Guns of the Cold War - FAL, G3, M14 & AR10

America's Rifle Order here: smallarmssolutions.com/home/th...
The Armalite AR-10: World's Finest Battle Rifle amzn.to/45PVM3t
Full Circle - A Treatise on Roller Locking amzn.to/47OdJRI
The FAL Rifle 1993: Volume 1-3 amzn.to/3qUuk5y
U.S. Rifle M14 from John Garand to the M21 amzn.to/3EdC2en
More on the Fabled Fal: a Companion to 'the Fal Rifle' amzn.to/3PfjKzn
AXIL Earmuffs Tactical amzn.to/2PIrFJV
Foam Rifle and Pistol Rest amzn.to/2mIjHSr
Efect Military Tool amzn.to/3mgFxHm
Armorer's Manual amzn.to/2G5FRm2
Donate To SAS: donorbox.org/donate-to-small-...
Patreon Page: / smallarmssolutions
SAS Amazon Store: www.amazon.com/shop/smallarms...
Centurion Discount Codes:
Rifles: Code SASRIFLE for 3% off
Uppers/Lowers: SASUPPLWR for 5% off
Other/Misc: Code SAS10 for 10% off
Fort Scott Ammunition - Code: SAS to take 10% off
Challenge Targets - Code SAS - 10% off steel targets
www.challengetargets.com/SFNT...
Otis Tech Gun Cleaning Gear - Code SAS15 - 15% off
otistec.com/?ref=sas15
G96 - Code SAS10 - 10% off
g96.com
Manta Products - Code BAR20 - 20% off
bit.ly/2IIzLK9
Facebook - bit.ly/2INZa4S
Website - smallarmssolutions.com
Instagram - SmallArmsSolutions
PO Box 298, Cypress, TX 77410

[@possumpatrol45]

AR-10: Tomorrow's rifle today M-14: Yesterday's rifle today

[@p99guy]

Considering the production problems and frequently falling behind production the M14 was often “ Yesterday’s Rifle Tomorrow!”

[@Gchang54]

Shit ar10 is still tomorrow's rifle😂

[@joeblow9657]

It's like the Garand but worse

[@thedumbguncollector5546]

G3: one rifle to rule the wasteland

[@rhadooxxl]

The disdain for the M14 remains a highlight of this channel

[@Verdha603]

Least it’s a refreshing change from hearing the long line of seniors +’Nam vets putting it on a pedestal and making it sound like anything that isn’t an M14 in a wood stock and 3-9x optic is inferior for a “real man’s fighting rifle”.

[@12vscience]

It's just a symptom of the disdain for corruption.

[@ElTejon47901]

You guys think that when Heather needs a laugh she yells out "The M-14 is a great weapon!"

[@HK33E]

it's great to see people who aren't afraid to say some truths about the M14

[@calvinhu8214]

I love how he talks shit about a rifle like it insulted him personally.

[@hickok45]

You are an incredibly valuable resource! Thanks again for sharing your expertise and experience.

[@SmallArmsSolutions]

I appreciate that!

[@jonathanbennett4284]

Mr Kinman, we love your channel, but seeing you shout out other ones reminds us just why you’re the coolest!

[@joeturner4666]

The Stoner 63; The Great What If..... I fired The FAL & G3 (with Paratrooper Stock) in the 70s. The Belgium FALs were in excellent condition but the UK SLRs were pretty worn out. They really made me appreciate my M16A1.

[@squarewave808]

Chris I know you’ve spoken before of your dislike for the M14, and I’ve never fired one or even held one, but I do have to say despite whatever flaws it has, it is a damn beautiful rifle.

[@donwyoming1936]

The M14 is the A-10 of the battle rifle world. Looks cool. Sucks at its job & and we can't give them away. We send M14s to most new NATO countries as military aid. They usually get sent right back. Latvia gave theirs to Ukraine as soon as war were declared.

[@sr-5568]

Pure sexyness.

[@Maddog-xc2zv]

beautiful does not win fights... it's a military rifle, both the HK, FN and the AR 10 where vastly superior. The armed forces went with a gun to spend less money, got almost what's a piece of crap. 6 years on service says it all. Production numbers also. Countries using it too. AR10 and HK G-3 based rifles are widely used today. Damn, even the HK G3 is still used today in countries like Sweden, Portugal, Mexico, South Africa, even if not as the first line rifle; and FAL is still used in Brazil where they lived longer than many M16's used by the Military Police like the Rio de Janeiro BOPE.

[@MinimumSpeedOperator]

The M-14 with a fiber or polymer stock is absolutely just as good if not better than the FAL and the G3. People hate on them far too much. NONE OF THESE battle rifles are worth a darn in full auto. Reality check for everyone the FAL mags are trash and there were multiple patterns of the rifle and it is like a 6 MOA shooter which SUCKS. The G3 has great sights but terrible ergos and a bad trigger. The M-14 has excellent sights and great trigger and is a comfortable rifle to use ergonomically. They could have just upgraded the stocks from wood and it would have been just fine. Still is just fine. Now will ANY of the battle rifles keep up with intermediate cartridge assault rifles? NO. But we honestly need to get over the M-14 sucks thing because they honestly don’t suck. The US gov simply didn’t do right by the gun and warfare was changing too fast. It wasn’t the rifles fault.

[@scaldedape6213]

Eugene Stoner's design was and continues to be the best rifle out there.

[@RsFrag3d]

For CQB I agree

[@christskingdomiscoming5964]

The FAL was originally designed around a British intermediate cartridge that was going to become the NATO standard, untill the US got cold feet and decided it wanted to support its domestic industry. After everyone adopted the 7.62x51 The US decided to go with the intermediate cartridge idea after all. The FAL was necked up to take the 7.62 round, making it a large rifle and rendering its full auto capacity next to impractical. Imagine what this gun could have been in the early 50s, if NATO had just gone to an intermediate cartridge early on.

[@TescoVee]

One of the biggest issues when it comes to G3 recoil is keeping the friction buffer in the stock oil free. So long as it's clean & oil free the G3s recoil impulse is not as brutal as many make it out to be.

