Cold War Standoff: AR10 vs FAL
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 17 окт 2024
- MAC Website & PrimaryArms website link: www.militaryarm...
Join Patreon and support MAC! / militaryarms
MAC Amazon Store: www.amazon.com...
Support Mac on RUclips! / @militaryarmschannel
MAC T-Shirt Store: ballisticink.c...
If you don't care for Patreon, checkout SubscribeStar: www.subscribes...
We previously compared the M14 to the FAL and chose the FAL over the M14. Now it's time to compare the FAL to the AR10 and see which I believe should have been adopted by the US military.
If you carry a gun for personal defense, you need to be protected from lawsuits or criminal charges should you need to use your firearm defensively. I recommend USCCA: tracking.delta...
Challenge Target Discount Code: MAC556
OpticsPlanet Discount Code: MAC5
Join MAC on Twitch for live gaming: / militaryarms
Please join the Gun Owners of America. This link gives you 1 year for only $15 (we get no kick-backs): gunowners.me/2g...
IMPORTANT: All shooting is done on a state approved firing range and under the supervision of trained professionals. Our videos are produced in a safe environment by highly trained professionals with decades of experience. We are Federally licensed and are compliant with all Federal and State laws. Do not attempt to replicate the actions featured in our videos without the proper training, licensing and without medical professionals present.
We are not attempting to sell you the items featured in this video. We are not instructing our viewers on how to modify firearms, accessories or otherwise change their basic legal function. All firearms and accessories are legal products commonly available in stores all across the United States. Our videos are for entertainment purposes only.
Imagine back in the 1950s turning in your old Lee-Enfield or Mannlicher rifle and being issued a brand new FN FAL.
Imagine turning in your enfield for the EM2. Then having to turn in your EM2 for a gun that kicked harder, weighed more, had heavier ammo and was not as good.. poor uk soldier.
Ha ha. He said mann licher...
Imagine turning your L1A1 SLR in for a SA-80!!
@@pkasedona1 Lol
@@newdefsys Sad trombone
The AR-10 never really died. It lives on as the SR-25 which big army adopted for DMR service as the MK 11 Mod 0 and M110 SASS.
The M110 is to be replaced by the lighter and more compact M110A1 CSASS, which is developed from the G28, a variant of the Heckler & Koch HK417.
I remember the FAL from my early days in the Canadian army before we adopted the C7 (M16 A2) in 1989. It was a reliable, high quality piece of gear.
Canada even used the select-fire LMG version of the FAL, the one with the neat wooden, folding bipod legs that doubled as a hand-guard when folded, but could deploy when prone to stabilize the weapon. Whereas Australia retained the Bren Gun as its squad level base-of-fire weapon. Always wondered what each force thought of the choice of the other, given that both were members of the Commonwealth.
Canada was the first military to adopt the FAL, according to the accounts I've seen. The accounts didn't mention Belgium, which presumably would have been number one, since they designed/manufactured it. Still, a feather in the caps of the CF for seeing the potential of the weapon so quickly.
old school AR10s had a ton of potential
Flame me, screw the FAL, owned a DSA. HATED it. Inferior in every way to the AR-10 platform.
The Dutch-made AI AR10s were superb battle rifles, without question....
Just finished my ar10 dmr build.
@@haroldsobel8599 Very true. The FAL is now obsolete. No reason to own one unless you are a collector or history buff.
@Gavin Fisher
When I was issued my F.A.L. in Rhodesia.
We were told the carrying handle was taken off because they did not want you carrying the gun by the handle, if you are tired and carrying it that way you are not alert, the most comfortable way to carry the gun was with two hands, and you were alert and ready for an ambush.
Carry by the handle and ambushed, you have to put the handle down, safety onto fire and action.
Carrying with two hands, SHTF, and safety to fire and aim, gives you one or two seconds extra to save your life.
I can’t decide. Shucks, just have to get both! Put them in a dark safe and see if they create offspring.
Maybe a SCAR will pop out
Matt M , lmao I’m pretty sure your like me, I like anything that goes boom.
I got a piston ar10....best of both worlds
Little baby XCR-M.
It’s called an XCR
When MAC is short on ammo, you know there is a problem :/
Free or discount is sometimes an elusive critter.
Hey Tim! Awesome video. The BRN-10 recoil feels identical to the original. The rate of fire makes the AR10 on full auto quite punishing on the shoulder but I have to say the in-line construction does minimize muzzle rise but you will have a black and blue shoulder. Similar to the full auto G3. But the LMT full auto MWS, total different story. Completely controllable, most controllable full auto 308 I have ever fired by far.
If you had to compare the AR-10, FAL, M1A, and G3, SCAR 17, Robinson XCR-M, Desert Tech MDR... how would you order them in terms of controllability in rapid fire? (1 being the most controllable, 7 being the most uncontrollable)
I still think we completely missed the boat when we adopted the M14. We could have had an AR10 in .280 British and had a completely modern, light weight, selective fire rifle in the 50’s.
That's politics for you. They chose an obsolete pos over something truly ground breaking.
You are sooooooo tight!!
we got there 10nyears later. would 280 have been better than 5.56?
@@anthonymayor5171 yes, Heavier bullet better sectional density. Pretty sure it was a 140 grain bullet at just over 2500 FPS so a bit flatter shooting than a 7.62x39 and was supposedly quite accurate.
Hard to say for sure but the .280 would have to be compared with its contemporary ammo in .223 at the time and I think we can seen what happened after several decades to the .223/5.56 which would have also happened to the .280 British. Of course the modern AR15 is easily superior to both the AR10 and the FN Fal, but what could have been.....
I carried the FAL for more than a year in my military service in Argentina 1981/1982 it was the 21” barrel with the carrying handle
The FAL is such a good looking rifle. It's lines remind me the classic long-body Jaguar.
