[Ghostrider_23]

If the price on both these rifles where the same:what: Which one would you go for. I have been reading a lot about these FAL's, compared to the Cetme's and think that it would be wise to go with the FAL. But what if you could get a Socom, what would the pro's and con's be of the two:banghead:

[cameron.personal]

The FAL!

Cheaper mags, more reliable (adjustable gas regulator) and better human ergonomics.

Of course you have to make sure you get a good one.

Cameron

[BrennanKG]

I had an amazing FAL (DSA) and I'll lament selling it until I someday replace it.

I've heard a fair amount of folks speak/post about how the M1 is inherently more accurate than a FAL. Perhaps when comparing vintage field versions this is true, but when I shot my DSA next to my buddy's Springfield at 100 yards, I couldn't perceive any disparity in accuracy. Now the two rifles do FEEL completely different, both in ergonomics and firing action; but one person could just as easily prefer one over the other.

Get one of both!
:D

B.

[Hugo]

Exactly what is the FAL? I think FN makes it but what is the model number or name and manufacturer? I need to do some research on this. Sounds like a good hog stand hunting rifle. mmmm pork.

[Fosbery]

FAL every time.

[AndyC]

Exactly what is the FAL? I think FN makes it but what is the model number or name and manufacturer? I need to do some research on this. Sounds like a good hog stand hunting rifle. mmmm pork.

FN - manufacturer - Fabrique Nationale (Belgium)
FAL - model - Fusil Automatique Leger (French for "light automatic rifle")

Standard FN-FAL below:

http://img172.imageshack.us/img172/1770/falov9.jpg

Research - best place would be falfiles (http://www.falfiles.com/forums/)

[Fosbery]

FN were the original manufacturer, but I reckon most FALs were not made by FN. They were made in just about every country you can think of that wasn't under Soviet rule. Some of these were made on lisence, others were made without permission. I believe the only company still manufacturing brand new FALs is DSA in the States. Plenty of other companies put them together from existing parts though.

[iamkris]

FAL vs M1A SOCOM isn't a completely apples to apples comparison as the SOCOM comes with a shorter barrel and rail doo-dads. A better comparison might be a Para FAL or SA58 Carbine to get the specs more similar.

The only way I can compare the two are through the rifles I own (both full length rifles vs the carbines you are asking about) I own a DSA StG58A that I adore and an M1A Loaded that I've really grown fond of. Here's my impressions based on my own experiences.

FAL wins on the following

FAL has overall superior ergonomics for me (subjective but I like pistol grips better)
I like the selector location (with the L1A1 selector) better on the FAL...just never got used to the Garand/M14 push-it-forward-with-your-trigger-finger safety.
FAL charging handle is better placed for me...I'm a righty and like manipulate it with my left hand
FAL breaks down/easier to clean and maintain MUCH easier than M14. No cleaning from the breech is a big downside of M14 IMO. I can have the bolt out of an FAL and be cleaning it by the time you get the trigger pack out of the M14.
FAL has more simple bolt locking mechanism
FAL has adjustable gas system (but I personally don't see that as a big deal)
Operating system -- I think the internal gas piston system is better than the big, external op rod system. Personal opinion.
M14 mags are overpriced (T57s from Taiwan help but you still can't beat $4-10 FAL mags in good shape)
Cost -- you can get a good, service grade FAL for $700-1000. Base model M14 will cost $200-500 more. Top of the line rifles about equal.


Here's where M14 wins:

M14 is "prettier" (subjective)
M14 Feels slightly more balanced/handy (subjective)
Sights are MUCH better...US weapons designers seem to understand that good sights and battle-worthy sights are not mutually exclusive. That advantage has recently been negated by DSA's introduction of the "Hampton" lower...an FAL lower with A2 adjustable sights...only issue is that the rear sight is on a mechanically different rigid structure from the front (e.g., lower vs upper).
Accuracy potential -- service grade rifles are about equal between M14 and FAL. M14 can be made much more accurate but these aren't rifles you'd want to blast away with. Tend to be finicky YMMV
Scope mounting -- even with the requirement to mount on the side of the receiver, the mounts for the M14 tend to be more solid, probably as a result of development as a sniper/DMR system. But they are expensive! That said, the DSA Extreme Mount on the FAL may make this a wash.
Trigger -- stock M14 trigger is usually as good as a tuned FAL trigger


Ties:
Bolt open
Mag release -- equal
Weight -- about the same
Reliabilty -- same
Mag design -- both good and rugged
Recoil -- same
Aftermarket goodies -- same

I used to say they were a tie in my book. With DSA's Extreme Scope Mount and the new Hampton lower, the only real advantage of the M1A series is the trigger and POTENTIAL accuracy. Depends on what you value personally. The M14 strikes me a a rifleman's rifle, the FAL as a hardcore battle rifle.