[@RickRossFanClubOfficial]

I'm an M14 fanboy, but I agree with you on your opinion of it as a military rifle. In the end, I'm still glad the US went with the M14 as it likely hastened the development of the M16 more than the FAL would have.

[@rainman2222]

That’s like saying I’m glad Hitler came to power because it led to the modern trade system. Just because a bad thing leads to a good outcome does not mean that bad thing was a good thing

[@squarewave808]

Here’s one to get the comments section going: we should have accepted the British .280 instead of insisting on the 7.62x51

[@G.W-01]

Yes!

[@GWMJRSmith]

Actually, maybe.

[@peoplehavetherights]

"Should have been" a ".260" caliber not far from 6.5mm calibers more prominent today. Softer recoil, less ammo weight, still has long range capability but I detest part brass, part polymer as this rounds are not reloadable for the rest of us

[@squarewave808]

@@peoplehavetherights And this is why I love the comments section. So what do you think about this new 6.8x51 round? I’m no expert for sure, but I kind of wonder if we’re forgetting some of the things that led to the 5.56 in the first place?

[@SmallArmsSolutions]

I agree

[@sergiom9958]

G3 tip: By the contract singed bewteen Spain and West Germany, HyK was obligated ti add the inscription "CETME-G3" on the receiver. Only the first produced german G3 included the inscription and then it was removed. I think they opted to pay a financial fine and continue not including the inscription.

[@tasjan9190]

Mr. Bartocci here's a bit of information for you, Britain has now adopted the Knights Armament KS-1 as the L403A1 as their new standard issue rifle for their Ranger battalions and Commandos over the L85 series and multiple other competing rifle designs. Another amazing victory for the AR platform!

[@miketeeveedub5779]

Several of the UK special armed forces (SAS, SBS, Etc) had already 'seen the AR light' and been using that platform since the late 90s. They procured Canadian Diemaco C-8s, as did the Dutch, Denmark and Norway. Now the rest of the UK armed forces will be tossing their L85s and moving up to the KS-1. Absolutely a great move!

[@jackmatthews939]

"NATO countries didn't learn from the Germans in WW2, about intermediate cartridges" - nope the US Ordnance Dept didn't.

[@Idahoguy10157]

Lead by Colonel Rene Studler

[@joeblow9657]

Great Britain: We did and then the US pressured us into ignoring those lessons.

[@lib556]

I was still lugging an FAL in the Canadian infantry (we were the first country to adopt it and we did the legwork to convert all the measurements from metric to inch pattern. Immediately after that, Australia and the UK adopted it) right up until early 1988. A battalion did convert to the M16 (C7) in 1987 in preparation for a rotation in Cyprus. This was followed by the Germany-based units in early 88. The Canadian-made FALs (C1) were different from your example in the video. Wood stocks, no bipod, folding cocking handle, cut back body cover incorporating a mag charger and a rotating disc aperture rear sight which was superior to all others. Canada and Australia made use of a heavier-barreled, full auto LAR with a bipod and 30 rd mags. These were 2 to a rifle section (6 in a platoon). I believe Australia wasn't as dedicated in their use as we were. They (C2) were in use right up until they were replaced in 1988 by the FN Minimi (C9)... what the yanks call the M249 SAW.

[@ca9968]

I had one uncle that served in the British Army in the 60`s using an SLR, he later moved to Rhodesia and used an FN in the Bush War, his younger brother was also in the British Army, he used an SLR in the Falkland's war, my cousin worked in Anti-Poaching in SA and used a G3 and an R1 (South African FAL) and I did a few years in the South African Police before they adopted the R5, we used the R3 which was a para version of the R1...my best friend growing up was a Portuguese kid whose father had served in the war in Mozambique, he`s used both the G3 and the AR10... These rifles have been around my life all my life...

[@thedumbguncollector5546]

G3 is the Atomic Stalingrad rifle. Ultimate doomsday gun. Still chugging along In service when all these other contemporaries are history

[@Robin6512]

Euh the FAL is still in use in quite a few countries.

[@thedumbguncollector5546]

@@Robin6512 where? Are you talking about some kind of a South American police unit or something?

[@zoiders]

​@@Robin6512Not in Europe its not. The Brits for instance have precisely zero L1A1s in service. They do however still have G3s in service because they still work and will take modern optics.

[@joeblow9657]

How much of that is due to the countries who bought them taking longer to replace it than those who bought the FAL? West Germany was was 10 years in replacing the G3 in service than the UK, Canada and Belgium were at replacing the FAL.

[@thedumbguncollector5546]

@@joeblow9657 definitely hard to say, but we know the people were in a much much bigger race to replace their FAL’s

[@thegael1996]

The only three missing is the Beretta BM-59, French MAS-49/56 and the unobtainium Japanese Howa Type 64.

[@joeblow9657]

The Barette BM-59 was what the M14 was supposed to be but properly executed.

[@Poverty-Tier]

4:24 “7 million? That’s cute.” -Mikhail

[@PavewayJDAM]

The M14 was the best M1 Garand variant circa 1944. Imagine if they adopted the 308 Armalite, then the M16. All the modernization of the AR platform would have crossed both platforms over the decades. The idea of a pick the rifle for mission could have been conceptualized decades before it was. US DoD - screwing up good ideas since its inception. It is a miracle we still develop the best weaponry.

[@newpeupyoass]

The G3 had the added benefit of the FAL always being 50% more expensive than it.

[@bobbertbobberson6725]

If you need a master gun smith to make a rifle keep up with even contemporary rifles, and you can't disassemble the rifle without affecting zero (in the EBR chassis)... it's probably not a good combat weapon.

[@ajttambo]

For me what kills the FAL is the 6 MOA and ability to temporarily take a rifle out of service if the gas system is played around with. The G3 overall makes more sense as a service weapon.

[@georgewhitworth9742]

Not having a LRBHO is a pretty bad negative though. That and the front heaviness isn't ideal

[@Lutz101]

Had an M1A, Sudanese AR-10, HK91 and Australian L1A1. Liked the L1A1 most.

