front page
Member
- Joined
- Jun 20, 2009
- Messages
- 5
Has anyone tried the sand cut bolt carriers on the fal? Does it make a difference in reliability?
M1A and FAL - ultimate decision - I need an answer ASAP!
- Thread starter Timradcliffe345
- Start date
- Status
Kind of Blued
Member
I feel like I NEED two of each. Unfortunately, I have none of either. 
But really, as with many other classic rifles, I'd like to have one "classic" variant (for ogling and shooting with iron sights) and one "modernized" variant.
But really, as with many other classic rifles, I'd like to have one "classic" variant (for ogling and shooting with iron sights) and one "modernized" variant.
front page
Member
- Joined
- Jun 20, 2009
- Messages
- 5
Two is always good, but one low maintenance rifle, a semi auto pistol, and a revolver is about all you can carry, plus ammo, water, and some mre's.
HorseSoldier
Member
This is the zombie thread a new poster decides to raise from the grave for a first post? What, were the pro-life/pro-choice debate threads too friendly and polite?
The British Army seems to think it did, but various other users never saw the need.
What, were the pro-life/pro-choice debate threads too friendly and polite?The British Army seems to think it did, but various other users never saw the need.
iamkris
Member
I don't know what FAL you've been shooting but from my very extensive usage I'd say you don't have the full picture. FALs are superbly reliable. The only issues I've every seen with one are some piece of crap FrankenFAL that some moron cobbled together using random parts. Do that to a M1A and you'll see the same issues.
TNThomas
Member
I will start off with my experience for both. For the M14, zero, but it seems to be a very reliable and accurate rifle. As for the Fal, i do own one, and have shot many rounds in her.
1.) I have had ONE stoppage in the rifle, and it is because for 1) I was trying to take the cheap route and shoot indian surplus ammo (very dirty), and 2) i had the gas turned down almost all the way on the gun for the least possible recoil. But i almost feel as though that the Fal could have an advantage in reliability because you can adjust how much gas is used/bled off from the barrel. this way if you are shooting unreliable ammo, you can turn it up, or if you are shooting reliable ammo, you can turn it down for reduced recoil.
2. Another great thing about the FAL is how stinking easy it is to clean, its AWSOME!!!!!!! you just flip the lever on the back, and the whole thing hinges about where the magazine is at (you can see the circle piece). then you can just pull the bolt out, and clean out the barrel, then do whatever you please.
3. I also have grown fond of the pistol grip on the Fal, it has at a greater angle than many pistol grip weapons. The nice thing about carrying an fal is that it also has the side folding carrying handle, this may not seem like too much of an advantage for a target shooter, but if the SHTF, then you are going to be lugging this thing around alot, and that one little feature is handy.
4. Also the controls on the FAL ave very fast, the left sided charging handle allows you to stay holding the gun with your right hand, and recock with your left. Also the bolt is held open on the last shot, so all you have to do after you reload the next magazine is to hit the bolt release lever, and you are ready to shoot.
5. As for parts you probably wont find much just from walking into your local gun store (maybe a gas rod or stock sets), but if you look online, there is alot out there. As somebody mentioned previously, i would seem more likely to find m14 parts in the USA, but you also have to consider the fact that tons of countries implemented this gun all across the world. look on youtube, or google it to find official numbers past "a ton of countries" hahaha
6. Buy both
1.) I have had ONE stoppage in the rifle, and it is because for 1) I was trying to take the cheap route and shoot indian surplus ammo (very dirty), and 2) i had the gas turned down almost all the way on the gun for the least possible recoil. But i almost feel as though that the Fal could have an advantage in reliability because you can adjust how much gas is used/bled off from the barrel. this way if you are shooting unreliable ammo, you can turn it up, or if you are shooting reliable ammo, you can turn it down for reduced recoil.
2. Another great thing about the FAL is how stinking easy it is to clean, its AWSOME!!!!!!! you just flip the lever on the back, and the whole thing hinges about where the magazine is at (you can see the circle piece). then you can just pull the bolt out, and clean out the barrel, then do whatever you please.
3. I also have grown fond of the pistol grip on the Fal, it has at a greater angle than many pistol grip weapons. The nice thing about carrying an fal is that it also has the side folding carrying handle, this may not seem like too much of an advantage for a target shooter, but if the SHTF, then you are going to be lugging this thing around alot, and that one little feature is handy.
4. Also the controls on the FAL ave very fast, the left sided charging handle allows you to stay holding the gun with your right hand, and recock with your left. Also the bolt is held open on the last shot, so all you have to do after you reload the next magazine is to hit the bolt release lever, and you are ready to shoot.
