other NATO members could apply pressure on the US, during that very early period?

Also - assuming the T48 is adopted, will the military still develop and adopt something like the M16? Maybe even earlier, since the FAL was a little heavier than the M14? Is there any chance that if/when this occurs, the US will simply look to the original .280 British variant of the FAL?

 

[acrsome]

I guess it's possible but, yes, the not-made-here chauvinism was pretty strong at the time. It may not have been wholly to blame, though- my understanding is that Springfield cheated pretty blatantly at the arctic trials by spending weeks modifying the test rifles. Stop the cheating (traditionally by the government hanging on to the test rifles) and this might not come to pass.

The more interesting one for me would be adoption of the M1 Garand in .276 Petersen, which actually came very close to happening until MacArthur intervened for logistical reasons. A 10-round Garand launching 7mm projectiles would just be awesome. Then we might have adopted the AR-10 in that caliber, too, and the M16 would never have been.

EDIT-- Also, this from Wikipedia, though it is uncited:

[...]the U.S. Government tacitly indicated to NATO, and specifically to the United Kingdom, that if the FAL were redesigned for the new American 7.62×51mm cartridge, then the FAL would become acceptable to the U.S., and they would presumably adopt it. Secondly, FN had indicated that it would allow former WWII Allied countries to produce the FAL design with no licensing or royalty costs as a gift to the World War II Allied countries for the liberation of Belgium.

 

[riggerrob]

A lot of unspoken variables here ......
As for qid pro quo ... many NATO nations adopted American artillery ammo (e.g. 105mm howitzer) after WW2 and American factories had the potential to sell far more $$$$$$ of ammo than gun barrels.

Another factor is tradition. Most US WW2 veterans (including senior officers) loved Garand rifles and would only accept a slightly-modified Garand, wooden stock and all. In the long-run, I doubt if many M1 tools were suitable for manufacturing M14s.

"Not invented here" may sound like a shallow, political excuse, but when you are manufacturing millions of rifles, it can be a tremendous drain on the national treasury. Far better to pay American machinists than Belgiam machinists.
In time of war, it is important to have all the means of production (and documentation) in country. For example, when the USA adopted two Belgian-designed machine guns (7.62 GPMG and a 5.56mm LMG) they set up production lines in the USA to ensure supplies of spare parts.

 

[Cryhavoc101]

A lot of unspoken variables here ......
As for qid pro quo ... many NATO nations adopted American artillery ammo (e.g. 105mm howitzer) after WW2 and American factories had the potential to sell far more $$$$$$ of ammo than gun barrels.

Another factor is tradition. Most US WW2 veterans (including senior officers) loved Garand rifles and would only accept a slightly-modified Garand, wooden stock and all. In the long-run, I doubt if many M1 tools were suitable for manufacturing M14s.

"Not invented here" may sound like a shallow, political excuse, but when you are manufacturing millions of rifles, it can be a tremendous drain on the national treasury. Far better to pay American machinists than Belgiam machinists.
In time of war, it is important to have all the means of production (and documentation) in country. For example, when the USA adopted two Belgian-designed machine guns (7.62 GPMG and a 5.56mm LMG) they set up production lines in the USA to ensure supplies of spare parts.

I appreciate what you are saying but FN FALS built for US Service would be, like UK SLRs built in UK factories, and as you say more recently M249s / M240s be built in US Factories (under 'license' which apparently would be free) by US Machinists.

So we are back to Chauvinism and Protectionism (although the later is probably not an issue given the Licence would have been gifted) - the only other thing I can think off is that the Makers of the M14 claimed that it could be made using M1 machine tools and gigs etc thus saving on retooling costs - which turned out to be total BS.

Perhaps the truth behind the M14s true cost and ability to be produced in sufficient numbers is exposed far earlier?

After all its not like the US has not adopted other nations weapons since WW2 when it suits!

Had they adopted the FAL they might also adopt the FN MAG at the same time instead of the M60 (which would later be replaced by the FN MAG - AKA M240 - anyway)

Perhaps the FN FAL is produced in its original calibre (.270) making it a true intermediate assault rifle and the FN MAG chambered for .30-06 (MG ammo is supplied in belts and rifle ammo in stripper clips anyway)

Or maybe Britain and most of the Commonwealth sticks its fingers up at adopting a 7.62 NATO rifle and does its own thing and when the US goes to war in South East Asia it picks the 'Intermediate' FN FAL as it 'M16' after the 'failure of the M14.