[@michaelbarfield528]

Great review! As for the adoption of the M 14 rifle, thanks Rene Studler and the Army Bureau of Ord. for that obsolete monstrousity, although I own 4 SA M14 type rifles from SOCOM 16, Scout Squad and two National Match rifles....😄

[@c.edwardbrice3470]

Just acquired a HK91 and a FAL Para. Learning about the history and found your video an excellent source of information.

[@chrischiampo7647]

I Believe The AR -10 Was The Way to Go But Given The Circumstances and Situation I Agree The FN-FAL Is The Clear Winner Thanks Chris & Heather For All The Work You Guys Put Into These Videos 😊❤️😀😊👍🏼😎👍🏼

[@240pixel]

I can relate. I was serving in Lithuanian armed forces about a decade ago and we still had some AK4MTs (Swedish G3) and American donated M14s. These days they mostly got replaced by FN SCAR 17 and only kept in small numbers as ceremonial type rifle. Many were actually ended up sold to civilians as surplus. But US government didn't like that. I remember seeing news headlines about that.

[@zotirruges]

Me, one of the few m14 enjoyers in the world. That being said, i absolutely love your channel and all the information you have provided over the years. Thank you for sharing your knowledge (and yes i even watched your whole video on the 5.56 magazines)

[@bobbyraejohnson]

Man you’re so right about the m14 and I used to adore it. But it was an old technology even at the day it came out.

[@Dominik189]

Ah man the FN Rifle still ranks as my second favourite rifle I've shot thus far in my life, second to a G3. I love the G3 on full auto, just grays EVERYTHING. You point it, squeeze and hold on. It just rocks your world for how long it's ammo or your grip strength last. Absolutely silly but fun.

[@photobygary]

I used the Canadian version of the FAL, the FN-C1A1 in the Canadian Army until the introduction of the C7. The FN was a rugged beast. The standard gas regulator setting for the rifle when firing live. was "4." If it wasn't cycling properly, the drill was to turn it down two stops to "2," and if that was a little too much gas, then bring it back up to "3." With blanks, it was always set to "0." When on the range, I can't remember a single time I had to turn it down past "4." We also issued them with three different butt stock sizes: Short, Medium, Long and Extra-Long. Excellent ergonomics for right-handed people like me, but crappy for left-handers. Our C1's were semi-auto only, and unlike the other inch-pattern rifles, ours had the last round hold-open. The Brits, Aussies, Indians and so on ground their hold open pins down so that they had to be engaged manually. I've always questioned the logic of this. On the other hands, we're the only commonwealth country that cut away the front part of the body cover to allow for charging with stripper clips, which was WWI mentality that I've always questioned.

[@joeblow9657]

How were the sights on the C1? I know they had a weird disc sight format that seemed good as a concept but not necessarily in practice.

[@photobygary]

@@joeblow9657 The rear disc sight on the C1 allowed selecting apertures from 200-600yds. The were designed to be flipped down for protection when not in use. So if you were carrying your rifle at the sling arms for instance, they would be flipped down, which meant that you had to flip take the time to flip them up when unslinging your rifle for use. Also, they could be accidentally be flipped down without the user noticing, though this never happened to me that I can recall. We were the only country to uses these, and IMO, we would have been better off using the same sights as the other commonwealth countries. This being said, the rifle was accurate. My biggest beef with the C1 was that the body cover was designed to allow loading with a stripper clip if desired, which was WWI era thinking. So instead of having an ejection port only as big as it needed to be on the front side of the rifle, we had a BIG opening at the breech end which could allow all sorts of foreign matter into the breech area. This was just plain stupid.

[@rogiervis2306]

I owned a genuine TRW M14 (1963 manufactured) M14 here in Holland. Also I owned a L1A1, Stg58, FN FAL and a HK91. All original, not the partskit you guys can own in the USA. The most accurate rifle was the M14. But only if I didn't disambled it for maintenance. After cleaning, the POI shifted dramatically, and it took some 20 shots to bed the rifle and zero it again. From all the FAL types, the Stg58 was most accurate. The L1A1 was a 8 MAO rifle at best. The G3 was consistently accurate and the most reliable. The FAL - and especially the M14- were very sensitive for dust and sand. On our rifle club we had also original Hembrug AR10 from 1958. It was the most accurate rifle of all, only sensitive for breaking parts (bolt catch). The AR10 needed some more development to be honest.

[@joeblow9657]

The FAL was actually originally designed to fire the 7.92×33mm Kurz (the STG 44 round) but was adapted to fire the .308 round after it was made the Nato standard round. If I recall, the Australians actually used a mix of FALs and M16s in Vietnam, in part because the M16 was deemed a better option then the Owen SMG and in part because the Australian variant of the FAL was semi-auto. The Australian SAS could choose between either and very much liked the M16 so that says a lot imo (although a different mission set). I'd just like to add, the US government didn't make the majority of M14s or anything designed by Springfield armoury, the major contracts for the M14 were given to Winchester, Harrington & Richardson, Thomson-Ramo-Woolridge although due to quality control issues, a lot more than typical were manufactured at the US government owned Rock Island Arsenal. Lastly, you're right most FALs had solid battle sights. The Canadian C1 had a weird disc sight where you adjusted the disc to a the approx the range you wanted. I think it went from 100-800 yards. Some rifles had their sights missing by the time they were phased out of service due to it being relatively easy to break off compared to standard sights.

[@JosephAnthonyJosefius]

I own a PTR-91 in the G3 configuration with the original scope claw mount for about 5 years, never had any issues with it and it's a fun rifle to shoot. Thanks for the comparison video.

[@ChaohsiangChen]

Is there a video comparing BM-59 to M14?

[@usmcvet0313]

Good video, agree that the AR-10 was the most advanced and should have been selected. I will always disagree with your assessment of combat sights. I loved the A2 sights on the M16. 100m and in just run it. Further out, set your range and send it. Works beautifully, and dramatically increases your effectiveness. Always better to train up your people to meet the task, than to dumb down your equipment.

[@joeblow9657]

That last point is a good point but that only works if you're willing to actually follow through.

[@sidesterg599]

Thanks Chief!

