G3 vs. FAL

[Acera]

Most importantly, whoever put that stamped steel fore end on the FAL

I've only ever seen/encountered wood and polymer, or aftermarket aluminum quad rails. Any pics?

Check out the early German versions (StG 58)

 

[HKGuns]

Aluminum sure, but I could use one of the steel mags as a hammer though if I wanted to.

Yep, you sure could! After reading this thread I still think they're roughly even.

Oh and "clones" are not the same or even close to being the same.

 

[justin22885]

There is a reason gas operation is the standard, while roller delayed is limited to the CETME and some derivatives by HK (and the CZ-52 pistol).

Greater felt recoil, difficulty setting/maintaining headspace and cracked rollers are just a couple of the drawbacks.

i seriously doubt the average GI joe is going to be breaking down and reheadspacing his rifle in the field.. a trained armor will be needed to do it on either rifle so thats pointless to point out

 

[justin22885]

the HK is far more accurate, far more reliable, far better optics mounting options as well.. the FAL is lighter and doesnt chew up brass.. if youre in military the chewing up brass shouldnt bother you (besides, for the price it takes to buy 1,000 pieces of once fired 308 brass and load it all 5 times for a total of 5,000 rounds, PLUS the reloading equipment to do all of that you could just as easily buy wolf steel case in 500 round crates, so no need to reload

also the HK is easier to build too requiring little more tools than it takes to put together an AK, to build a FAL from scratch would involve having to machine an entire receiver yourself

and ergonomics?.. really? who complains about ergonomics on something with interchangeable furniture?.. you dont like the grip?.. the LOP? the length of the stock? change it and quit whining about ergonomics, i also found the HK to be better balanced

this means the FAL only does better at being lighter (if youre a wuss and half a pound bothers you)

so if you want a more accurate, more reliable, more durable rifle with a better optics platform and the lowest cost magazines available (less than $5 per mag) get the HK.. if you're the type to whine about 1/2 a pound weight difference as you add another 5 pounds in rails and needless accessories.. or if youre one of these people who believe youre going to be in some gunfight dodging a hail of gunfire as you stand out in the open performing some rapid "tactical reload" and find the added half a second to do an HK slap a bit too long, then get the FAL

also, someone has added a LRBHO to the HK/G3 rifle by building a pop-out plunger BHO tab into the magazine follower (alternatively you could just create an M14 style follower) and a lever style bolt catch / release built into the lower grip frame and accessible with the thumb on the left hand after doing a mag change, but could also be modified to work with the index finger on the right hand

 

[Robert]

Where does this perception that the FAL is somehow unreliable come from? I see this repeated over and over but have never seen this to be true. I have fired my rifle in some trying conditions, think ejection port down right above very fine sand, and have had no issues. I have poured sand out of mine after matches where it ran like a top. So where does this come reliably issue come from? Or do I have the one FAL that works.

For the record my FAL is a frankenFAL built on a DSA receiver.

 

[Ash]

"the HK is far more accurate, far more reliable,"

Yeah...far more....

Remind me, how many nations issued the G3? How many the FAL?

How many licensed the FAL? The Hk?

 

[GBExpat]

I have built semi-auto versions of both types of rifles and still own multiples.

I like & enjoy both designs.

That said, I prefer the FAL primarily due to the accessibility offered by the design of its receiver ... oh, and welding is not required for the Build.

Before walking out the rear basement door to "take a lap" around the ancestral farm I will more often than not grab the FAL carbine that I put together 10-12 years ago.

BTW, with my 1st FAL Build (StG58 Kit plus bipod) I was able to shoot golfballs at 100yds over irons ... it is still in the south gunsafe, but I haven't shot it in awhile.

 

[barnbwt]

Aluminum sure, but I could use one of the steel mags as a hammer though if I wanted to.

I thought the steel ones were CETME mags?

"far more"
Explain. All natural phenomena are explainable, and we are constantly at a shortage of specific reasons why HK versions of identical products are better. Alloys, tolerances, surface finish machining; how 'bout some specifics? Lots of clones are built on HK tooling or HK parts, too.

TCB

 

[kBob]

"On the other hand, FAL magazines (like M14 magazines) stack flush against each other. A 100-round SAW pouch will hold 4 FAL magazines. Four of these pouches on a belt give you a total of 16 magazines. " .....and a hernia.

Sorry just trying to imagine carrying my old Infantry gear, plus squad gear (everyone carried something extra like a phone, a donut of commo wire, extra water , something) and then 17 steel mags (one in the rifle) of 7.62 NATO is making my arches fall!

I am tempted to go back and count the number of folks with a bit of experience with both the G3-ish rifles and the FAL-ish rifles that have gone to or would prefer the M-14-ish rifles. I think that says something......or we are all old farts that just teethed on M-1s or M-14s in the military or M1 Carbines and C stocked 03A3s in civy land.