Yeah like a stream line E-type
When I was in the Canadian reserve infantry in the ‘80s, we did have a full auto FAL version that acted as our Section (Squad) support weapon x 2. They had a bi-pod so were pretty accurate, but heavy as .... They were a B to carry on a March or fighting patrol. The carrying handle of both were nice. We would hang it off the buttons of our coats instead of carrying it long distances... arm savers. 😁
I heard you could convert the C1 rifles to makeshift full auto through some easy modification to the trigger group. Is that true?
Jake Soros Not sure myself. However, before the communist ban here on 01 May, by Comrade Trudeau, FALs were already prohibited to own because it was stated that you could change it to full auto, so maybe. I just don’t trust what the govt or RCMP say.
Fucking awesome. Glad to see a fellow Canadian here and chatting about my favourite rifle. Never served in the '80s due to not being born yet though.
@@jakesoros2376 yes you could with a simple piece of gun tape......
When I was in the army, US, we figured out we could configure our ammo pouches in such a way on our IBA that you could basically hang your M4 from them instead of carrying them. I was issued an M249 and I remember hanging that bad boy off my ammo pouches all the time. It's funny how you read something and it makes you realize that we're not all that different after all, as far as soldiers go for this story.
Kinda glad you plugged Small Arms Solution's video, they really did a great job explaining it all.
The final decision is interesting. The InRangeTV guys did a full multi-person test with a large number of modern and historic .308 rifles, and they picked the AR10 second overall even over the SCAR-H, and often mentioned how much lighter shooting it was to all other guns, and the FAL didn't do very well in their overall handling and drill tests. So this conclusion is surprising I must admit. Maybe that particular version WAS overgassed.
@Rem Max Thanks, That is the ONLY informative reply I have ever received on youtube AND the best one also. Good to know.
The FN FAL is a superb design, but having said that, it dates from the 1950s... and is no longer the newest kid in town.....
Largely because of the rock and lock loading procedure
It's pretty amazing that the AR-10 beat its contemporaries in that test, and was only topped by a design that is newer by 50 years AND borrowed its ergonomics from the AR AND THE FAL.
The right arms of the free world, a title you can't argues with for sure
Free world ... lol ... k.
BigChiefWiggles V damn spittin straight fax here
@@Fishlord136 Unfortunately...
@Vince yes.
Hey Tim - I used to work at KAC, and as you probably know we had just about all of the original prototypes and production AR10s... They were super controllable on full auto, and IMO were actually softer shooting on FA than on SA. Just my personal experience for reference, great video!
Again, thank you so much for covering the FAL. When I was a young man and seeing my first FAL I fell in love with it. There's always been something about it to me. And as I've said a dozen times in your video comment section, I finally landed me one about 10 years ago. What an awesome shooter she has been! Awesome video Brother Tim, thumbs up ~John
AR.10.👍 ( In U.S. Army tests at Aberdeen Proving Ground in November 1960, and later in Portuguese service, the AR-10 gained a reputation for accuracy (some rifles would group into 25 mm (1 inch) at 100 meters with service ammunition). Portuguese paratroopers found the AR-10 to be not only accurate but reliable in combat, despite rugged service conditions in African jungle and savannah )
The real road not taken in terms of the 1950s service trials, was the FN FAL, as excellent as it was. It was the AR10, which was a quantum leap ahead of anything then being offered. The Portuguese paras loved theirs so much that when the contract was ended and no more spare parts were supplied, they had spares fabricated locally at their own expense to keep them running. Finally, they were forced to turn them in sometime during the 1970s. Troops don't go to that kind of trouble and expense for something they don't care about or like.
@ Antony Kirk: Your comments are right on the mark. As fine a rifle as the FN FAL was - and it was a brilliant design - the real missed-opportunity is that the military missed out on the Armalite AR10, the only fifth-generation battle rifle thus far ever designed. Thereby hangs an interesting tale. Armalite, a division of Fairchild Aviation, had submitted a group of their AR10 rifles chambered in 7.62x51 NATO, for competitive testing for the new service rifle to replace the M-1 Garand.
The futuristic new design performed superbly according to witnesses, i.e., the NCOs and junior officers charged with the testing. It was accurate, light but durable, well-designed, and surprisingly controllable even in select-fire mode thanks to its straight-line stock and recoil spring/buffer design.
But just then, disaster struck. Over the strident objections of chief engineer Eugene Stoner, the designer of the rifle, Armalite CEO George Sullivan insisted on including one non-standard, experimental AR10 alongside its conventional cousins, a prototype with a composite laminated aluminum/steel barrel. That barrel burst catastrophically during sustained fire/endurance testing. A replacement conventional AR10 was quickly supplied to allow testing to start back up, but the damage had been done and Armalite was shortly thereafter dropped from consideration. Stoner's concerns had been justified.
Without a government contract for producing them, Armalite ultimately licensed out production to a number of other firms, including the Dutch firm Artillerie Inrichtingen (hereafter AI), which made a number of improvements to the basic Armalite design. These included beefing up the buffer/recoil spring, making it stouter and heavier, and some other changes. These weapons were sold to Sudan, Portugal, Dutch NWM, Burma, and a few other small nations. They are also the weapons so beloved by the elite Portuguese paratroopers, who used their AR10s so successfully in the African bush wars of the 1960s and 1970s. The Paras so loved the design that they paid out of their own pockets to have spare parts locally-fabricated when official supplies dried up.
A couple of years ago, "Firearms News" did a special issue on vintage ARs, including an extensive story and review of an original Dutch AR10. The author, whose name I can't recall at the moment, was a recognized expert on the Armalite AR10, especially the license-built versions. In short, the reviewer simply raved about how good of a design it was - and how current, even some sixty years after its introduction. The reviewer said that it compared favorably to many present-day designs of AR10s and AR-308s, and that it would not need much to update it and bring it into the 21st century as a viable service weapon.
