Defensive/Multi-purpose Rifle

[FlyingKiwi]

I previously posted a thread for info on a good SHTF rifle and have now decided "so far" to go with the FN FAL. I would like my rifle (when I get back to the US) to serve as many purposes as possible. Most Important to me is durability/reliability. But I am also interested in getting into long range/ accuracy shooting.
The FN FAL seems to fill these roles without giving up too much in the other respects. I am not a rich man but would not mind saving to get the right fit. Below I will post some reasons why I have chosen the FAL and would like anyone to argue or poke holes in my reasoning to help with my decision. Also I would love to hear about other rifles which could "fit the bill"

FN FAL

Pros:
-Piston Gas System - increased reliability
-Simplicity - Field strip/cleaning
-Long and short range effectiveness
-Full Sized cartridge - defense against humans and animals of all sizes
-Accuracy - more accurate than my own capabilities
-Very common round - Military and Hunting
-Ergos - seems to be more user friendly than an AK

Cons:
-Heavy - both the rifle and ammo is heavy
-Expensive Ammo - Less chance of a good stock pile
-Recoil - Less effective than an intermediate cartridge in stressful situations

Thanks.

 

[W.E.G.]

The number of rounds people think they will need for a "social unrest" situation is vastly over-estimated on the internets.

The FAL is a very good gun.

Shoot about a thousand rounds through one - and I don't mean all of it from a benchrest - and you'll be very satisfied with the reliability and PRACTICAL accuracy of your FAL.

Put back a couple cans of ammo for a rainy day, and you'll be well prepared.

When the "SHTF," make it your first priority to stand on the OTHER side of the fan.

 

[mortablunt]

I approve of your decision!

A FAL is a great choice. an M1a is also a good choice. You might want to supplement it with a smaller caliber gun you can use at short range and have a much bigger ammo stockpile for. An AR-15 is not a bad option for supplemental weapon. A 9mm carbine and a shotgun are also good to have.

 

[Patriotme]

Have you looked at DSA's FAL's? They look like a good choice for someone that wants a shorter than normal version of the rifle and also has a lot of money to spend.

 

[Justin]

FALs are excellent rifles within their particular area, which is as a full-powered semi-auto quote-unquote battle rifle.

However, if you're looking to get into precision shooting, the FAL is a poor choice. They don't take well to accurizing, and while the design is robust and accurate enough for field work, if you're hoping to buy something capable of precision shooting, you'll probably end up being disappointed.

 

[amprecon]

I'm would like to tout the virtues of rifles in 6.8spc calibers.
They are are mostly available in your standard AR-15 configurations but in a much more versatile caliber, not quite the power of the .308, but much more than your 5.56.
I'd be hard pressed to leave my 6.8spc behind if s did htf.
They can be had in piston versions if you so desire.
The round is probably not as common as you would like, but I have had no problems getting all the 6.8 ammo my heart desires online.
If you have ever trained with an AR rifle you are already familiar with the platform. If you were good with it, you can now be much more effective with it.
If I had to choose just one of the rifles I own to do everything, and still be relatively small, have light recoil, yet capable enough to use on medium-to-large game within 300 yards, the 6.8 would be very hard to leave behind.

 

[Tirod]

For the sake of hole poking, I offer a contrary point of view:

FN FAL

Pros:
-Piston Gas System - increased reliability Not really, no documentation to prove either way, and there's plenty of anecdotal evidence that other methods work, too.
-Simplicity - Field strip/cleaning All modern military rifle excel at this.
-Long and short range effectiveness Long range - over 500m - is oversold, and facilities to practice hard to come by. Most combat rifles are now configured to have less than 500m effectiveness.
-Full Sized cartridge - defense against humans and animals of all sizes Intermediate cartridges are the accepted norm in most armies worldwide. Effectiveness is more related to shot placement, not the ability to shoot thru an animal.
-Accuracy - more accurate than my own capabilities Most 2MOA military rifles are generally more accurate than the average shooter.
-Very common round - Military and Hunting Commonality of ammo would then be tilted to which is more prevalent - in the US, that's the .30-30. Mil ammo dries up conspicuously in threatening times, so what you have on hand counts for more than what won't be on the shelf 6 weeks after the complete downfall of civilization.
-Ergos - seems to be more user friendly than an AK There is another weapon out there that has been setting the standards in ergonomic design over the last 45 years, and has influenced most other new combat carbine designs.

