Colt M4 6920 vs. DSA FAL Para


PDA






Timradcliffe345
October 15, 2008, 12:08 AM
One is getting bought the other is not. Considering the political climate, what's the right choice? What would you do? Thanks.

If you enjoyed reading about "Colt M4 6920 vs. DSA FAL Para" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
kfranz
October 15, 2008, 12:12 AM
FAL.

Lone_Gunman
October 15, 2008, 12:14 AM
I don't see how the political climate is going to affect these two differently. If you want both, you need to get both now.

MTMilitiaman
October 15, 2008, 12:47 AM
Nother vote for the FAL.

The M4 is fine and will do most of what a civilian shooter needs to accomplish, but in the grand scheme of things, the 7.62mm MBR is really the most firepower a civilian can get their hands on without NFA paperwork.

If it is just a range gun, either will do. But for serious use, smart money is on the 7.62. The chances of ever needing its advantages in power, penetration, or range is astronomically low--probably about the same as getting struck by lightening, twice--but if you ever need it, you'll be glad you have it.

Even the AK seems weak and uninteresting to me since I got my M1A. Once you experience a battle rifle, there's no going back. At least there wasn't for me.

HorseSoldier
October 15, 2008, 01:09 AM
Depends on what you want the rifle for -- Obama-proof investment? Range gun? Home defense? etc.

The chances of ever needing its advantages in power, penetration, or range is astronomically low--probably about the same as getting struck by lightening, twice--but if you ever need it, you'll be glad you have it.

And the chances that the slower handling time, smaller basic load of ammo carried and in the gun, and all the other liabilities of 7.62x51 as a service rifle cartridge will get you killed are also low . . . but they're still there.

Z-Michigan
October 15, 2008, 01:14 AM
Both are great, but I'd vote for the DSA-FAL.

BammaYankee
October 15, 2008, 01:54 AM
All I can think of is the little ditty Sgt. Hartman sang in Full Metal Jacket... "This is my rifle [FAL], this is my gun [AR]... This one's for fighting [FAL], this one's for fun [AR]"!

AndyC
October 15, 2008, 02:01 AM
You can get an AR any time - get a FAL before they're all gone.

For Freedom
October 15, 2008, 03:39 AM
Get an M14.

For Freedom
October 15, 2008, 03:51 AM
Get an M14.

For Freedom
October 15, 2008, 03:53 AM
Buy an M1A. 7.62x51mm is a great round for civilians, so that eliminates the AR. The M1A is just as reliable, if not moreso than the FAL, and is more of a rifleman's rifle.

onebigelf
October 15, 2008, 05:48 AM
Sticking to the question that was asked...


Not even a close choice. Get the FAL.

John

RockyMtnTactical
October 15, 2008, 06:11 AM
I prefer the AR15, that is what I would choose. FAL's are nice, but AR15's are best (IMO).

Depends on you though. Only you can make the choice of what will be best for YOU.

Chuck R.
October 15, 2008, 09:42 AM
I own both, get the LE6920.

The DSA SA58 Para is a great rifle, but itís also selling for about $500 more than the LE6920. The surplus ammo for 7.62 has just about dried up and whatís left is expensive. I reload and itís still much cheaper to load .223 than .308. I flat out shoot the 6920 much more than my Para.

Also, IF youíre going to do any sort of formal training the AR is a much better option. The Para even with the lightweight lower weighs a couple pounds more than the 6920. By the time you outfit both rifles similarly the FAL is close to 10lbs unloaded. Between the weight and recoil, the FAL makes for a long day at a class.

Chuck

H2O MAN
October 15, 2008, 10:12 AM
I owned a LE 6920 and sold it to fund M14 items and more 7.62x39 ammo.

Reasons...

Ammo for the AR is expensive.
I have plenty of 7.62x51 NATO surplus ammo for my M14s, but I'm not currently shooting any of it.
My 7.62x39 AK is cheap to feed and it gets shot relatively often.




Do you own an AK?

