[Telperion]

I've read it here, on TFL, and in print that the FAL design is not favorable to extreme accuracy. Could somebody explain why? Maybe a primer on its operation is in order; I am not very familiar with the FAL action, and unfortunately all the links at Falfiles.com are just static text.

[natedog]

FALs, like most selfloaders, are less accurate simply because becoming more accurate involves tightening up the tolerances in the mechanisms, which can lead to reliability problems. It's a battle rifle, designed to be able to hit men up to 300-500 (500 is stretching it quite a bit though). Also, selflloaders have many moving parts and assemblies that slam back and forth during recoil, which can slightly throw accuracy off.

[atek3]

you've got a few things working against you... barrel is most definatly not freefloated. G1 Kits have a bipod...that influences barrel harmonics, not the greatest for shot to shot repeatablitity. Other kits have a sling swivel directly around the barrel, meaning a sling is good for carrying, not for shooting stability. The MOST triggers are not up to the standard of a good M1A. My trigger is decent, I bought the TRP kit from falcon arms. The stock sights are battle sights. Beater FAL's have up to a 0.05 inch of play in the rear sight dramatically affecting accuracy.

more later,
atek3

[Nightcrawler]

What do you mean by "extreme" accuracy?

If you have a FAL built up as such (and people over at the FAL Files have), it can be suprisingly accurate. On average, though, a basic FAL is a 2.5 to 3 MOA rifle. Some better, some worse (mine's about a 2.5 MOA).

It's more like an AK than an SR-25, though. Reliable and low-maintenance. The loose tolerances that make it reliable when dirty or ill-kept also make it not able to do sub-MOA groups, as a rule, but it was never intended to be a sniper rifle. Dollars for doughnuts a FAL will beat an SR-25 or AR-10(T) in the battlefield reliability department any day of the week, hands down.

I would not say that it's an inaccurate rifle. It's accurate enough to hit a man sized target out to 600m. That's all it was designed for. It isn't really any less accurate than a rack-grade M1 Garand, M14, or G3, and certainly no less accurate than available semiautos like the Saiga, Vepr, Cetme sporter, etc. The design just doesn't lend itself to "match grade" modifications.

[atek3]

what nightcrawler said.
atek3

[PATH]

It is good enough for government work!;)

[duckfoot]

I think there was a fella named "Vandenberg" I think I got that right, and here is a pic of one of the rifles he put together.

http://www.thehighroad.org/attachment.php?s=&postid=926890

[atek3]

come on, thats like comparing a box stock ar15a2 and a medesha space gun, no contest.

atek3

PS i wonder if that space fal is as accurate as an AR-10(t)

[shoobe01]

This came up on this thread (http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?s=&threadid=75148&highlight=gear) recently.

My basic opinion is that any issue autoloader is only generally a 2-4 moa gun. Some shoot better, and some can be made to shoot much better, but frequently at the expense of reliability. I've also seen reports (can't find them now) of machine-rested accuracy tests, and the AK is not markedly less accurate than anything else. Its sights, other ergonomics and relatively higher trajectory can make it hard to hit with, though.

Also, the FAL (and CETME) in the US over the last two years are not FALs and CETMEs for the most part. They are used military kits, sometimes heavily used, built up by any number of not-necessarily skilled folks, on receivers that may or may not be correct. Not the best case for accuracy and reliability. Also, issue Garands, though wonderful in their best form, sometimes run out past 6 moa when in well-worn condition.

The AR is so popular that there are lots of different barrels, twists, stocks, etc. Plenty of people shoot floated barrels. Army issue M16s and M4s are, anecdotally, just okay (2 moa) in the accuracy department as well, despite the ability to tune up the design.

My FAL (basically just a Century-built gear logo Imbel) shoots somewhere in the 1.5 - 2 moa range with military ball. All these discussions mean I need to /really/ shoot it for groups next time I hit the range.

[Mikul]

As mentioned before, the non-freefloated handguard (correctable), the HUGE rear sight aperture (correctable), and the trigger-pull of the damned (somewhat correctable) are some big problems.

The front and rear sights are located on different receivers (rear on lower, front on upper) which lets them move around.

[SodaPop]

My stock DSA-STG58 Type II rifle shoots 10 inch groups at 500yds with Portugese ammo.

Sometimes, not always, people need to pay more attention to the ammo and the shooter than just the rifle design.

