FAL Pros and Cons

Status
Not open for further replies.
Cons: My old Belgian handbook says 150mm groups @ 100m is normal. My two guns did just about that all the time.
My M1 will do 2" to 2 1/2" groups all day (that's 50 to 73 mm.) When I shot competition in the Army in the '60s, my M14 would beat that.
 
I carried one in combat for years in the Southern African war theatre so I am biased. For a bush war i.e. one conducted in the cover of thick brush playing hide and seek and making contact at close range there is no equal. It hits hard, punches through the brush and has a nice bark. It never lest you down and I find it incredibly easy to shoot well.

If I were to conduct operations in an urban war theatre at close range then I would take the more compact 5.56mm which is infinitely more suited to the close confines of room to room engagement.

The FAL for me is an outstanding weapon even if it is expensive to feed.
 
I am guessing it went to a mossy green range about 30 times as well as a boat ride to and from an island.
 
I carried one in combat for years in the Southern African war theatre so I am biased. For a bush war i.e. one conducted in the cover of thick brush playing hide and seek and making contact at close range there is no equal
.
That's due to the cartridge, the 7.62X51mm NATO. The M1 rifle and M14 do the same thing in thick cover.
If I were to conduct operations in an urban war theatre at close range then I would take the more compact 5.56mm which is infinitely more suited to the close confines of room to room engagement.
Except that in urban warfare, you have to shoot THROUGH walls and similar barriers -- which is where the 7.62X51 excels.
 
One of the problems with the FAL design is that the front sight is on the upper and the rear sight is on the lower. If there's any play between the two, then there's also that much play in your sights. I think a lot of the FAL's reputation for 4" accuracy at 100 yards would have gone away if both the front and rear sights had been located on the upper.
 
2.5 MOA for five shots was about average with all the FALs I owned and shot--with ball ammo and iron sights. A good RD or scope to bypass that wobbly rear iron could shave an inch off that.

Different rifles like different ammo. Radway, R1M1, ADI, or Lithuanian (all non-steel jacketed) shoot better than any USGI M80. Step up to match handloads and we can get 1 MOA or slightly less, though longer shot strings can open things up some.

Still, not bad for an old warhorse...

M
 
Last edited:
Yeah, the one I shot the 7/8" group from doesn't have the issue rear sight. I have a para rear sight on it. The para sight has no play in it. You take the play out of the FAL sights and you can end up with a pretty accurate rifle.
 
.
That's due to the cartridge, the 7.62X51mm NATO. The M1 rifle and M14 do the same thing in thick cover.

Correct it is a function if cartridge.

Except that in urban warfare, you have to shoot THROUGH walls and similar barriers -- which is where the 7.62X51 excels.

Not here, walls are double solid brick.

Must also add that it must be one of the simplest combat weapons to strip and clean in a hurry.
 
Cons: My old Belgian handbook says 150mm groups @ 100m is normal. My two guns did just about that all the time.
Roughly a 6" group at 100 yards? That's down in cheap AK range! :eek:

My DSA StG-58 cut that almost in half with iron sights (my eyes aren't the best) and after I put a 'scope on, it became a reliable 2 MOA rifle with decent ball ammo. (BTW, I found that SA milsurp shot better than Australian milsurp . . . go figure!)
 
Mine is a Springfield Armory SAR4800 Match. The only con in my opinion is the weight. Mine just feels so much heavier than my AR, though in reality it may not be that much more.

However mine is absolutely reliable and quite accurate (though, it was all new from the factory when I bought it).
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top