Not heard anyone mention extended magazines for the G3. The PZR GND regiment we were partnered with had all the dismount guys carrying a straight looking 30 rounder way to long to use for the prone for when they stormed out of their Marder IFVs while over running Soviet positions. They wore one in a long pouch on the left suspender to be inserted before a dismount under fire. Only place I ever saw them.

Never did get to see a G3 fired from one of the rifle balls on a Marder..... must have been interesting inside as they were to be fired full auto in that mode and I can not imagine being in a romping steel box with four G3s ejecting full auto.......or maybe I can......ow.

Most of the Germans I worked with carried at high port just as we did, they appearently had not gotten the word that the G3 was designed to be carried muzzle down. Actually unless contact was immenent they teneded to carry them stuffed through their pack straps on the march with the muzzle to the left and butt to the right.

The Canadians with their worn out C1s also carried like Americans rather than that butt over the right forearm and muzzle down thing that seems so popular now. But I only worked with them a day so maybe they were lazy that day.

BTW, When you are actually carrying a huge amount of gear and having to use some of it other than your rifle a Carrying Handle comes in handy. I have seen more than one of the "luggage handles" on M-16A1 s used during deployment of other crap, whether the drill babies in basic liked it or not. I'll bet a lot of FALs have been toted like Samsonite as well.

-kBob

 

[lysanderxiii]

Where does this perception that the FAL is somehow unreliable come from? I see this repeated over and over but have never seen this to be true. I have fired my rifle in some trying conditions, think ejection port down right above very fine sand, and have had no issues. I have poured sand out of mine after matches where it ran like a top. So where does this come reliably issue come from? Or do I have the one FAL that works.

For the record my FAL is a frankenFAL built on a DSA receiver.

Century Arms.

 

[Nom de Forum]

........ I am tempted to go back and count the number of folks with a bit of experience with both the G3-ish rifles and the FAL-ish rifles that have gone to or would prefer the M-14-ish rifles. I think that says something......or we are all old farts that just teethed on M-1s or M-14s in the military or M1 Carbines and C stocked 03A3s in civy land......-kBob

I think some of this choice of the "M-14-ish rifles" may be due to it being easier for the battle rifle enthusiast to do a complete rebuild and customization on a M-14 clone than on a FAL or HK.

 

[justin22885]

i had an M1A, i absolutely hated the thing, it was a PITA to disassemble for cleaning, doesnt come apart nearly as easy as an HK or FAL.. and get a little dirt under the oprod and apparently they sieze up fairly easily, nowhere near the reliability of the HK rifles which is consider as reliable as the AK

you guys ever notice the rifles with a reputation for having reliability issues, say the M1A, AR15.. all use plunger stype ejectors whereas the ones with the reputation for reliability like the AK, HK, and FAL all use ejectors mounted to the receiver or trigger group?.. simply a coincidence or do these things get gummed up and cause FTE issues?

 

[dvdcrr]

Ive been messing with 7 or 8 different semi auto 308's the last few years. Ranging from M1a nm to nm Armalite, several PTR MP10, and... the trimmest, most interesting little unit is the 16" Saiga 308.

 

[Ash]

M14 and AR-15 are known for reliability issues? While not an AR fan, but reliability isn't a major problem with them. However, I have never had reliability issues with M14-pattern rifles (and I have had Fed Ord, SA, Armscorp, and LRB). And, consider the utter success of the Garand in WWII and Korea, I think it is well settled that the pattern is "far more reliable" than suggested.

 

[M1key]

Rollers cleaned and oiled regularly are imperative for reliable operation in wet environs like the jungles of Central America. One incident I read about where a rifle dropped from a truck dented the receiver rendering the charging handle and rifle inoperable. Here is a fanboy review of the HK91/PTR91. He even admits that dents in the receiver can cause malfunctions.

http://mountainpreparedness.blogspot.com/2011/04/personal-critical-review-of-firearms_2941.html


M

 

[ttarp]

I thought the steel ones were CETME mags?

Nah I have several HK marked steel mags, I think CETME mags have a slight curve to them(?), but the HK mags are straight.

 

[barnbwt]

And, consider the utter success of the Garand in WWII and Korea, I think it is well settled that the pattern is "far more reliable" than suggested.

After seeing some mud/sand tests (and building one of the darn things as a BM59) I've completely lost any idea of the Garand action being notably reliable. They are not, they cannot be. The success they had in history was despite what had to be constant cleaning of the op rod guide channel and lug area; good thing they come apart somewhat easily (that might be their real strength when compared to other autoloaders of the day)

TCB

 

[barnbwt]

One incident I read about where a rifle dropped from a truck dented the receiver rendering the charging handle and rifle inoperable.