I'll buy another FAL (Para) this fall but I probably have all the M1A's I need.

[Father Knows Best]

I believe the only company still manufacturing brand new FALs is DSA in the States. Plenty of other companies put them together from existing parts though.

Yup. DSArms, aka DSA, makes brand new semi-auto rifles based on the FAl design, and they are top quality. Actually, DSA makes two broad categories. The SA58 model is essentially an entirely new gun. SA58's sell for $950 to $1,500+ depending on configuration. There are even full auto versions available for police and military sales.

DSA also makes the StG58, which uses some surplus Austrian FAL parts, including a steel lower receiver (unlike the SA58's alloy lower). The StG58 from DSA is also an excellent, top quality rifle, and is a little cheaper than an SA58. I've seen them selling in new or like new condition for as little as $750.

An original FN rifle is a collector's item. Figure on $2,000 and up -- WAY up.

You will commonly find FAL pattern rifles assembled by Century Arms at gun shows for a lot less. Century does not have a great reputation for quality, and many of these don't function very well. Ya pays yer money and ya takes yer chances, I guess.

Probably the best value in FAL type rifles are those built on Imbel (Brazilian) receivers by people who knew what they were doing. The Imbel receivers are by most accounts very good, and they're a lot cheaper than DSA or FN rifles.

[HorseSoldier]

I'd lean towards my DSA Para-FAL with 16.25" barrel over the SOCOM, but that's a one sided sort of view, as I don't own and have not fired a SOCOM. It would have to be pretty damn impressive, however, to get my pick over my DSA.

[Fosbery]

I msotly agree with iamchriss. You can get flat top FALs for super easy scope mounting. No such luck with the M1A (well, you can mount it in a scout configuration but you can do that with a FAL too). The only thing I really like about the M1A is the sights. I don't understand why more rifles don't have sights which can be easily swapped out, as with some of the new tacticool ARs.

[iamkris]

The sight issue with FALs is now solved with DSA's Hampton lower. A2 adjuistable rear sight or a picatinny section to put your own on.

Click here to see one

http://www.dsarms.com/NewItems.cfm

[Zundfolge]

Neither.

AR-10 (in particular the DPMS AP4 Carbine in .308) Cost wise its about the same as a good FAL or the M1 SOCOM.

Better ergonomics, better accuracy potential, more accessories, only downside is cost of mags.


(sorry for the thread drift) :neener:

[BrennanKG]

That Hampton Para lower/stock is not only a great idea, but a phenomenal deal.
I was sad at the time that a Para stock was unavailable to me. Now I know I want (and can get) one on my next FAL.


:)
B.

[hksw]

For me, I always prefer rifles that get the most out of the ammo. i.e., short barrels (similar to the lengths of the SOCOM) for high power ammo is a no-go for me.

[MechAg94]

I don't really have any desire to buy a SOCOM so I am not sure how to compare. Just my arrogant opinion though.

M14 mags used to be cheap when they were still plentiful (stories from my Dad). Not any more. FAL's were more widely used around the world so the mag/parts stock is larger. Since surplus mags are not as plentiful, M14's suffer from lower quality aftermarket mags that are now made. I have a PTR-91 and can certainly appreciate the abundance of HK mags available that all pretty much work the same with little or no differences.

The ergonomics are purely subjective IMHO. Depends on if you like traditional rifle feel or a pistol grip. I could go either way but I have more experience with the traditional stock on higher powered rifles.

There are versions of the M14 that have rails and all that fun stuff people like (SOCOM), but since it was originally made with a traditional wood stock, that is what most makers still use. I would'n't knock the M14 on that category. Overall, I don't know if most people give this a real fair comparrison. There are a lot of aspects that people get caught up in that are related to the history/origin of the rifle.

If I had to start over without any experience shooting the M14 growing up, I might have gone with the FAL simply due to cheaper mags, but balancing that with the sights would be a tough call.

[MechAg94]

Has anyone used that new sight that DSA makes? How well does it work?

