Another reason I think the FAL is the rifle for me...

[Nightcrawler]

It just fits.

With the DSA standard Austrian stock, the FAL has a length of pull of about 14.25". With a Belgian or Penguin brand buttstock like mine wears, that increases by about 3/16ths of an inch.

This is a pretty long LOP. I'm a tall guy, nearly 6'3". For some reason, shotgun stocks with 14" LOPs feel too long. The M16A2 stock with an LOP shorter than that feels too long (especially when combined with the crummy body armor I had to wear in Qatar).

But the FAL stock, even the longer Belgian type, is perfect. It feels neither awkward nor unweildy. I removed the buttplate to see what it'd be like with an inch less LOP. So configured, I'd worry that the rear sight assembly would hit my eye during recoil!

I've often wondered why no one tries to make a shorter LOP stock for the FAL. They make them for most other rifles. Granted, the FAL has a buffer tube in the stock, but all the same, about an inch could be removed.

There doesn't seem to be any demand for it, though. In fact, a lot of FAL shooters seem to think the stock is too short.

I guess I'm odd. 14 7/16ths on a FAL is comfy, but a 12" LOP AK stock doesn't bother me a bit either...

BTW, for comparison, does anyone know the LOP of the M16A2? What is it for most Remchester sporter rifles?

 

[ftierson]

Ah, yes, I have to agree...

The FAL just feels right...



Forrest

 

[Sunray]

"...What is it for most Remchester sporter rifles?..." 13.5"
In the olden days, the CF had four butt stock lengths for the C1A1. Short, normal(might have been 'regular'. It's been 25 years), long and extra long. Don't remember the actual measurements though.

 

[BruceB]

As far back as the days when the #4 Mk1 .303 was the issue rifle, the Canadian Army was wise enough to manufacture and issue rifles with four different lengths of pull.

The stocks were usually marked on top of the wrist, just behind the cocking piece of the bolt. "L" meant "long", "N" meant "normal", "S" meant "short", and "B" indicated "Bantam", the shortest of all. There may even have been an XL, for extra long, but I don't recall seeing one during my service. Of course, that was almost fifty years ago, so.......

I believe (don't quote me) that the increments were about 1/4" from one length to the next, so a Bantam would be about a full inch shorter than a Long stock. An inch is a substantial difference for the shooter, in such a critical dimension.

This procedure was also followed for the Canadian-made FALs, the C1/C1A1 and the full-auto HB C2. The stock configuration on Canadian FAL rifles made this very important, because if the stock was too short for the shooter, his cheekbone was against the hump behind the rear sight and it was VERY uncomfortable, even painful, in recoil.

On either the #4 or the FAL, it was a simple job for the armorer to switch buttstocks, of course. It probably only took about ten minutes with either rifle type.

Thought y'all might find this interesting. It seems that at least SOMEONE in the Army's upper echelons understood a bit about rifle shooting, unlike most military bean-counters these days.

....(edit)....and I see Sunray and I are on the same wavelength!

 

[ftierson]

And, most of the No.4 Mk 1, 1/2, and 2 rifles that I have seen had short buttstocks on them...

That "someone" in the upper echelon must have been trying to conserve wood when purchasing buttstocks...

But, having said that, it was a great idea to provide different length buttstocks...

Forrest

 

[1911Ron]

Well i like mine and i haven't even shot it yet but it feels right tho