FAL Pros and Cons

Mine is a century frankenfal on an Imbel receiver.
Pro's
Fun, Decent accuracy, reliability, easy to find and cheap magazines, good ergonomics, options to mount scope, parts availability, it's really fun, ammo is easy to find, adjustable gas system, aftermarket support, cost of entry*....and did I mention the thing is a hoot?

Cons
Heavy, kind of expensive to feed, heats up kind of fast, cost of entry*, aftermarket stuff seems either cheap and shoddy or ungodly expensive but nice, only decent accuracy.

*the cost on these can be upwards of $1200 for a DSA, or $1500+ for a genuine matched surplus gun. But you can also find early CAI FAL's built on Imbel receivers or imported assembled already and simply import stamped that you can be reasonably sure will run right. These are usually under $700 or so, as people often eschew anything by CAI because of the later FAL's assembled on incorrectly machined CAI receivers.

Mine is very easy on brass, with my gas setting at 4. I also reload and have no issues reloading brass fired from my FAL.
I have picked up brass from the HK or a clone, with the fluted chamber. Now that looked weird! It still sized fine though.

silicosys4 said:

Mine is very easy on brass, with my gas setting at 4. I also reload and have no issues reloading brass fired from my FAL.
I have picked up brass from the HK or a clone, with the fluted chamber. Now that looked weird! It still sized fine though.

Click to expand...

Agreed.

Mine's a DSA "Para" and I run my gas set at 4 for surplus and 6 for my reloads without an issue, all my brass is reloadable. "Over-gass" and it will bend the rims ejecting.

Chuck

Pro Owning one


Cons Not owning one

Another FrankenFAL on an Imbel receiver here, a mix of metric and imperial parts. Frankly, I think the mix works out rather well.
I have a .....
Canadian top cover with clip guides.
Canadian disk sights were originally installed but I later traded those out for H&K style
L1A1 magazine release that although it cannot be released with the trigger finger makes it easier to retain the expended magazine.
Metric bolt hold open, 'cause that's just how I roll, I don't like the non-lock back style
Removed carrying handle with a contoured filler to smooth everything out

I wish I could use the FAL style pistol grip instead of the L1, but that's really a minor quibble.

An FAL will never really be the ultimate in accuracy due to the way the bolt locks to the receiver, it's tempered by the number of rounds in the magazine and can't be consistent. It's good enough for combat ranges, and isn't that what counts?

"Would need a steel locking shoulder for sure, but I can't see a reason that 7075-T6 wouldn't work for the remainder. 4140 tensile strength will vary depending on temper, but the drop forgings used for FAL receivers should end up in the neighborhood of 115K PSI. 7075-T6 is 75K PSI. So it'll need to be a bit thicker from the front to the take down pin, but I see no reason the rear half can't use about the same dimensions as steel."
I didn't realize you were planning on re-engineering the upper for the different material; I'm sure it could be done right in that case. Heck, they made the BREN from mild steel in much the same way. But, you do give up much of your weight savings when aluminum becomes structurally critical (steel weighs 3X more, but aluminum is 1/3rd the strength, so...).

That said, an aluminum FAL receiver would be far, far, far cheaper and easier to produce for all manner of machines/machinists. You'd actually have a pretty competitive product if you could bang out FAL 80%'ers (or complete uppers) for AR15 prices . Lots of those Imbel parts kits seem to have arrived recently...

TCB

I always hated the grip angle on them.

Only downside is weight

After that you can't beat it

AFS

Banshee09 said:

I recently acquired a complete metric FAL kit that is being assembled as this is being typed. Just looking for some insight on this weapon, I purchased it for the simple fact that I don't know anyone that has one and couldn't pass up the deal.

Anything would be greatly appreciated

Click to expand...

As far as "insight" on this weapon I don't think you should pay any attention to "con" remarks unless you are intending to use this rifle for something other than enjoyment. If you are looking for the most user friendly and accurate rifle in 7.62x51 it is not the FAL. So enjoy your FAL for what it is, a beautiful and interesting design, that is fun to shoot, still a formidable battle rifle, and historically very significant.

Aluminum is fine for AR15s, but aluminum FAL receivers don't seem like such a good idea . . . in fact, IIRC, the Type II lower came about as an attempt to reinforce the Type I steel receiver.

Couple of comments here on both upper and lower aluminum receivers:

http://www.arizonaresponsesystems.com/notes/notesfal/falwaca/pagefalwaca.shtml#anchor3

https://www.dsarms.com/t-aluminumwarning.aspx

Belgium made German Army issue G-1s came with an aluminum alloy lower receiver. No one believed me until I put a magnet on it...

