FAL Help?

Status
Not open for further replies.
J

JCooperfan1911

member
Joined
Oct 8, 2020
Messages
2,709
The time comes in every man’s life where he considers purchasing a semi-automatic 7.62x51mm battle rifle. Doesn’t it? Well for me, I am seriously considering the purchase of an FN FAL.

D209-BEE1-58-AA-4-C4-E-85-F5-31006-D68-FA23.jpg

But I am not so sure about the models available in the U.S. right now. Does anyone still even make FALs? Are they worth buying if so? If not, what’s a good used model I should hunt for? I’m looking for a basic military model and not some modern short barrel tacticool affair.

Thanks guys!
 
I had three back in the 90's, an FN and a couple of "kit guns" put together on L1A1 kits. Cool guns, but I didn't find them all that accurate and all would start to string their shots once they started to warm up, and never really shot "groups".

The kit guns were kind of a PITA too, and never seemed to be reliable. The FN worked great. I didn't keep them long, as I was more into the M1's and M1A's at the time. They all seemed to shoot much better.

You might want to read up on them a bit, as there are different versions, metric vs inch, etc, and if I remember right, some mags don't work with some guns. Its been a while since I had them and I may be misremembering too.
 
Ah yes, the finicky princess of main battle rifles.

Do it once, do it right.

A 50.63 from Fabrique Nationale dArmes de Guerre
R.jpg

It ain't gonna be cheap, it ain't gonna be precise, it ain't gonna be easy to find... But its gonna work without resorting to totally redoing a parts gun or reverse engineering like a DSA.

Now, if you enjoy "futzing"... buy a Imbel receiver, find a never used parts kit in your favorite configuration, ~$350 in fixtures, gauges, and tools, a ARS workbook, and go for it yourself.
 
To my knowledge there's only one U.S. company making FALs and that's DSA:

https://www.dsarms.com/c-936-ds-arms-sa58-fal-rifles.aspx

They make about every metric version going.

you're other choice is going through Arizona Response Systems:

https://www.arizonaresponsesystems.com/

It's been a long time since I was 'into' FALs but another great resource and possible source for used guns is the FAL Files Forum, you may have to register to gain access. There was a time when kit's were readily available and FALs were cheap. Back then FAL mags were literally $5 a piece and kits a couple hundred. Like many other things those days are gone.

I paid close to $1000 for my DSA Para back then and now new they're close to 2K. You could order direct from DSA in those days and have it shipped to your FFL.

xgt0Dxll.jpg
 
Last edited:
All of my experience is with the Austrian and Belgian FAL's. As in, actual select fire "real" ones. For general purpose use, I considered them much better than the G3 or the M14 rifles that were the FAL's NATO competitors of the era. Nowadays, I prefer the AR10 for self loading 308 fun.
 
FL-NC said:
All of my experience is with the Austrian and Belgian FAL's. As in, actual select fire "real" ones. For general purpose use, I considered them much better than the G3 or the M14 rifles that were the FAL's NATO competitors of the era. Nowadays, I prefer the AR10 for self loading 308 fun.
Click to expand...

Interesting, thank you. How would you rate the usefulness of full auto with an FN FAL? I understand the British issued the semi-auto only L1A1.
 
JCooperfan1911 said:
Interesting, thank you. How would you rate the usefulness of full auto with an FN FAL? I understand the British issued the semi-auto only L1A1.
Click to expand...
Equally worthless as any other rifle in that caliber on FA. Lots of noise, difficult to control. The Israelis made a version with a heavy barrel and bipod that I heard works decent for FA, but like every other FAL, it is handicapped by not being belt fed, firing from a closed bolt, and not having a quick change barrel. Those are the types of weapons FA works with.
 
I've shot a few semi auto build guns, including an L1A1 I built for a former Royal Marine. Bad triggers, mediocre accuracy. Noting to write home about. The M1A is a better 7.62 rifle, but I agree with FL-NC, if I wanted one, it would be an AR-10.
 
I have been unhappy with DSA parts, went to get NOS ones from LarryFA at some effort instead for my gun. That and a few I have seen make me vaguely suspicious of them. I guess they run but they seem to have drifted a bit. Not in love

Depending on budget, I'd look for an original factory gun. FN imported a number, but also the Springfield SAR4800 and... I am sure others I forget now.

