[Jenrick]

We always see the AR vs. AK debate. Lets try something a little different: AK vs. FAL. Been thinking about getting both, trying to decide which to go for first/possibily only.

Four criteria:
Reliability
Effectiveness
Cost
Ease of Maintenance

Reliability is the most important, the other three are about equal to me. I don't know all that much about either the AK family or the FAL family (FAL less then AK). General plan with these is going to be doing a lot of shooting in fairly rough conditions. Range queens need not apply.

So with that what are folks opinions?

-Jenrick

[Forseti]

Reliability = AK
Effectiveness = generally FAL, esp at long range
Cost = AK
Ease of Maintenance =AK

What is the weighting behind your four criteria? Do a point system, or percentage....generally, if you don't rate effectiveness as super high, AK wins.

[AndyC]

Speaking as an FAL enthusiast - AK.

[Deer Hunter]

For ease of maintenance, I think I'll take a FAL. Reliability is a toss up.

[jklinstein]

Reliability: Equivalent

Effectiveness: Depends on range (AK for up close, FAL for distance) and how much penetration (FAL).

Cost: AK

Ease of Maintenance: Equivalent

[nwilliams]

Reliability: AK
Effectiveness: Short range: AK - Longer Range FAL
Cost: AK
Ease of Maintenance: FAL

Personally I think the FAL is slightly easier to disassemble, but its a close call.

[possum]

reliability: i agree is equal

effectiveness: at longer ranges the fal, and at closer ranges the fal in the way of knock down power, but as part of as "effectivness" i always factor in handeling, how quick it can be brought on target and used quick if need be, and for this reason for cqb i would say the ak all the way. it really is mission dependent. i think the ak would serve you best in most any real world siyuation that you will find yourself in, realistic ranes and realistic targets the ak will do just fine, even if you have to go out as far as 200yds.

cost: ak

maintanace:i know the ak is easy i don't have that type of experience level with the fal's.

[Evil Monkey]

Reliability: AK is simpler, so it wins.

Effectiveness: Doesn't count. Both the AK and FAL were designed for different purposes.

cost: AK

Ease of maintenance: Again, the AK is much simpler so it wins.

Read the sig.:cool:

[Jenrick]

Thanks for the repsonse.

I want to be able to shoot out to about 300 yards on a man sized (well torso) target. Don't need MOA accuracy, just enough to be combat effective.

How do the shortened models compare to each other? Are they still effective out to 300 yards or so? That's one of my biggest issues with the 5.56 is that out of short barrel it's going to have issues going out to 300 yards (I'm a fan of the fragmentation theory of wounding with the 5.56, so no debates on that issue please).

Hows the handling at CQB ranges with both fullsize and compact models?

-Jenrick

[RockyMtnTactical]

FAL

[db_tanker]

as much as I love my FAL....for the criteria that you set forth I would have to point you to the AK style rifle.


One massive reason that you didn't post on was ammo cost/availability...it will be there for the AK, the FAL is getting more and more expensive to feed...unless you reload....which I do.

300 meters is pushing the AK...but then again, this is in MY hands...you might be Daniel Boone compared to me. :D I'll stick with my FAL and the scout scope setup. ;)


D

[Lucky]

"Tales of the Gun: The Guns of Israel"

Deals with specifically this issue. They found the guns to be unsatisfactory in reliability, and unsatisfactory in volume of accurate fire. As we all know, they quickly produced the Galil to replace it, but what I didn't know was that the Galil was first produced in 7.62x51mm, and then they found that to be unnecessary, perhaps even detrimental.

[evan price]

Ah Yes, the "Israel thought FALs were junk" defense. Somebody always brings this up eventually.

It's interesting that the UK and Austrailian defense forces never had the problems attributed to the Israelis in the same sort of conditions (Which is why there are sand-cut uppers and bolt carriers...)


Speaking as someone who shoots FALs, AKs and a .308 Galil, this is apples to oranges to bananas:

Accuracy: Long ranges (FAL) Short Ranges: Equal
"Stopping power": FAL punches harder but both will do harm to a torso at any range.
Reliability: Equal
Ease of maintenance: Equal (Both field strip without tools)
Ease of initial manufacture: AK (Stamped models, anyway, not milled)by a nose
COST: Right now, AK hands down since FAL uppers and kits dried up and doubled in price. 80% receiver flats for AK's are much more home-smith friendly than a 80% FAL upper.
Mag capacity: AK, there are more 30-rd mags for AKs out there than FALs, and AKs have drums, FALs don't.

Resale Value: FAL by a nose.


As far as shooting 300yds + with an MBR, obviously long barrels are going to be the way to go, why chop down to carbine length and then expect MOA or MOT accuracy at 1000'????