Cons:
-Heavy - both the rifle and ammo is heavy And if you have to carry one plus the ammo, it's a proven fact intermediate cartridge weapons are superior. That's exactly why they dominate as issue weapons to any soldier.
-Expensive Ammo - Less chance of a good stock pile See above. Reloading is a much better resource.
-Recoil - Less effective than an intermediate cartridge in stressful situations Absolutely. It takes longer to recover the sight picture, inhibits the decision to pull the trigger again, and creates a much larger blast and noise affect. All why the whole world issues intermediate caliber guns.

I sold my HK91 precisely because a lever action .30-30 would do as much. And I quit using my bolt Remington 700 in .30-06 because an AR in 6.8SPC would do better.

I'm not biased about the AR, I used one in the Reserves for 22 years, and hunted with an HK91, Remington 700, and Win 94. The AR combines the best attributes of each and eliminates the disadvantages of all of them. I was no fanboy of the little poodleshooter when it was first thrown into my hands, but a 20 year side by side comparison, and some effective education at the Infantry School and decades of training finally began to sink into my testosterone challenged logic circuits.

The AR10 was newly designed to compete directly against the FNFAL in the day, and today it offers even more with an optimal optic mount directly over the bolt, a barrel extension design that allows a pound of dead weight to be trimmed out of the receiver, and a relocated piston in the bolt carrier to eliminate the clanky operating rod and numerous friction joints. It's inherently more accurate and easier to upgrade. The AR15 offers all the above, plus an extensive, low priced inventory of parts, enough so that you can have 50% of the parts for replacement compared to one barebones FNFAL. It could be stretched to say you could own two for the one.

Again, I was no fan of the AR coming of age in the early '70s, and put my money elsewhere. Now, old main battle rifles make little sense unless collected as the curios and relics they are. For the 100,00 M4's and M16A2's in Afghanistan, there's less than 4,000 refitted M14's. The Brits ignored the FAL and went for the L129A1, an AR10, in that role. That amounts to hundreds of rifles, and isn't the main weapon issued either.

For good reasons.

 

[Z-Michigan]

Tirod - I shall nitpick your nitpicks. But only a few of them.

1) Piston - while AR piston conversions are usually a step backwards, the FAL and AKM designs work terrifically and offer at least equal the reliability of the very best AR15s, but are less finicky about component quality (e.g. Carpenter 158 by brand name for the bolt, perfectly machined AND shot peened; vs. just hardened steel that isn't hardened too much for the FAL and AKM bolts) and of course stay cleaner at the back end. (Admittedly while encrusting the piston with carbon.)

2) Simplicity and field stripping - while most modern military guns are good at this, the FAL just blows away all others with its hinge-lever opening and only two major parts to clean separate from the barrel. If you need to clean the piston that, again, is only two parts and opens up easily. If the AR gets an A for ease of stripping, the FAL gets an A+. (Incidentally I'd give the G3 a "C" for this, since it is so easy to get the bolt head into the rollers, and then it's stuck for 10-15 minutes of fiddling, sometimes requiring tools.)

3) Ergonomics - I've put a lot of rounds through both FAL and AR, and I would rate them equal. The AR's mag release is better, but the FAL's charging handle is much better for a right-handed shooter, and its bolt release is at least as good and probably better than the AR. I've seen a number of AR designs with a side charging handle, but have yet to see an FAL redesigned to have a rear charging handle.

 

[USSR]

...I am also interested in getting into long range/ accuracy shooting.
The FN FAL seems to fill these roles without giving up too much in the other respects.

While a great Multi-purpose rifle, the FAL does not fill the long range/accuracy role.

Don

 

[Telekinesis]

I think the FAL is a good choice for a shtf/disaster rifle (think Katrina or the time following a huge tornado, floods, etc). I actually have one too for this purpose.

My only misgivings about it is that ammo is heavy/expensive, and that at least in my area, my likely use for it will be under 100 yards and be mainly indoors or in vehicles unless something REALLY bad happens, so having a full sized rifle I'm at a bit of a disadvantage when it comes to handling (or even carrying) it. I have a folding AK that I would use in these instances, but if you're sticking with just the FAL, you may want to look into a shorter barrel and a folding stock instead of the full length rifle.

