Ar-10 v dsa fn/fal

hmmm... Are you talking about the Galil sniper system made by the Israelis? They are different from the FAL, and they are derived from AK47. Israel used mauser K98 for sniper use, followed by M14 SWS(DMR), followed by Galil, and then followed by bolt action based stuff. I couldn't find anything to support the use of FAL as DMR.

http://www.geocities.com/mazanga9/IDF/IDFSnipingSharpshootingPhoto2.htm

This is for Ash, and I hope its not too much infor mation.

This is my rifle that arrives next thursday. Its being fine tuned through the weekend. It comes with a guarantee to perform a minumum of moa at 1,000 yards.




This is the gentleman who made it.

"This looks like Afghanistan, but it is the USMC high angle range, Hawthorne, NV. This is what a mile shot looks like. Actual range 1604 meters. .408CT, 419 gr. @ 2882 fps. Target is some heavy equipment debris with a three foot circle painted on it with a 12" bull. Four rounds fired. Group size was 27" W by 9" H with 2 in the bull. "
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

And this is the reason he dropped the FN platform in favor of the AR platform
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

Retro, I referred to the Israeli FAL sniper, which preceded the Galil, which was similar to the sniper-based FAL used by the Netherlands. Other nations have used them with optics, including the Brits.
As to the article above, read my posts. It might have kept you from posting unnecessarily.

Ash

Is the FN plaform not exactly the same?

"The FAL is vastly more accurate than the AK. It is an accurate platform. The Israelis developed a sniper based on the FAL, as did the Brits. It would work very well in the DMR role, as well as any SVD. It is not, nor was it ever intended to be, a sniper's rifle. A bolt gun does that just fine, better than any HK or M14 variant. But as a marksman's rifle it works well.

In the end, it is absurd to assume it is inaccurate. As a combat rifle, it is far superior to any AR-10 type rifle. High quality FAL's are also cheaper than average-quality AR-10's."

Sorry for the unnecessary information, but I posted it because I disagree with your comparative assesment between the FN and AR10 platforms. The FN had its day as a sniper platform. Today, no state of the art long distance rifle is based on the FN platform.

BECAUSE IT IS NOT MEANT TO BE ONE!

It could excel as a DMR, but not a sniper rifle. If you want precision, get a bolt gun. For the price of an AR-10 type rifle, you can get a great FAL and an excellent bolt action rifle onto which you can mount excellent glass.

Ash

I wish I could have got my DSA SA58 Fal to work. It had awesome ergonomics and was the top end FAL, but at $2k I could not afford something that did not want to work, so I sold it. Maybe I will pick one up in the future...maybe not.

The one thing that I hated about the FAL was the location of the charging handle. I thought it would have be sweet spot for one, but in practice it was very hard to get leverage on a stuck shell. So far I seem to like the AK charging position which gives you the most leverage when you need it.

Are you hollering, Mr. Ash?
Had you read the write up or followed current developmetns you'd have seen that a few semi-autos are indeed in that category, and all of them on the AR10 platform.

the VERY best shooting FAL i ever had was a springfield SAR 48. chrome bore, hammered rifling. using american eagle 150gr ball [which oddly my FAL's have all prefered], it would get about 1 1/8"-5 shot groups @ 100. from a reasonably clean bore, routinely.

in way of expanding that statement. it was sandbagged and benched when accuracy was the objective. also, with a special "X" target to center the extra heavy duplex crosshairs on an old leopold 1x4. methinx a target grade optic would have beat this some, but not by very much with the "X" target. wouldn't dream of doing so in my worst nightmares, it's a battle rifle.

the FN, hesse, L1A1 and israeli FALs i have owned never came within an inch of the sprgfld imbel for grouping ~consistency~. as in every time i benched them. all with low power leo 1x4 or 1x5 glass.

most any decent AR 10 clone will beat this grouping. especially if they have a 1:10 rifling twist for 165 gr SMK slugs.

that said, i still prefer the FAL for an MBR. the reason is the vastly improved reliability. gotta roll with Ash on this one, if you want a precision 7.62, get a bolt action.

the icing on the cake is they are even more reliable than the FAL or AR 10.

gunnie

Well, don't worry about it. 3,475 is enough to end the run around here.