FN / FAL saw extended war over decades in jungles , bush or desert , - FN FAL Always worked - Really no argument which was better
@@Enduro-Life SR25's are still operating reliably around the world to this day, the only difference is they shoot 3-6x tighter groups than the FAL with the same size rifle. The AR-10 platform gives you the flexibility to use your battle rifle as a long range precision rifle too, something that can't be said about the FAL. Both are boringly reliable and weight about the same similarly configured, so trying to argue one is more reliable than the other is a moot point.
@@DeadLemonz do you know why the ar 10 is more accurate? I know that it is, but I have yet to see anyone explain what allows it to actually maintain a smaller grouping.
I prefer the AR 10 for all the reasons given. I’ve had two FALs. and agree with everything you said in the video but I hated the gas settings. It was something I could never fine tune.
The story from Rhodesia is that there was a soldier who actually lost his eye when the empty case was deflected off a carry handle that was not stowed properly. The case came back and hit him square in the eye, and from that moment on the Rhodesians cut off all the carry handles from all of their FALs. Additionally, the carry handles made noise in the jungle and were also entanglement hazards when parajumping.
So I carried the FAL (C1A1) my first 5 years in the army. No one ever worried about the troops messing with the gas settings (and no one could really be bothered). In fact, in training, that was something instructors randomly checked on. The default gas setting was 4 and the default sight setting was 200 yds (because we had the good Canadian rear sights and not those primitive things that all other nations had). Woe betide the recruit private or Officer Cadet who was caught with either of these having slipped a notch.
I don't recall ever having a problem with the carry handle snagging on things. However, it was not needed as no one was allowed to carry the rifle by the handle (except the Rifle regiments on parade who did fast pace march pasts (what Yanks call pass in review) with the rifles carried at the 'trail arms'). We jumped with them without issue (I didn't as I did my para course in 87 and the school was already using rubber M16 dummies by then).
One thing that does snag is that crap cocking handle on the example in the video. The Canadian handle was a clever folding one that was never a problem. I've used other FALs with that crap handle and it constantly gets in the way. Mainly because it's on the inside of the rifle against the body.
High Five!.. I was in the Canadian Army when they transitioned to the C7. I enjoyed the lighter weight of the C7, but the FAL was solid and packed a punch.
@ libertarian45: I've read about Canada being the first nation to adopt the FAL as its service rifle, in 1954. Including a version for use as an LMG (light machine gun) or SAW. How did the FAL do in that capacity? I know some Commonwealth armies adopted other weapons in that capacity, or kept their Bren guns. How did Canada do with the SAW variant of the FAL?
@@GeorgiaBoy1961 Depends on to whom you talk. Australia also used the LAR version (that's a more accurate description than SAW) while also using the 7.62 converted Bren. We carried 2 of them per rifle section. Tactics of the time had our 2 x C2s form a 'gun group' under control of the Sect 2IC. This would form a firebase while the rest of the sect flanked a position. In 1985, we changed the tactics and the concept of a 'gun group' was abandoned in favour of splitting the section in half with a C2 in each group.
Advantages: a. effectiveness of 7.62mm. b. Ammo commonality with C1s and platoon GPMG (C5 - a 7.62 M 1919). Although, in reality, the Sect Comd typically carried a 9mm SMG. c. Lighter than the Bren. d. parts commonality and familiarity of mechanism b/w C1 and C2.
Disadvantages: a. mag fed vs belt ergo less ammo on hand to suppress a target. To be fair, not too many armies had belt feds at sect (squad) level at that time. The Brits did it in the Falklands but that was a 7.62 MAG 58 (what you now call the M 240 and we now use as our platoon GPMG we call the C6). For all its faults, a C2 is way more mobile and light than a 240! But, the firepower...whoa. b. 30 rd mags could be a bit awkward when the C2 was on its bipod. c. Weight of ammo. 7.62 bullets weigh more than 5.56 (duh), are bigger (duh) and the mags were heavy steel! We carried 4 x 30rd mags in a chest rig that was fairly heavy, made breathing an effort when running, was uncomfortable etc. d. No ability to change barrel. Although the C2 barrel was beefier than the C1, auto fire could easily burn it out after time. e. Biggest drawback was lack of ammo. I carried one in training and almost always ran out of ammo in platoon attacks.
Bottom line: We never fought any battles with it (although our Airborne Regiment got swept up in the Turkish invasion of Cyprus in 1974 losing 2 killed and suffering 30 wounded. The C2 was in use but there are no accounts of how it performed. Imagine it like a BAR in 7.62 with 10 more rds in the mag and a little lighter. The introduction of the C9 (M 249) to replace it was a revelation. 200 rd belt. Single man operated. Quick change barrel... It's a much better weapon.
@@lib556 - Thanks for the history lesson.... much appreciated! Last night, I was watching the Habs play Las Vegas in the SC semi-finals. Think they have a chance? I'm rooting for them....
@@GeorgiaBoy1961 Ruh roh... Now I'm in trouble... I am not a fan of ANY sports... not even hockey. Some would say that makes me a bad Canadian. I am glad you are rooting for a Canadian team.
The FAL is an elegant weapon...for a more civilized age.
You fight in the clone wars?
...not as random nor as clumsy as a blaster?
Esp with a Browning Hi Power on your hip to go with it!
I love my SLR with it's streamlined folding cocking handle & slim flash hinder. It's a sexier version of FAL.
Great comparison. One could argue that the original AR-10 is now the Knights M110 or SR-25 rifle (or LMT, etc) and over the years, like the M16 series, has been improved to become what they are. I find the FAL intriguing due to the history behind it.