 

[NORGCO]

.

Perhaps the truth behind the M14s true cost and ability to be produced in sufficient numbers is exposed far earlier?


Or maybe Britain and most of the Commonwealth sticks its fingers up at adopting a 7.62 NATO rifle and does its own thing and when the US goes to war in South East Asia it picks the 'Intermediate' FN FAL as it 'M16' after the 'failure of the M14.

What was wrong with the M-14 anyway? Most of what I know about it is either early 60's bland press release stuff or 'it failed the mud test BIG TIME' reports from Forgotten Weapons/Inrange TV on YouTube.

Apparently it was just an improved M-1 Garand, but was supposed to replace most infantry weapons, which is just not workable. ie sub-machinegun and rifle and light machine-gun? Also that it 'rattles loose' after not much firing and accuracy drops off like a grand piano out a third floor window.

What went wrong anyway?

As to the FN/SLR, yes, replacing the Garand with that would be better than with the M-14, at least if the failure of the M-14 to sell internationally or survive competition with the M-16 is any indication.

 

[Minchandre]

What was wrong with the M-14 anyway? Most of what I know about it is either early 60's bland press release stuff or 'it failed the mud test BIG TIME' reports from Forgotten Weapons/Inrange TV on YouTube.

Apparently it was just an improved M-1 Garand, but was supposed to replace most infantry weapons, which is just not workable. ie sub-machinegun and rifle and light machine-gun? Also that it 'rattles loose' after not much firing and accuracy drops off like a grand piano out a third floor window.

What went wrong anyway?

As to the FN/SLR, yes, replacing the Garand with that would be better than with the M-14, at least if the failure of the M-14 to sell internationally or survive competition with the M-16 is any indication.

It was heavy, its bullets were heavy, the AR-15 was introduced for unrelated purposes at a time that the DoD was minded to try and make equipment more uniform at a time when the doctrine was changing to favor weight of fire and short/medium range. There was nothing "wrong" with it that probably couldn't have been fixed with minor adjustments, and it actually remains in use today, mostly as a designated marksman weapon and for parade drills (it looks much more rifley than the M16). It was also used a bit by regular units in Afghanistan, where the extra range was more important than the extra weight of fire, since the combat wasn't jungle or urban for the most part (unlike Vietnam, which killed the M14, and most of the US's subsequent wars)

I think Cryhavoc's point is that a lot of how the M14 was sold to the Army was that it would be cheap and fast to retool M1 production to the M14, which ended up being incredibly untrue.

 

[CalBear]

If the 7.62 NATO round was going to be used, the M-14 was an excellent weapon.

Weight is close to identical (FAL 50.0 is 8.9 pounds, M-14 is 9.2), the M-14 takes back seat to no 7.62mm battle rifle on Earth in long range accuracy (my cousin, who has a decade on me, used the M-14 over iron sights in 1,000 yard/meter events as an alternate on the Army Rifle Team in the early 70s).

What killed the M-14 was weight. Same thing would have killed the FAL.

 

[Download]

If the 7.62 NATO round was going to be used, the M-14 was an excellent weapon.

Weight is close to identical (FAL 50.0 is 8.9 pounds, M-14 is 9.2), the M-14 takes back seat to no 7.62mm battle rifle on Earth in long range accuracy (my cousin, who has a decade on me, used the M-14 over iron sights in 1,000 yard/meter events as an alternate on the Army Rifle Team in the early 70s).

What killed the M-14 was weight. Same thing would have killed the FAL.

It really wasn't as great as people made it out to be. It had a range manufacturing, cost and reliability issues. Nostalgic veterans are blind to that however.

 

[CalBear]

It really wasn't as great as people made it out to be. It had a range manufacturing, cost and reliability issues. Nostalgic veterans are blind to that however.

The M-14 wasn't really the right weapon for Vietnam. Been hell on wheels if the Red Army had ever tried the Fulda Gap (which, THANK GOD, never happened). Once they got the bugs out the M-16 was good jungle carbine.

 

[Download]

The M-14 wasn't really the right weapon for Vietnam. Been hell on wheels if the Red Army had ever tried the Fulda Gap (which, THANK GOD, never happened). Once they got the bugs out the M-16 was good jungle carbine.

On what basis? The round is over powered and heavy. The only benefit it offers over 5.56mm is range which the average soldier can't take advantage of. In every other metric 5.56mm beats it out.

