[Who is John Galt?]

The suggestion that Israel dropped their version of the FAL because it "performed poorly in sandy environment as sand or mud cause it to jam rapidly" may be just another 'urban myth.' An interesting discussion can be found here...

http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=170763

(...including this: "Without a single exception, functional problems with the FAL were, in [the Israeli military contact's] opinion, the result of either substandard or non-existent maintenance on the part of Israeli personnel. In other words, the gun worked fine as long as routine maintenance was performed.....")

(Sounds just a bit like the M-16, doesn't it? ;>)

For a more applicable (and better documented) reference, just check out "Ol' Dirty - A Texas Legend:"

http://www.falfiles.com/forums/showthread.php?threadid=68486&perpage=30&pagenumber=1

As per a recent update, "Ol' Dirty" (a home-built West German G-1 FAL) had 10,000 rounds (plus 'swamp tosses' ;>) under it's belt - without cleaning - and was still running strong. Try that with your favorite AR...

(Speaking of which - suggesting that the Israelis replaced the FAL with the M-16 due to undocumented reliability problems would be akin to suggesting that the US replaced the M-14 with the M-16 because the M-14 was unreliable... ;>)

[Natural Law]

I have spoken to a number of former IDF combat infantrymen who used it in combat and loved the FN FAL. I also know one Aussie who used it in Viet Nam and thought it was far superior to the M-16. In contrast I used the M-16 in Viet Nam and thought its shortcomings were that it was a high maintenance weapon that had insufficient penetration and stopping power. I don't care what the scientists, REMFs and armchair "SEALS" who regularly post on FR have to say on the issue.