You do realize that all reciprocating bolt designs rely on tubular receiver cross sections that, if deformed, will not allow the bolt to travel freely. I'm sure the FAL's takedown pins have a point beyond which they will deform and render the gun inoperative. I've always wondered why we wanted a forward assist on an aluminum tubular upper that could be bashed in and damage the bolt (but I guess the buffer attachment is still the limiting factor so that little design weakness doesn't come into play)

TCB

 

[Ash]

Unreliable weapons of WWII had a way of being abandoned by troops at the first chance. The Garand wasn't one of them. Were it so unreliable then you would have mountains of stories (and the BM-59, being a departure from the Garand doesn't get to count since it is a departure with the change in the gas system) from Marines in the Pacific - who could have kept their Springfields if the Garand wasn't so good - to soldiers in North Africa and Sicily. If the Garand were so unreliable - er, excuse me, far less reliable - it would have been abandoned post WWII. It was so good the US chose to go with the M14, whose main vice was heavy and clinging to a main battle round instead of going with an assault rifle round. AND, the M14 was sufficiently reliable in comparison with the FAL that it made the cut (even if bias were an issue). Vietnam did not lead to a mountain of complaints of reliability with the M14.

Basing your experience on a BM-59 is not enough to weigh against the millions of troops issued Garands and M14s.

The phrase "far more reliable" has been bandied about far too much on this thread. No matter what, the FAL, G3, or M14 are equals in the battle-rifle department, the differences being more in the minds of the poster than in reality. They all had weaknesses that could be addressed - or in the case of some here, blown utterly out of any semblance of proportion - yet they all served in every geologic condition successfully. None can be considered better except my minutia.

 

[DevsAdvocate]

If there is anything we can agree on, it's that both rifles were far superior to that trash M-14 produced by the US Military...

At least the G3 and FAL are "battle" rifles. With the M-14, the US Army Ordinance wanted a competition gun that jammed with the smallest amount of dirt or mud. Meanwhile the FAL could take that and keep going.

 

[Ash]

Yeah, whatever...

 

[M1key]

You do realize that all reciprocating bolt designs rely on tubular receiver cross sections that, if deformed, will not allow the bolt to travel freely. I'm sure the FAL's takedown pins have a point beyond which they will deform and render the gun inoperative. I've always wondered why we wanted a forward assist on an aluminum tubular upper that could be bashed in and damage the bolt (but I guess the buffer attachment is still the limiting factor so that little design weakness doesn't come into play)

TCB

In this particular case, it was the charging handle receiver housing only that was dented, which bound up the CH rendering it inoperable. The rifle could still shoot the 20 rounds in the mag, but since there was no bolt hold-open mechanism, the rifle was out of the action unless the operator made sure to count 19 rounds and then insert a fresh mag. Not the best option in a firefight.

M

 

[kBob]

Interesting to note that at one point HK was looking at a forward assist for the G3 and proto types were offered the Bundeswehr. Late model G3 had a "Finger print" on the bolt carrier to help the shooter close the action if a round failed to chamber. According to the Bundeswehr troops I worked with stoppages were not common but clearing them was a pain and frequently trying to clear by immediate action made the situation worse when the stoppage was a failure to chamber. They also complained that when one tried to close the bolt by pushing on the carrier after a few rounds had been fire that it would burn one's thumb, much like when M-16 bolt carriers pre forward assist were pushed forward with the cut out for the ejection cover.

I always wondered if there was some way to tap an FAL bolt closed, what with that non reciprocating charging handle.

I have to wonder if folks that trash talk the M-14 have any real experience with it and many other systems.

I know about Ian's air hose test an watched the video. A single sample or even a few dozen do not impress me when I have carted M-14s through the woods and swamps and they worked.

What can I say but that I have heard troops with experience with all three systems BMC about how much they would rather have something else.

Folks experiences differ and that is all there is to it. I have seen a fair number of AR-15s fail, and seen a lot of different types of failures, but I will be surprised if someone doesn't jump on my having typed such to say they NEVER saw one fail. Different folks have different experiences.

For me I have used all three, admittedly with the FAL the least. If told I was about to enter a fight for my life and could only pick a new military production G3 or FN FAL I would take the FAL . If offered the additional choice of an same condition M-14 I would choose the M-14 over either.

I would not feel under armed if stuck with any of them.

I think I am finished.

-kBob

 

[barnbwt]

I know about Ian's air hose test an watched the video.

How was that not eye opening? The gun was unusable in blowing sand. Period. With mud, it wasn't much better. Given how the gun guides the op rid, how could it be? Those poor fools will be doing a G3 and FAL test as well at some point (but I'll bet fanboys will gripe when they don't use 3000$ HKs with $50k trigger packs in them). Having cringed through those M1A trials, I realize I would never even think of subjecting such an expensive rifle through that hardship. Hence a selection bias would make my casual use of the gun seem more reliable (since it would be kept in nicer conditions with more caring maintenance)

TCB

 

[briansmithwins]

If there is anything we can agree on, it's that both rifles were far superior to that trash M-14 produced by the US Military...

Given that the FAL and G3 have been/are used by dozens of countries and the M14 was the primary service rifle of the US (and the US only) for a very short period of time I think we can all draw the same conclusion.

BSW