 

[Cryhavoc101]

The M-14 wasn't really the right weapon for Vietnam. Been hell on wheels if the Red Army had ever tried the Fulda Gap (which, THANK GOD, never happened). Once they got the bugs out the M-16 was good jungle carbine.

If the 7.62 NATO round was going to be used, the M-14 was an excellent weapon.

Weight is close to identical (FAL 50.0 is 8.9 pounds, M-14 is 9.2), the M-14 takes back seat to no 7.62mm battle rifle on Earth in long range accuracy (my cousin, who has a decade on me, used the M-14 over iron sights in 1,000 yard/meter events as an alternate on the Army Rifle Team in the early 70s).

What killed the M-14 was weight. Same thing would have killed the FAL.

The US Army equipped with M14, FAL or M16 would not have decided a Fulda Gap scenario or have had much impact at the tactical level one way or the other.

Long range accuracy is one thing but is it more accurate than an M16 at 300 meters under true combat conditions?

WW2 proved as has the majority of combat environments since - that individual riflemen rarely directly engage the enemy at ranges beyond 300m and the mass majority of engagements were at 100m or less (FIBUA)

It makes far more sense to equip the average rifleman (who is 19, scared, on a two way firing range and hasn't slept for 3 days) with a weapon that better excels at these ranges and not necessarily as good at 600 meters than one that is good for 1000 meters on a nice firing range.

 

[acrsome]

If backed into a corner I will admit that Americans- including me- are fond of the M14 because it's a Rifleman's Rifle. I.e. "A weapon of iron and wood" as R. Lee Ermey would say. It has weight to it- it feels impressive. But this is an aesthetic thing, not a practical thing. One might think of it as the ultimate expression of rifles of it's generation (i.e. prior to the space age). And it is indeed incredibly fun to shoot, if one is a recreational shooter. This does, unfortunately, blind a lot of these fanbois to the limitations of the M14 as a modern combat weapon.

I am not one of them. See my discussion on this thread about calibers, etc. It is long.

Face it- the M14 was a WWII-era weapon. That's what it was. All of the (us?) "gun guys" love the sturdy milled receivers and the wooden stocks, and even the sound it makes as it cycles, etc. It's solid. But that's all aesthetic. The M14, like the Garand before it, was indeed capable of the 1000-yard matches described above. Though most competitors do replace them, even their standard sights are spectacular. However both required an inordinate amount of care to do it. In fact, back when those rifles dominated the matches it was an unforgivable faux pas to handle one without permission because (in addition to simply being rude) you would probably mess up whatever the owner had done to tune it just by picking it up wrong. All of these Garand and M14 and M1A guys laughed their asses off when people started bringing ARs to the matches... until they started losing to them every time. Every time. Nowadays you see nothing but ARs at the service rifle matches. An AR does not take nearly as much care to be a tack driver- the design is inherently capable of pretty decent accuracy. (Building the original M16 around a 55-grain projectile was probably short sighted, though, if one wanted long range accuracy, so to this day we're using work-arounds for that tiny magazine well.) The M14 has indeed found a niche in the modern US military as a designated marksman rifle (mostly just because we had them in stock at the time) but it is losing even that to ARs (see here and here) and things like the M110 or G28. Also, note that we're talking about DMRs, here- no one is seriously re-fielding the M14 as a sniper rifle. It just takes too much work. The M21 and M25 have sort of proven that- they are generally being used as DMRs nowadays. But politicians like to see us re-using old stuff instead of buying new stuff. And you'll note that when it gets used one of the first things we do is try to turn it into an FAL.

The M14 was obsolete the day it was fielded. Yes, clearly it was an improvement over the Garand, which is what the US needed and all that it asked for, but the AK-47 (which is also really a WWII-era design when it comes down to it) blows it out of the water. The former had not learned the lessons of WWII, whereas the latter had.

That said, the FAL was not much better. It was a little better- just not much. It used a lot more stamped parts for faster and cheaper manufacturing, among others. Also plastic parts, eventually. It was disassembled similar to the way the the later M16 would be, with the receiver in two separate parts and held by pins, easing maintenance. The magazines sucked, and the vast majority of malfunctions are due to the magazines not the rifle- so the M14 wins that one. M14 magazines are awesome. The FAL is much more ergonomic, though not quite as good as the M16 in this regard, due to the way the safety worked. The M14 safety is downright archaic- like the Garand, it is a little steel flange inside the trigger guard that you have to push forward to fire.