MTMilitiaman
October 15, 2008, 11:13 AM
And the chances that the slower handling time, smaller basic load of ammo carried and in the gun, and all the other liabilities of 7.62x51 as a service rifle cartridge will get you killed are also low . . . but they're still there.

Umm :uhoh:

Not to put too fine a point on observing the obvious, but he isn't talking about a service rifle. That is a completely different discussion. He's talking about a rifle for himself, not for the armed services. And for an individual lacking the support and manpower that makes the 5.56 work as a service cartridge, the 7.62x51 makes a lot more sense than the 5.56.

The OP doesn't have M240s, M2HBs, Mk 19s, and Cobra gunships standing by to take care of things his basic rifle isn't capable of, nor does he have a squad of motivated warriors providing suppressive fire as he flanks the enemy position. The needs of the civilian are much more similar to that of the police marksmen than of the Marine Corp or Army Rangers and as such, a civilian needs to be much more concerned about first round effectiveness than of things like ammunition load out. Since modern expanding ammunition for the 7.62x51 has somewhere around 80% of the permanent wound cavity and tissue displacement of a load of 12 gauge 00 buckshot, it makes a lot of sense compared to the 5.56mm. A civilian in any situation he or she is going to encounter is going to have to account for every round he or she fires. This means suppressive fire is moot and firing a hammer pair instead of a single round doubles the chances of litigation following an errant round.

Deer Hunter
October 15, 2008, 11:17 AM
I love this.

"Which rifle, A or B, should I get?"

"PICK C!!! PICK C!!!!! DO NOT THINK PICK C!!!"

I would go with the FAL.

ny32182
October 15, 2008, 11:29 AM
Considering you are looking for something that is going to be an Obama-proof "investment", I'd take the AR.

The FAL, while a fine rifle, is going to stay exactly what it is forever. It will never change from its current configuration.

The AR can be built into just about anything. If the 5.56 isn't powerful enough for you (and I find this to be a dubious concept especially in the realm of civilian self defense) you can drop on an upper in 6.8, or 6.5...

You can drop on an LMT piston MRP in the caliber of your choice if you don't like the DI gas system....

You can drop on a .50bmg upper if it really floats your boat.

Obama would have to get through a more restrictive ban than the last one to keep you from doing this stuff. The FAL doesn't have that kind of flexibility. If the purchase is based on possible future political moves, I'd buy into the more flexible system.

lencac
October 15, 2008, 11:41 AM
Both have their + and -. I wouldn't stand in front of either of them. In the real world the critical factor WILL BE the individual who is committed and motivated to doing what is necessary in a time of extreme danger and stress. In other words the most effective weapon is one that is manned by a person who is lucid of mind and will not hesitate at the moment of truth. IMHO

Timradcliffe345
October 15, 2008, 08:00 PM
I'm leaning towards the FAL. However, the M1A has a soft spot in my heart too. Is the FAL and M1A similarly reliable? Thanks.

TexasRifleman
October 15, 2008, 08:16 PM
Is the FAL and M1A similarly reliable? Thanks.

Well built examples of either one will outlive us both.

taliv
October 15, 2008, 10:08 PM
Tim, don't kid yourself. the FAL has no advantage over the AR, in terms of practical use or collectability with or without an obana.

For someone in God Bless America, you might want to think about training, not just hardware.

The colt 6920 is as worry-free as you can get, and you can use it in any of the quality carbine classes out there. You will get a suboptimal training experience if you bring a FAL.

Seriously, you should consider that there are a *^%-ton of english-speaking professionals USING the AR/m4 at the moment. When you put things into large-scale with people who communicate, you start to learn things. important things.

That base of knowledge does not exist in the US or probably anywhere for DSA FALs. It doesn't matter how many internet posters have a beautiful specimen in their safe; it doesn't generate quality operational experience. That doesn't mean some goober won't give you twice what you paid for it after the obana, if that's all you want.

