FAL question

[Voland]

I've been thinking about picking up a new or like new FAL. I've got about $1500 to $1800 to spend but I am not sure who makes the more desirable and reliable versions. Can some one please educate me on whats good and what I should stay away from??

My biggest concern is that I keep hearing stories of people getting as new FAL's that would not keep a group and would not feed reliably. Are these really just the few bad apples out there or is this going to be the case with most after marked FAL's?

Thanks!
V.

 

[Hoppy590]

DSA makes the top FAL's but they will take up most of your budget.

the FAL's you hear about feeding problems are probably century builds with the improper unibrow feed ramp.

 

[AndyC]

A DSA STG58 is probably the cheapest you'll find, built mostly out of Austrian parts (great quality) and with a new US-made barrel and upper receiver - $1,150 MSRP.

I personally don't like the bipod nor the steel handguards, but those are easily removed/replaced.

Another option, of course, would be to cruise the various online auctions like GunJoker etc, but if you don't know what you're doing you're likely to overpay or get ripped-off. Yet another option would be to get your butt over to falfiles.com and register for the forum - there's a Marketplace there with FALs and FAL kits for sale, along with the expertise of the various board-members.

 

[iamkris]

Top rifle = DSA SA58 Para = ~$1800 (all told)
Bottom rifle = DSA StG58 = ~$1000

Both are great rifles and have been nearly flawless in operation. I love FALs



I like the 16" para for handiness.



Accuracy...well, the FAL will never win long range sniper contests but my SA58 has great trigger and printed these two groups at 50 yards and using the non-magnified EoTech (difference in elevation is due to changing the elevation on the sight) with South African surplus.



It now wears a Millet DMS-1 1-4x illuminated circle-dot reticle

 

[lencac]

Heck for that kind of money you could get a loaded M1A or an AR10.

 

[Hoppy590]

Heck for that kind of money you could get a loaded M1A or an AR10.

M1A rather heavy, traditional stock

Ar-10 no standardization

FAL all the way!

 

[lencac]

Hoppy I've had both. The only comparison IS the weight. The FAL is very close to the same weight as the M1A. Close enough to not matter. M1A more reliable and more accurate and has much better sights and better ergo. Resale value on the M1A is also much better too. FAL for $800 bucks ok but for $1500 to $1800 no way!

 

[Ash]

Guy wants an FAL.

Ash

 

[lencac]

Ash would you buy an FAL for say $1650?

 

[Lone_Gunman]

Heck for that kind of money you could get a loaded M1A or an AR10.

The DSA FAL's are better than AR10's and the M1A

 

[Hoppy590]

M1A more reliable and more accurate and has much better sights and better ergo.

more accurate, maybe. more ergonomic and reliable as a modern combat rifle... not in my opinion

 

[Lone_Gunman]

I don't think the people trashing FALs in this thread have ever handled a DSA

 

[Stevie-Ray]

I don't think the people trashing FALs in this thread have ever handled a DSA

Or an SAR-48. I bought mine over an M1A and a SAR-3. Still would to this day.

 

[Ash]

Or an Imbel with Izzy furniture. It doesn't really matter in any case. An STG-58 from DSA will run considerably less than $1,650, say, $500 less. And, if my understanding of language goes, that remains an FAL from DSA. Frankly, for me, a large number of extremely high-quality Austrian parts is ideal. But, then, the same is said of M14's. An LRB made up on a US parts kit will cost how much?
Ash

 

[navajo]

better?

Owned 7 M1As. Still have my first one.
Zero malfunctions over about 30 years.
Own 3 AR 10s. One mag malfunction, 5 second fix.
Own one DSA FAL. Most unreliable rifle I have ever seen

Everyone makes a lemon now and then.

 

[TexasRifleman]

Own one DSA FAL. Most unreliable rifle I have ever seen

Which is odd since they have a warranty. What did DSA say when you sent it back to them?


I have 2 DSA rifles and they are all flawless. One "collector" model of the G1 and 1 more standard configuration. All very high quality builds and flawless reliability.

Keep in mind though that these are 2-3 MOA rifles and that's all they were ever intended to be.

 

[M1911]

M1A rather heavy, traditional stock

Ar-10 no standardization

FAL all the way!

I've got all three. I greatly prefer the M1A.

My Armalite AR10A4 has some advantages -- easiest to scope, best ergonomics, great trigger, excellent sights. But the magazines locking mechanism is a bit dodgy. It is easy to not seat the magazine completely. When that happens, your first shot fires, the magazine slides down under recoil, and the bolt carrier does not pick up the next round. Bad juju. Perhaps they've fixed this, as I have an early AR10A4.