5. As for parts you probably wont find much just from walking into your local gun store (maybe a gas rod or stock sets), but if you look online, there is alot out there. As somebody mentioned previously, i would seem more likely to find m14 parts in the USA, but you also have to consider the fact that tons of countries implemented this gun all across the world. look on youtube, or google it to find official numbers past "a ton of countries" hahaha
6. Buy both
Last edited:
jpwilly
Member
Thread back from the dead? Oh well I'll chime in too M1A!
Polar Express
Member
I went through this same decision 5 months ago. The fever was Red-hot back in January, and I had caught it. I was considering an Armalite AR-10, a Rock River AR-10, a DSA-FAL, and an Springfield M1A. I decided on those brands for quality. I didn't want to risk buying junk. At one point, I had basically decided to purchase the first one I could find in the configuration I wanted. Dangerous decision. Then, all in one day, I found an Armalite AR-10, a DSA-FAL and an M1A.
If all other things are equal, (and they NEVER are, there is always a variable), the AR design may be the most accurate. However, plenty of folks have competed in 1000 yd matches with an M1A, and been competitive, so in my humble opinion, it's mostly the user. (for my tastes, if I NEEDED that much accuracy, my plan was the bolt gun and monster scope.)
During my search, I was told the FAL had been dubbed 'the right arm of the free world'. Many countries used the FAL as the Main Battle Rifle (.308 caliber). So, that being said, the rest of the world was using FALs, while USA was using the M1A. (I had been told that originally the USA had committed to going with the FAL, but re-nigged on the agreement for political reasons, can someone confirm this?)
I did decide that if I was going to go with the FAL, it would be one built to the Metric standards, not imperial (inch). I liked the adjustable gas valve, and one of my 'musts' was a collapsing stock. At least some parts are not interchangeable between the two, should you decide to go that way.
Sure, the AR design guns are all over, made by many, and have lots of interchangeable parts. And while I have zero facts to back this up, it's my hunch (and it's my money, so I'm entitled to my hunch) that the FAL and M1A would require less parts over the long haul. Anyone else confirm or deny this?
It also seemed to me that the M1A was able to be worked on and serviced by a lay-person with a good book, decent tools and a general mechanical knowledge. (I am blessed to have all three, others may not.) The FAL seemed to require more specialized tools and specific smithy training.
One thing I liked about the Rock River product, is that they are supposed to use the FAL mags, and that's worth considering. The Armalite mags were going for upwards of $80 each, and I have been told they are propitiatory. FAL mags were the least $$ of any of them - but you had to make sure to get the correct ones (imperial vs. Metric).
On that magical day (03Feb09), I followed my gut, and went with the M1A. I got a brand new, Springfield M1A standard for 1200.00, ordered the SAGE EBR stock, and waited for UPS. With very common tools you can buy from Home Depot, you can totally disassemble your M1A, and re-assemble it. (Can't do that with the FAL) Field stripping it requires no tools, they have a great reputation in unfavorable conditions, (so does the FAL, but not the AR), the design is plenty accurate
Here's a quote I lifted from my post in the thread I started about this decision:
In summary, from all the replies here and other readings, this is what I came up with: And keep in mind, this is WITHOUT Gunsmiths-type work --- out of the box with simple mods, (stock, accessories, that kind of thing)
Out of the box accuracy:
1st place) AR style 2nd place) M1A 3rd place) FAL
'environmental resistance'
1) FAL 2) M1A 3) AR
Easy to work on for lay-person
1) AR 2)M1A 3) FAL
Mag avail: (and this is debatable with the imperial vs. metric issue)
1) FAL 2) M1a 3) AR
Avail of parts in USA
1) AR 2) M1A 3) FAL
* again, debatable because of proprietary components in certain AR platforms.
While the M1A appears to be 2nd place in just about every category, with what I could find, in each category, While the M1A was in second, it was a very close second, and good arguments could be made why it should have been equal to #1.
Some would argue that the M1A is a marvelous concept, not just a great gun. (all of the ones mentioned are great, IMHO) The idea that every part on the M1A's original design does at least two jobs, sometimes more. Very few moving parts, and it does the job so well. Don't get me wrong, I LOVE the FAL. I still very much want a couple: a DSA-Para model to shoot, and an original for historical interests. But on my current budget, I had to start with one.
So, all told, I'm into my M1A about $2500.00 (don't tell my wife) I have the action, the stock, and 20 20-round mags. I don't have optics yet, but I am more concerned with guns that are likely to be restricted right now, so, and with the great iron sights, the need is not as great.
So, that's the direction I went. I'm very happy I did.
If all other things are equal, (and they NEVER are, there is always a variable), the AR design may be the most accurate. However, plenty of folks have competed in 1000 yd matches with an M1A, and been competitive, so in my humble opinion, it's mostly the user. (for my tastes, if I NEEDED that much accuracy, my plan was the bolt gun and monster scope.)