[artech]

Having had both and shot both, I'd say there are a few things to consider first.

1. Maker. A Century built FAL or Maadi built AK are not going to be up to the same level of quality as other makers, so educate yourself before laying your money down.

2. Ammo. Brought up before, but it seems that the cheap 7.62x51 ammo has dried up at this point, while 7.62x39 ammo is still pretty reasonable right now.

3. Ballistics. This is an apples and oranges comparison since the AK is designed for shorter ranges and the FAL for longer. Hell, the first sight setting on my Fal is 200 meters! The AK is pusing it at the 300 yard mark while the FAL is just getting warmed up. That being said, I wouldn't want to get hit with either one at that range!:what:

4. Price. All things being equal, an AK will cost right around double what a FAL will run you, and that's not chump change by any means.

5. Weight. The FAL runs to 9 pounds depending on the configuration, the AK is significantly less. Ammo weight may or may not be a factor in your case.

6. Reliability. From my experience either will get the job done. I don't typically seriously abuse my weapons but they do get used hard, and occaisionally they get a full detail cleaning. Some AK's and some FAL's have chrome lined barrels which will prolong their service life, but these are more money.

7. Accessories. You don't mention it, but the support equipment for these is an issue for some people. There are many parts and accessories available from different manufacturers for both these rifles, but the AK stuff is generally cheaper. Many AK's have scope mounts built in, so that can be an advantage. FAL mags are cheap and plentiful, but really only in the 20 round capacity.

Well, there's a few things to think about. Hope this helps.

[Lucky]

Evan, I would like a FAL if I could get one, I'm not knocking them or you as a person, but, well the guy asked, and that's a pretty damned good example of an entire military which switched from FALs to a type of AK.

And he specifically mentioned reliability, which the Israelis specifically complained about. They never said FALs were junk, unless you can provide a reference for your statement. They simply felt that the rifle did not meet their needs. Funny thing, but the UK and Australia figured out the same thing, except not experiencing total war meant they took longer to reach the same conclusion.

Also you left out hit probability - maybe the thread starter wants to waste ammo, and wonders which rifle he could fire the fastest and still hit the target. You could probably tell him, just how many hits you can make on a target for the same time it takes you for each FAL hit.

And you forgot the cost of the ammunition, in your cost calculation. Imo that's the #1 or #2 criteria in any firearm, no ammo = just some fancy plumbing.

[CK]

if it for my first rifle, then it will be an AK.

[HorseSoldier]

Four criteria:
Reliability
Effectiveness
Cost
Ease of Maintenance


I'd call reliability a wash. Both are pretty solid performers.

For effectiveness, I'd +1 the other posters who've already noted a degree of apples and oranges on that issue. I think I would slightly favor the FAL simply because it has better ergonomics and, if not using some sort of optic, better iron sights.

Cost -- AK wins hands down for the gun. You can get an entry level AK for under $400. You're lucky if you can find an entry level FAL for $600, and at that price you may or may not encounter reliability issues secondary to Century Arms/Hesse/Entreprise or some amateur gunsmith botching the job.

Mags are cheaper for the FAL currently, but AK mags aren't terribly expensive. Ammo favors the 7.62x39 now that surplus supplies of both calibers are drying up.

Ease of Maintenance -- I'd call it a wash, personally.

Hows the handling at CQB ranges with both fullsize and compact models?


The AK beats a full-size FAL in terms of handling. Get a FAL with an 18" or 16" barrel and stack it up against an AK and it's pretty much an even playing field as far as manueverability goes.

For other CQB issues, the AK holds more rounds using standard mags and can hold more rounds than the FAL is one uses non-standard mags (30 rounds for the FAL, 40+ for the AK, etc.).

Downsides -- the AK controls are horribly layed out for a CQB gun (at least in my opinion, and all my combat marksmanship training has been with M4s, so this obviously colors my thinking). The FAL has a safety you can engage and disengage with your firing hand thumb and a charging handle you can operate without taking your firing hand off the pistol grip.

AK safety can barely be finger swiped into fire position if you've got big hands, but even then it's a poor placement and design for CQB shooting. The easy solution is to run you weapon hot all the time, which is also a great recipe for accidental discharges, etc. The charging handle is on the right, meaning you've either got to take your firing hand off the grip or roll the weapon.

Both weapons have magazines you have to rock into place, which is slower in general and harder to accomplish than the straight push into the magwell you have with ARs and some other weapons. Under stress it's much easier to botch a combat reload with an AK, FAL, or other weapon using the same general layout, since it requires a degree of fine motor skills (getting the mag engaged and rocking) rather than the gross movement of finding the magwell and slamming the mag home.

