FAL G1 Receiver Vs. Type 1 and 2 FAL Uppers.

[Dan Forrester]

I need a FAL. The problem is DSA arms FALs all have aluminum lowers and non chrome lined barrels with the exception of their collectors edition SA58 FAL G1.

I’d really like to just get the SA58 FAL standard 21 inch rifle but refuse to buy a FAL with an alloy lower and a non chromed bore and chamber.

Since the heart of this rifle is the upper receiver, how does the G1 upper compare to the type 1 and 2 FAL uppers?

Also does anyone know if I can put the fiberglass handguards, and standard metric buttstock on the FAL G1 upper receiver?

Thanks, Dan

 

[Father Knows Best]

but refuse to buy a FAL with an alloy lower and a non chromed bore and chamber.

Um, why? Would you refuse to buy an AR with an alloy lower?

In any case, only the SA58 uses an alloy lower. The StG58 from DSA uses a steel lower. It is cheaper, but it adds weight to an already heavy rifle. If that's what you want, though, then DSA will happily sell it to you.

 

[GunTech]

The only thing the lower does is hold the magazine, stock and trigger parts. It's a non stressed part. If you don't like alloy, that's one thing. But it doesn;t effect functioning at all, except for less weight.

FAL receiver types only vary with the number and type of cuts. Any are fine, unless you have a selecty fire version, which should be type II or III

Type II receiver is a modified type one with changes made due to stress cause by autofire. Type III is a simplified version for cost savings.

 

[kfranz]

The buttstock does not attach to the upper receiver at all, so I guess to answer your question, no, you cannot put a standard metric buttstock on a G1 upper receiver. You can hinge any type of lower receiver you desire to a G1 upper reciever.

Pretty much the same with the handguards. They attatch via a ring that butts up against the upper receiver and a screw through the gas block.

 

[HorseSoldier]

I’d really like to just get the SA58 FAL standard 21 inch rifle but refuse to buy a FAL with an alloy lower and a non chromed bore and chamber.

Like Father Knows Best said, there's always the StG-58s they make (provided they are still making them). This one looks like it's got the 21" barrel and steel lower you want.

As far as the chrome lined barrel, on that I guess you're out of luck unless you either go with the G1 replica they make, or order a G1 barrel for around $300, and have someone replace the stock barrel with it. Depending on what the 'smith charges to install it, you might actually come out ahead on the price by rebarrelling the StG-58 over the G1 replica, given the $800 or so differential in MSRPs.

 

[GunTech]

Make sure you have a rebarrel done by someone who works on FAL. If the head spacing if different, you'll need a new locking shoulder, which most smiths won't have in stock, or know anything about.

 

[iamkris]

What is the fascination with chrome lined bores? I'm not directing this at Dark Tranquility but at military rifle shooters in general...this seems to come up in every discussion of the AR15 I've ever seen. Unless I'm mistaken, the advantages of them are:

Better life for very high-volume, full auto shooting
Better if you are tramping around in the jungles of Southeast Asia with no time between constant fire-fights to give your rifle some basic cleaning

The disadvantages are cost and loss of accuracy.

 

[Dan Forrester]

Father Knows Best: An aluminum lower on an AR15 is fine. However I would refuse to purchase an AR15 with a steel lower receiver. The AR15 is built to be a lightweight, accurate, but overall less durable rifle. Trying to make it into a tank by using steel lowers and uppers would be just as dumb as trying to make a 12 pound battle rifle into something lightweight.

I have my AR15 when I need something quiet, accurate or light weight to tote around. Now I want something big, heavy, durable, and absolutely reliable (not that I have had any reliability problems with my two LMT AR15s).

iamkris: For me at least the advantages simply outweigh the disadvantages of having a chrome lined barrel. I have no problem paying an extra $1-200 dollars for a properly chromed bore. And I couldn’t care less if the size of my groups double.

Does anyone know what the difference between the G1 receiver and the others is? I see the pictures of the type1 and type 2s. How does the G1 differ form these two?

Also what was the purpose of the changes made between the type 2 and type 1?

Thanks, Dan

 

[GunTech]

The G1 is a type II, IIRC

I noted the reasons for the changes between I and II. it had to do with receicer cracking in the type I caused by full auto fire. There were also a few cosmetic changes. For the average guy, either is fine. The type III is actually the strongest, but also the heaviest and cheapest to make.

 

[Father Knows Best]

The AR15 is built to be a lightweight, accurate, but overall less durable rifle. Trying to make it into a tank by using steel lowers and uppers would be just as dumb as trying to make a 12 pound battle rifle into something lightweight.

I have my AR15 when I need something quiet, accurate or light weight to tote around. Now I want something big, heavy, durable, and absolutely reliable

Well, if you want something big, heavy, durable and absolutely reliable, there are much bigger and heavier weapons that the FAL available.