Big time surprised Tim doesn’t have an Armalight 10 in his collection 😆
He's got better, why over pay and downgrade
@@virtuaguyverify my guess is if he could get a real ar10 he would.
@@virtuaguyverify he's a collector, it wouldn't be downgrading it would be collecting History. That's like me saying buying a Glock 19 gen 4 would be downgrading and pointless because I have a more reliable CZ P01. That's stupid logic , you buy something because you like it and its history.
outstanding! very good pace / density of info - and easy to understand.
Loved the outtake, Mattel, LOL!
I own both (although the AR10 is a modern pattern).
For battlefield reliability FAL, for DMR or target shooting AR10.
Fantastic video! Love the comparison videos
Did you notice any significant difference in accuracy, especially from offhand use Tim? That might be another factor in the equation.
Super-duper video. I love both of them! Thank you for your efforts into its making. I have used both of them and expect to continue, ammo and politics allowing!!
The DSA Range Ready, SA58 FAL, 16" or 18" version with the addition of their speed trigger and interior slick coating option inside is KING! Their Range Ready modle gets a more vertical SAW Style Pistol Grip, Ambidextrous Magazine Release, Enhanced Winter Trigger Guard, Non-Reciprocating Left Side Enhanced Profile Charging Handle & Extreme Duty Scope Mount. Not to mention you get a 4150 - 11595E Steel premium barrel, which is mounted to you choice of 4140 fully machined & heat treated receivers with or without the carrying handle. It will outperform any AR10 BATTLE RIFLE in my opinion.
@Jim Beam your experience may vary, just because Tim reviewed one weapon doesn't make it junk or it's QC is bad. Tim has reviewed A LOT of guns that have been lemons, look at the P365, he had problems with it and now he loves it. I ACTUALLY OWN a DSA FAL and it's awesome! The fit, finish, and accuracy is good on mine. Sorry Tim got a bad one, but no gun manufacturer is immune from Tim's luck or the occasional QC slip.
@Jim Beam again, your experience may vary... I OWN one, it functions flawlessly, and it's a definite improvement on the standard FAL. That is ALL I'm saying. You can put my DSA FAL up against any standard FAL and it will perform better. As for it being a waste of money, that is subjective. People 'waste' money on all sorts of things, what does it matter if they want it and can afford it? Power to them, America is a land of Capitalism.
Hey bro, don't feed the trolls. This guy gives bourbon a bad name!
Dsa does suck testicles though
Well thats an ignorant statement. You obviously bought a fal and want to prove to us that ITS THE BEST. The fact is though its not. Modern ar10's have extreme accuracy, reliability, and are so modular that every part can be changed out, and their also cheaper than the fal.
I'm an old war horse. Many years ago I bought and M21 DMR. I restocked it about 10 years ago and did all the fiddly bit to make it better. It is now a 1 MOA rifle and I love it. That being said I own a bone stock DSA FAL with a 16" barrel. It has the fabulous DSA scope mount and good glass. It shoots 2 MOA no matter what I stuff in it from Russki Silver Bear to NATO stock. If SHTF happened I would grab the FAL for anything over 100 yards every time.
Nice comparison. FAL vs G3?
FAL won that shootout.
Agree, we need this video. We know Mac would prefer the FAL for his familiarity with it's manual of arms, but G3s are also awesome.
G3 cetme or ptr my favorite, fn fal is good too though but G3 hands down.
I got both I prefer Fal. But the g3 is a good gun.
@@nopenopenopenope194 i think the g3 is likely the best military battle rifle of the era. Mainly, it was super cheap to manufacture en masse. they are very reliable and can be made very very accurate, and there are versions of it in 5.56, 9x19 and more with several variations of each (para/short models, LMG, DMR) however the FAL came a little bit sooner and therefore won in the political side of things.
One piece of information not brought out is the difference in weight! My FAL is a favorite because of it's sleek lines...but they are deceiving due to it's weight....just like all trade offs more weight less recoil. So it's just a matter of when do you want to pay the piper....when you shoot or when you carry it. Shooting from a fixed position solves weight issue in favor of heavy rifle...carry it a lot and shoot it a little tips the scales the other way!
Hahaha Matel. My father-in-law has a rant about it too. His favorite was the M79
The FAL wasnt called the right arm of the free world for nothing. Its an amazing machine and the FNC/AK5-C further modernized it
Tim, really enjoying the rifle comparisons. Keep'em up.
In 1962 I was stationed at the Marine barracks at the Naval Ordnance Testing Center at China Lake , Ca one day we had a class with either an engineer from Armalite or Colt he was a very enthusiastic guy showing and discussing the AR 10 in 223 cal I think it was brown he went on to say this rifle is the future of combat weapons , since we were issued M1 Grands we considered this more of a toy since we had to have classes on our so called day off no one really cared .
However , I do remember a couple points he mentioned one was he stated that most components were made from a special alloy that did not require much if any maintenance just wipe down I thought he said something like a special silicone was mixed into the metal the rifle was passed around and as I remember it felted a little slippery.
We were a guard Battalion and did not test the AR only the base engineers and a couple Sgts fired it , the term AR I think stood for Armalite rifle AR not assault rifle .
Can’t sit and watch anything over 5 minutes long…except your content: treasure. Thank you 🙏
L1A1 SLR (FAL) will always have my heart... Shame we replaced it with the SA80A1 Garbage can... cant replace God's Own Boomstick
Here in the US, I can and do own one. I just ordered a railed handguard for it, and plan to order a C1A1/T-48 style railed topcover when I can afford it.
@@earlwyss520 be thankful... nearest i can get in the UK is a deactivated one
@@ricksheard1093 I am, I bought it back in 98, and I've been upgrading it since.
Good old reliable SLR. It's much lighter than the L85 too.