But the biggest drawback of either was the round it fired. 7.62x51mm simply weighs too much, and the vast majority of soldiery are incapable exploiting any advantages it might have over an intermediate cartridge. A soldier can carry literally twice as much ammunition for a 5.56mm, for instance, and being able to lay down a lot of lead to achieve fire superiority does matter. Hell, we knew that in WWII- it was even in Band of Brothers.

Make the FAL in .280 British and you were on to something. In 7.62x51mm it was almost as much of a turd as the M14.

Don't get me wrong- that's hyperbole. The FAL is a great rifle. But it really wasn't modern for most of it's service life.

 

[fastmongrel]

Make the FAL in .280 and you were on to something

Agreed thats the round it was designed for and from what I have read it was a beauty to shoot in .280. My own little fantasy Unicorn rifle would be the AR10 in .280

 

[acrsome]

Get an AR-10 in .260 Remington. They are made. Granted, it's a bit more powerful, but wow, what ballistics! (I have a Savage in .260. It's like shooting a laser.) And still much less recoil than .308- in fact, probably about half. Which brings us to a major advantage of the AR schema- it's easy to just swap uppers when you want a different caliber or longer barrel or whatever. Get both a .260 and a .308.

Disclaimer- I'm a bit of a 6.5mm fanboi.

Did they make a FAL prototype in true .280 British? I thought that the prototype was in .280/30, to assuage the Americans. We've more or less recreated that with the more wimpy 7mm-08 loads, for which AR-10s are also made. And, actually, the true .280 British (139-grain at 2545 fps) was probably more similar to the 6.5mm Grendel (130-grain at 2510 fps) than the .260 Remington (140-grain at 2750 fps). So you could just get a Grendel upper for your AR.

 

[CalBear]

On what basis? The round is over powered and heavy. The only benefit it offers over 5.56mm is range which the average soldier can't take advantage of. In every other metric 5.56mm beats it out.

The US Army equipped with M14, FAL or M16 would not have decided a Fulda Gap scenario or have had much impact at the tactical level one way or the other.

Long range accuracy is one thing but is it more accurate than an M16 at 300 meters under true combat conditions?

WW2 proved as has the majority of combat environments since - that individual riflemen rarely directly engage the enemy at ranges beyond 300m and the mass majority of engagements were at 100m or less (FIBUA)

It makes far more sense to equip the average rifleman (who is 19, scared, on a two way firing range and hasn't slept for 3 days) with a weapon that better excels at these ranges and not necessarily as good at 600 meters than one that is good for 1000 meters on a nice firing range.

Without refighting the 5.56mm war again, which is not the point of the thread, I will simply say that, for European conditions (that is less deep patrolling on foot and more action on a traditional frontage with mechanized forces) the M-16 is not the ideal weapon. The M-14 was also not ideal, especially since it was supposed to be a jack of all trades, but it came closer to the right weapon than the original M-16 (when folks tout the current M-16/M4 it is important to keep in mind that the weapon of today has benefited from half a century of re-engineering since its combat introduction in 1966-67).

The answer for the OP's question remains that it wouldn't really matter. The 7.62 NATO round was doomed, so the battle rifle chambered for it was equally doomed.

 

[acrsome]

If I may presume to translate for CalBear:

The long open sight-lines of the highly-developed Central and Interior Lowlands would somewhat favor more powerful and longer-ranged cartridges, especially for the guy on defense- who gets to choose the ground- as NATO would have. Northern Germany is excellent tank country- this is why everyone assumed that the Warsaw pact was coming through that route, since they were big into mechanized warfare and had invested very heavily in a numerical tank superiority. Also, tanks and ATGMs engage at very long ranges, which obviates the utility of close-range small arms ambushes. The infantry have to learn to suppress enemy infantry who are supporting the tanks... at those long ranges. But frankly even if you are a bit more south then this also holds true for shooting across developed mountain valleys.

Of course, you still run into the issue of whether your average recruit could exploit that advantage, which they probably could not. But then, 50% of recruits are above average by definition...

I'm not sure it would have been all that much better a choice. Certainly I'll take a 21st century AR over the M14, handily.

