M1A vs. FAL?

[Eeja]

For a while now, i have been researching the two battle rifles M1A and (FN) FAL. Sadly, comparative information on these two rifles has been both hard to find and in most cases subjective, and based on peoples feelings for and/or history with either of the rifles.
Therefore, I have come here to ask you all for your opinion on this matter.
Which one is the superior battle rifle and why?

Below i have listed what i have gathered so far from the various sites and sources.

M1A:
- 7.62 x 51 mm ammunition
- 9.2 - 11.2 pounds (4.2 - 5.1 kg)
- Gas operated
- Semiautomatic
- Magazine-fed
- Alloy steel

- Less moving parts
- Better trigger
- Reliable
- In refinement for over 50 years
- Was made to replace as many rifles as possible after WWII in America
- Accurate to ranges of 800 yards in the right hands
- Used in the Vietnam war and proved reliable there
- Soldiers during the Vietnam war struggled with its weight
- Shortest lived battle rifle in US history

- Several reports emphasizes the accuracy compared to the FAL
- Accuracy "out of the box"

- 20 round magazines around $40.

FAL:
- 7.62 x 51 mm ammunition
- 8.8 - 9.8 pounds (4 - 4.5 kg)
- Gas operated
- Semiautomatic
- Magazine-fed
- Steel

- Cheap parts
- Easy to get parts (also a lot of extra parts on many different continents)
- Several reports on better ergonomics
- Easy to maintain/clean
- Rugged
- Reliable
- Several reports on bad triggers and bad sights ( that is "out of the box"), may require trigger and sights to be changed or modified for better accuracy.
- Enclosed action (not as vulnerable as m1a)
- Adjustable gas system

- Adopted by over 90 nations
- Used in many third world countries

- 20 round magazines round $10



I would like to point out that much of this information was gathered from various forums, so i have included the statements that were the most agreed upon in those forums in addition to the factual differences.

Sadly i have not yet tried either of the rifles myself, but hope to do so in the near future.

[delusional_reality]

I presume you are talking about the Civilian versions of the M14 and the FN FAL which are normally used by the military in fully auto variants.

As I've never used either I'm really just an armchair commando on this subject but if it was me and I had to choose between the two weapons for a potential shit hits the fan scenario I'd pick the FN FAL due to it's folding stock.
IIRC The M14's wood was reported to warp in Vietnam(though plastic variations were then issued).
However since the FN FAL's ability to shoot on full auto is removed for civilian use I don't see much point in owning a gun designed for a mobile fully auto military that is only capable of being used on semi auto.

So if I had to pick between the civilian semi auto weapons I'd go with the M14/M1A because of how easy it is to fit a scope on it, and I presume you'll be doing hunting with your rifle?

[s25]

As I've never used either I'm really just an armchair commando on this subject but if it was me and I had to choose between the two weapons for a potential shit hits the fan scenario I'd pick the FN FAL due to it's folding stock.

You can fit a folding stock on a m1a. Folding stock is no real use unless your in close quarters.

However since the FN FAL's ability to shoot on full auto is removed for civilian use I don't see much point in owning a gun designed for a mobile fully auto military that is only capable of being used on semi auto.

Fully auto was often disabled by military anyways as .308 on full auto is way too unwieldy. Full auto in general is pretty useless. Well reliability and versatility for a start along with mag size and ability to get parts easily, Reasons to begin with.

On which rifle you should have? I am not sure. Been wondering this myself for a while. I hope to see some interesting debate.