Though it's somewhat a long rifle for moving in thick jungle. My dad used the rifle fighting against the Communist insurgents in the jungle of Borneo & Malaya, back in the early 70's.
War Fighter01 agree weapon I carried for 12 years in uk infantry
I have a DS Arms remake of the FAL during the Clinton Gun Ban. I absolutely love it!
I really enjoyed this video, thanks Tim.
Tim I would have to agree with you as well on this, the FN FAL is hard firearm to beat for the time and use in which it was designed. I have a metric rifle in my collection and one day would like to get a inch pattern rifle to keep it company.
Which FAL variant that DSA makes would you recommend?
I'm tempted on buying one and they make quite a few.
Today's civilian market is doing a great job realizing the AR10 potential. The DPMS high rail AR308 really has shown promise. I am on my second build and I just love them. I hope the improvements continue
Great video! I would love to see a FAL vs. G3 comparison.
Great review
Man what do you mean is Mattel still in business? Thats the parent company of Hot Wheels my man lol.
Love your point about the lack of development of the AR and I agree with you on the FAL. It's a rifle I've always liked the looks of but never had the budget at the time.
Any chance of an FN FAL vs FN SCAR? Some people might find that a dumb comparison but I'd just be curious to hear what your thoughts are. Thanks!
FN -(FAL) everytime for me - but maybe I'm biased as it was the only weapon I got to use because I was only in the Rhodesian Forces. Although my issue was not Camo it was Black with the Bipod feature. I had a choice at the time and it's what I chose personally. Also on full tilt it helped if you put your hand revered and over the top of the barrel, not held from underneath. (That's from the hip - and for fun purposes only...lol).
I enjoyed the shade thrown at Mattel at the end. 😆
He was joking, that is a myth about Mattel making m16s that never happened.
Love how the AR10 still looks Spaceage.
The modularity of the AR rifles is the secret sauce of success.
I too would have chose then FAL. I'm from a younger generation than you, but have also really admired the FN FAL since I was a child. I used to call it the "Fin Fal".
The main thing that keeps Brownells from making 100% correct replicas is a big thing and a small thing. The big thing is the receiver has to be made so it cannot be made select fire. The small thing is the materials the furniture was made of originally was environmentally destructive in it's manufacture. So those materials were stopped being manufactured many decades ago.
The main things that got the FAL not being adopted was NIH, US Ordinance Department and the M-14.
The AR-10 was done in by some of the same things the FAL was. US Ordinance, Springfield Armory and the M-14.
I had a Mattel toy M-16 in the 1970's too. Played with it and carried it till it broke. Now of course when I could I got two of the real thing, at least as close as we can have.
MAC this was the video I have been waiting for!
John Wayne hit an AR-10 of a tree and it broke apart like a toy gun.
Yea toy guns tend to do that since that’s literally what it was
Having carried the wooden stock M-14 in Combat twice in Vietnam, I fell that it was superior to the M-16 and FAL in several ways. The actual combat accuracy of the M-14 was at least 5 times better than the M-16. The FAL in Vietnam was used by some of our special forces and other countries in the conflict and was a dependable service rifle with limitations. When equipped with a 4-12x40 scope the M-14 was able to reach out and touch whatever you needed to at ranges out to 1400m. The M-16 & FAL so equipped seemed to fall short with a max effective ranges of 800-1000m respectively, based on times I was called to engage targets at the farther distances when the M-16 or FAL was initially used and was ineffective.
The M-14 was easier to maintain in the field due to fewer moving BCG parts. A Shaving Brush was my morning routine for lubrication to start the day. In the rear area, a full take-down was easy. The Trigger group slid down and out without much effort. The gas piston was removed via the retaining plug being taken out using the tool provided with the cleaning kit. The BCG was contained in one unit and very rarely was needed to be disassembled to clean the firing pin & ejector.
Each of my M-14s in both tours had the Safe-Semi-Auto selector switch. During my first tour, I used a Bi-Pod for stabilization and just keeping it off the ground at our Night Defensive Perimeter (NDP). So equipped, my M-14 was a beast when climbing or getting through triple canopy and especially so through both. However, the added feature of reloading with a 5-round quick-load or using M-60 belted ammo to reload magazines was a significant plus. The quick-loads were carried in a bandolier across my chest along with four extra Mags. In a fire fight, my ability to take down targets faster due to accurate fire, fast re-loading and superior penetration was always that extra battle advantage.
Most M-16 users selected Full-Auto to fire at the enemy and wasted more than 60 to 75% of their ammo (my opinion) to shooting at the air, bushes and leaves. I kept my M-14 on Semi and had to identify, select and engage targets each time. Missing a target with the first shot was a very seldom occurrence. The men in my unit said I was crazy to carry such a heavy weapon compared to the M-16. But they had to carry more ammo because of their past use of Full-Auto each time in while in contact with the enemy. In Elephant Grass, the M-16 rounds had difficulty with initial penetration. After cutting the grass down they were more effective.
In triple canopy situations, the wooded areas especially the trees with enormous above ground root systems provided excellent defensive locations for the enemy troops. The lighter M-16 rounds could take hours to penetrate a thick wall-like tree root, while my M-14 could engage most targets hiding behind any wall-like root system. After I acquired Armor-Piercing 7.62mm rounds, the Tree Roots were never an obstacle in a combat situation again. I discovered that the 7.62mm x 51mm rounds came in Ball, Armor Piercing, Incendiary, Armor Piercing Incendiary, Duplex and Tracer. The USMC had all type of 7.62mm rounds which only required a simple trade of a Chicom type weapon that could be taken home as a souvenir. We acquired several cases of each. We were warned that the AP rounds could wear out the barrels sooner if used too often. I wonder if the FAL had the same types of rounds available for it.