[mattw]

I've already got an M1A standard version so I'd take the FAL.

On the other hand, if I did not have the M1A already.. I'd take the socom. I'm just more familiar with it and I like the sights on the socom alot better.

I'm an American and I'll take an American weapon.

[AndyC]

I love FAL's; however, I want an M1A as well ;)

[Grump]

Assuming same price means for me that the FAL-type has a spendy match barrel on it and the M1A variant has an el cheapo 3MOA tube, no matter what ammo you're shooting.

Well, maybe unfair. The USGI barrel I shot could do 2 MOA with the expensive ammo, but I digress....

With that assumption, I'd go with the FAL just for better accuracy potential.

Otherwise, M1A.

I keep hearing:more reliable (adjustable gas regulator), but on at least two boards I have NEVER had ANYONE tell me any first-hand experience with shooting identical loads through the two systems side-by-side.

I did. No amount of adjustment could make two different Imbel-receiver jobs cycle with ammo down below about 2100 FPS, while the M1A kept chugging merrily along. I previously reported only one such rifle, 'cause the second did NOT have the bolt hold-open function. Note that the White gas system on the M1A is self-adjusting, and requires no fiddling with by the user.

I have established light loads for my 9-year old to enjoy, which send a 180-gr bullet along at exactly 1600.something fps at the last chrono session. The earlier experiment was with M80 bullets and got down to the mid-1600s, IIRC, when the M1A stopped cycling and locking the bolt back.

NO ONE has stood up to challenge my real-life findings. They have only sniped at the experiment and questioned why anyone would use light loads, discounted it as unrealistic when all they care about is full-power ammo, and so forth.

Furthermore, NO ONE has informed me at what levels (heavy bullets, slow powders) one must really vent the heck out of an FAL to avoid "battering" the action, as is done with M1As by using a simple vented gas plug (again, nothing to adjust) when shooting 175+ grain bullets and powders slower than Varget/4064. I've seen no accounts to indicate that the adjustment range on an FAL can accommodate such abusive loads...

I have, however, personally seen a group of Provo cops fiddling with an FAL-type and scratching their heads and puzzling over why they could not get better than 3-4-inch groups at 100 yards with a brand-new Springfield Armory-imported FAL type with a scope mounted on one of those special scope-mount dust covers. They WERE using Federal Gold Medal Match 168s, too.

Finally, if you expect to ever have the wind-doping skills to know that you need 6 clicks (full MOA) instead of 3 clicks of windage for that 400-yard shot, just go with the M1A. If you insist on the inferior action with the superior ergonomics (FAL), then at least look into putting some decent sights on it.

Yeah, mags are cheaper. I'm just amazed that this capitalist world has not yet produced a modern, efficiently-produced, aggressively-marketed new magazine for M14 types.

[hso]

Got 3 FALs and 2 M14s. :evil: (yes, I know, I'll burn in hell for that)

Love'm both.

[wayne in boca]

Got 3 FALs.Got 3 M1As too.Can't think of a bad thing to say about any of them.Totally efficient killing machines,that's for sure,hard to top.The only people that bad-mouth a Socom are people that haven't shot one yet.They rock.

[10-Ring]

All things being equal, both guns are very nice & I'd be happy to own & shoot either. Really, if both things were equal, it wouldn't matter which one you got. So, it would probably now depend on which one you like more asthetically and which one you could get a better deal on ;)

[Gunpartsguy]

Imbel of Brazil is still producing FAL's. Up until this last January you could get new Imbel FAL receivers for less than $200.00 and they are excellent receivers. But the AG and the ATF shut down importation of FAL barrels and receivers. :barf: :(

[DMK]

The sight issue with FALs is now solved with DSA's Hampton lower. A2 adjuistable rear sight or a picatinny section to put your own on.
Has anyone used that new sight that DSA makes? How well does it work?
I wonder if anyone has one yet too. I've had one on backorder, with a folding stock, for more than two months. I get the FAL out, go to the web page and drool over it every once in a while.

[Scottso]

Buy Both lol, they are both great battle rifles, have 4 FAL's and 2 M1A's so I'm more than set lol.;)

[MechAg94]

On M14 Mags, I saw advertised in a catalog new mags made by Winchester I believe. My impression is that they were new manufacture for the military, but I don't know. They were $35. If they were really good quality, I can see myself paying that much, but I doubt it. I'd like to see some stainless mags as well.