FAL accuracy - maybe

[mudriver]

While sighting in my FAL last weekend with some new loads I noticed a strange coincidence - my rounds were going exactly where I wanted them.

I've got a DSA STG58 carbine and when I first got it I was lucky to get 4" groups at 100 yds. I added a 1x3 Weaver to use for 3gun (I don't like FAL irons) and did pretty well out to 400 yards, but not exactly tack driving. I needed to change powders due to penny pinching (I had it laying around) and my new loads were using 4064 and some Privi FMJ's - not really a match grade combination. I was adjusting the gas setting and adjusting the scope but I stopped adjusting sights for 4 rounds to see what kind of group I would get - 1.4". Certainly better than I ever expected.

So I'm thinking I can get closer to 1" at 100yds because:

my trigger sucks and I plan on getting that fixed
I'll continue to dial in my load
trying a better bullet

Anyone else get 1 MOA with a STG58? Care to share some load data?

BTW - love shooting this gun!!!!

 

[HankC]

FAL should get 3 MOA, unlikely 1 MOA. Lucky to have 1 MOA even a bolt gun.

 

[Robert]

MOA never worried me when it comes to my FAL. If I can the steel plate at 400 I am happy. So if you are getting 1 MOA that is fairly amazing.

 

[JohnSkiS]

From my (limited) experience, a FAL is NOT a Minute Of Angle-gun, it is a Minute of Man-gun

 

[Odinforever2000]

Ive got over 1 moa using factory 168 gr ammo using my kit built 21" stg58 (with DSA upprer). The only change I made with the ammo was I selected 5 rounds with each round being about the same O.A,L. (2.792 ect). Targets are shown in the order they were shot. I might have shot a 1moa group with the 2nd target but I jerked the trigger a bit, Defiantly 1 moa on the 3rd.
All targets were fired from a bench rest @ 100yrds and all were during the same range session.

The only mod I did was I did stone the trigger (made the sear engagement less positive also) for a lighter and crisper trigger pull (for a battle rifle). Also make sure your Joint pin is fairly tight.

 

[Davek1977]

Lucky to have 1 MOA even a bolt gun.

Maybe once upon a time, but nowadays, even "budget" rifles like the Marlin X7 and Savage Axis routinely shoot MOA.

 

[M1key]

168 Sierra match bullet
40.5gr IMR 4895
Federal Match primer
StG58/Leupold 1-4X scope
100yds/5 shots/.90 inches

 

[M1key]

CAI build with Hesse receiver
Leupold 4X/100yds
Australian ball
5 shots/shade over 1 inch

Regards gentlemen

M

 

[itsa pain]

mudriver try shutting off the gas system and cycling it by hand. then at least you can see if the gun is capable of accuracy. you have to very very lucky to have an fal shoot like these groups pictured here. I have a match SAR 48 and it shoots maybe 1 1/2

 

[Slamfire]

I got to look at a paper copy of a report titled "A test of rifles T48 and T44" conducted in the 1950's. This was the original FAL and it was almost adopted by the US Army.

Anyway, with period ammunition, ten shot groups, machine rest, at 100 yards the average extreme spread for three T48 rifles was 11 inches. The T44, the prototype M14, it shot 5.6 inch groups. This may have been with the original out of spec barrels because later the Army wrote a report where the FAL was getting extreme spreads around 6 inches.

This rifle was never capable of as high a level of accuracy as a match M14 or match Garand. None of these rifles will ever be, even in match configuration, as accurate as a bench rest rifle.

Any semi auto battle rifle that shoots 3 MOA and functions world wide in wet, hot, muddy conditions, is an excellent battle rifle in my opinion.

 

[WardenWolf]

This, in addition to weight, is why I rejected a FAL in favor of a VEPR .308. A VEPR .308 can do close to 1 MOA with the right loads, and weighs 8 pounds empty. And the VEPR .308 is probably even more reliable given that it's an AK. Yes, it may not be a military-accepted combat rifle, but it certainly could be, and performs better than pretty much all the other battle rifles out there at a significant weight and cost savings.