I added a beast of an early generation heavy NVD that had a 4x capability. The crosshairs of it were set higher on a target due to the way the NVD was attached. It was never sighted in for close range at night. For NDP trail watch, I set my M-14 with the NVD and waited for a target. I would use roots to secure the feet of my Bi-Pod when available for greater accuracy and tighter shot groups. When the heavy NVD was on the M-14, it was not easy to relocate our position with it attached. Often at our NDP I would leave the NVD in my rucksack along with my scope just in case there was a need to relocate quickly. Night missions were usually ambush types where we did not relocate afterwards.
A joint mission with an Australian unit equipped with FALs and other weapons proved my M-14 to be superior at greater distances with the same style of scope. Although suppressors were not very common with the US Forces, I was able to acquire one for my M-14 from them. It cut the sound down to a comfortable level on my ears. Most of the FALs in use had suppressors with Bi-Pods and still had a range issues. Whether it was the operator or their ammo it seemed they spent a lot of time on field maintenance. Using my ammo the results of the FAL was the same. When given a chance to use my weapon system, every one of their unit wanted to switch over to the M-14. The FAL had clean lines, but the field maintenance issues and the range limitations of accuracy I observed made it a second place choice at best.
The M-14 is in use today by Special Forces units because of its distance and penetration capabilities. If I were a younger man, having a M-14, M1A or Chicom Copy M305 would be a great addition to my dream weapons collection. Owning a FAL for a fun-day at the range would also be another option. The FAL is the first choice of many nations, I think because the US played down the capabilities of the AR-10 and M-14. All of which, I would own if give the opportunity and funds. The 7.62mm round is a great choice for engaging all type of targets.
There will always be a better weapon being offered by the industry. However, some classics will always be preferred by collectors for personal reason. The FAL is good looking and has proven itself to its owners in many ways. The M82A1 is another capable beast that gets the job done. Regardless of the weapon system, it is the user that make it a legend. Our future will have many weapon choices from lasers to pulse-type weapons, but the M-14/AR-10 vs. FAL debate will remain. What would you want? FAL or M-14 or AR-10?
The AR-10 / M-14 with mods are superior to most battlefield rifles for Jungle Operations.
1st tour of duty was with the 11th Light Infantry Brigade "Jungle Warriors" in I Corps RVN
2nd tour of duty was with Co E 1/327 Inf & Co E 2/501 Inf, 101st Airborne Div, I Corps RVN
God Bless all Combat Troops everywhere!
goddamn, that's comprehensive. great to know too!
Very great insight. It is my opinion that the bigger calibers of the past is superior than what the widespread tinier bullets modern militaries are using.
Very interesting read, I’m surprised to read that you had the need to engage targets so far out so often. I feel like you have a lot of stories to tell that I’d like to read if you have the time to type.
Nice to see Mac giving a nod to Chris from Small Arms Solutions!
You sound like a parent whose kid just bite someone when talking about the US breaking its promise lol.
Eugene Stoner developed the sr-25 , so you could say the ar10 evolved into that rifle , and then choose from there.
I think the AR10 evolved into a fantastic rifle, as evidenced by all of the really great AR-10 rifles available today.
Back in the day i put half a dozen Fal's together. Reliable and fun to shoot. And port ammo was $140 to your door.
M14 > FAL Why? Let us count the ways.... The M14 has roughly half the parts of the Belgian design, and although the FN FAL is easier to field-strip, the M14 is easier to detail-strip. The American design is more-accurate, and also fires the same cartridge, so it is every bit as lethal as the FAL. It also holds an optic better, and holds zero on it more-reliably. Preference plays a part in whether one likes a pistol-grip or not. The FAL gets the pro-grip nod, whereas the M14 gets the traditionalist nod. The trigger and iron sights....the M14 wins all day, every day. Make no mistake, you won't go wrong with either rifle, but the M14 is touch to beat!
"touch" = tough.... damned auto-correct....
@22:07 Mac breaks my heart🤣
According to original ArmaLite/Fairchild documents and videos, the prototype AR10 did have a pronounced titanium muzzle brake which made full-auto firing very controllable even in such a light 6.5/7 lb rifle. There was also a prototype variant and production version of the AR10 which did incorporate an adjustable gas block feature!
WOW, the FAL is almost 80 yrs old and incorporated features that we we hope for but don't always get with modern rifles today. That's some serious historical influence
🤔🤔🤔..
Other Gun Channels: *Gives thoughts on gun comparison in table top review* MAC: *Gives detailed breakdown, history lesson, shoots guns, final opinion* (MAC is the best)
I wish you had talked a bit about the MOA for each rifle. But great work on this video.
"I switched my slayer onto sing"
While the US was urinating on the FAL Italy was having a BM.
And the BM-59 was what the Garand always should have been, although in .276 Pedersen.
When training on the SLR (British semi-auto only FAL), the gas adjustment was not described to me as for variations in different ammunition, but for temperature.
Set the gas at half: 5 or 6.
Gas setting was taken care of by an immediate action drill: rifle fires 1 or 2 rounds and stops. Pull charging handle to the rear and carry on firing. Rifle fires 1 or 2 more rounds and stops again, adjust gas one click higher, carry on firing.
Repeat if needed.
This handled most problems, misfires, etc. including underpowered ammunition, I expect.
My R1 was a great rifle ... and full auto ... but very hard to handle if you didn't exercise rigourous trigger control
The fully evolved AR-10 is the SR-25 and the many copies of it on the market today
For an army, the AR-10 was the far better option. Lighter, more accurate and a more modular design (ideal for future redesigns and upgrades). Also, not requiring fiddling with the gas setting is gives the soldier something less to worry about and mess up.
Written by a L1A1 SLR owner that really loves his ex-British Army beaten up rifle.