The FAL has crummy sights, a trigger that is fair at best, and the balance just seems off to me. To me, it feels way too front heavy and very awkward to shoot offhand. Accuracy is only fair. The gas adjustment is a pointless complication that, if ill-adjusted, can jam the rifle (been there, done that). FAL magazines are far less sturdy than M14 magazines and are the only ones that I've ever had the base plate pop off, dumping the rounds at my feet. Bad judu. The FAL can be scoped, but the scope mount is a bit of a kludge.

The M1A has the best sights and best trigger out of the box. Most any decent gunsmith has experience tuning an M1A/Garand trigger, if need be. It balances the best of the three for me. It is no heavier than either of the other rifles. I don't care for the position of the safety, but it works. It is very accurate out of the box. Scope mounting is an issue, however.

Personally, I just can't understand the attraction of the FAL. It feels like a boat anchor to me. YMMV.

 

[daskro]

Personally, I just can't understand the attraction of the FAL. It feels like a boat anchor to me. YMMV.

For many the attraction is its rich history as "The Right Arm of Freedom." The the only reason why I have one of my to buy list.

 

[TexasRifleman]

The gas adjustment is a pointless complication that, if ill-adjusted, can jam the rifle (been there, done that).

If your M1A gas system gets clogged you are out of luck, If your FAL gas system gets clogged you open it a couple of more clicks and keep shooting.

If you can read and follow basic instructions you can adjust the gas system on a FAL.

 

[Grayrider]

Unfortunately it is true that many shooters only experience with FALs are from poor quality makers or "gunsmiths" who build them in their garage or small shops with no real qualifications. I have fired several such guns over the years that were unreliable, recoiled excessively due to over-sized gas ports, and just plain looked terrible with junky parts and poorly cast receivers. I can understand how a shooter would reject one of those in favor of another battle rifle. However, if you get a quality FAL from a company that knows how to build them the situation is entirely different. The SA58, STG58, factory Imbels, Belgian FALs, and the occasional other foreign made rifles are true military spec guns. The same cannot be said of most other currently produced battle rifles in the United States. When DSA builds an SA58 for a customer, apart from the absence of the full auto position on the selector it is the exact same rifle we sell to military customers around the world. To me that makes the SA58 a unique product on the market today. Hopefully it still will be after the next president takes office.

John

 

[Bwana John]

"The gas adjustment is a pointless complication that, if ill-adjusted, can jam the rifle (been there, done that)".

If your M1A gas system gets clogged you are out of luck, If your FAL gas system gets clogged you open it a couple of more clicks and keep shooting.

If the M-1A gas system gets pluged with carbon the bolt is actually worked harder. Ive never heard about a problem with the gas system on a M-1A (or non-adjustable M-1, or M-1 carbine, or AK, or AR).
Just about everybody experiances "problems" with the FAL
adjustable system. The adjustable gas system is a mistake.

The M-1 a is more accurate, has a better trigger, better sights, and IMO more reliable. Neither mount a scope well.

BUT

The FAL is way cool Ive got 3 FALS, and only one M-1A.

 

[Deer Hunter]

People whine way too much about the FAL's gas adjustment.

Seriously, it's not that big of a hassle. I've kept mine on "5" ever since I got it. I've played around with it, and it's not hard to figure out.

FAL sights arn't as bad as people make them out to be.

Scoping a FAL is easy when a DSA mount is involved. Mine takes a scope very well.

They are about 2 MOA rifles with the right ammo and shooter.

All in all they are great guns. I paid $860 for my STG58.

 

[TexasRifleman]

Just about everybody experiances "problems" with the FAL
adjustable system. The adjustable gas system is a mistake.

Hmm, kinda surprised to hear you of all people say that.

The world must be ending

I will agree that a lot of people experience "problems" with the FAL gas, but it's nearly always because they don't understand how it works.

 

[M1911]

I will agree that a lot of people experience "problems" with the FAL gas, but it's nearly always because they don't understand how it works.

I've never experienced a problem with the gas system on my M1A or my Garands. I don't have to "understand" it. I don't have to read, understand, and follow a multi-step process. It just works. Every time.

I'm not the only one who has misadjusted a FAL gas system. John Farnam received a letter from DS Arms that he posted in his "Quips."

These sage comments on FAL gas adjustment from my friend and colleague, John Krupa, Director of Training for DSA:

"Not knowing that one can control gas-flow on this weapon has led to countless customer-service calls to DSA, complaining that the rifle 'doesn't work.' The following is laid out in great detail in the Owners's Manual, of course, but we are happy to explain to each owner how the gas-regulator works and then walk them through correct gas-regulator adjustment. Invariably, whenwe' re finished, like a miracle, the rifle suddenly runs fine!