A LOT of kit built ones were very good. Might be worth looking on auction sites for people selling guns that have been to ARS, etc.

The Imbel receiver is a good point. Receiver is critical, everything else can be worked on with normal tools. Even headspace is knowledge and normal tools vs having to pull and re-time the barrel. My one remaining FAL is an Imbel gear logo StG 58 parts kit put together by... Century! The gun is solid at it's core so the few not great bits I just replaced. No problem! Runs like a top. 600 yds accurate.

The best scope mount, if you need one, is the ARMS #3. They make for both fixed and para. Don't talk to me about the Extreme Duty mount, etc. This is the way. Even better, someone used to machine in a slot to directly bolt on ACOGs. Not pic rails, bolt on. Slick solution.

Last note when looking; be aware of the difference between para and not. The folder has a different bolt carrier and recoil spring. You cannot just switch stocks to make it fold. If willing to get all the bits, the lower is not the serialized bit, so you can switch between the two though. I have both folder and fixed for my receiver. Change every few years as the whim strikes.
 
JCooperfan1911 said:
Interesting, thank you. How would you rate the usefulness of full auto with an FN FAL? I understand the British issued the semi-auto only L1A1.
Click to expand...

My understanding of the Falkland island war between Argentina and England, both sides were using FN FALs. Argentina 's were select fire, English were Semi-auto. Whenever a Argentinean rifle was available, it was immediately taken in place of the British version.

Good Luck
 
Jerry M said:
My understanding of the Falkland island war between Argentina and England, both sides were using FN FALs. Argentina 's were select fire, English were Semi-auto. Whenever a Argentinean rifle was available, it was immediately taken in place of the British version.

Good Luck
Click to expand...

I see. I researched this and it does seem the fully automatic Argentine rifles were highly coveted by British troops during that conflict. The semi-auto L1A1s were found severely lacking for combat purposes against the full auto enemie’s rifles. It seems not so “worthless” after all.
 
I owned an genuine Belgian made FN LAR MATCH for 30 years. I bought it when I was 21 because I thought it looked cool. It has an adjustible gas block and after adjusting it, it kicked like a mule. It was fairly accurate (about 1.5 moa). The trigger was heavy but crisp. A scope might have tightened up my groups but there's really no good way to mount one.

I assembled an AR308 with Aero Precision receivers. I installed an SLR Rifleworks adjustable gas block. I shoot handloaded Hornady 178gr ELD-X bullets. It has virtually zero recoil and has sub-moa accuracy.
 
There is a standard butt stock, which is too short for modern Americans and which will allow the rear sight to chip your glasses.

There was also a longer butt stock which I preferred. I think this is the longer buttstock.

8qtbKP3.jpg

this grip is more comfortable than the issue.

GB3ybV2.jpg

The gunsmith who built my FAL also drilled and tapped the rear sight and used these AR15 NM aperatures. Worked great

kwIiIJg.jpg

I recall a post where the writer spent a lot of money on a match barrel and did other modifications to make a FAL into a target rifle. The writer never got the thing to shoot to his standards. But, one hole groups were not important to the military post WW2, match grade accuracy was not needed as the troops were not going to be trained to that level. I saw test reports from the 1950's , test FALS with issue ammunition shot 11 inch groups against the 5 to 6 inch groups of the prototype M14's. That is probably not the true accuracy of the developed rifle as the T48's of the period had all sorts of barrel interior diameter issues. However, 4 MOA was just fine for a combat rifle.

@Hummer70 wrote this:

http://thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?p=5424409

The M14 in issue condition is known as the worst performing rifle we ever fielded. I worked product engineering for the Army Small Cal Lab at Picatinny Arsenal and I had engineering responsibility for the M14 until the Chief transferred me to the Dover Devil MG project. While there my board was adjacent to Julio Savioli who was the draftsman for the M14 rifle and his name is on all the drawings for it. Al Cole was engineer in charge of the M14 and he was also a friend. Savy (as we called him) was a wealth of information on the M14 and had all kinds of stories about it as he not only did the drawings, he was in on the field testing.

First off consider the requirement facts from the engineering files from the government weapons production efforts.

1. acceptance accuracy for 1903 Springfield was 3" at 100 yards.
2. acceptance accuracy for M1 Garand was 5" at 100 yards.
3. acceptance accuracy for M14 was 5.5" at 100 yards and was waivered continually as it could not meet that.
4. acceptance accuracy for M16 series is 4.5" at 100 yards.