Your making judgments based on a modern AR-10. The AR platform back then was marginally at best more accurate than the l1a1 and probably less accurate than the G3. Not to mention the ARs of the day were less reliable than the FAL or G3 platforms.
@David-li4uw Spoken like someone who's never used any of those guns lmao
Even in the British Army, the SLR (FAL) was not universally loved. One trooper claimed "SLR" stood not for "self-loading rifle," but "stupidly long rifle," in recognition of how bulky and long the 21" barrel version with the fixed stock really was, especially in vehicle or airborne ops. Which is how the paratrooper and other special versions of the FAL came into being.
The downfall of the Armalite AR10 was that the design - as futuristic and advanced as it was - was not quite ready for prime time when it was tested by the Army Ordnance Dept. in the 1950s. Or, rather, the CEO of Armalite insisted that an experimental composite barreled version be included in the test batch, whose experimental barrel promptly burst during endurance testing. Armalite was shortly thereafter dropped from the trials, and that was that. Stupid and costly move by George Sullivan, done over the strident objections of his head engineer, Eugene Stoner. Alas for Armalite's fortunes, Stoner turned out to be prescient in his concerns.
Just how good a design was the AR10 was proven during the 1960s and early-mid 1970s when the Portuguese Army's elite paratroopers adopted AR10s made by the Dutch firm of Artillerie Inrichtingen. These "AI" AR10s were of extremely high-quality: Robust, durable, light, accurate, and surprisingly controllable in select-fire use. The 'Paras loved them, but finally had to turn them in during the 1970s for another rifle, G3s if memory serves.
Those AI-built AR10s were true to Stoner's original concept, and they worked very well indeed. They were a true fifth-generation battle rifle, and it really gave competing designs a run for their money in terms of innovation and quality.
Pure nonsense.
For an Army, the FAL is the superior option. It shouldn't come as a surprise that it possesses superior reliability and is superior in maintenance also.
"lighter" No real difference in weight. They're both light. Carrying one over the other makes no difference to distance covered and speed. Soldiers in many armies are use to carrying things like a MAG58 anyway; they can carry either of these.
"more accurate" Are you target shooting trying to get 10 rounds through the same hole? Because that's not what you do against someone's head in war.
"more modular design (ideal for future redesigns and upgrades)" Or, they just buy new firearms, as is often the case after 20 or 30 years.
@@David-li4uwYes, the AR-10 even today isn't known for being as reliable as other designs.
I love the FAL and own several along with the M1A and BRN-10. I rate the M1A third and this is with the most trigger time shooting it in service rifle competition. I had a great time with the Brn-10 at the range. Mine is a very soft shooting so maybe Brownells changed the spec on the gas port. So since it's new and I'm smitten I like it the best of the three. On another note, the Armalite 50's promotional video is on youtube showing lots of full auto and that seemed OK.
We used to leave the gas setting at 6 or 7 out of the 12 settings on the brit version of the FAL and left it there, no one fiddled with them unless doing an immediate action drill to clear a stoppage condition on your APWT, btw I almost forgot one of the Achilles heals of the FAL, but it is nearly 50 years ago, I was made aware of it when I was put on the battalion shooting team for the 1st time, that is every time you open up the action you disrupt the sight alignment to clean it and when you close it there is a chance for the zero to shift slightly, its not much of a problem at closer ranges but the error is magnified the further you have to reach out, the problem is the rear sight is on the butt and there is a hinge between it and the foresight and the latching system may settle in a microscopically different spot, for this reason on the leadup weeks to shooting competitions we were forbidden to break open the action of the L1A1 SLR's and had to clean the weapon instead through the ejection port as best you could with a pull through, rags and brushes, as the AR10 doesnt disrupt the sight alignment when you open it to clean, its got the advantage in that respects...
Great video and weapons... of course in all in for the FAL
that serial almost says MAC maybe its 'military arms technical channel'. been enjoying your channel for a long time. any chance we will ever see a cmmg rdb gaunlet?
Armalite AR10 Super (SASS) by far the best on the market. Paired will a NIGHTFORCE F1
3.5×15×50 scope. I have this setup and will never part from it.
@Jim Beam They're all the same. Just because something costs more doesn't make it better. Assuming you have no experience with any of the above, and you just listed the most common military contractors. It's 2020, and they're all machined on CNC machines from forgings made by the same few companies. Even forgings machined on the worst CNC machines, produce receivers with very tight tolerances. The days of bad AR pattern receivers are petty much gone.
The AR-10 is still one of the more beautiful cold-war rifles ever. It's basically a voluptuous, muscled up AR15. The FAL is elegant but has more lumps and bumps sticking out.
The ar10 is the original design. The ar15 is a scaled down version.
Uh, I rather enjoy bumps and lumps. 😏 not necessarily a cheerleader.
@@hakimcameldriver Um, that's the point. That's why I said "basically".
What I really like about the ar10 is the ease of changing barrel/caliber and what I hate about the FAL is that I only have two
Cheers
Great video.
I'd choose an AR10, but with a T-handle. I like the way it handles with a 2-point sling.
Congrats on making it to an episode of SNL
Hipfire/Bumpfire Hell ya
Going from a recoil standpoint with me having a rebuilt right shoulder, a 308 bolt action was too much for my shoulder, as much as I loved it. The FAL is easy for my shoulder to take. Part of the reason is the heavier weight, along with it's a semi-auto. Even with that, I couldn't see myself in full-auto doing more than a 3 round burst due to the muzzle rise in such a fast firing sequence. I've heard of many having issues with their cheaper FAL's. Mine was not cheap and I never had an issue.
Tim, I have a HK91, FN-FAL, and a SR25. You’re right, the SR25 have the worst kick out of all 3. Which in term it’s less comfortable to shoot all day.
I was trained with the original Belgian Fal, was always told the gas regulator was for the purpose of increasing gas pressure when it got filthy dirty with carbon build up, not meant for tuning up with different ammo?