I've owned seven FALs over the years. Still own three. One is a CAI with Hesse receiver that functions flawlessly and is one of my best shooters with SA ball ammo.

Owned all the others. Loved and kept the FAL

M

Boston's Gun Bible has a great comparison of it against the M1A and others.

Aluminum is fine for AR15s, but aluminum FAL receivers don't seem like such a good idea . . . in fact, IIRC, the Type II lower came about as an attempt to reinforce the Type I steel receiver.

Click to expand...

It's about knowing where and how to use it. A completely homogenous 7075 upper with the same dimensions as a 4140 piece wouldn't last long, but one that is beefier in the front and uses a steel substructure to deal with bolt thrust and locking lug is totally workable, IMO. Not feasible for most manufacturers, as 7075-T6 is more expensive than steel. But I like to build things that can't be bought, and was blessed with a skill to shape metals. Seems like a fun venture when I'm done with my AR-7.5 project.

FAL manuals are here. Free .pdf files. Note the need for the provided UN & PW.
http://www.biggerhammer.net/manuals/
Anybody who tells you brass from one is not reloadable is confused. Think 150 grain bullets and standard semi-auto reloading techniques.
"...except for the pure stupidity of the US Army..." Nothing to do with them. Not adopting it was purely a political decision based on NIH.
The biggest issue with 'one being assembled' is who is assembling it and the use of incorrect parts. Inch parts in a metric rifle doesn't work.
"...lee-enfield build L1A1..." No such thing.
"...it is not a sniper rifle..." Neither is an M-14, an M1 Rifle or Carbine, a 1903 or any other typical battle rifle. Just scoping a bolt action doesn't make a sniper's rifle either.

There were stories of improperly heat treated steel Hesse receivers failing because the locking lug would wallow out the hole and fall out over time. I don't think I'd trust an aluminum receiver on a fal unless I didn't plan on shooting it much.

As others have said, awesome rifles, but on the heavy side. Built 2 without issue. Not hard if you take your time.

Robert, I'm a reloader and a new FAL fan. I realize every rifle is different, as are the rounds that cycle through them, but what is your gas setting (ie appx % of gas port open) and how far does your brass fly when ejected.

Thanks

Think of the FAL as a much lighter BAR, with the action turned upside down. Building an FAL is similar to building a BAR, in many ways.

Limited experience but

Pros

High cool factor

Reliable

Cons

Heavy

Optics arent easy to mount

Its a long rifle

Not really that accurate


After shooting an AR15, it seem very heavy


But........ Did I mention the cool factor?

Two problems I have with the FAL are 1.) The forward sling swivel is mounted directly on the barrel which means that your point of impact will be affected when using the sling as a shooting aid and 2.) you need a screw driver to adjust windage on the rear sight.

I would really like to trade my DSA SA58 for another M1A.

I had an Imbel STG 58 for 12 yrs. It was a nice one but heavy. I sold it but retain my Garand. I had no regrets even to this day.

I have used the M1 and M14 in combat (the latter being the pre-M21 sniper version) and operated with Australians who used the FAL. Frankly, I much prefer the M14.

Pors: The para FAL has the best folding stock arrangement on any full battle rifle I've ever shot.

That lower (they are alum as well...) will fit on any upper, using the para dust cover.

Cons: My old Belgian handbook says 150mm groups @ 100m is normal. My two guns did just about that all the time.

My HK91 shoots better than 40mm at the same range.

D

This is a target I shot with South African 7.62 surplus a few years back with a DSA STG-58. It was shot from a bench at 100 yards, so it's not really representative of my skills, but it is representative of what a decent FAL can do. I'd originally thought about having that rifle shortened, but when you're getting open-sight 100 yard groups from a FAL measuring around an inch, you let the damn thing alone!

Pros:
- awesome heritage
- power
- range
- reliable in most conditions

Cons:
- somewhat antiquated
- expensive to shoot
- several versions, so you have to know what you're doing when you buy parts. You can't just assume that parts will all interchange.

http://www.thehighroad.org/attachment.php?attachmentid=196162&d=1394918853

If I had it to do over, I probably would not have bought a FAL or any 7.62x51 battle rifle.
They are expensive to feed, and an AR is more easy to accessorize or source parts for.
A scoped bolt action .308 is more accurate and lighter if you ever want to hunt with it.
I bought the FAL thinking it could cover all bases and found that it only covered one well... that of a 7.62x51mm battle rifle.

But having owned 3 FAL's, I can say that a good one is a hell of a rifle. And should I find myself in a third-world hotspot with a FAL variant in easy reach and people trying to do me harm, I know I could make very effective use of it.