(1) The gas vent is directly behind the base of the front sight. We start the process with the gas-regulator set to the full-open position, which is # 7 on the gas-regulator dial. The vent-hole will be visibly open all the way. Next, we start to close off the gas-regulator vent by turning the dial clockwise two clicks, which will place it at # 6. You will now see that the vent hole is partially occluded. From here, we can start our live-fire, function testing.

(2) Charge a magazine with a single round of ammunition. Insert the magazine into the rifle and chamber the round. Holding the rifle in a normal, standing position (bench-resting is not recommended) aim into the impact area and fire one round. When the bolt fails to lock back, not enough gas is driving the piston into the bolt group for a complete cycle of operation. So, close the gas regulator another, single click, which will put it at 5 1/2, and then repeat the one-shot drill. Continue to close off the gas-regulator, a click at a time, until consistent (three in a row) bolt-lock is achieved

(2) When the bolt thus consistently locks to the rear after firing a single round, insert a magazine charged with five rounds, load the rifle, and fire all five in rapid succession. Once again, the bolt needs to unfailingly lock to the rear as the last round is fired.

(3) Once your rifle passes the 'five-round test,' close thegas-regulator two more clicks! The gas regulator is now 'set.' Just about all rifles we issue for student use have a final set at 4 to 4 . That is pretty standard.

(4) When the rifle gets hot, dry, and dirty, and starts short-cycling, you can use the gas-regulator dial to quickly make incremental increases in gas pressure, instantly restoring the rifle to normal functioning.

I don't recommend closing the gas-regulator completely, as you suggested in your last Quip, unless absolutely necessary. What concerns me is not excessive wear-and-tear on the rifle. The DSA/FAL is a robust, military rifle that is designed for heavy use in hostile environments. It will take whatever you can give it! Nor is my concern with accuracy. Practical accuracy is unaffected by gas-regulator adjustments. Nor is my concern with recoil attenuation. Soft recoil is nice, but we can all handle recoil. The real problem is with case-extraction that is so violent it may result in cases being literally pulled apart as the bolt moves to the rear. The front half of the case may thus be left in the chamber, resulting in a stoppage that cannot be corrected in the short term.

Full text here: http://www.defense-training.com/quips/2007/01Nov07.html

If you misadjust the FAL gas system to give the action too much pressure, as John Krupa describes above, you can tear up the cartridge case, jamming the rifle very badly.

If you misadjust the FAL gas system to give it too little pressure (as I have done), the cartridge case is only partially ejected and gets lodged between the bolt carrier and the dust cover. You can't remove the dust cover because to do that you have to break open the rifle, and you can't break open the rifle because the bolt carrier is not all the way forward. You can't push the bolt carrier forward because the cartridge case is jammed between it and the dust cover. Been there, done that, twice. Yes, it was my fault for not following the procedure correctly. I have since followed the procedure correctly.

On the other hand, the procedure for adjusting the gas system on my M1A is as follows: [ ]. You're all done. It just works.

FAL sights arn't as bad as people make them out to be.

We'll have to agree to disagree on that.

Unfortunately it is true that many shooters only experience with FALs are from poor quality makers or "gunsmiths" who build them in their garage or small shops with no real qualifications. I have fired several such guns over the years that were unreliable, recoiled excessively due to over-sized gas ports, and just plain looked terrible with junky parts and poorly cast receivers.

Mine is built with mostly STG58 parts on an Imbel receiver. The required US-made parts came from DS Arms. It was built by a competent FAL gunsmith. It is reliable (other than my misadjustment to the gas system). It doesn't recoil excessively. Nor does it look "terrible."

As I said previously, it isn't as accurate as my M1A. The trigger is only fair. The sights are only fair. The balance seems front-heavy to me. None of those issues are due poor quality parts or poor assembly. As others have stated, the FAL is a 2-3 MOA rifle, at best.

 

[TexasRifleman]

If you misadjust the FAL gas system to give it too little pressure (as I have done), the cartridge case is only partially ejected and gets lodged between the bolt carrier and the dust cover. You can't remove the dust cover because to do that you have to break open the rifle, and you can't break open the rifle because the bolt carrier is not all the way forward. You can't push the bolt carrier forward because the cartridge case is jammed between it and the dust cover.

That, once again, is lack of familiarity with the proper procedure.

That scenario is for the pogo move. It's documented too. That no one wants to do it to their pretty rifle is a different topic

Just because the rifle is different and has a different manual of arms from other rifles does not mean that it's faulty when someone doesn't know how to use it.

Everyone keeps turning this back to a FAL vs M1A debate, and that's not was not the original question. Certainly the M14 beats the FAL in just about every area although I do like the adjustable gas system on the FAL and there are kits available to make the M1A gas system adjustable as well. However, you do have to know how to use it.

The original question was whether or not the FALs on the market today are generally reliable and the answer is that yes, some of the new manufactured FALs are perfectly reliable as long as you know how to use them and what to look out for.