[@quarterjukebox208]

The m-1 rifle served in the jungle in WW2 , but I've never heard of a problem with it's wood stock.

[@SmallArmsSolutions]

It did, swelled and cracked.

[@Paladin1873]

I roll my eyes over the DI/internal piston argument. This was a non-issue for 50 years, then suddenly it became a point of contention. If one looks at the definition of piston, then every rifle you described uses at least one. It's called the bolt.

[@11aaguilar]

Don’t forget! The M14 is still in service at our military academies as parade rifles 😂. It’s what we carried while at West Point, I’m unsure about USAFA and USNA but I’m almost certain they carried the same. That’s close to 15,000 rifles in stock. They did tell us they removed the firing pin so they couldn’t easily be shot. The West Point arms room also had one Mk14 EBR built out with scope and all that cadets could check out. I never shot it but remember was very heavy.

[@WeencieRants]

USAF uses the M14 or 1903 for ceremonies or when presenting the colors.

[@georgewhitworth9742]

@@WeencieRantsWe also use M1's, at least we did back in '21

[@alantoon5708]

One day many years ago I was able to fire the M-1A and the HK-91 and compare them side by side. If one was going target shooting you would take the M-1A; if one was going to war one would take the HK-91. However, I really preferred the M-16A1/A2. Lighter and more ergonomic...

[@Dmac6969]

I never realized how bad it was that the military adopted the m14 for a brief period. Totally unacceptable!

[@MrSLF]

Thank you. 👍

[@lysanderxiiii]

" . . . [the AR-10] should have been the US service rifle . . . " The first AR-10s were presented to the Army for testing in the winter of 1956, one of them blew out its barrel about the same time the last round of testing in Alaska between the T44 (M14) and T48 (FAL) wrapped up. The AR-10s (with new monobloc barrels) completed testing and the report published one month before the T44/T48 decision was announced. So, you are saying that a rifle that broke about two dozen parts in a 6,000 round endurance test, and had quite a few reliability issues it is current 1956 form, should have been picked over one of two rifles that had just under gone six years of testing and development? That is just asinine. Then you turn around and say it is about politics, not about what is best for the soldier. The AR-10 was years behind the M14 and would have required at least four years of development before becoming acceptable to the US military (which is about when the the final AI version with all the improvement was delivered to Portugal). Acording to your logic, the fully developed T44 and T48 should have been scrapped and the M1 Garand and M1918 BAR should have remained in service for what would be another six to eight years. Yeah, that's thinking of the soldiers first.

[@SmallArmsSolutions]

The AR10 needed to be fully developed. It was put in at the ass end of the program. ArmaLite President ignored Stoner and went with the light weight sleeved barrel rather than conventional rifle barrel. Stoner rushed to provide proper barrel. Also, ordnance used non standard rejected ammo which caused many of those broken parts. The test the AR10 went through was much more severe. That rejected hot ammo r we oils have destroyed the other two rifles. There is more to this story dude.

[@josephgonzales4802]

I totally agree! I always wanted a FAL. 👍

[@262fire3]

What do you think of us going back to 308 capable rifles. I think it complicates armor penatration when fed right, but so does 5.56 in 20-inch old school rifles. I personally have both, but I know that "feel" better with the added capabilities of 308, but if I had to lug it up hill 5.56 would probably start creeping into my mind.

[@Tadicuslegion78]

slap that G3 like Will Smith slaps Chris Rock

[@99Racker]

I might agree with you about the FAL, it was politics and military egos that removed it from US issue consideration...not to mention the Brits had a better caliber that was ahead of the US and probably the development of the 5.56mm. The FAL is a more functional design and I can see why it was so popular but maybe not quite as accurate. The G3 is a brute but built like a box of rocks. The recoil was a reason the Germans were quuck to change it to a 5.56 model. The AR10 might have developed into a great US military rifle but for military entrenched ego and military politics. I did not hear you mention about the M14, come from the M1 desige line. But I heard no such complaints about the same rifle sights in WW2, etc. on the M1...just the opposite from troops in Germany, the Pacific islands or Korea. The best redesigned M1 follow up rifle is the BM59, bar none. Most M14s i was issued had wood stocks like the M1s I was issued. I had a brownish plastic M14 stock issued for awhile but I was ordered to exchange it for a wood stock (with a can of linseed oil). The plastic stock was slightly beefier. The AR10 is a weapon I have little experience with. As a 7.62NATO caliber weapon, I appreciated the less weight but recoil was still stout but different. The military could have considered them for airborne troops use and that might have quickened our future development. My favorite...besides the BM59...is a .308/7.62 M1 today. Opinions are nicely expressed and interesting.

[@miketeeveedub5779]

My first thought when seeing the title of this video was not which was the better battle rifle, but what the FUDDs were going to lament about the M-14 from the comment section. "Best damn battle rifle ever conceived! You'll have to pry the M-14 outta my cold dead hands before I let it go for one of them damn Barbie Mattel plastic M-16 pop guns!" Oddly enough, those haven't appeared yet when I posted. I'll come back later once the M-14'ers wake up from their naps.

[@SmallArmsSolutions]

They better not wake up, because what your saying only exists in their dreams! LOL

[@CharlesRushing-ck2qm]

@miketeeveedub Sonny, they've all gone to bed but they will come at you hard about 2 hours before sunup. When they are sitting in the rockers in front of Cracker Barrel waiting for the doors to open. 😆 LOL.

[@CharlesRushing-ck2qm]

​@@SmallArmsSolutions Chris, no laughing from you. Your not far from being right there with me. 😮

[@georgewhitworth9742]

@@CharlesRushing-ck2qmNothing to do with age, it's a mentality.

[@diegobascobonik5530]

I would like to hear your opinion about the Beretta BM59, used by the argentinian marines on Malvinas war. Greetings from Argentina, country fan of the FAL

[@nickma71]

I still think this is the best gun channel on youtube. He says "in my opinion" when it is an opinion. And the rest is just facts.

[@jasonfedeli]

Uggg M14/M1A. I’ve had 2 M1As and neither was better that 2.5 moa with hand loads and a 9x scope. I can get 1.5 with my HK91 it’s 4x Hensoldt scope and PMC ammo.