Really good vid by the way 😊
Nice Garand Thumb plaid when will the collaboration plaid video happen ;)
Cleaning the FAL is way easier. That reason alone breaks any tie between the two for me.
Thankfully, we don't have to choose...
your passion for the FAL is so strong it's infectious
Image if the British and Canadian had this weapon during WWII? I was trained on the C1 and C2 when I was in service in the Canadian Military back many years ago and loved every moment. Thanks for sharing your hard work
@ Stone Henge: The FAL wasn't created in time for WWII, but Dieudonné Saive, the brilliant Belgian arms designer responsible for it, had started work on what became the FN49 or SAFN, the immediate forerunner to the FAL, and a very good weapon in its own right. The FN49/SAFN is a more traditional wood-and-steel rifle, but was semi-automatic gas operated and compared favorably to the M-1 Garand in performance. Saive's work was interrupted by the German invasion of the Low Countries in May 1940, and he fled to Great Britain along with some of the other FN personnel. It was not considered practical to reintroduce his design during the war due to other priorities, and the first FN49s didn't get produced until after the war ended. Belgium sent a unit of elite paratroops to take part in NATO's defense of South Korea, and they were armed with the new rifles, which gave a very good account of themselves in action. FN managed to sell the rifle to a handful of nations, which is nothing to sneer at since the post-war world was awash in cheap, high-quality small arms. The fact that anyone at all adopted the FN49 speaks to its quality. FN offered in various chamberings, including 8mm Mauser (7.92x57), 7x57, 30-06 and 7.65x53 Argentine. Some were later rebarreled in 7.62x51 NATO/.308.
Tim I used high density foam in all the Brownells buttstocks it adds a little weight and fills up the empty areas of the buttstock that does dampen some recoil just a fyi a lot of guys have been doing this for some time.
Holy crap I laughed my arse off at the end. Well done.
A lot of people hate on RRA, but that LAR8 is a wonderful match with a FAL!!! Same ammo and mags (makes shopping easier)
I too have Both the FN-FAL (Springfield Armory SAR-48) and the BRN-10. I have shot both extensively. One thing you maid little mention of is the weight difference of the two. My BRN-10 is well enough lighter than my FAL, and for that reason, I would have chosen the Armalite AR-10 back then and would today the BRN-10.
Thank you for another great video.
I own both, they are both originals. I prefer the shooting of the AR-10, its recoil is less then the FAL's (with the same NATO ammo). Drawback of the AR-10 is the sound its buffer spring makes. It sounds cheap. The last versions of the AR-10 also have a adjustable gasport, but with only 3 settings. The Brownells AR-10 is based on an early version, the Portugese patern AR-10 from 1960/61 was a lot more refined. Its kind of funny that countries who adopted the FAL replaced those later with the smaller version of the AR-10, the AR-15.
Concerning the Mattel statement, its kinda funny, but except for 50 AR's build in the US, al the others were made in the Netherlands by Artillerie Inrichtingen.
Agreed on all points.
I own an FAL, M1A, and AR-10 A4. I most strongly disagree with the internet FAL fans. I find the FAL to be very poorly balanced, with way too much wait out front. I find it very awkward to shoot offhand. The sights are usable but not great. The magazines are weak, with floor plates that can come off when you drop them. The trigger is poor and not many gunsmiths will work on them.
The worst part about the FAL, as he alluded to, is the adjustable gas system. Yes, it allows you to adjust the gas to your ammunition. Yes, it isn't that hard to adjust the gas system. But it also isn't that hard to misadjust the gas system and that can be a very, very bad thing. If you adjust the gas system such that not enough gas goes to the piston, the gun will short stroke and may not completely eject the spent casing. In this case, the case can get caught between the dust cover and the bolt carrier. If you are lucky, kicking the op handle will remove the casing. If you are unlucky, kicking the op handle will break the op handle and fail to clear the casing. In which case, you have a broken gun. Yes, I've seen that happen.
If you misadjust the gas system such that too much gas goes to the piston, you can rip the rim off the cartridge case, leaving the case in the chamber. The only way to get the rifle back into action is with a case extraction tool, which most people don't have or know how to use.
Unnecessary adjustments on rifles are not a good thing. As he alludes to, it just gives a grunt something to play with and break his rifle. In contrast, the AR10 and M1A gas systems don't have or need adjustments -- they just work. What is better, 1) something that just works every time, or 2) something that you must adjust and can screw up? I'll take #1 every time.
The AR10 has the better ergonomics of the AR15 platform, though you should get the modern pattern with a removable carry handle and a regular charging handle. The straight-in magazine system is faster and less error prone than the rock-and-lock method used by the FAL and M1A. A flat-top AR10 is much easier to mount an optic. The AR10 will likely be significantly more accurate.
Given a choice between my M1A and my FAL, I'll take the M1A every day and twice on Sunday. The M1A has much better sights, a much better trigger, and better balance.
The internet gushing over the FAL is, in my opinion, very misplaced. Is it a decent battle rifle? Sure. Is it the be all and end all that so many fan boys claim? No. It simply isn't.
I
nrange did a test of a number of 7.62 NATO battle rifles, using several different shooters of varying levels of skill. The AR10 was significantly faster in their testing than the FAL and M1A. The AR15-style magazine change is simply better than the rock and lock method.
I think far too many peoples opinion about the FAL is influenced by nostalgia and romance about the FAL's usage in far off parts of the world. But that isn't a good basis for an objective evaluation of a rifle.
Ah yes, the romantization of FAL surely has its bias. its not like everyone doesn't want to hop into helicopter, going over africa beautiful savana, on your way to kill some commie, blasting toto - africa, FAL in your hand while rocking shorts with your buddies. Probably just me, who knows