I won't bore you with the litany of ergonomical advantages the AR has over the FAL, but the cost of ammo is important. I'm sure you've already checked and found you can buy LC 5.56 for about the same price as wolf 7.62. not to mention, you can get 22lr conversions for the AR and shoot all day for $14.

Quality AR mags are plentiful.
Spare and replacement parts are much more plentiful.
Quality aftermarket parts are ubiquitous.

I'm not saying the FAL is a "bad" gun, or that DSA doesn't make a quality product.

Think of it like this... Honda made 16+ million civics that ten million people drive every day. Winnebago makes what? 10s of thousands of vehicles that people drive twice a year? I'm not saying a winnebago is dog doo. I'm just saying a rational person, especially anyone with an engineering background, would not expect one of those mfg or surrounding industries to have worked the bugs out as well or be as efficient as the other.


And I'm not just talking about the military (as if that weren't enough). Go to any tactical rifle or 3gun match. If you want to learn how to run a FAL efficiently, you're going to have to figure it out yourself.

onebigelf
October 15, 2008, 10:46 PM
I could argue that the difference between cover and concealment is the difference between 7.62x51 and 5.56x45. Someone posted a link to a video not long ago on this topic. It was surprising what SS109 penetrators out of M16's and Fn machine gun wouldn't penetrate until auto-fire hammered through, while 7.62 ball punched right on in. Truth is, it's a personal choice. I own both a FN-FAL and an AR-15. I like the FAL better. Course I'm 6'4" and 225lbs. A 10lb rifle isn't a stretch for me. YMMV.

John

AlexSpartan
October 15, 2008, 10:52 PM
FAL.

HorseSoldier
October 15, 2008, 11:00 PM
Seriously, you should consider that there are a *^%-ton of english-speaking professionals USING the AR/m4 at the moment. When you put things into large-scale with people who communicate, you start to learn things. important things.

That base of knowledge does not exist in the US or probably anywhere for DSA FALs.

There is some FAL specific instruction out there from Team Spartan (http://www.teamspartan.com/teamspartan_firearms_training_DS_Arms_FAL_SA58_Rifle_Operator.htm) (who, I think, have some relationship with DSA), among others. (Judging by the amount of 7.62x51 brass on the ground in South Hill, VA, I'm pretty certain Larry Vickers would allow FALs - or other 308 rifles -- in his classes with prior arrangement/coordination, for instance.)

But, admittedly, intensive training with 7.62x51 compared to 5.56mm is A) prohibitively expensive for most compared to 5.56mm or AK ammo and B) thoroughly unfun on the shoulder after a while.

ParaElite
October 15, 2008, 11:17 PM
I got the DPMS LR-308 for 7.62. I believe it has more inherent accuracy than the FAL or the M1A. Get it for the long range shots. For the 5.56 get a Colt 6920 or the Noveske or the LMT M4.

taliv
October 15, 2008, 11:45 PM
well I didn't say they wouldn't let you in. you're just not going to be able to do things like malfunction drills and reloads the same way as the other 20 people in class. and if you break a bolt or your extractor is weak or your sight comes loose etc etc etc... you're on your own. you won't even be able to borrow one of their loaner guns cause your ammo/mags won't fit.

in the interest of brevity, I deleted the longer version of that paragraph. I originally wrote that base of knowledge doesn't exist within several orders of magnitudes. I'm not saying nobody knows anything, but the fact that you've got to name someone who knows a little is telling, no?

I am REALLY not knocking team spartan. they look like stand-up guys. But from their instructor bios, it looks like they've got one guy... a former South African SWAT guy, who might have used a FAL in combat. (unless the chicago PD or 18Ds use FALs) Their instruction on FALs might be great, but it just can't have benefited from the collective knowledge on the scale that AR15/m4 training has.

MTMilitiaman
October 16, 2008, 02:24 AM
So it's settled then...

Since the number of rifles currently in use and the amount of training that can be received on a platform, the abundance and quality of mags, and the price of ammo are the factors we are looking at, the OP is getting an AK.