[@sr-5568]

Huh I have a pre ban national match thats a tack driver with nm sights.

[@jasonfedeli]

@@sr-5568 I tried everything and couldn’t get it. Even a McMillan stock bedded and pillared I had one model below the national match both times. I checked the scopes, lapped the rings, even had a better reloader and shooter than me try it. Couldn’t break the code. It was frustrating as hell. If yours was pre ban I wonder if you had better usgi parts

[@xz569]

Hmm, so as a old G3 user, there was allot of information that was very glossed over or to say, condensed based on civilian versions you guys are using etc. First, the military G3 have free floating barrel! Yes you read that correct, the military full auto out version, had precision barrel setup! Ie the charging handle tube is not touching the barrel at all. If the tube was bent, it would cause problems with precision. But the ones that had correct setup, where precise weapons. 400 meter iron sight was not a problem, hitting the target was "easy" Second depending on which version you got, Cetme, German, Kongsberg and the infamous Turkish ones(not all of them are 100% to spec) Your milage would vary and be in line with what was reported, variable results. Third: yep it kicks like a mule in heat! There is no denying it! Fourth, I shot my last military G3 about 1 year ago now, (delayed return in the system, and it shot hole in hole at basic ranges for test) This was a gun made in 1971 by Kongsberg. It was a fine precision instrument. Fifth, people still want to have the G3 back, because it was a "better" weapon for females, as it was lighter, IE not front heavy. Most DI/Piston AR tend to become front heavy due to heavy barrels and junk on the front. The G3, at least our version, is something you will find all who served with it, and even using the new 416 etc. Will say is the "best" assault rifle they ever used. I personally think the 416 is better as a military weapon, due to modularity and others, but the G3 by the correct manufacturer, was a pretty much a DMR out of the box with iron sights for most users. Unless you got the really banged up ones, as the year went on, we had allot in service that was worn out. But we made something like 250 000 of them over its life cycle so yeah.

[@eclectic3618]

Fal definitely stands at the top, but TBH I prefer My HK91 lol, Ive hunted with it over a decade and I don't go hungry lol. Great video!

[@dtf-productions6134]

Chris made this video just to dunk on the m14 lol. dont blame him tho. great vid.

[@mfallen6894]

Still love the M14 grudge you harbor, lol. Man, in an alternate history where we picked the UK's .280 over the 7.62, and paired it with the AR10... It's damned near what the XM7 is now, just without the 80k psi hybrid case for the cartridge. Similar concept anyway, and I just find it funny that we're right back to where we could have been 65 years ago. Although we might not have seen adoption of the AR15/M16 in that scenario, so while it's a pain dealing with AR10/LR308's lack of standardization when building, upgrading parts, etc, at least we have both the AR10 and AR15 platforms to choose from today. Cool video! Always love seeing these cold war battle rifles, even the M14! (Though I still prefer the Garand even with the 8rd limitations, but that's more of a cool factor as they are just so much fun to shoot)

[@PureCountryof91]

We have 5 or 6 ar10 patterns..

[@mfallen6894]

@@PureCountryof91 2-3 of them are pretty rare and I almost never see parts for them. But yeah, fair point. Easier to just wait for a sale and either buy the complete upper and lower separately or just spend the little extra and buy the complete rifle. Then you've got it under warranty. I save builds for AR15's these days

[@coltonowens2742]

Chris does love his Bula M14 though :) Really is a great target rifle, and so good looking. I say this as an AR-10 fanboy.

[@mfallen6894]

@@coltonowens2742 That Bula looks like a sweet shooter! I've only ever shot the "cheap" Springfield M1A's and even those that I've shot are amazing fun & had extremely accurate irons. I'd never go without an AR10 as they're just so useful for so many purposes, but I've really been wanting an M1 Garand or M1A. Every time I save up to buy one/extra mags (or en bloc's) and a case of ball, I end up with a revolver I don't need or something else ridiculous... So many guns, so little time (and money) lol

[@coltonowens2742]

@@mfallen6894 I didn't have much of a desire for a full power gas gun, then I shot an m1 Garand and m14 back to back. I started saving for an AR-10 the second I got home from that shooting trip. I obsess over my AR-10 even more. Yeah, the M14 and M1 Garand are outdated as hell for a combat rifle, but holy shit they are so much fun to shoot.

[@maddog46]

I agree.

[@TakNuke]

G3 is the true right arm of the world not just free world. It is simpler to mass produce and reliable under most conditions while being accurate if manufactured correctly. And have enough modularity to adopt the design in various calibers and modrernise it and continue using today. Honourable mention AR-10 for obvious reasons but still too early for mass adoption as their is lack of cnc machines and SIG 510 better rollerdelayed than rifle than G3, as reliable and more accurate and controllble in full auto than G3. But pays for it in cost and weight. Persinally both AK and AR15 are kinda meh to me I prefer AR10, G3 and its family, SIG510 family, AR18 and its derivatives, VZ58, SIG 550 series, Daewoo K1 and K2 rifles, Steyr AUG and AEK 971 from the Cold War.

[@Se7enBeatleofDoom]

Could we see a gun of the global war on terror video in the future?

[@tomsmith2209]

I get a vague sense that someone is not too keen on the m14

[@aaronwilkinson8963]

The British wanted NATO to go with the .280 round but the Americans said no. They insisted on the 7.62 round just coz

[@comentedonakeyboard]

I have fond memories for the G3

[@GliderBane]

While the modern derivatives of the AR10 can be amazing, when the AR10 went through trials it wasn't completely developed. It had massive reliability and component failures when tested. The countries that adopted them had reliability issues. I won't say the M14 was the right choice, but that era of the AR10 was the clearly wrong choice as well.

[@SmallArmsSolutions]

The AR10 would have gone through a development process to get it ready for issue.

[@ez-eq1xe]

Totally understand where you're coming from, from a practicality standpoint as a fighting rifle the M14 is my last choice of the four. Now, I shoot in sunny 70 degree California weather at known distance steel plates. I own an M14 and an FAL, and have shot my buddy's G3 a fair bit. As a recreational shooter, the M14 is easily the best gun for my needs of the lot, and it's not even close. The best sights, the best trigger. It is softer shooting than my FAL. Not a great combat weapon, but a damn good target rifle.