The M1A tends to have a better trigger design, but both can become high maintence sniper rifles if you really want them to. I don't think most WWII sniper rifles were sub-MOA.

[Sven]

Getting 0.50-0.75" groups with iron sights out of my M1A at 100 yards, with M118LR - does _any_ FAL do this?

The reliability point is a good one, for field use or extreme situations... my M1A is babied, as it were.

[Nando Aqui]

Pipsqueak-

To answer your question, this is what I have read as explanation:
The reason the FAL design does not lend itself to 'better' accuracy is that the bolt lock-up is a 'falling' motion instead of a rotating motion. As I understand it, the rotating lock up is more secure, as is used in a bolt rifle and as in the AR-type semi-auto among others.

One of the factors that affects accuracy on the 'falling' lock up design on the FAL (something I have experienced this with my DSA SA58), is that the rounds in the magazine exert upward pressure on the bolt, and this pressure varies with the numbers of rounds left in the magazine, and also varies from magazine to magazine. I talked to DSA about this over a year ago, and they agreed that this (the magazine variability and the number of rounds) can in fact affect accuracy, albeit more in some rifles than others. You may get lucky and get a 1-MOA specimen, but 2-1/2 to 3 MOA may be more the norm.

My 2¢

Alex

[shoobe01]

Sorry, but I buy none of this lockup-style stuff. 1) These are very, very, very small mechanical differences. 2) The bolt (any gas operated bolt) cannot be unlocked by just shoving on it anywhere ya want to; you have to tap where the piston taps. 3) I have heard, back when the AR was newish, that rotators were bad because they could twist the action and cause inaccuracy. Obviously untrue, and we've had rotating bolts before this (Garand anyone). If anything, a tipping block has less mass moving about less distance than most rotating bolts.

Also, all self-loaders have magazines with bullets and springs. The pressure is tiny compared to the other forces, but is also nearly identical for all other guns.

And, mine does the same thing from a rest, whether chamber loaded with no mag, or fired from any of the magazines.


We could also start a thread about the inaccuracy of the CETME (because they are mostly tired old kit guns also), and I'd counter that with the PSG-1. If someone puts their mind to making a psycho-accurate version, and someone else will pay insane amounts of money for it, you can wring a lot of precision out of almost any mechanical system.

[artech]

If you want small groups from a FAL, put the gas plug on single shot and fire it like a bolt action. Mine goes from 2 inch groups down to 3/4 to 1 inch groups.

I have absolutely no idea why, but it works.:scrutiny:

Ammo is also a major factor, at least in my guns. Some surplus ammo(indian) barely even groups, like six inches at 100, and some other(portugese) will lay right in at two inches. I bet with handloads I could do a bit better.

Don't knock the FAL too hard, most will shoot right along with any rack grade service rifle, and that's what they are, after all...;)

[duckfoot]

DevilDucky says "Fals Rule!"

[shoobe01]

Just got back from the range. The PSS was wonderful, but here are my FAL results.

6" at 300m (330 yds). So 2 moa. And this is not insane in any way. Its a Century-built StG kit on a gear-logo Imbel receiver. It's got the DSA pre-stoned trigger, the Tapco SAW-look but and grip, a Belgian-style bipod cut forearm, and para flipover sights. Set today for 250m, which worked fine.

Shooting South African R1 military surplus ball, so nothing spectacular there (though the PSS put the same stuff into 1.25" at 100m). And no support of any sort. No bags, no benches, no rests, no bipod no sling. On the ground prone, and then sitting. Same results both times. Not even firing that slowly. Magazine feeding, from two different 20s loaded to 5 each and with Mag Puls on the bottom.

With all this in mind, it seems eminently possible that match ammo on a rest with my rifle could sneak up near the 1 minute realm. What can a spacegun conversion, with 24" heavy barrel and float tube (as seen above) do? I can only guess. 1/2 minute? And with .308.


Another note, my friend had a .223 bolt rifle that runs in well under 1/2 inch at 100. Not particularly serious wind (paper noting chrono velocities didn't blow away if left on a table) caused 11 of 14 rounds to be off the target entirely at 300. For any reality, action or just targets, I feel good with the .308.

[Limey-]

My IZZY HB FAL kept up with my HK91 very well and it was no slouch
but the HB's no 'ordinary' FAL.That said theres nothing 'ordinary' about an FAL.