Overall, if you can only get one, I'd say it depends on your budget. If you have, say $600 or less to spend, I'd say go with an AK, and shop around for a nice one. If your budget is $1000 or $1500 or less, I'd vote for a 18" barrel FAL, ideally a Para model.

[D-Man]

Were FAL's only made in .308, or by chance were there other chamberings?

I've seen FAL relicas done in .223 (the ATR), but don't know if anything official exists.

[pipboy]

you should factor in weight as well
and the weight of ammo
as well as price of ammo and mags

[JesseL]

Worrying about maintenance on an AK? Isn't that like worrying about maintenance on a (manual) can opener? :neener:

[DMK]

I'm not going to say "get both".

Get one. Then get the other one. ;)

If I had to give up one, it would be the AK. Personally, I can't think of anything that the AK can do and the FAL can't, but lotsa stuff the FAL can do and the AK can't.

http://mysite.verizon.net/dmk0210/myarms/ImblFAL4.jpg

[MikeH]

DMK, can you please tell me where can I find that recoil pad on your AK? Thanks!

[DMK]

www.fseusa.com (http://www.fseusa.com/index.php?cPath=95&osCsid=d47cb1cd3acc3db17567ce2c16588cfb)

It's definitely an improvement. The AK doesn't have much recoil, but the thin steel stock gets uncomfortable after a while. Plus the rubber keeps the stock from sliding around on your shoulder.

[HorseSoldier]

Were FAL's only made in .308, or by chance were there other chamberings?

I've seen FAL relicas done in .223 (the ATR), but don't know if anything official exists.

DSA makes some models in .243 and .260 that are available, though I have no idea what kind of wait there is for that.

The Brazilian military has been using a 5.56mm version (the MD-3, I think) for years, but they've never been imported to the US, I don't think. (FN did the same thing, but had some issues and went with the FNC instead -- again, don't know if any of the CAL 5.56mm rifles were ever imported.)

Some offshoot of the Special Weapons firearms corporation called Red Rock (SW --> Bobcat --> Red Rock???) is supposed to be introducing a 5.56mm FAL (takes AR mags). Last I heard there was some positive comments over on the FAL Files, based on some respectable folks looking at pre-production rifles, but I don't know if they've been released yet and if the positive reputation has held up.

[D-Man]

^ HorseSoldier - thanks for the information. I like the idea of the FAL as a rifle for me to own, but will admit to being a bit intimidated by the .308 cartridge (both in recoil feel and price).

So, back to the current argument. In my case, I'd take the AK due to the cheaper gun/ammo and supposed great reliability. Sure, it can't reach out like the FAL, but think I'd be content with the range of the AK.

Now, you can change up the argument by looking at an AK in 5.56, but I assume we are just talking about 7.62 x 39.

[evan price]

Evan, I would like a FAL if I could get one, I'm not knocking them or you as a person, but, well the guy asked, and that's a pretty damned good example of an entire military which switched from FALs to a type of AK.

And he specifically mentioned reliability, which the Israelis specifically complained about. They never said FALs were junk, unless you can provide a reference for your statement. They simply felt that the rifle did not meet their needs. Funny thing, but the UK and Australia figured out the same thing, except not experiencing total war meant they took longer to reach the same conclusion.
Actually, the Aussies and Canadians and British switched because NATO standardized on 5.56 infantry weapons because the tactics of infantry battle changed from individual riflemen to squad support. 5.56 is lighter and easier to pack out. That's why the NATO troopies dropped FALs. They are heavy. The ammo is heavy. Armalite rifles are, well, light. Pretty much EVERY major army in the world dropped big, heavy, .30 caliber MBRs in favor of lighter weapons. Which is why there are so many FAL, CETME,& AK kits floating around. The US dropped the M14 in favor of the M16. The decision was made that the .223 was more controllable in FA and the lighter loadout let the troops carry more rounds per pound.

Also you left out hit probability - maybe the thread starter wants to waste ammo, and wonders which rifle he could fire the fastest and still hit the target. You could probably tell him, just how many hits you can make on a target for the same time it takes you for each FAL hit.
If you just want to "fire fast" buy an AR and bullet-hose all you want for cheap. Since we are in the US and not likely to have full auto weapons anytime soon, riflemen are usually going to line up on target, AIM, and shoot individual rounds. If FA is not a consideration, the .308 target-reacquisition (which personally I have no problems with) is completely out of the equation. Personally, I can drop pop cans out at the 100-yard backstop on the rifle range and pretty much fire at will and hit them every time. The heavy FAL soaks up the .308's recoil, the heavy bolt and gas piston smooths everything out.
However, I can do the same thing with an AK or .308 Galil @100yds too, so it's a moot point.
If you're talking bump firing or something, what's the point? All noise and fury.