 

[Cryhavoc101]

Without refighting the 5.56mm war again, which is not the point of the thread, I will simply say that, for European conditions (that is less deep patrolling on foot and more action on a traditional frontage with mechanized forces) the M-16 is not the ideal weapon. The M-14 was also not ideal, especially since it was supposed to be a jack of all trades, but it came closer to the right weapon than the original M-16 (when folks tout the current M-16/M4 it is important to keep in mind that the weapon of today has benefited from half a century of re-engineering since its combat introduction in 1966-67).

The answer for the OP's question remains that it wouldn't really matter. The 7.62 NATO round was doomed, so the battle rifle chambered for it was equally doomed.

Sorry Cal I cannot let it go - let me just say this then I will let it go....probably

Of the 4 main combatants in WW2 Europe (if we exclude France) 3 of them Germany, Britain and the USSR concluded at the end of the war (or mid war in Germany's case) given their some what vast and varied experiences that a given rifle man armed with a weapon chambering for a Kurtz or intermediate round was better off than one using a full powered rifle round.

Where they wrong given that apart from Britain - who had extensive battle experiences elsewhere most of their experience was in Europe?

Germany may have lots of nice rolling valleys with good sight lines but it also has lots of forests and built up areas - and as most terrain is unlike a 1000m firing range in that it is undulating, it's not a billiard table, you are going to struggle to see 300m let alone 1000m and as far as I am concerned an infantry man is going to require an intermediate weapon far more often than a full rifle calibre one

Or let me put it another way - most infantry men will either be fighting laying on their belt buckles or at the same height if fighting from a foxhole or prepared position (and guess what the poor SOB's they are shooting at are doing) - they are more often than not unable to see people to shoot at beyond 300 meter even if the terrain is suitable. Particularly if its dark or the weather is bad.

 

[Minchandre]

Without refighting the 5.56mm war again, which is not the point of the thread, I will simply say that, for European conditions (that is less deep patrolling on foot and more action on a traditional frontage with mechanized forces) the M-16 is not the ideal weapon. The M-14 was also not ideal, especially since it was supposed to be a jack of all trades, but it came closer to the right weapon than the original M-16 (when folks tout the current M-16/M4 it is important to keep in mind that the weapon of today has benefited from half a century of re-engineering since its combat introduction in 1966-67).

The answer for the OP's question remains that it wouldn't really matter. The 7.62 NATO round was doomed, so the battle rifle chambered for it was equally doomed.

I agree that 7.62 will probably get replaced by a smaller round, eventually, but I'm not sure that the US adopting the FAL wouldn't matter. It might set a stronger precedent of NATO small-arms that would lead to, for example, everyone changing over to the same smaller-cartridge AR instead of everyone doing their own thing. It might even lead to the adoption of the FAL in 0.280 British instead of the US adopting some air field defense rifle in .223 Remington.

 

[CalBear]

Sorry Cal I cannot let it go - let me just say this then I will let it go....probably

Of the 4 main combatants in WW2 Europe (if we exclude France) 3 of them Germany, Britain and the USSR concluded at the end of the war (or mid war in Germany's case) given their some what vast and varied experiences that a given rifle man armed with a weapon chambering for a Kurtz or intermediate round was better off than one using a full powered rifle round.

Where they wrong given that apart from Britain - who had extensive battle experiences elsewhere most of their experience was in Europe?

Germany may have lots of nice rolling valleys with good sight lines but it also has lots of forests and built up areas - and as most terrain is unlike a 1000m firing range in that it is undulating, it's not a billiard table, you are going to struggle to see 300m let alone 1000m and as far as I am concerned an infantry man is going to require an intermediate weapon far more often than a full rifle calibre one

Or let me put it another way - most infantry men will either be fighting laying on their belt buckles or at the same height if fighting from a foxhole or prepared position (and guess what the poor SOB's they are shooting at are doing) - they are more often than not unable to see people to shoot at beyond 300 meter even if the terrain is suitable. Particularly if its dark or the weather is bad.

The 7.62 NATO IS a "Kurtz"/intermediate cartridge. Full size cartridges are the .30-06, .303 Enfield, 7.92x57 (8mm Mauser) and 7.62x54.

The 5.56mm was a varmint cartridge.

 

[Lascaris]

The 7.62 NATO IS a "Kurtz"/intermediate cartridge. Full size cartridges are the .30-06, .303 Enfield, 7.92x57 (8mm Mauser) and 7.62x54.

The 5.56mm was a varmint cartridge.

Is a G3A3 controllable in full auto? No? Not that intermediate then. 7x43 or 6.5x54 would had been much better choices probably and the second was also suitable for long range accurate fire.