 

[Odinforever2000]

So..looks like the Fal is capable of 1 moa dependent on the shooter and ammo (mostly handloads)

Veprs are cool.I prefer the ergos on the fal over that of an AK platform (i have both)... Do they (.308 Veprs) have mag capacities of 20+ like the fals (at the same price point also?)

 

[mudriver]

It seems possible to hit 1 MOA, but I have some work to do.

My take on this is that FALs appear to be ammo sensitive in the accuracy department.

I'll post updated results when I get the chance

 

[Odinforever2000]

Id have to agree. 1 moa is easier to obtain using 168gr vs 147gr ammo.

 

[JamesTheScot]

I've gotten under 2" using Federal 150 gr. SP's for deer hunting. IIRC, I may have gotten about 1.3" on one group. I've gotten good results (under 3") from some mil-surp ammo as well. But I've also gotten some crappy groups from some mil-surp too.

 

[BruceB]

It's a constant puzzle to me that folks shopping for MILITARY WEAPONS (or other military hardware) apply their tastes in non-military rifles to a successful design: "Oh, it's too heavy, it's too long, it won't group MOA, etc etc etc."

For Heaven's Sake! The FAL is one of the most-successful MILITARY rifles in history. As we see them on the market now, we are viewing the minor refinements which time and experimentation have proven to be practical.... somewhat-lighter receivers ( in some cases), better sight systems (in some cases),, a few better controls for ambidextrous use (in some cases).

A military rifle DOES NOT "need" MOA accuracy; if it will reliably hit a man-size target at 300 yards, it has met its design objective.

The FAL is a wonderful design, with reliability in virtually any conditions and accuracy sufficient to its task. Saying that it won't shoot "bug-hole" groups, and hence is less than desirable as a result, is simply wrong. I like that sort of accuracy as much as anyone, but I RESPECT my FALs, M1As, Garands and #4 Rifles for what they are.... SERVICE rifles intended for the worst of conditions and circumstances.

If a service rifle DOES shoot that well, that's fine, but in many cases that sort of accuracy comes at a reduction in reliability.... I know which factor *I* want...

"Horses for courses", meaning that the rifle should be selected on the basis of what we intend to do with it. The FAL is simply an excellent choice for service-type use, and so are the other types mentioned above. If a deadly-accurate long-range sporter will serve the immediate need, most of us have those. However, for SHTF or defensive use, give me a reliable PROVEN infantry-capable rifle every time.

 

[WardenWolf]

A military rifle DOES NOT "need" MOA accuracy; if it will reliably hit a man-size target at 300 yards, it has met its design objective.

But more accuracy doesn't hurt, and is easily achievable with modern equipment. Make it more accurate, and it can hit out to 500 or 600 yards. Make it more accurate when brand new, and the barrel has a longer service life before accuracy falls beyond acceptable levels. It was only post-WW2 that we started accepting that kind of poor accuracy out of any rifle firing a full-sized cartridge. Even the M1 Garands typically got 2 MOA or better. The FAL was a major step backwards in the accuracy department.

The FAL was originally designed to use the lighter .280 British round, and before that the 7.92x33 Kurz, so it's not particularly surprising it works better with lighter .308 loads. The heavier loads might cause some flex in the receiver or other components. It was essentially scaled up twice. Just a plausible theory that might explain your successes with lighter bullets. I'm not particularly surprised the rifle is fundamentally capable of being much more accurate. I'm just surprised it was accepted into service performing the way it did.

 

[-v-]

At 2-4 MOA that gives you enough accuracy to hit a standing man-sized target 100% of the time at 300 yards, and at least 75% of the time at 400 yards, assuming an average torso width of 12" and otherwise perfect shots with no wind. For a service rifle, thats more then plenty. Beyond 300 yards is DMR territory where you ideal want an optic. The FAL was designed and built before everything had a 4x optical sight attached. Thus accounting for average combat accuracy, 2-4 MOA is plenty accurate for the design, because there was little guarantee that the soldier using it could shoot any better.

Looking at its performance in the South African bush wars, and other conflicts, a 4 MOA gun is plenty accurate enough for real world use.