From SAAMI we have a recommendation of 3" at 100 yards and it is up to the vendor whether he wants to meet this or not.

H&R also made M14s and M1s and the contracts were shut down due to poor QA.

The M14 if rebuilt correctly and very few can do so is capable of acceptable accuracy. For instance the Army MTU rebuild program with rifle fired from machine rest was 10 shots in 4.5" at 300 yards. Some would go to 3" but rarely. A good bolt gun will shoot in 2" at 300 yards.
 
Slamfire said:
There is a standard butt stock, which is too short for modern Americans and which will allow the rear sight to chip your glasses.

There was also a longer butt stock which I preferred. I think this is the longer buttstock.

View attachment 1046162

this grip is more comfortable than the issue.

View attachment 1046163

The gunsmith who built my FAL also drilled and tapped the rear sight and used these AR15 NM aperatures. Worked great

View attachment 1046164

I recall a post where the writer spent a lot of money on a match barrel and did other modifications to make a FAL into a target rifle. The writer never got the thing to shoot to his standards. But, one hole groups were not important to the military post WW2, match grade accuracy was not needed as the troops were not going to be trained to that level. I saw test reports from the 1950's , test FALS with issue ammunition shot 11 inch groups against the 5 to 6 inch groups of the prototype M14's. That is probably not the true accuracy of the developed rifle as the T48's of the period had all sorts of barrel interior diameter issues. However, 4 MOA was just fine for a combat rifle.

@Hummer70 wrote this:

http://thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?p=5424409

The M14 in issue condition is known as the worst performing rifle we ever fielded. I worked product engineering for the Army Small Cal Lab at Picatinny Arsenal and I had engineering responsibility for the M14 until the Chief transferred me to the Dover Devil MG project. While there my board was adjacent to Julio Savioli who was the draftsman for the M14 rifle and his name is on all the drawings for it. Al Cole was engineer in charge of the M14 and he was also a friend. Savy (as we called him) was a wealth of information on the M14 and had all kinds of stories about it as he not only did the drawings, he was in on the field testing.

First off consider the requirement facts from the engineering files from the government weapons production efforts.

1. acceptance accuracy for 1903 Springfield was 3" at 100 yards.
2. acceptance accuracy for M1 Garand was 5" at 100 yards.
3. acceptance accuracy for M14 was 5.5" at 100 yards and was waivered continually as it could not meet that.
4. acceptance accuracy for M16 series is 4.5" at 100 yards.

From SAAMI we have a recommendation of 3" at 100 yards and it is up to the vendor whether he wants to meet this or not.

H&R also made M14s and M1s and the contracts were shut down due to poor QA.

The M14 if rebuilt correctly and very few can do so is capable of acceptable accuracy. For instance the Army MTU rebuild program with rifle fired from machine rest was 10 shots in 4.5" at 300 yards. Some would go to 3" but rarely. A good bolt gun will shoot in 2" at 300 yards.
Click to expand...

This “modern American” is 5’ 7” so I’m sure it would be fine.

Very interesting post. I have managed 4” groups at 100 meters with an AK47 platform rifle.
 
I built mine on an Israeli parts kit using a DSA receiver & barrel.

It has run fine and I like it for its historical aspect, but its a heavy gun (granted, all battle rifles of that era are going to be a little heavy). I've also got an AR-10 I built on a clearanced DPMS lower that I'd consider a better utility gun, though much less historically interesting.

And of course there's always the FN SCAR 17S. It'll cost nearly double what a FAL does but is a much more modern rifle.
 
The argie vs brit discussion brings up another good point:

The FAL is not the L1. (or C1, or a few others but they won't come up for US buyers).

While most parts will interchange, the inch vs metric sizing is mostly within tolerances, there are some design decisions that are different. The semi-auto-only was a choice and a few other armies also bought semi-FALs. It's why the G FAL exists in the US; FN thought, we make a semi-auto, no problem but... big problem once ATF found out how it was not permanently semi-auto, whoops. Also... the L1 charging handle folds. Neat but it won't fit unless you machine away a bit of the rail on the FAL (people do). The top cover has ears, and... a zillion other small changes, some interchangeable, some not.