While the FAL isn't much of a tack driver, for combat accuracy, 2 MOA should keep you at minute of bad guy out to 500 yards if you do your part.

 

[merlinfire]

The number of rounds people think they will need for a "social unrest" situation is vastly over-estimated on the internets.

.....

When the "SHTF," make it your first priority to stand on the OTHER side of the fan.

Very well said.

 

[M1key]

^^^agreed

M

 

[Jenrick]

Pros:
-Piston Gas System - increased reliability
A piston system is no more or less reliable then a direct gas impingement system with appropriate maintenance. Proper care and maintenance of your rifle determines it's final reliability. People fixate on the fact that the DI system gets the receiver dirty, big deal. With appropriate maintenance (ie lots of lube) the sucker runs just fine. A piston is not immune to needing maintenance and can freeze up with proper care too.

-Simplicity - Field strip/cleaning
Almost all major combat rifles are about as easy to field strip, how clean you want/need your rifle is debatable. AR's run just fine dirty, they just need lube. A piston design (FAL, AK, AR-180 etc) when not adequately lubed will seize. How much of difference there is between the the needs of the different rifles is pretty rifle specific.

-Long and short range effectiveness
Define effective? Capable of putting a .30 caliber hole in something? Capable of putting down a big game animal or human? The big five have been taken with a .22LR, and a lot of people have failed to bring home big game with .50+ caliber elephant guns. Soldiers have survived .50cal hits, and died for tiny pieces of shrapnel. What specifically do you like about the 7.62 Nato/.308 win round and it's performance?

-Full Sized cartridge - defense against humans and animals of all sizes
Compared to a slug the .308 is anemic in terminal performance. Compared to a 155mm artillery shell a slug is anemic. It's also overkill for most game under a deer.

-Accuracy - more accurate than my own capabilities
That's not a very big endorsement neccearsily, without knowing anything about your shooting ability. A much better question is, "is it accurate enough for my needs?"

-Very common round - Military and Hunting
No arguments there.

-Ergos - seems to be more user friendly than an AK
Again subjective, and how much does it really matter? We're not shaving .001's of a seconds off a three gun stage.

Cons:
-Heavy - both the rifle and ammo is heavy
-Expensive Ammo - Less chance of a good stock pile
-Recoil - Less effective than an intermediate cartridge in stressful situations
I agree on all three of your cons.

With all that said, if you are envisioning a TEOTWAWKI scenario the FAL is a dang good rifle for it. If you're looking at some kind of bugging out to the wilderness, then the FAL is probably over kill and a lighter bolt action or lever action in a comparable caliber would be a better choice. If you're looking at a social breakdown, and AR or 5.45 AK will do just as good a job with a lot more ammo for the same weight.

For what it's worth I'm saving to buy a FAL myself

-Jenrick

 

[benEzra]

If your budget permits, you could cross-shop the FAL vs. the FN SCAR-H and the AR-10/SR-25. The SCAR-H is my favorite of the three, but you could probably get a FAL plus a quality DI AR for the price of a SCAR-H.

A more affordable option might be a CETME, but I have no experience with them other than seeing other people shooting them at the range, and I have no idea how reliable they are.

 

[Telekinesis]

The number of rounds people think they will need for a "social unrest" situation is vastly over-estimated on the internets.

Yes and no. I don't expect to be shooting much at all during a situation of "social unrest" but I like having the ability to if needed. I hope I never need to use the round chambered, much less the last mag in my vest.

It is a good idea however to have the ability to reload those mags should you need to empty them. Another benefit is that if you buy a new gun in the same caliber or have a friend come by who doesn't have much ammo, you can immediately load the gun without having to stop by the store to buy additional ammo. (Helped when I bought a G17 last week and could immediately load the mags with my extra defensive ammo instead of having to run to the store and drop another $40 or $50 on ammo.)

 

[stchman]

I was under the impression that FN no longer makes a FAL and that FN replaced the FAL with the SCAR.

Also aren't FALs made by third party companies like DSA and Century? I have read that the Century ones are kind of cr@ppy while the DSAs are better. Other forum members can correct me if I'm wrong.

If you are set on a 7.62x51/.308 semi auto rifle, the M1A SOCOM might be a better choice. I personally think the SOCOM M1As are very sweet looking rifles.

