[Glamdring]

What are the pros and cons?

[jason10mm]

The Fn will have cheaper mags, be easier to take down, probably lighter, possibly less ergonomic, can't have any "evil features" beyond the pistol grip, you have to go through the US parts checklist unless you get a DSA or similar make. It MAY be a cheaper rifle, but DSA Fals are about equal to Springfields in cost.

The M1A will probably be more accurate (though they both may shoot better than you), has more style points (for me anyway), can have a flash suppressor (though I believe the official scout model comes with a compensator instead), may have a better optics mount (though I hear good things about the DSA Fal mount).

Hard to compare unless you cite specific models of Fals, there are millions of possibilities out there ranging from $400 franken-guns to the sleek decked out DSAs.

[Glamdring]

I don't want flash suppresor or muzzle break.

Want ability to mount low power scope and/or aimpoint close to iron sight's line of sight.

Want a good trigger and something like 1.5 MOA with reliable ammo.

Would like 8 lbs or less with scope.

And I want something that won't break unless abused.

Price? Well I don't have lots of money, but I usually decide what I want then figure out how to pay for it. Example I have a Scout rifle (worth more than either of my cars :) )

[Onslaught]

I have an Imbel FAL with a 17.5" barrel and the EXCELLENT ARMS #3 scope mount, and it weighs closer to 10#. I just came back from the range, and got maybe 2.5" at 100 yards... If that helps.

My personal experience with the M1A was that it was lighter. I sold mine, but it was a nice rifle.

[SelfProclaimedExpert]

8 pounds scoped in .308 is going to be nearly impossible with a military rifle. An AR-15A2 weighs more than that scoped.

To lighten up the Fal there are alloy lower receivers and alloy mags. Plastic stocks and a light 18" barrel with no muzzle thingy will get the weight down.

Either gun might benefit from a C-More or similar minimalist optical sight and ten round mags for slimness and weight. Both bipods are going to be a big weight burden.


You have a better chance of meeting both accuracy and weight goals with Remington 7400, if I have the model right.

[Zak Smith]

I have both a 18" FAL and a 21" FAL, both built from near "mint" parts kits and DSA "US" parts. Both have the 3-hole DSA brake. The 18" is more handy, but I much prefer shooting the 21". It seems more smooth and has less recoil.

I have had a scope on various FALs using the DSA scope mount base and the lowest Leupold rings possible. I always found it screwed up the cheek weld on the FAL too much. If I wanted a scoped "precision" .308 (maybe for 3Gun!), then I'd bite the bullet and go AR-10.

-z

[Oleg Volk]

Shorty M1A would be much closer to being a semiauto replacement for Steyr Scount than the shorty FAL. Better sights and trigger, most likely, and more natural pointing. The plus for FAL would be cheaper magazines...but you'd be hard-pressed to carry more than 5 at a time anyway.

[ninjalawyer]

Zak, how does your 18" FAL compare to your 21" for accuracy? Any significant difference?

[kotengu]

I, too, have an 18" FAL (along with a 24" match FAL, but that's another story). I'd have to give the nod to the FAL for ergonomics, but that's a pretty subjective thing.

As said before, you can get more lightweight parts for the FAL than the M1A, but the scout is probably a little lighter than the stock FAL, so it's a wash. Shoot both, see which feels better to you, and go with that. Either will make you a very good gun.

As for the 18" vs 21" in accuracy, theoretically the 18" will be slightly more accurate than the 21", all else being equal (less barrel whip) - that being said, all else is almost NEVER equal, so it's hard to judge. You won't lose accuracy going with a shorter barrel, but you will lose a little bit of velocity, which may affect your hitting ability at the longer distances.

[Zak Smith]

ninjalawyer,

There is no significant difference in accuracy between my 18" and 21".

The 18" loses about 200fps vs. the 21" (2500 vs. 2700fps).

-z

[Glamdring]

Oleg, reason I am looking at the FAL is because it seems one can mount scope much lower than is possible with M1a.

From what I understand the M1a with regular scope mounts are to high for most people to get proper cheek wield. M1a Scout may be a bit better?

[Skunkabilly]

Would like 8 lbs or less with scope.

Ain't gonna happen with the M1A....I think it's about 9lbs empty.

[JShirley]

Guy, I bought my G1 from kotengu. I'd wanted an FAL for about half my life.

And it's worth it.

Ask Edmund Rowe. From what he's said, M1a seems to be pretty hard on optics. I haven't heard that about FAL's. For anything that might be considered CQB, I'd prefer a pistol grip for more positive retention.