The Kalashinikov has somewhere near 100 million rifles that have been produced floating around over 100 different countries. Sixty years of Spetznas for a training base, and mags and rifle parts are everywhere.

The AR can't even dream of having the popularity, availability, or training base of the AK.

Or the OP could just learn the manual of arms for the FAL or M14 and practice with it like any normal person.

HorseSoldier
October 16, 2008, 02:30 AM
Sixty years of Spetznas for a training base, and mags and rifle parts are everywhere.

Their techniques aren't all that good, really. Guys in JSOC are running AKs better than the Russians ever dreamed of it -- at least judging by the techniques being taught here in the US by instructors coming from those two (very different) schools of combat marksmanship.

RockyMtnTactical
October 16, 2008, 06:21 AM
Their techniques aren't all that good, really. Guys in JSOC are running AKs better than the Russians ever dreamed of it -- at least judging by the techniques being taught here in the US by instructors coming from those two (very different) schools of combat marksmanship.

You missed his point. The AR sucks, the AK is the cats pajamas. :uhoh:

For the OP: In all reality, both platforms are deadly in the right hands. Choose the one you like and train with it. It doesn't matter if there are 40 billion copies of a certain design. What matters is, what is your comfort and competency level with that weapon, is it combat proven (both are, extensively)... and do you have what it takes to win a fight?

MTMilitiaman
October 16, 2008, 10:55 AM
Their techniques aren't all that good, really. Guys in JSOC are running AKs better than the Russians ever dreamed of it -- at least judging by the techniques being taught here in the US by instructors coming from those two (very different) schools of combat marksmanship.

You really are missing the point.

The point isn't that the AK is the "cats [sic] pajamas," it's that too much emphasis is being placed on training base.

As an 0311 I got some pretty good training on the M16. Maybe some of the current commercial schools have better training, but the Marine Corp is no slouch and has a pretty good idea how to run the M16 in combat. I was pretty good with it. But I still have more confidence in my ability to run the M14 and the AK.

As RMT suggests, the platform really doesn't matter as long as the user takes the time to become familiar with it. If you run the drills with pretty much anything, you adapt pretty quickly and figure out what works for you. I am not saying that a good knowledge base isn't important, because it can make learning easier, but to suggest that it is all-important is simply wrong.

Plus, let's be honest. In this country, there is a 33% chance the OP is obese and close to 50% chance he is overweight. We are only kidding ourselves if we believe we can go to a school, get some training with our shiny new rifle, and be combat ready, when we can't get our flabby hams up the damn staircase.

This is neither a personal judgment nor an insinuation of the physical stature or capabilities of the OP or anyone on this forum, but rather an acknowledgment that while mindset and training helps, there's more than goes in to it than just that.

taliv
October 16, 2008, 11:08 AM
The point isn't that the AK is the "cats [sic] pajamas," it's that too much emphasis is being placed on training base.

no. only one user in the first 20 posts mentioned training. it is not being emphasized enough.

mindset is important but mindset doesn't depend on hardware. obesity also is important but irrelevant to the OP.

but the hardware you choose DOES affect your training options.

no one is suggesting it is all-important. just that it is a major advantage for the AR compared to the FAL.

RockyMtnTactical
October 16, 2008, 02:35 PM
Plus, let's be honest. In this country, there is a 33% chance the OP is obese and close to 50% chance he is overweight. We are only kidding ourselves if we believe we can go to a school, get some training with our shiny new rifle, and be combat ready, when we can't get our flabby hams up the damn staircase.

That's if you are basing your numbers on Americans in general probably. I am willing to bet that most of us are not what you would call the average American...

The demographic that frequents this forum is probably less likely to be overweight than the average American. Just like how the average CCW holder is more likely to be a more law abiding citizen or vote for McCain over Obama... You're dealing with a completely different group of people than just "Americans in general".

If you enjoyed reading about "Colt M4 6920 vs. DSA FAL Para" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!