Yeahhhh, I guess sheer numbers gives you uncommon insight? Right!
We could each consider the other dead wrong, but none of this is that important, is it.

They are two very different rifles for two different roles.

My STG58 is a rugged rifle that will shoot 2 MOA in strings.

I'd love to own an AR-10 one day, but I'd want one that used FAL mags (Which I have a'plenty). I'm about to attempt making a Stevens 200 into my long range rifle (which will accept FAL Mags).

I would love to have a nice semi-automatic AR-10 that shoots MOA at 1k yards. But I can't justify it while I have a good bolt gun and an FAL

Out of the two, it depends on what you need. If you need this as a long range rifle that's value is determined by how small groups are, AR-10. If you're fine with something as accurate as an unbedded M14, the DSA SA58/StG58 both do the job admirably.

If you want something modern, and you don't want a piston AR, get the XCR-M when it comes out. A monolithic rail system, .308 SR-25/DPMS LR-308 mags, AK reliable, AR accurate.

Should get sub-MOA if Robinson manages to introduce the new stock and nitrided barrels. Should be just a wee bit heavier then the XCR-L, and it kind of seems like some kind of modern... I dunno. An amalgamation of the M1 Garand, AKM, FAL, and AR-15.

Bolt and operating system modded from the M1 and AKM, ergos like the AR-15, with the FAL's charging handle and bolt-release.

Probably sounds like an ad, but I wouldn't be surprised to see an XCR-M by the end of next year.

Before I forget, SP Shop Foreman, what scope is shipping with your AR-10 and what scope is shown mounted to the one in your photos? Thanks.

gunnie said:

i still prefer the FAL for an MBR. the reason is the vastly improved reliability.

Click to expand...

So an AR-10 is unreliable? Do you consider the AR-15 to be unreliable too?

All this talk of getting an SA58 and a bolt gun for the cost of an AR-10 ... huh? A top quality SA58 such as the Spartan from DSA costs the same as a top quality gas piston AR-10 such as the SPR from POF ... both around $2,600. The POF accepts DPMS, KNIGHT ARMAMENT, C-PRODUCTS, POF-USA and the original AR-10 waffle magazines and will accept the new MAGPUL magazines once they're available. My FAL experience has only been with the L1A1 and I've always had a soft spot for them, but I'll be ordering the POF.







I noticed this SA58 SPR on DSA's web site .... look at the bottom where it says "this rifle was submitted to the US Army for the SASS rifle trials" ... but the AR-10 platform was chosen so I have to wonder about the supposed reliability concerns with AR-10 type rifles.

Mind you right now the M110 is reported to be a jam-o-matic.

Piston AR10s are more likely to snap their op-rods, mainly because it's such a small one.

The AR-15 and AR-10 are both unreliable when you run them dry for long stretches of time. The FAL does better in this respect.

All in all it doesn't really matter, because every design has problems. Personally, I'd like to see a semi-automatic .308 Winchester rifle that adapts a modified AK47 system that is light and uses SR-25 mags.

Which is kind of why I like the Swiss Arms SAPR and the upcoming XCR-M.

Mind you, the AR-10 will weigh 9 pounds in a configuration similar to a FAL. The FAL would weigh 8.3 pounds, as would the XCR-M.

$5000 for a FAL...? I'd rather use the money on an Accuracy International or a semi-auto .50 cal Barrett...

FAL cannot be free-floated, M14 can be free-floated 2/3 of way (with SAGE EBR stock), and XM110 (AR10) can be completely free-floated. The inherent accuracy is therefore evident.

Where have you heard about XM110 being a jam-o-matic? Need references.

I had the same decision to make a while back when I was jonesing for a "battle rifle". I had a budget at the time of around $1200 and decided a Springfield Armory SAR-4800 match was the rifle for me (a rifle that was still manufactured at the time).
Perhaps I'm not the best shot with my Chinese Type 56, Yugoslavian SKS or Norinco “Paratrooper” SKS I used to have, but I am quite a bit better with my FAL. Though I can squeeze some pretty impressive groups with an SKS or AK variant, I notice such “impressive” groups are more consistent with my FAL. I personally wouldn’t put them in the same category as far as accuracy goes. That said, the FAL I have is of apparent superior quality (fit and finish).