 

[abl1]

In response to the G3 roller issue, I've just learned that if you put the bolt carrier in backwards and give it a rap with your palm it resets the rollers instantly, making the old horror an almost non issue. Hope this saves some fingers.

 

[mortablunt]

^ Too late, comrade.

 

[Jenrick]

stchman: You are correct FN no longer produces them, though they never really made all that many compared to the dozen of different licenses manufactures for the free worlds military. DSA as far as I know is the only domestic produce of new FAL's. Everyone else just assembles parts kits on recievers of questionable production quality. Century's FAL's are like most of their stuff, crappy in general but some run great.

-Jenrick

 

[stillkickin]

you are correct

 

[ACP]

"When the "SHTF," make it your first priority to stand on the OTHER side of the fan."
-------------------------------

But what if the 'other side' of the fan has very few weapons? Then you need to tilt the percentages in your favor. More ammo helps you do that.

Throughout history, folks intent on committing trouble have prepared themselves both mentally and materially. That means YOU have got to be prepared for their onslaught.

To the OP, I vote 5.56 AR platform. I've had the M1A and scout rifle and lever gun, etc. Give me lightweight and high capacity with usable, accurate iron sights anyday.

 

[kozak6]

The FAL has difficulties with sand. It's why the Israelis ditched it in favor of an AK clone.

An MBR seems to be a strange choice for a SHTF rifle. Long range effectiveness should be irrelevant and a shotgun or pistol caliber carbine would likely be adequate. A big heavy 10 pound rifle would have been very bothersome in the floodwaters in New Orleans, and would be obnoxious to carry through storm wreckage. The FAL also isn't noted for being particularly accurate.

Also, you probably have guns anyways. If you are truly concerned about SHTF, you'd likely be better off with $700 worth of emergency supplies.

I'd say you should buy a bolt action rifle for your long range shooting wants (Savage is regarded as a good value) , and something else to fit your SHTF fantasies.

 

[M1key]

I like FALs. I also like Saigas...


M

 

[HammerheadSSN663]

Actually, I vote for either:

1. the Ruger 10/22 with the new Ruger 25 capacity mags and 40gr CCI Velocitors.
2. High quality AR-15 preferable with a higher twist rate for larger grains.

Right now, I'd have to lean to the 10/22 as the ultimate all purpose bug-out gun.

All this talk about range and large calibers is way way way over hyped IMO. Chances are you're only gonna shoot small game anyway and one crack of a .22 into a crowd and chances are the confrontation is over.


http://www.youtube.com/user/tnoutdoors9#p/c/A62F9C412133861E/14/RYifK1ieU7Q

 

[Maple_City_Woodsman]

I think battle rifles are probably the single least useful type of gun in SHTF scenarios, or for prolonged social degeneration scenarios.

Unless you are pulling night watch duty, playing 'trunk monkey' in a convoy, or attacking other preppers / survivors to take their stuff, what exactly does it do better than any one of dozens of smaller, lighter, and more compact civilian arms?

Not much.

As far as a generally useful gun, you will need something that can take small game without destroying it, while still having enough power to take larger animals quickly, put down an attacker quickly for defense, penetrate light barriers, and still be relatively quiet without a suppressor...

That narrows things down QUITE a bit ... and 9 pound 308 battle rifles don't meet hardly any of those requirements regardless of flavor, but other types of civilian arms do.

Pistol caliber carbines are such weapons. I know a lot of online communities have ingrained hate for PCCs, but next to the .22LR they could well be the most useful overall weapon class when you figure out reasonable real world scenarios, and look at the stats objectively.

A .357 carbine seems ideal for many reasons - The ammo is its main strength though. You can push 200 ft-lb cowboy loads at bunnies without being very loud, or 700 ft-lb loads at deer, still fire rather quickly at attackers, and hot 125gr FMJ TC 357 loads will penetrate just about any barrier you need to perforate. To top things off, the ammo is still very common, components are common, and it doesn't take much material to scratch together decent reloads on minimal equipment.

Carbines in 40 S&W, 10mm, and 45acp could do most of those things as well.

5.56 and 7.62 carbines have their place, but at least as far as I can see things, they are niche tools for the prepper / survivalist. You will find other weapons in your hand much more often, that is, if you have them available to you. Now is the time to acquire them.