[@MichaelWilliams-io5gl]

Seems like the army has screwed up every rifle they have tried. They went with the Krag over the Mauser. They changed the Garand to 30.06 instead of the original .276. The M-14 was a debacle. Heads should have rolled after the botched introduction of the M-16 And now they have a new rifle.....

[@LethalMayo]

I kinda like the fal. But i want an ar10. I have 4 ar style rifle/pistols

[@Reptilianmaster-1120]

7:03 The meme rifle.

[@gdmofo]

AR-10 Portugal's colonial war

[@ludewigmariendorf268]

Would be interested what Chris' thoughts on the NGSW 6.8x51mm, seems to be controversial one. More curious things being the new FN .264 (6.5x43mm) LICC round which some people would see as like that better alternative as the 6.8x51mm is being adopted to replace the 556. Back in the Cold War / post-WW2, the German engineers working for the CETME rifle developed a very unique cartridge, the 7.92x41mm (or 7.92x40mm?) round featuring copper jacket ring and very long round, managing to actually fulfill quite a challenging requirement from the Spanish, to make a relatively light, not sure controllable for automatic fire, effective up to a 1000m, sadly Spain ditched in favor of 7.62 NATO a bit later though.

[@SmallArmsSolutions]

You will see this very soon

[@kiwigrunt330]

My case for .264 USA I have some uneducated opinions. Since everyone is entitled to my opinion, here goes. .264 LICC is a beefed-up version of .264 USA, with an increased rim diameter (from .441 to .473) and increased chamber pressure. The original .264 USA is arguably a stretched 6.5 Grendel. IMO the .264 USA is the ideal round for marksman rifles and ‘true’ GPMGs. 5.56 is too little and 7.62 is too much for those weapons. Rounds like the 6.5 CM are fantastic precision rounds but they are barrel burners. Not so much of an issue for marksman rifles but not ideal for MGs. 5.56 and 7.62 are known to be very forgiving with regards to barrel life. I think .264 USA would fall into that category. .264 LICC not so much. It would seem to me to be too hot. I think 5.56 is an adequate round for ‘assault’ rifles. Anything more is too heavy. Observing what soldiers of different armies took out over the years in the sandbox, there seemed to be no consensus on what was ‘best’. Sections/squads with issued 5.56 MGs would often add a 7.62 MG from higher up, but never relinquished their 5.56 MGs. You’d see British sections go out on patrol with 5.56 Minimis (eventually referred to by some as the noise maker, and recently retired because it was decided that that was all it was good for), 5.56 L86 LSWs, 7.62 sniper rifles (used by rifle units after their snipers got newer 8.59 rifles), 40mm UGLs, 7.62 GPMGs, M72s and Javelins. That often left only the section commander with a standard rifle. If everyone carries a support weapon, then who are they supporting? Firepower is great, but not all ‘firepower’ is effective. And you have to carry it. The .264 USA is smaller, lighter and softer recoiling than 7.62 for nearly the same performance. I would call that a win for grunts who have to drag that shit around with them. How many gunners carrying a MAG58/M240 complained about the round being too feeble? Contrast that with how many complained about the weight. I think the buzz word ‘overmatch’ is leading us in the wrong direction. .264 USA (not LICC) should replace 7.62, not 5.56. 5.56 for individual weapons. 6.5 USA for marksman rifles and GPMGs. 8.59 (.338) LM or NM for sniper rifles and HMGs. The NGSW 6.8x51mm? Yeah, nah. Unless it would prove a good alternative to 8.59 LM or NM. P.S. I remember reading something about a USMC platoon that carried copious amount of 5.56 every time they went on patrol in Afghanistan. Every time they got in a firefight they would run out of ammo. Until the platoon leader remembered his training and the concept of fire control (orders). He re-educated his platoon. From then on, they would go out with four mags each, and never run out. I wish I could find the article…

[@CptFUNK1]

@@kiwigrunt330 Finding that article would be pretty cool. I know some trainers teach reduced ammo loadouts for sake of weight savings. Reid Henrichs out of Harrogate, TN (a former Marine) comes to mind. His opinion is that 3 to 4 magazines are perfectly adequate, but he also doesn't teach mag dumping at area targets or general directions as is seen in Ukraine. I'd like to think this is what happens with a hastily assembled conscript force.

[@kiwigrunt330]

These battle rifles are beautiful sticks that have earned their place in history. But they should never have existed in the first place as they were (good) answers to erroneous questions. A bit like the BAR.

[@45.Slanging]

Chris would u be able to do a in depth video on Mr. Saive? I dont see a single video on hin or his impact on modern arms. The FAL and his revision of the HiPower might be the 2 most prolific modern small arms. Also Cold War 556 rifles... Galil, FNC,T65, AR70,AR18. M16 if they all went head to head in 1985 which would NATO pick

[@stargazerlaurent6780]

The AR-10 was always the right answer. The M14 looks cool hanging on a wall. I am so meh on FAL and G3

[@mpwmu9041]

Not getting my notifications. 👎 KZbin blows. Great vid CB.

[@RaderizDorret]

If I recall, the AR-10 and the AR-15 used the same material the Zero fighter was constructed from. The Army damn well should have known how strong that material is, given what we learned about how the Zero could perform during WWII and the kind of strength required to get such a light plane to get that level of performance.

[@LUCNUKEM]

Dude, it's aluminum. All manufacturing nations were using plenty of different grades of aluminum in the construction of aircraft & many other things. It wasn't foreign in manufacturing. Eugene Stoner took his experience & knowledge working in the aircraft industry & applied it to firearms manufacturing. Armalite was itself owned by Fairchild, so working with aluminum, & other light weight, high strength materials was an every day affair for them.

[@KossoffFan]

The FAL is my dream rifle. I wish i had the money for one.

