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. 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: 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. Did the Italians use it in combat? BTW doesn't seem to helped the Argentinians in the Falklands...just saying.