I've never entertained the idea of slapping a scope on this rifle since I personally find it changes the ergonomics unfavorably. I view my FAL as a battle rifle and not a scoped precision tack driver. I'm confident this rifle is capable of greater accuracy than I am with iron sights, but that said... I can hit just about anything I can see within reason with these iron sights, so no optics for me. Perhaps I have low standards, but if I can consistently nail a 2 liter at or around 100 yards with iron sights, I’m satisfied.

I would like to point out that an FAL of quality modern manufacture is not an inaccurate battle rifle but rather not the best choice as a scope rifle when precision is the goal. Unfortunately it seems the FAL is so frequently compared to the AR-10, a rifle that enjoys a distinction of inherent accuracy, that it puts the notion in the heads of many that the FAL is relegated to a whites-of-their-eyes category.

In my view it would boil down to this: if I were to choose between the two to serve as a primary infantry rifle, I would give the nod to the FAL as it’s a formidable beast in its element. On the flip side, if I were choosing between the two for the most effective counter sniper tool, I would opt for the AR-10 for its innate accuracy.

1858, its a Hensoldt 6-24 x 72, 2nd Imag Plane scope.
And, Ash........ My disagreement was with the observation that the AR 10 platform stands second to the bolt action as a long range moa and sub-moa platform. Stewart Wilson has proven that to be erroneous many times over.
And Ash my friend, this is an apples and oranges thing. You might find these made by Mr. Wilson interesting. If you're remotely interested in these kinds of firearms, you really should research this gentleman. He's currently active in the field and instructs contract security forces in the use of the .50s in Afghanistan. We were extremely fortunate that he kept his word after a 10 year wait.

(Mr. Wilson) "This is An AR10 in 300WSM. It belongs to a Federal agent who after wringing it out at Quantico in Feb., '08 by two of the FBI Eval team, declared it, "the most accurate shoulder fired weapon system we ever tested". This after three shooters attained all shot under 2 1/2" five round groups at 840 yards. Many have tried to build the AR10 platform in this caliber. None have a done so reliably. I believe I have the only design that is functioning reliably to this date. This has a Lilja three groove barrel.



16" 'Grinder" model. Light weight, quick cycling unit designed for friends who are contractors that wanted 'something that gets inside of vehicles'. Will not function reliably with heavy bullets. Handles only those in the 150 grain range. It turned out, as all successful units are, quite extraordinary in the accuracy department (1/2 moa at 400 yards with a batch of ammo from Lake City with '96 headstamp).

Anyway, just some examples of things I have made in the past few years.

Enjoy.




We shouldn't be argueing about these rifles. Both have their place in history and the FN has had it's day. These new 110 types are state of the art, and I intend to have some long range fun.

Looking at the AR-10 rifles is always a pleasure to me, as a kid born in the 60's, anything the military was using then captured my attention - not to mention Marine Grandfathers and Marine Dad training with a rifle.
That stated, my father much prefered the L1A1 he borrowed for a few days to the M14, and for both Grandfathers -the Garand was the ONLY rifle - one of my Grandfathers made a living building those thumb mashers. Ask me how I know
The original poster simply asked " What's the major differences between the AR-10 and the FAL?"
I would personally take my FN-49 in 7mm Mauser over both for ease of rapid target acquisition and ergonomics.
I really enjoy the Fal's I have, I love to get new mags for under $10.
The AR-10 is on my wish list, it just keeps falling from the top spot - I don't know why
I personally have no desire for a 308 anything - I own some 308's - this makes the AR-10 more desireable for me. I want one in a 7mm-08.

SP Shop Foreman,

i own revolvers, and love 'em. but if it becomes a serious social encounter, gimme my 1911. i would rather have it even if the playing field were leveled, and it would only hold six rounds.

even though i prefer the semiauto, i will NOT contend that it is just as reliable as a revolver if kept clean and lubed properly. even though the same has always been my experience with quality 1911 handguns.

"...The original poster simply asked " What's the major differences between the AR-10 and the FAL?"..."

i believe the difference between a direct gas impingement action and a gas piston IS the crux of the reliability/accuracy disagreements.

back to the OP's question, if accuracy is the prime consideration, hands down get the AR 10. tighter bolt to bolt carrier to reciever tolerances ARE what makes for an accurate semiautomatic platform.

as mentioned in a previous posting, the gas piston is not accuracy's friend. but it will allow the lube in the reciever last longer by not venting extremely hot/high pressure gasses onto the bolt, carrier and reciever. it will also keep powder residue from venting on same and allow the weapon to be reliable for longer periods between cleanings.

if you want a good, but not as accurate battle rifle, get an FAL...

gunnie

i believe the difference between a direct gas impingement action and a gas piston IS the crux of the reliability/accuracy disagreements.

Click to expand...

It's not just that. The bolt designs are completely different. The gas system and bolt of the FAL are very similar to the Russian SKS in design and operation.

The bolt and carrier of the FAL are huge chunks of steel with fairly generous clearances. When it locks, it drops down against a large locking shoulder in the receiver (this locking shoulder headspaces the rifle). The bolt is very tolerant of grit and grime, but does not lock up the same exact way every time. It is believed that this is what causes the vertical stringing. You could blueprint these assemblies, tighten up tolerances and reduce clearances, but that could affect reliability of a dirty gun.

The AR has a smaller bolt that rotates inside a hollow carrier. There is a hole through the bolt for the cam pin. There are multiple small lugs that fit into recesses in the barrel assembly. This design is superior for accuracy. It has very repeatable lockup. Some say it is also less tolerant of dirt and grit.

IMO, the FAL would still be more robust and reliable even if it ran gas impingement instead of a piston/tappet and an AR would be easier to make accurate even if it ran a piston gas system.

I am very familiar with both guns. I have built both of my FALs and all my ARs from their smallest parts (not just slapping major components together).

I was multi-tasking when I read and posted in this thread and didn't make anything clear.
Right or wrong, agree or disagree, I meant to say that IMHO, the FN platform is not as stable a platform as the AR10 and secondly I disagreed that a bolt action rifle is more accurate for long distance shooting than all semi-autos. Wilson and a few other companies have debunked that train of thought.

I was multi-tasking when I read and posted in this thread and didn't make anything clear.

Click to expand...

I misread your post as well. I believe you are right that most folks get hung up on the piston vs. gas impingement thing. That is just one variable out of many.

DMK,

+1, but even the gas piston tube itself is an impediment to accuracy. as is above mentioned inabilty to effectively free float the bbl.

methinx the SKS and the MAS 49 "borrowed" the tilting block design from browning's BAR, just reversing block direction of movement.

i wonder if the rotating bolt, and multi-lug lock up is the culprit as much as the tight fitting carrier. venting cartridge exhaust gasses into the reciever just makes this problem more likely. the AR 180 uses almost the exact same bolt system as the 15/16, but since the carrier rides on recoil springs over guide rods, it allows much more area for crud to clear the carrier upon cycling. they are also more reliable when contamination of external mung and spooh are part of the equation.

"...IMO, the FAL would still be more robust and reliable even if it ran gas impingement instead of a piston/tappet..."

i would have to do some extended shooting sessions with a direct impingement tilting block FAL before i could make the reliabilty call on that mod. while not as tight as the 15/16 bolt carriers, same was a problem for the israelis and brits in sandy enviornments, hence the "sand cuts" carriers they adopted.

gunnie

I say that the M110 will jam in any adverse conditions. First of all, the suppressor that is usually attached to it already makes the gun more likely to jam then your standard M16A4 with ACOG. Throw in the fact that 7.62 NATO ends up with more powder residue in the chamber and you get something that likes to jam.

Get the FAL if you want a classic piece of history that is light and is a battle rifle. Get the AR-10 if you want a gun that can shoot sub-MOA but jams if you shoot dry.

methinx the SKS and the MAS 49 "borrowed" the tilting block design from browning's BAR, just reversing block direction of movement.

Click to expand...

Possibly. I doubt that FN or Simonov came up with the idea on their own.

while not as tight as the 15/16 bolt carriers, same was a problem for the israelis and brits in sandy enviornments, hence the "sand cuts" carriers they adopted.

Click to expand...

It appears though, that this was only a problem in desert environments (and the FAL doesn't have a cover plate like the AR to keep the sandstorm out). The FAL was used almost as widely as the AK by numerous countries and fought in jungles, bogs and deserts all over the world, but only Israel and England seem to feel the need to made any reliability modifications.