[Stinkyshoe]

How accurate is the Fal supposed to be? I can usually keep all hits within a 3 inch circle at 100 hundred yards with a 20 inch AR with irons. The Fal shot all over the place. Is this typical? Is this an ammo problem?
Thanks
Ss

[MLC]

I've found that the first 3 shots with my Century L1a1 are about 2.5" and the groups open as the barrel warms.
I'm sure there is alot of variation between the rifles.
What stock do you have on it?
I changed to the stock DSA sells rather than the cheap plastic thumbhole and my groups decreased in size.
What ammo are you using?

[MLC]

I use the full 12" bulls when shooting at 100.
My L1A1 hits about 10" from center.
I need to adjust the sights but don't know how :banghead: .

[cabinetman]

I'm no marksman but I own both rifles that you mention.

In my opinion, the AR in just about any configuration is very accurate with some configurations being very accurate and very capable of MOA all day long. It seems that it's the firearm du jour for anyone who completes with the M1 Garand being also very popular.

The FAL is accurate, but not as accurate as the AR or Garand. That being said, consider what the FAL was designed to do. You'll never see a FAL "sniper" rifle although they are capable of very accurate shooting even with the iron sites. The most common "original" scope for it was the Trilux which was designed for auto-fire. The FALs hit where you aim but I don't think that you can expect MOA from it unless you build one from scratch using modern barrels and sites.

In a competition where I'm shooting "things" rather than paper, my L1a1 is extremely accurate, on par with the AR. The bigger caliber also provides more knockdown power so while the AR guys are hitting bowling pins at 100 yards, for instance, I'm knocking them down with the FAL. So, in that respect, I feel that the FAL is plenty accurate in original configuration. I also know that good ammo helps. I only shoot Portuguese NATO stuff through mine exclusively and always get good results.

If it's shooting "all over the place", them maybe some improvment can be made by changing the muzzle comp and using good ammo. BTW, I never shoot anything but surplus NATO in any of my military rifles.

Don't know if that helps but hope it does.

Rome

[iamkris]

My DSA STg58a will deliver 10-shot 3" groups at 100 yds with irons. Does show vertical stringing (1" wide). Will deliver 3-shot 1-1/2 to 2" groups with a scope if I do my part. I had 1 group at 3/8" but that was an anomoly

[MLC]

an example:
http://home.comcast.net/~merlincrooks/L1A1-group-at-100.gif

[P95Carry]

I need to adjust the sights but don't know how MLC ..... You should be able to deal with elevation thru the foresight .. undo set screw and turn blade up or down.

Rear sight should adjust for windage by using the two screws ''against'' each other on the dovetail .. slacken one and tighten other .. to take sight to left or right as needed.

I have some after market sights on mine .... See this thread (http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?threadid=56430) but was issued FAL (metric) for rearsight and still am waiting to get the correct ones (inch) .. they are nice sights but will be even better if I ever get the replacement I was promised for the rear sight!

[Sunray]

Change ammo before you do anything. Try some of the Portugese ball. Mind you, if it came from Century it could be the rifle too, but changing ammo is easier and cheaper than fixing the rifle. The triggers on FAL are not known to be that great, the rifle is heavier than an AR and its sights aren't as good. Think 3" at 100 for most ball ammo. And shoot off a bench rest. Otherwise you won't eliminate shooter error.

[Stoker]

I had an issue L1A1 that was so worn that the two main assemblies moved relative to each other as I took up the first pressure on the trigger. I could see the sight picture changing backwards and forwards as I squeezed and released the trigger.

I could hit a mansized target at 300 metres most of the time and I think that was all anyone expected to be able to do.

[Dollar Bill]

The FAL is a battle rifle and not a target rifle but still should be capable of 3 moa accuracy if the rifle is in good condition and the shooter does their part. Many non-U.S. designed rifles do not have the fine degree of accuracy built into them as there has always been a tradition of target accuracy in arms produced in the U.S., more so than in other countries with the possible exception of the Swiss.

Here is an example of a recent target I fired with an FAL, a metric Imbel, but I also have an L1A1 which will shoot 2" groups even with some throat erosion in the barrel

Note this target was fired at 50 yards as my old eyes and issue iron sights do not do well at all beyond that.

Fire your rifle from a sandbag rest, support the forearm on the rest, not the barrel, do not over tighten the forearm screw and you may get a little better accuracy if you single load rounds in the rifle. Triggers on the FAL are notoriously terrible but can be managed somewhat with practice. As already stated, use quality ammo but no real reason to use "match" ammo in my opinion.

Good luck and good shooting!

[shoobe01]

Actually I have seen (and touched, myself) an FN 50.00 sniper setup. Nice.

First, almost all of us do not have FALs. We have possibly worn-out surplus guns, on possibly not well put together kits by a rushed pseudo-factory like Century or some guy in a shop reselling it. They are not necessarily gonna run right. Lots are mis-timed, so we get badly regulated sights, extraction failures, etc. Same for CETMEs, BTW.

The FAL is, AFAIK, as accurate as any battle rifle. I get this from the various bits of informal testing I have read over the years. This usually means 3-4 moa. Ammo matters a LOT. Some hate certain bullets or charges. Try some others, and try some match ammo. I think it can be worth it. Single loading is superior for crazy-accuracy. Maybe even turn off the gas.