Mostly, and one that makes me suspicious of all the stories of soldiers in the war but especially TA guys years later supposedly having ex-argie guns is: Different magazines. Here's the front:
img.photobucket.com_albums_v298_Dan44_DSCN0123.jpg
Back is also different. As you see, different enough you can't push hard or dremel it and there's no clever works-in-both-guns magazine. In war sure you can capture some mags also but they are so similar at a glance it would be risky to have them both in your squad I'd think.

If buying: be very aware if you are getting a FAL or L1 so you get the right bits and know. I... am not sure if L1 parts or mags are hard to find now. But if one comes up for sale: I'd check carefully before buying!
 
Aside from one-offs that you may find on Gunbroker or LGSs, I think that DSA would be THE place to check for an FAL. I have only ever read good things about their FALs.

FWIW.

===

I was one of the many that went thru an FAL Build Phase ~20 years ago. I still have enough components to build at least 2 more. Some day, perhaps. :)

I still have 3 in the gunsafes.; one FrankenFAL "beater" (a ugly, accurate, drop-it-in-the-creek-and-not-stress rifle) that I bought off a fella on Gunbroker (1st FAL), one that I built with an StG58 kit (1st Build) and one that I customized a bit to create my favorite (I refer to it as my FAL carbine).

I came across pics of the latter two:

StG58 w/ backwards-installed sling (OOPS!): :)

2v2uKsd7FxAW38L.jpg

First time out (back when I still had relatively young eyes), from a bench, I was shooting golfballs at 100yds.

My FAL Carbine:

2v2u13H6WxAW38L.jpg

IIRC, I took ~4" off of the barrel. I was surprised how much I had to (slowly, step-by-step) open the barrel gas vent to get it to cycle reliably.

About a sub-2" rifle, as I recall.

===

I also have two M14 Variants that I built ...

... and a couple of the monkey-built (but well-done) CETME-C Variants.

If I were in the market for one (my first? my only?) s/a variant of a 7.62x51 MBR-type longgun I would probably get an AR10 just for the easy Variations on a Theme possibilities that it offers.

As a somewhat extreme example of this ...

I bought one AR15 ~20 years ago. All the rest I have built. By BATFE gauge I have, I think, 8 AR15 rifles, meaning that I own & have built-out 7 additional Lowers (a total of 4/ea Rifle & Carbine cfg, no 2 alike). I currently have ~10 completed Uppers (no 2 alike). (Yeah ... I know ... I have some unresolved Issues. :uhoh: )

From gunsafe-space considerations, I began storing the two assemblies separately so that now I no longer think in terms of "How many AR15s do I own?" Y'see? ;)

A wide choice of features that I can mix&match assemble in a couple of minutes before walking out of the door.
 
Years ago I worked with a guy whose plan to avoid the war in VN ended up backfiring and his Navy enlistment got him a SeaBee job. LOTS of great stories but to this, he was a random enlistee and with the needs didn't even go to SeaBee school, so is just a spare body. He ended up all too often up to his shoulders in a rice paddy spotting and providing covering fire for the tractors or other vehicles. Being an engineer unit, they have tools. They modified their M14s (Navy, remember, no M16s for them for a LONG time) back to full auto. Yes, talked to him about those a lot. What wears and breaks, and accuracy.

An M14 at full auto is, as many have said, not controllable. If they needed to shoot A Guy they'd switch to semi. They did have the selector, didn't make it only full auto. So like the few times sneaking through the woods they might have one set to auto (the selector is dumb, slow to use) and the rest are semi to hit things.

But for most of the work as above, it's just keeping the enemy heads down and it was (I forget the exact words but more or less...) plenty accurate to hit the treeline. :)
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Panzerschwein
  • Locked
FN FAL: Options?
Replies
5
Views
734
Robert
Robert
B
  • Locked
Which 308 semi-auto? (not AR10/FAL)
2 3
Replies
71
Views
4K
Ash
A
F
  • Locked
FN FAL Entreprise type 3 reciver Need help
Replies
8
Views
3K
Z-Michigan
Z
D
  • Locked
question about FN-FAL vs DS Arms SA58 FAL para
Replies
19
Views
12K
Chuck R.
Chuck R.
M
  • Locked
Imbel FAL from Aimsurplus and 922r.
Replies
21
Views
2K
Shadow 7D
S
Back
Top