And you forgot the cost of the ammunition, in your cost calculation. Imo that's the #1 or #2 criteria in any firearm, no ammo = just some fancy plumbing.
Yep, the AK ammo temporarily right now is cheaper than .308, since surplus has dried up. However if you plan to RELOAD ammo and not buy factory it's a moot point.

[SeNNebogen]

I have heard alot of really good things about FALs. As far far as reliability, I've heard them called "oversized AKs":)

If cost is not really your concern, and since you want to go out to 300 meters or yards, which is where an AK will get kinda sketchy with 7.62x39 go with a FAL.

If I only had one rifle myself and picking between the two I would go with the FAL. Bigger bullets:D

[SAKOHUNTER]

Get one of each...that's what I did!:D

I like them both but my FAL gets more time at the range, it is really fun to shoot. The only negative thing about the FAL is the weight, so I would probably choose the AK in a combat situation.

http://www.gunsnet.net/album/data//500/23054the_girls.jpg

[Jenrick]

Thanks for all the replies, everyone as always enlightening.

So basically both the FAL and the AK are reliable to a fault, and it's up to the end user on which is easier to maintain.

Ergonomics seem evenly split as well. I know how the safety/dust cover on an AK works, how does a FAL's work?

As noted the 7.62x39 doesn't reach out to 300yds as well as .308. How does the 5.45 do in that department (I'm not very familar with that round at all)? My understanding of it was that it was designed in response to the nato 5.56 meaning it probably has most/all of the same issues as the 5.56 at range.

More and more info to mull over before I buy something.

-Jenrick

[Plink]

I own a couple of each. It'd be a hard decision. The AK has reliability in it's corner and is a breeze to maintain. Realistically, that's about all it has. The FAL is more accurate and more powerful. That comes at a cost though. It's also bigger and heavier. As much as I love my FALs, if I had to grab a gun and go, it'd be the AK. If I was staying put and defending, I'd choose the FAL. I bought both because I couldn't decide either. They're both very different guns, each with their own strengths and weaknesses.

[BigSoundRacing]

This past winter I went through the decision process for a go to rifle. Had to be functional, reliable, ammo available, work in an urban environment as well as the desert. Every place I looked the FAL was on top of the short list, followed by AK. After reading stories about equipment and round challenges in Iraq, I decided to go with the FAL.

In January I ordered a DSA SA58, I pick it up Friday afternoon. Old school battle rifle with a bit of modern day manufacturing.

Be safe, BSR

[evan price]

Let me say this, from previous posts, I am not saying AK's or Galils are a bad choice, they are fine rifles, but every rifle is different and some people prefer different things.

FAL workings:

You have an upper receiver which contains the chamber, bolt carrier and the mag, and the lower receiver which has the trigger & FCG parts. The upper and lower are held together in the middle by a hinge pin and at the rear by a take-down lock. There is a control lever on the left side rear of the lower, move it, it opens the take-down lock, and the rifle splits in half at the hinge pin. Dust cover (assuming it's original and not a scope mount) just slides to the rear to remove. So does bolt/carrier- grab the rat-tail and pull the bolt carrier assembly out. To remove the gas piston & remove the gas plug on the front of the gas tube, use a bullet to push in the lock pin, turn it, it pulls out. Pull out gas piston & spring. That's it.

There is a gas regulator at the front of the gas tube to let you custom tailor the force acting on the action for weak or strong ammo loads. Or you can put the gas piston in upside down (the grenade launcher position) and that turns the FAL into a single shot action. This is great if you want to recover ALL of your brass.

On the left side of the lower above the trigger is the safety. Up is safe, down is fire, around forward again was the rock-n-roll setting that won't work with a semi-only receiver and no safety sear. I can work the safety from safe to fire and back again with my right (trigger) hand thumb without taking finger off trigger.

Also left side is the action charging handle. And the bolt release and mag release are convenient to the left hand, so you can keep the rifle on target with right hand on pistol grip keeping it into your shoulder, remove mag, insert new mag (mag well is non-symmetrical, longer on right side so you can load left handed), release bolt hold-open, put left hand back on handguard, keep firing.

[Jenrick]

Evan, thanks very good write up.

I think at the moment I'm just gonna have to go find an AK and a FAL and go try them myself.

Thanks all,

-Jenrick

[BRASSM]

I've owned both AK's and FAL's and shot both for over thirty years. I'm not going to make a comparison because it's been done. so far basically I agree with everything said. I'll be quite honest the AK's are lighter more compact and easier to strip, they will operate when my AR will not. If I had to run around with a long arm in my car just in case I'll take the AK, If I have to involuntarily attend a serious social encounter I'll take the FAL. I have an FAL with a scope, it takes the fur pajamas off of the prarrie dogs. I prefer the 7.62x51 to the 7.62x39, speaking as a reloader.