What you are missing is that an alloy lower is plenty strong enough on an FAL because, as others have pointed out, it is not a stressed part. You could make the lower out a super-expensive ultramagic steel that weighs 50 pounds, and what would it get you? Nothing. All the lower has to do is hold the magazine and fire control parts. Overbuild it all you want and the performance won't improve at all. The reason the FAL originally used a steel lower is not because it was better than an aluminum lower -- it's because it was cheaper.

But hey, if you want an unnecessarily heavy lower, that's your business. As I mentioned, steel lowers are readily available from DSA, and any surplus FAL parts kit typically has a steel lower. If you want to go whole hog, cost-no-object, DSA even makes a stainless steel lower for $225 (stripped): http://www.dsarms.com/prodinfo.asp?number=US061SS

 

[AndyC]

The G1 just has different markings on the left side of the receiver "Gew. Kal. 7.62MM G1" - it's a type 1.

 

[eldon519]

Just out of curiosity, what are your purposes for the rifle? You mentioned the benefits of chrome outweigh the disadvantages. Obviously you're not looking for a full auto, and you mentioned you're not particularly concerned with accuracy. It kind of leaves me puzzled?

 

[AndyC]

Perhaps he's most concerned with corrosion-resistance; that would be my reason.

 

[eldon519]

I thought about that, but then it left me wondering why? Maybe a SHTF situation where cleaning isn't always possible, but then that doesn't really make sense why he wouldn't want an aluminum lower. Just blasting and not cleaning? Particularly humid area?

 

[HorseSoldier]

+1 on not thinking the aluminum lower is any kind of liability on a FAL. Plus it makes it a little more portable, which is no little thing when considering a full-size FAL and a load of ammo for it, unless it's not being carried any further than from the trunk to the firing line at the range.

 

[W.E.G.]

 

[Dan Forrester]

The G1 is a type II, IIRC

The G1 just has different markings on the left side of the receiver "Gew. Kal. 7.62MM G1" - it's a type 1.

So is it a type 1 or type II?

I noted the reasons for the changes between I and II. it had to do with receicer cracking in the type I caused by full auto fire.

So than would the type II be considered a stronger receiver? Not counting the type III of course.

Well, if you want something big, heavy, durable and absolutely reliable, there are much bigger and heavier weapons that the FAL available.

What you are missing is that an alloy lower is plenty strong enough on an FAL because, as others have pointed out, it is not a stressed part. You could make the lower out a super-expensive ultramagic steel that weighs 50 pounds, and what would it get you? Nothing. All the lower has to do is hold the magazine and fire control parts. Overbuild it all you want and the performance won't improve at all. The reason the FAL originally used a steel lower is not because it was better than an aluminum lower -- it's because it was cheaper.

But hey, if you want an unnecessarily heavy lower, that's your business. As I mentioned, steel lowers are readily available from DSA, and any surplus FAL parts kit typically has a steel lower. If you want to go whole hog, cost-no-object, DSA even makes a stainless steel lower for $225 (stripped): http://www.dsarms.com/prodinfo.asp?number=US061SS

I love that stainless steel lower, but they discontinued the stainless upper. This would be my first choice in material to make the upper and lowers out of however. I know it would be overbuilt, that’s how I want it.

I thought about that, but then it left me wondering why? Maybe a SHTF situation where cleaning isn't always possible, but then that doesn't really make sense why he wouldn't want an aluminum lower.

Yes it is an intermediate size SHTF weapon. It will fall between my suppressed AR15s and that transferable full auto M2HB I’ll be picking up in the next year or so. I love my AR15, they are very, accurate, quiet, and reliable. I guess part of me just wants to add another weapon platform and caliber to my arsenal. The AR15 will remain my primary weapons. I just want to experiment with these for a little while.

I want the steel lower for added strength and durability, even if it’s not necessary. I don’t care about the extra weight. I’m 6’4” 250 pounds already. The chromed line bore is for multiple reasons: Easier to clean, I might be suppressing it at a later point in time, I live on brackish water, And because I use my weapons: I’ve used them to break my fall before, I’ve heated them up pretty good, I’ve left them for months (or years in the case of my silenced Ruger mark II) without cleaning.

Thanks for all your comments and a good discussion. Keep them coming.

Dan

 

[eldon519]

Wow, an FA M2. That'll be an awesome piece. Are you gonna mount it on a vehicle?

 

[GunTech]

The Type II has some stress relief cuts, IIRC I don't know that it's any stronger than the type I. Let me do some research and I'll get back to you.

 

[HorseSoldier]

I’ve used them to break my fall before,

If you've used an aluminum receivered AR-15 to break your fall before and it did not fail, you can safely assume an aluminum lowered FAL won't break, either.

And if it did, the plastic stock is going to go long before the aluminum lower does.