Advantages of the FN FAL?

[Ignatius]

OK...I am brand new here but after looking around a bit, I seem to have found some people I can be friends with. I am replying here because you asked about FAL's and that is a subject near and dear to my heart.

I have owned an M1A (Springfield Armory) and I still own a DSA made Stg 58 which is a FAL made on a US made receiver out of foreign parts ( I want to say Belgian but at the moment I dont remember.)

OK why did your friend tell you that if you were just gonna own one Main Battle Rifle it should be a FAL....the simple truth is that they are exceptionally rugged, easy to maintain, reasonably accurate and there are tons of extra parts and magazines available. The .308 round is also powerful and even though its heavier to carry a bunch of magazines, it has greater stopping power then the round used for the AR-15.

Go check out "the FAL files" website and particularly look for the thread in the weapons section called "the tale of old dirty" . It is the story of a FAL that has purposefully been used and abused by its owner for 10,000 + rounds and never cleaned, including a dunk in a lake and some mud, if it doesnt make you sit up and take notice that the FAL is a great piece of gear, then no argument here will convince you. You can also view the FAQ section there and learn alot about why FAL's are so highly regarded.

Yes the sights on an M1A are better and I think the M1A gets a slight nod for accuracy but the cost of the magazines is high ( think $8-10 for a 20 rd FAL mag and $40-50 for a 20 rd M1A mag!) and that is before we have a Democrat in the White House! The FAL has an adjustable gas system which is far superior to the M1A and is easier to clean and maintain.
I like the M1A but when I had to pick one to let go of, there was no argument in my head about which gun I would want to bet my life and the lives of my family on.

There are many flavors of FAL and several companies make receivers for them (Imbel and DSA being good ones) and then use surplus parts to make a complete rifle. If you can afford it, find a DSA receiver with a good set of parts on it and you will have a great weapon.

Stepping off my soapbox.

Ignatius

 

[TexasRifleman]

I still own a DSA made Stg 58 which is a FAL made on a US made receiver out of foreign parts ( I want to say Belgian but at the moment I dont remember.)

Austrian Very nice rifles.

Welcome to THR.

 

[navajo]

mags

Slight correction. 44MAG is currently selling the same M-14 mags the military is using for $22.99, not 40 to 50 bucks. I have a bunch of early USGi M14 mags and 5 bought from 44MAG. Performance is the same.

Took me a long time to figure out one of the problems I was having with my DSA FAL was a bad mag. And it was a FN made mag.

 

[Ash]

True. The good old days a few years back were that a working M14 magazine cost $40-$80, or more. Real (and good) FAL mags have always been considerably cheaper. These days, they are closer to price, though M14 mags (good ones) are still double or more than FAL ones.

Ash

 

[stubbicatt]

I owned an FN G1 for awhile, a few years back. It was an OK rifle. The forend got to hot to hold onto after a mag dump, and cleanup was relatively involved.

I traded it for a G3. Never looked back.

Perhaps if you have a well stocked gun store nearby, you can go and fondle a few examples and decide for yourself which ones fit you best. As far as practical accuracy is concerned, a good example of a FAL, a G3, and M14 will all shoot well enough, and probably better than most people here can shoot them. IMO, in the end it is how it fits you that matters.

 

[AndyC]

I don't like the metal fore-ends of the G1 either, for that same reason - plastic fore-ends on a FAL make it much more manageable.

 

[W.E.G.]

FALs are simple, rugged, and built out of milled steel parts. They are very nice guns and built well.

That about sums it up.

Except the "milled" part.

I don't think there ever was a milled FAL receiver.
AFAIK, the upper receivers are are all steel castings that have been machined.

Lotta steel in a FAL for sure.

 

[Slamfire]

I don't think there ever was a milled FAL receiver.
AFAIK, the upper receivers are are all steel castings that have been machined.

I think my IMBEL was not only milled, it may have started out as a forging.

Considering the number of countries that made FAL's, I am certain one of them milled the receiver from bar stock. I have handled German, FN, Austrailian, Argentine, and IMBEL. I don't recall being told that any of those were castings.

I have read of American receivers that were cast.

According to a class III manufacturer I know, the FAL receiver takes more machining to produce than a M1a receiver. Another reason why a new FN made FAL in the 70's was $3,000 (in today's money).

 

[Ash]

All FAL's are milled. Some are cast while others forged. The Imbel is forged.

Ash

 

[JShirley]

FALs aren't quite as accurate as some other battle rifles...but they are reliable, ergonomic, price effective, and the best balanced self-loading battle rifle ever created.

John

 

[AndyC]

Saive approves: