Range Report of Scoped C.A.I. FAL (Pics)


PDA






Retro
December 23, 2006, 09:29 PM
I just realized that I typo-ed the word "Range". haha!

As some of you knew, I purchased a C.A.I FAL/L1A1 for $600, and it has a British inch lower receiver with C.A.I metric upper receiver. I added a dust cover railmount with a Simmons 12 x 40 scope, thread-locked the scope mounts and rings, and I took it to the rang today.

At 100 yards, with Lake City 7.62 Nato rounds, I got around a 7-inch group, discounting some off shots due to human error and barrel over-heating.

See last picture in the thread:

http://www.pbase.com/r56erthehery/inbox

I dialed the gas system to a "3" although I think I could go lower to "5". The trigger is definitely not a match trigger, and you can see a group of 6-7 shots off to the upper right corner of the diamond center... those were attributed to the poor/stiff trigger pull.

There were some shots that were totally off, and it happens when the barrel (light) over-heats, which caused the barrel to warp, and it affected accuracy. When allowing the barrel to cool before each shot, I was able to stay within the center diamond most of the time if I was careful with the 10 lb trigger. With a heavy barrel, I think the over-heating problem can be eliminated.

The gun fired another 100 rounds with only one misfeed, which was great for a C.A.I receiver, I guess I got a good C.A.I receiver.

The recoil was definitely lighter than my Springfield M1A, although the group is much tighter with my M1A. I kinda liked the FAL because I felt that the gun is more natural to my hands than the M1A.

I finished off a full mag of .308 in rapid succession (near the speed of full auto), and muzzle climb was quite high and unbelievable... but it was extremely cool... Even Ak47 can't beat the noise, the flash, and the recoil of shooting .308 in rapid succession... It was earth-shattering.

The surprising thing is that, at the rang, a lot of shotgun/AK wielding people (I would at least 99%) didn't know what kind of gun I was holding... "what is a FAL?" "what caliber does it shoot?" ".308 really? Is it a HK?"

I think FAL needs more publicity in our country. 'Cause it is a great battle rifle, and with a match trigger, and a heavy-weigh barrel, it can approach the accuracy of a M1A.

If you enjoyed reading about "Range Report of Scoped C.A.I. FAL (Pics)" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
LiquidTension
December 24, 2006, 01:01 AM
My first impression is that something must be loose. My FAL easily stays within 4" at 100yds with irons, with optics I've cloverleafed a group at 75yds. Granted, mine is an STG58 with a DSA bbl and brake, but I did most of the work myself so it definitely isn't a professional job.

My gas setting is usually 5.5, maybe lower depending on ammo. I have the same stock you do, I really like it. It fits me better than the original STG stock I had, which had to be replaced for parts count anyway. I agree with you about people not recognizing the rifle. Everyone that asks me about mine gets a chance to shoot it, and they usually like it :cool:

Retro
December 24, 2006, 01:31 AM
Liquid Tension, my FAL has a C.A.I receiver, with metric and inch parts jumbled together, and hence the accuracy's gotta be less than a DSA STG58, man... :D

I was pretty happy with the group even though it wasn't spectacular. I think a lot of it has to do with my head position relative to the scope because I am use to a head-rest on my M1A, which I don't have on my FAL, and hence my face is always sliding back and forth during shots, and hence some of the way off shots. I have to remind myself to keep my head at the same position everytime. Plus, the trigger pull on my L1A1 was too stiff for any match quality shots.

LiquidTension
December 24, 2006, 01:59 AM
Yeah mine's pretty jumbled too. Imbel receiver, STG58 parts kit, DSA bbl and brake, various US parts on the inside (they're all metric hehe). It is really tight though. Inconsistent cheek weld definitely had something to do with your group, maybe you could put a cheek rest on the stock to help out?

That's one problem with putting optics on a FAL, they sit pretty high up off the stock. You could polish up the FCG a bit too, I'm sure that would help the trigger pull. Either way, you're still minute-of-badguy out to 200 yards.

Retro
December 24, 2006, 02:41 AM
Wait, liquid tension, what sort of ammo are you using? Match grade 7.62?

I shot my Springfield M1A with iron sight, and my group was like 8 inch at best... how did you get 4 inch with FAL iron sights at 100 yards.... that is amazing...

Well, I am near-sighted... and the powder clouds my contact lens everytime I shoot, so I guess I am not the best sniper candidate. :)

Bridger
December 24, 2006, 11:44 AM
My friend has a CAI FAL, and it too shoots about 4" 10 shot groups at 100 yards. That was about the best I could do with it from prone unslung, using surplus ammo, I think it was Argentenian.

Just what position/rest are you shooting from?

Retro
December 24, 2006, 12:11 PM
I was sitting and resting my gun on two sandbags on a bench. My iron sights are way off to the left (max-ed out) that is why I am using my scope.

Damn, maybe my barrel is not timed right like others have suggested in the past... but I thought scope would eliminate such problem... but can timing problem explain the inconsistency of shots? I think it is still my head position relative to the lens.

If you enjoyed reading about "Range Report of Scoped C.A.I. FAL (Pics)" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!