Also, correct me if I am wrong, but when the M14 was introduced, it shot an "acceptable" 5.9 MOA. If 4 MOA is unacceptable then how did the M14 win the trial shooting 6?

That said, I am also with WardneWolf. If I can keep the action the same level of durability and reliability, but improve accuracy to 1 MOA with no trade-offs, why wouldn't I? In our world of optics, having a 2 MOA .308 with a 4x or 1-6x, or 3-9x optic on it will let you easily hit a silhouette target at 600 yards 100% of the time assuming ideal conditions, and it gets better from there.

Odinforever: csspec is one company that makes 20 round VEPR .308 magazines. Pricey, but they do exist.

 

[fireside44]

It's a constant puzzle to me that folks shopping for MILITARY WEAPONS (or other military hardware) apply their tastes in non-military rifles to a successful design: "Oh, it's too heavy, it's too long, it won't group MOA, etc etc etc."

Haha, I have to agree with you Bruce. Funny guys whine about the weight when a good many 5 1/2 foot english, african, and south american dudes had no problem humping the gun through the back country. I guess we're a society of wimps nowadays though. I find my Para FAL's weight to be entirely acceptable especially considering the power advantage over AR and AK type weapons. I can get 3 inch groups at 100 yards with very little effort using iron sights.

 

[Slamfire]

Also, correct me if I am wrong, but when the M14 was introduced, it shot an "acceptable" 5.9 MOA. If 4 MOA is unacceptable then how did the M14 win the trial shooting 6?

Both of the rifles were in the development stage and accuracy must have improved on both. But, with the ammunition of the time, the Garand, which was a highly developed rifle, was barely better than the M14.

Accuracy is but one of the criteria that they were evaluating.

 

[RSVP2RIP]

Mine shot under MOA when I did my part. But to be honest it was with a scope off the bench with hand loads. The trigger does suck and it is heavy compared to the AR but it's a battle rifle, rugged as hell and any of the one's I've seen had more than acceptable accuracy. Getting 1.5 MOA with a rack-grade battle rifle is great in anyone's estimation. Don't stop looking for the one MOA group, but be happy with the 1.5 MOA. Clean up the trigger and you may already have it.

 

[Kruff]

My STG used to average about 3" - 4" at 100 yds. After a while I started having brass separation issues at the case shoulder. Took it to my local gunsmith and found out it had developed excessive headspace after 12 years of use.

He replaced the locking shoulder with a slightly larger one to correct the headspace problem. I also had him remove the muzzle break that the gun came with and replace it with the correct FAL flashhider.

The rifle now shoots 1.5" to 2" groups all day but 1" is still not attainable.......at least not with me and my 1/2 century old eyes behind the sights.

One inch spreads from an FAL is excellent shooting IMHO.

 

[Motega]

My DSA SA58 is dead nuts at 100 yards and at 300 I can hit a cantaloupe 9/10 times. If I'm not putting everything at 100 yards into 2" it's my fault, not the gun. I shoot NATO stuff, usually DAG, MEN, and Radway. I have it scoped with an ACOG.

Also, when I first got the rifle a few years ago it was hanging up now and again and DSA fixed it- though the gunsmith that worked on it left and I never got a chance to find out what was going on with it. Still, it was very, very accurate.

Also, I broke in the barrel by fire lapping it and following pretty strict cleaning for the first couple hundred rounds, but I find they run a lot better gunked up a little- kinda seals up the gas system I think. Now I make sure the barrel is clean but I only spray out the gas system enough to neutralize anything that might cause corrosion and don't go for sparkling clean.

 

[adobewalls]

I dunno, I bought into all that 2 or 4 MOA hype when I first bought my SA58 and shooting the West German surplus at the time confirmed that.

Then I ran across some Australian and South African surplus that held close to a MOA.

Then I did shoot for groups using Winchester hunting ammo (getting ready for hogs) and was surprised to see MOA sized groups at a 100 yds. using an ACOG. Last time out with the Australian surplus, I hit a 6" plate at a 180 yards every time with just the 4x ACOG.

I'm pleased with the accuracy of this FAL.