While you're at it, Guy, why don't you leave that God-forsaken state, move down to Tennessee, train MA with kotengu, and you can train for 3-gun matches together (and make it easier for me to see two of my friends at a time? :p)?

John

[Glamdring]

While you're at it, Guy, why don't you leave that God-forsaken state

Hey, we are shall issue now! :)

I do plan to move to big sky country once the school loans get paid off.

***

So John what length barrel does your FAL have? What are the triggers like?

[David Park]

I have a DSA StG58a rifle (the Austrian parts kit gun, 21" barrel). It was already heavy out of the box, so I added a DSA scope mount and Leupold scope. It seems pretty accurate, but I'm a lousy shot. :o Anyway, the trigger is very heavy, and it would have to be lightened to get better accuracy, I would think. I expect the triggers on the top-of-the-line DSA models would be better, but I don't know for sure.

Tip: a spare-mag pouch on the buttstock makes the rifle even heavier, but serves as a counterweight to the nose-heavy FAL design. It makes the rifle "handier" in my opinion.

[Glamdring]

How heavy is very heavy?

How do you attach mag pouch to buttstock?

[JShirley]

Guy,

I have a standard G1 barrel, 21", I believe. FAL's are not known for having great triggers, but Matt smoothed mine out a bit. It's not bad, now.

Incidentally, did you known some Special Ops Forces are using DSA 16" FAL's?

John

[50 Freak]

Guys,

I have a #8 pound 308 rifle. It is a 18 inch barreled FAL (17inch barrel, 1 inch muzzle brake). Has the DS lightweight lower, plus other "lightweight" parts. Tips the scale at 8 pounds unloaded. I'm actually trying to get it even more lighter, as my goal is 6.5 pounds unloaded, okay maybe 7.:evil:

The M1A could be said to have better triggers, but there are FAL spring kits out there to reduce the trigger pull to 3-4.5#s. And actually that is a little too light for a bush gun.

As for sights, the FALs sights are not as refined as the M1As, but there is one my FAL can do that the M1As cannot. I can disassemble the FAL and fit it into my Eddie Bauer back pack, and reassemble it in 5 seconds. Can't do that with a M1A.:neener: :neener:

[ninjalawyer]

Hey 50, what other lightweight parts are you using? I'm hoping to put together a lighter-weight FAL myself sometime soon. I'll probably end up using a Type III receiver since I can't find a Type I, omit the bidpod and th handle, and I'll definitely be using the DSA aluminum lower, and I hear that the Penguin furniture is light. Any other suggestions?

[Grump]

The M1A will continue to function with a wide range of ammo pressures that will force you to keep fiddling with gas system adjustments on the FAL. In my testing, the M1A kept cycling with ammo that choked an Imbel FAL with the gas vent fully closed.

With a shorty M1A, toothpick whittled & drilled plastic stock, standard contour barrel and aluminum scope mount on the barrel using a smaller scope, you might make weight without drilling lightening holes in the receiver and fluting the barrel and gas cylinder.

Could there be a way to lose more weight by going to a synthetic semi-bullpup stock? It would be a shame to lose the stripclip capability for the sake of weight. Flip-up backup irons would have to be housed in fiber-reinforced plastic to keep weight down.

There's also room in the magwell to shim it up and make FAL mags work, according to my calipers.

[50 Freak]

use a sand cut bolt carrier, DS lightweight alloy top cover, alloy trigger guard, definitely get the penguins, but contact Gerald and ask him for the lightweight buttstock. He made only a limited run, and may have some left. It definitely cost more than the other ones, but cuts weight from the originals by 30+%. Also see if your FAL uses the short gas tube. If not, switch it to the short gas tube. Also look around for the aluminum recoil tube, hard to find but definitely cuts weight. Also get one of the lightweight muzzle brakes, and aluminum lightweight charging handle All this adds up the weight savings. You can realistically have a FAL that weighs less than an AR.

Definitely ditch the stock handguards and bipod. And use aluminum mags.

Lot of work scrounging all the parts together just to save a few pounds.

[Nightcrawler]

If you're concerned with the strength of the action, consider this. I've been adivsed by people who know that it's unwise to fire rounds through an M14/M1A/M14 that have bullet weights heavier than 168 grains or so. Apparently the 180 grainers, and especially the heavier bullets, such as the 220 grainers, put undue stress on the operating rod and can actually bend it. There is a special gas nut you can buy that will vent excess gas, but its' an aftermarket item and essentially gives the M1A an adjustable gas system, IIRC.

I asked around; no one told me of any problems with any commercial ammo of any bullet weight in their FAL.