[@nemisous83]

Honestly people say the FAL should have been adopted but I completely disagree, the M14 was the perfect rifle for the US military because it scratched the itch for a high capacity battle rifle version of the M1 Garand which all the branches had been wanting in the post WW2 era. It also showed the US the light as far as how battle rifles were not suited for modern close quarters battle. Most countries retained the FAL either because they still had the old school of thinking of long range massed fire or they got a hell of liscene agreement with FN. Even the G3 was mostly a stand in until better rifles were developed and or as a supplementary rifle to fill in the ranks when AKM's and FAL couldn't be procured.

[@zoiders]

No. Most countries adopted the FAL as the Americans insisted upon adopting the M14 in 7.62x51 which forced everyone else in NATO or NATO aligned nations to adopt a 7.62 rifle as well. The first to market being the FAL. You did this - not the Europeans. The Finns saw sense and ignored the US all together. The G3 was far from a stand in rifle and it was better than the FAL by a country mile.

[@nemisous83]

@@zoiders dawg the FAL was going to be chambered in a full power rifle round regardless if 7.62x51 was adopted or not. the .280 british despite internet claims of being an intermediate round is still a full power rifle round its essentially 6.5 creedmoor before 6.5 creedmoor. the british wanted 1000 meter point target capabilities the same as the Americans and French. the other contender was 7.5 french which is ballistically the same as 7.62X51.

[@nemisous83]

@@zoiders as for the G3, its hardly the best rifle of NATO, the rifle was only adopted by the German's, the Norse countries, and some of the batlic countries. there were later adopters in the 70's and 80's with the roach countries such as Turkey, Pakatan, and Iran but that's because HK would give a license to pretty much anyone were as FN was far more stingy on license agreements. the G3 compared to the FAL is actually quite the downgrade. the FAL has fully adjustable gas system to tune the rifle to climate and ammunition as well as a last round bolt hold open and better ergonomics. the G3 requires essentially compound leverage to even function and manipulate.

[@zoiders]

​@@nemisous83No it was not. The US forced the adoption of 7.62. You did it. Not Europe.

[@zoiders]

​​@@nemisous83The G3 system was only one iteration of the Hk platform and it can be produced to chamber anything between 9mm and 7.62. You are talking out of your backside if you think it's lower quality than the FAL just because of your racism toward some nations that licence produced it.

[@reddevilparatrooper]

To me honestly with just the 7.62 NATO battle rifles. The FAL is my go to rifle even though it's a bit longer, the best gas setting is around 3-5 all around. When you are deployed with a FAL in your operating area is to test fire before you go into combat, makes sense to the place you are at and the ammo you are issued with. The G3 is second because it could take a beating without any adjustments besides zeroing the rifle for combat range and operate with little care as Portuguese conscripts used them in combat in Africa. But the G3 will beat the hell out of you while shooting. The M14 i a great target rifle from the Garand design but not made for modern combat as the same for the AR10 because of the cartridge. I would prefer the M16A1, A2, or M4 for modern combat because an infantryman will always need to carry more ammo, grenades, and equipment into combat as an average rifleman.

[@deanschneider8775]

I truly believe, had the FN-FAL been adopted by NATO in .280 Brit, then adapted into the paratrooper version, we'd still be using it today. No reason not to.

[@RsFrag3d]

The felt recoil of the G3 seems less than the FAL and M14. Granted I’m not shooting an original G3 but a ptr91

[@hairydogstail]

HK G3 should have utilized the ring in the chamber along with the flutes like the Swiss used in the roller lock/delay STG57 to slow carrier velocity and recoil impulse..The Dutch AR-10 was considered better than the FN FAL and G3 but was rejected because of Hollands lack of manufacturing and licensing problems..

[@TheMotorhead312]

Hey Chris, can you answer a question for me? Is it normal for the rear sight on a Colt AR-15A4 with a carry handle to rotate slightly, and always be off alignment with the top of the handle? If so. what is the reasoning behind this? I know Stoner was a genius, but I can't believe this was intentional. I've seen contradicting info on this. Some say it's normal and others say it's a defect. Thanks

[@donwyoming1936]

Stoner didn't design the A2/A4 adjustable rear sight. Enough said.

[@georgeneiser9286]

Galil is my favorite by far

[@ThymeTime81]

Which ones had chrome-lined barrels?

[@dmcgill8978]

And yet the US Army brass want another battle rifle

[@boarwilde8805]

Well, the g3 and the stg58(fal) are definitely assault rifles since they were used and called like that

[@SmallArmsSolutions]

Actually no. An assault rifle has a defamation with the key point intermediate caliber.

[@Hitichi100]

It’s either these guys hate or love the M 14. I think it’s a good rifle, and in my opinion that’s exactly what it is. Not great, not bad, just good. I wouldn’t trade mine in anything, without this rifle it’s possible m16 would of never been adopted or to mention we would of been robbed of the most bad ass looking rifle… the EBR!

[@petrkarv]

Cost of U.S. military = cost of U.S. lives

[@lysanderxiiii]

And one last thing, the AR-10 was tested for a second time by the Army in 1960, ("A Test of Rifle, Caliber 7.62mm, AR-10," Springfield Armory, Nov 1960), "the AR-10, in its present state of development, is unsuitable for Army use." (FOIA the title and see why, incidentally, they do state, with development it would be suitable, so it ain't politics.) This was the version sold to Portugal, so by 1960, it still needed work. And to top it off, the AR-10 cost about $225 about $100 MORE than the price of the most expensive M14 variant (1962 Winchester contract $118.82)

[@SmallArmsSolutions]

M14 was in full production in military arsenals. If adopted, the AR10 would be put in same mass production and would have been less expensive to produce than the M-14 and it would be easier and faster to produce.

[@lysanderxiiii]

That $225 per unit price tag is what Portugal paid for their production run of 4,000 AR-10s, the price might have come down if quantities were larger. But, (and you should know this) the smaller, less material consuming AR-15s cost the US Army $122 apiece, still more than the M14s, and 2) Winchester, Harrington & Richardson, and TRW were/are not military arsenals. And whether or not it could be produced faster is debatable, M14 production was funding limited to 3,000 rifles per month, but could have reached as high as 15,000 per month, given full funding. M16 production between 1964 and 1968 averaged 13,000 per month.