Oh, and how are you shooting it? Offhand, no one is that good. Prone, better. Slings pull the barrel, so are not trustworthy except on the best sling shooters. Bipod? Not from concrete (it'll skip and stuff), and you have to push into it consistently or it varies. Get a rest, or at least some sandbags.

With Portugese (ie: normal crappy military ball) my Imbel gear Century with lots of little cleanup work once ran under 2.5 moa off a bipod on concrete. That's good. I was just at the range the other day, and only brought home targets for measuring the PSS accuracy; didn't group the FAL but but it was shooting good. Hits on 2" squares offhand. We did bench it, but I can't recall how well it did.

[Sylvilagus Aquaticus]

I have a (nib kit) STg58 parts kit on a DSA type 2 receiver. After some detail work with the gas system I put 20 rounds (off the bipod) in a group I could cover with my palm at 100 yards, using Black Hills Match ammo. Granted I have pretty good sized hands, but they're not huge. If I can find that target I'll scan it and put it up here. Generally 3 to 4 inch groups at 100 meters aren't unreasonable with a service grade FAL. Someone on the TXFAL group said they were getting 3/4 to 1 inch groups at 100 meters with a new DSA, but that's a different critter from a real parts gun. I didn't see him run that string, either.

My Comp HBAR 6700 is a different proposition altogether.

Regards,
Rabbit.

[Rastenborg]

I need a new barrel.
Century Arms International
Has anyone changed the barrel on on an Imbel/L1A1? How?
I understand the inch barrel threads are altered to fit and additional breeching washers may have to be used.

[Bwana John]

I have found that all new unissued parts make for a much more accurate, precise, and dependable FAL.

Finding them can be an expensive and time consuming thing.

[cabinetman]

Geesh! You certainly had to dig for this one!

First off, let me suggest that you go here and post your question:

http://www.falfiles.com/forums/index.php

Second, the 'metric' FAL does use what's called a breeching washer. So, each barrel will "time" differently and the breeching washer is used to assist in getting the barrel to index properly. It's not hard but finding the right washer thickness is critical to a successful installation.

The guys at FalFiles and the forum itself will provide a lot of information. I'd strongly suggest you go there and poke.

Hope that helps.

Rome

[AK103K]

First, almost all of us do not have FALs. We have possibly worn-out surplus guns, on possibly not well put together kits by a rushed pseudo-factory like Century or some guy in a shop reselling it. They are not necessarily gonna run right. Lots are mis-timed, so we get badly regulated sights, extraction failures, etc.
This has been my experience. I had the great displeasure of having for a short time two L1A1 kit guns. They were not Century, but it seems there are drunken monkeys elsewhere too.

I owned an FN FAL back in the 80's. It was reliable and a nice rifle all around, but it wasnt what I'd call accurate. It had the same habit as most FAL's I've shot of stringing its groups (if you could call it that, more like a line) as the gun warms up. The FAL's sights are not the best either.

I've heard some of the newer, top of the line, FAL's are better accuracy wise, but I just dont have any FAL left in me. I just think there are other things out there that are a better choice. I do wish now I hadnt sold that FN, it would be a nice example of what a FAL is, especially compared to whats out there now.

This isnt all a FAL issue either, as was mentioned, CETME's and other "copycat" rifles are also problematic. You usually dont usually have problems with rifles built by the factories that made or make guns for the military and/or civilian markets, or major makers, such as Colt, Armalite, HK, and Bushmaster(to a point), etc. I learned my lessons on kit guns and avoid them like the plague these days. The only way I might consider one is, if I could keep it for 6 months and shoot the hell out of it first. I'd really rather pay extra for a good one right off and not have to worry about it. The old adage "only a rich man can afford cheap stuff" is spot on. I'd rather say "ouch" once, than $%#^&%@#, over and over. :)


Kind of a funny and appropriate side note to this. When I was running the spell checker, it came up with "fails" as the first choice for correcting FAL. Kinda makes ya wonder. :)

[cabinetman]

Back when you first had an FAL it was most probably built on a Hesse receiver. They were notoriously poor and caused many issues. Since then, many different FAL receivers have been designed and manufactured with terrific results. Even the "unibrow" CIA receivers worked fine when properly installed into a good kit. I've got one that I would not trade for anything and would rely on it in any situation. Unfortunately, CIA also made the CETME with the HESSE receivers with similar results. As soon as they abandoned them, the CETME became a great rifle.

I would strongly recommend that you look at another FAL but this time one with a DSL or InterArms or any other receiver and you will have a chance of heart. The FAL wasn't used by 60 countries as it's main battle rifle for any other reason than it was reliable, accurate, and rugged. The new receiver do it justice.

Just thought I'd chime in.

Rome

[DougW]

:D My L1A1 Aussie on the Entreprise Type 3 reciever I built some years ago is quite accurate. 3" @ 100 yards is normal with this rifle. Hy hand loads have done a little better, but I have to do my part. The .308 is a harder hitting load on steel than the .223, and I have always enjoyed using the L1A1 in 3 gun matches. I am currently using a 16" mid length HBAR for 3 gun's, but I will probably use the L1 in the spring match.