Best Post-War Battle Rifle

Best Post War BR

  • M-14

    Votes: 12 21.1%

  • FN FAL/SLR

    Votes: 13 22.8%

  • G3

    Votes: 13 22.8%

  • AK-47

    Votes: 19 33.3%
  • Total voters
    57

Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules

Glider said:
Also I have seen a couple of Carl Gustav's which were not used by the Libya or France. Funny how no one seems to be reporting this in the press.
Click to expand...

You imply arms smugglers may have been involved and Carl Gustav's may have been procured - illegal? In Africa..? Oh what the world have come to. This should be a new a watergate perhaps, on the continent where drugged 10 year olds run around with AK 47s fighting local warlords war, sure some smugled recoiless rifles in hands of rebels will have new value... sorry for the cynism, but you seem to be genuine shocked and seem believe somebody is covering up something..
 

Shocked definately not, bemused yes. The UK often complain about different countrys who supply arms, it is often shouted from the rooftops. But when ex british weapons which can only have come from one place appear on the news, no one says a word.

Bit of a co-incidence
 
The Carl Gustav is a Swedish weapon, supplied to probably about 50 different countries, about 7-8 of them in Africa, Libya included.
 
The Qataris were well reported as supplying the Libyan rebels with arms (how is curiously under-reported) but where they got them from is not mentioned. One wonders if the UK substantial reserve stocks of obsolete SLRs and Charlie Gs have recently gone down?

On the thread subject; once I moved sideways from the ruffy-tuffy infantry role to a more gentlemanly one (with a landrover, chair and tea making facilities) I realised I had different needs. In Germany, as an infantryman if I wanted to kill a Soviet soldier I wanted an SLR so that I could kill him from far enough away that his AK was unlikely to kill me. In my new role I wanted a weapon that would frighten the bugger silly if he were close to me and make him hide whilst I ran away, was short and always worked. Thus my new favourite the SMG. Ideal for self protection and close country. The M16/SA80/AK74 seem to me to trying to be both and, perhaps, falls short in each case.

The mantra was, you suppress enemy movement and fire with a machine gun, you protect yourself with an SMG and you kill individuals (including ones behind a wall) with a (proper) rifle.

It doesn't happen often but, when you are close in with the enemy and cannot reload, my SLR pointy stick is longer than your AK pointy stick.

Last thought. For a personal weapon: Charlie G with a canister round. The world's second finest shotgun.
 
Glider said:
They weren't, they did use the FN but the British SLR was I believe only used by the British.
Click to expand...

who the heck can tell the difference? Especially if it's a older model FN-Fal. The SLR is just a FN-Fal made to inch deminsions, instead of metric.
I've fired them both in Germany, only difference I can remember is the FN-Fal could go full auto.
 

If you have fired both then I would expect you to know the difference. British SLR's were quite a bit longer than the FN, with an all black furniture and as such are immediately recognisable when looking at them.

The first British SLR was just an Imperial version of the Metric version but when in the early 1970's the black furniture version arrived, they were longer.
 
Last edited:
It's was in 1972 or 3 when I fired both in Germany, at Wildflecken, Germany, where Nato did their mountain warfare training. The British with their SLR, the Belgium or Dutch with their FN's, and the Germans with their Cetmes.
There's been so many versions of the FN's made, I wouldn't go by color or length to tell one from a SLR in a picture.
Some of those SLR/FNs could be over 50 years old, i'm sure i'm not the only person in the world to refinish and reblue a rifle.
 
...and the inch mags and metric mags are not interchangeable. I have an SLR and the fooking inch mags are a pain in the azz to get ahold of. Or at least they were 10+ years ago. I would be stocking up with more, if my SLR wasn't such a dog. Some goofball cleaned the $hit out of it from the muzzle end on a VERY frequent basis. In hindsight, I wish I had not bought it and I certainly overpaid for it (thanks Clinton you SoB). Not the rifle's fault. Mine. Fantastic design and very heavy.
 
There is actually quite a bit of difference between the L1A1 (SLR) and FN FAL, externally and internally. The SLR has a different shape to the top cover and the rear of the receiver, has a 'folding' cocking handle, which does not reciprocate when firing, a different fore sight and protector, different rear sight, the gas plug arrangement is slightly different, magazine release different, safety catch only, no selector, and a different shape, and the flash suppressor is totally different, on a slightly longer barrel.
Internally, the gas return piston and spring are a different length and spring tension, the barrel is lighter than the FAL, the bolt carrier, bolt and ejector claw differ, and the sear is a different shape.
That said, they both work, very well indeed, although the L1A1 has a tendency to be more reliable over all, probably due to semi-auto only.
And from experience, when you hit a target using the SLR, it stays hit !
 

The German Rifles were probably G3s. I am not entirely certain what the difference is between that and the CETME though.
There are a bunch of detail differences between the L1A1 (SLR) and the FN FAL and its clones. The easiest to spot at a distance is the flash suppressor, disassembly lever and the metal at the front of the handguards.

Having fired both the FAL and M14 in civilian semiauto versions, my preference isn't all that certain. I like the M1A in accurized versions for its accuracy, but it is an awfully heavy rifle that is difficult to maintain in the field. With a match gun, you do NOT take the action out of the stock and that makes cleaning difficult. It carries optics much better than the FAL though.

Yes, I just revived an ancient thread, but I found it while doing a search.

- Ivan.
 
You have to give it to the FAL for ease of field maintenance. It is a beautiful design. I agree with your accuracy notes of the M14... when accurized. I'm not so familiar with similar efforts for the FAL, but suspect that is suffers from the same problem as the AK (scopes cannot be accurately mounted on the action cover and thus must be mounted on the side of the receiver). I suppose that one could argue this is in actuality no different than the M14, but perhaps the M14 design allows for an inherently more free floating barrel not subject to user torque and torsion. I don't know. I love them both and would be torn to choose between them, but today would likely choose the FAL, as much as I adore the M-14.
 
Voted FAL.
Love G3. Shoots real fine, looks more brutal.
but voted powerfull, more simple, acurate and slick FAL.
Ps : may I have a GP35 to go with it ?
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)

Similar threads

A
Best plan for Argentina in Falklands War
Replies
9
Views
947
EwenS
E
A
Best post-MiG 21 single engined Soviet/Russian fighter or bomber?
2 3
Replies
51
Views
3K
bf109xxl
A very simple test of knowledge of the post-war Soviet Air Force
Replies
14
Views
1K
PStickney
P
Vietnam War Books?
Replies
7
Views
910
Tony Kambic
The Battle Of Midway. War in the Pacific. The United States against Japan
Replies
0
Views
699
Dronescapes
Menu
Log in
Register