[@rahealharisshabbir]

Excellent video as always, you certainly didn't hide your disdain for the M-14. I have a question, if the US adopted the FN FAL how would US small arms change? Because out of the failure if the M-14 we got the M-16.

[@SmallArmsSolutions]

I think we still would have ended up with the M16. We needed an assault rifle in Vietnam, not a full power battle rifle. The FAL most certainly would have been better than the M14 but would still have had the same fate. This is my opinion of course.

[@KossoffFan]

Chris, Why did the U.S. not just remove the Select-Fire feature and sell the M14 on the American market? I would think plenty of people would have bought them up as they did M1s, M1 Carbines, etc.

[@SmallArmsSolutions]

They never sold any rifle that was ever select fire. List rifles were the M1 Garand and M1 carbine. Probably the last rifles you will ever see on the commercial market.

[@KossoffFan]

@@SmallArmsSolutions Damn that NFA!

[@jamesrice6096]

I'm surprised you did not mention the fluke catastrophic failure of the AR-10s barrel during trials, where the side of the barrel blew out. I'm sure this didn't help though the issue was already decided. I think a first big change was a steel barrel vice a composite one with a steel liner. My own modern day comparisons give almost no perceptible difference in recoil on friends AR-10s versus CETMEs. Is the FALs barrel actually longer than the G3, giving a marginal boost in velocity, or mainly just a longer flash hider?

[@SmallArmsSolutions]

In AR10 videos I do go into that.

[@Mrgunsngear]

🇺🇸

[@justalurker3489]

I know it's the FAL'S "thing" to be the "right arm of the free world", but given how many authoritarian states made use of it, there might literally have been more authoritarian than democratic states using it. Hell the Belgians themselves made use of it late in the occupation of the Congo, one of the most brutal colonial representations ever. They were literally cutting off the hands of children if their fathers didn't meet the rubber harvesting quota.

[@resolute123]

Why did the AR-10 and 15 went to a T-charging handle? Not that I'm complaining as I'd image the original configuration of the AR10 having the charging handle on top of the receiver was a possible entry point for mud and debris.

[@SmallArmsSolutions]

I can’t say. The charging hand in the carrying handle was much harder to use. Actually, the original design was an enclosed charging handle. Dirt and mud could not get in it

[@aaronwilkinson8963]

Can we call ourselves the free world today. From Canada to Europe we are living in a kind of tyranny we thought we defeated

[@SmallArmsSolutions]

Agreed. Nothing free about this country these days

[@DraganB52]

What interest me is that the FN widely used over 90 countries? can’t find any steel magazines for the rifle but the G3 magazines you can find them all over the place I don’t understand.

[@CharlesRushing-ck2qm]

@DraganB52. I didn't know steel fnfal mags had become scarce? They used to be readily available. ( 2005 ish) I assume you are looking for metric mags. Inch pattern were always harder to find. Have you tried DSA? Numerich's Gun Parts or Sarco Gun Parts?

[@DraganB52]

@@CharlesRushing-ck2qm yes I did no luck unless you like plastic magazines that are not reliable so we’re just going to hold onto the rifle till they’re available steal magazines. Thank you.

[@CharlesRushing-ck2qm]

@DraganB52 I was curious and checked Sarco and Numerich's also. Shocked, they didn't have any. In the early 2000s (2000- 2010) fal mags were everywhere. Rock River even produced a .308 AR that utilized Inch Pattern Fal mags. Be patient, you will find some.

[@johndiblasi4803]

👍🏼

[@Leo_Sneedinsky]

Your comments on the higher levels of automatic recoil on the G3 make me wonder. The 556 roller delays like the HK33 and Cetme L have been regarded as lighter recoiling than their 556 counterparts. I wonder if the weight is the main factor in reduced recoil. Or maybe in the process of the caliber reduction, the designers had ample leeway to tune the components of the recoil system better.

[@SmallArmsSolutions]

I have extensive trigger time on these. I feel catagorically these are the heaviest recoiling of the lot!

[@loquat44-40]

@@SmallArmsSolutions There are things that can done to mitigate G-3 recoil, but for some reason not done with the G3 infantry rifle. The locking piece: HK21E light machine gun includes a part with a 36-degree angle between each face versus a 45 degree angle and I believe that there another buffer out there also. But I assume that there is a down side also to these change out in parts.

[@elliottbutts153]

I’ve heard so many people talk about the G3 having harsh recoil but then others say it’s soft shooting. I personally have always thought that my PTR 91 has low recoil. Makes me wonder if mine maybe has a enhanced heavy buffer in it.

[@SmallArmsSolutions]

Interesting, my PTR kicks like a mule. One of my only rifle that give me a black and blue shoulder

[@elliottbutts153]

@@SmallArmsSolutions That’s my point. I definitely believe you Chris. Just not sure why all the differences other I guess it can be subjective.

[@watariovids1645]

The only PTR i shot felt completely fine, it pushed a lot more than a intermediate caliber gun but I didn't feel like it was beating me up at all I could have shot it extensively. I actually liked it enough to want to buy one later on. I wonder if peoples anatomy might have an impact on it or something. For reference Shooting about 5-10 rounds of 12 gauge buck will make my shoulder hurt so I am not exactly Scott from Kentucky Ballistics here.

[@elliottbutts153]

@@watariovids1645 I put 160 rounds thru mine in a session one time and never even thought about it’s recoil. But I’m the same way, 8 rounds of 12 gauge 00 buck has me content to stop there lol.

[@jonnyf9523]

I’ve fired the g3 on full auto and its not that bad

[@jonathanmitchell3733]

European countries learned about intermediate cartridges, the stupid .308 / 7,62x51 was the fault of the U.S.. Britain wanted to use the FN with the .280 British. A nice 7mm 140gr bullet doing 2550fps. Low recoil, nice BC bullet, with long range ability. Good sectional density for penetration. The 5.56 nato and the M16 would never have been created if the Stupid U.S. army had gone with the .280 British and the Fn FAL. Imagine the performance of that AR10 with the .280 British