Replies

It's not really that debatable. AR15/M16 (in 5.56/.223) have been dominating national matches against M1As for years. These are folks that know accuracy and the clear choice is the AR platform. With all due respect no way can an FN-FAL (a near 70 year old design?) be near as accurate as either, although I do have a soft spot for them. There simply isn't a piston rifle capable of of the accuracy of a gas impingement system. It's physics, not some opinion I pulled out of thin air. It has weaknesses sure, but we are talking a rifle here. We are a country of riflemen where accuracy has to be one of the most important determining factors.

Let's not confuse the round with the rifle either. The government decided to use 5.56, but the AR/M16 platform can be built using a wide variety of rounds, from .17HMR to .50 Beowulf. Only government stupidity stops them from adopting a better caliber that would further enhance the superiority of the platform.

I never even suggested that the FN FAL is more accurate than the M16/AR15 platform. It is a better combat rifle however. Much better IMO. Shooting targets and shooting enemy soldiers is entirely different. And there is no way that a 5.56 mm service rifle beats a 7.62 mm service rifle at long ranges. If we're talking handloads and match grade rifles, things may be different but that's not what we're talking about. Furthermore, the 7.62 is way more lethal than the 5.56, especially at 300+ yards. There's really no debate about that. That's why the army is exploring various new chamberings. Accuracy matters but it isn't all that matters in a combat rifle, if it was, our soldiers would be issued bolt action rifles. If I'm going to war, I'm taking the FN FAL every time thank you very much.