During my search, I was told the FAL had been dubbed 'the right arm of the free world'. Many countries used the FAL as the Main Battle Rifle (.308 caliber). So, that being said, the rest of the world was using FALs, while USA was using the M1A. (I had been told that originally the USA had committed to going with the FAL, but re-nigged on the agreement for political reasons, can someone confirm this?)
I did decide that if I was going to go with the FAL, it would be one built to the Metric standards, not imperial (inch). I liked the adjustable gas valve, and one of my 'musts' was a collapsing stock. At least some parts are not interchangeable between the two, should you decide to go that way.
Sure, the AR design guns are all over, made by many, and have lots of interchangeable parts. And while I have zero facts to back this up, it's my hunch (and it's my money, so I'm entitled to my hunch) that the FAL and M1A would require less parts over the long haul. Anyone else confirm or deny this?
It also seemed to me that the M1A was able to be worked on and serviced by a lay-person with a good book, decent tools and a general mechanical knowledge. (I am blessed to have all three, others may not.) The FAL seemed to require more specialized tools and specific smithy training.
One thing I liked about the Rock River product, is that they are supposed to use the FAL mags, and that's worth considering. The Armalite mags were going for upwards of $80 each, and I have been told they are propitiatory. FAL mags were the least $$ of any of them - but you had to make sure to get the correct ones (imperial vs. Metric).
On that magical day (03Feb09), I followed my gut, and went with the M1A. I got a brand new, Springfield M1A standard for 1200.00, ordered the SAGE EBR stock, and waited for UPS. With very common tools you can buy from Home Depot, you can totally disassemble your M1A, and re-assemble it. (Can't do that with the FAL) Field stripping it requires no tools, they have a great reputation in unfavorable conditions, (so does the FAL, but not the AR), the design is plenty accurate
Here's a quote I lifted from my post in the thread I started about this decision:
In summary, from all the replies here and other readings, this is what I came up with: And keep in mind, this is WITHOUT Gunsmiths-type work --- out of the box with simple mods, (stock, accessories, that kind of thing)
Out of the box accuracy:
1st place) AR style 2nd place) M1A 3rd place) FAL
'environmental resistance'
1) FAL 2) M1A 3) AR
Easy to work on for lay-person
1) AR 2)M1A 3) FAL
Mag avail: (and this is debatable with the imperial vs. metric issue)
1) FAL 2) M1a 3) AR
Avail of parts in USA
1) AR 2) M1A 3) FAL
* again, debatable because of proprietary components in certain AR platforms.
While the M1A appears to be 2nd place in just about every category, with what I could find, in each category, While the M1A was in second, it was a very close second, and good arguments could be made why it should have been equal to #1.
Some would argue that the M1A is a marvelous concept, not just a great gun. (all of the ones mentioned are great, IMHO) The idea that every part on the M1A's original design does at least two jobs, sometimes more. Very few moving parts, and it does the job so well. Don't get me wrong, I LOVE the FAL. I still very much want a couple: a DSA-Para model to shoot, and an original for historical interests. But on my current budget, I had to start with one.
So, all told, I'm into my M1A about $2500.00 (don't tell my wife
) I have the action, the stock, and 20 20-round mags. I don't have optics yet, but I am more concerned with guns that are likely to be restricted right now, so, and with the great iron sights, the need is not as great. So, that's the direction I went. I'm very happy I did.
HorseSoldier
Member
My understanding is that the DSA submission for the SASS/M110 program met their accuracy requirements, though I'd guess it involved a good deal of work (judging by DSA's price tag for them).
Acera
Member
Well I hope the OP got the info he needed, since he was in a hurry. Not too sure how pertinent this info is for him after this thread had been dead for 1 year and 8 months.
Last edited:
Quote:
I know the M14 can also be tuned and installed in an EBR stock for reliable sub MOA accuracy, I'm not sure the same can be said for the FAL.
Yeah, the Crazy Horse M21A5 also met the accuracy requirements with a substantially lower price tag.
I know the M14 can also be tuned and installed in an EBR stock for reliable sub MOA accuracy, I'm not sure the same can be said for the FAL.
Yeah, the Crazy Horse M21A5 also met the accuracy requirements with a substantially lower price tag.
FlyinBryan
Member
well, if almost 2 years from the date of your question is a fast enough answer, id go with the m1a, and i wouldnt have to think twice about it.
MTMilitiaman
Member
I don't think it is accurate or fair to say the FAL has any more history than the M1 Garand/M14.
That mechanism has been serving this country very well since WWII, and still sees limited use, by some reports, esp in the mountains of Afghanistan, where the rifle's accuracy, range, and power are most needed.
Heck, on the same token, the AR has a good deal of history itself--at least enough to compare to any "Euro-trash." And I say this fully acknowledging the FAL is an awesome battle rifle with a lot of honorable service to its credit. But in terms of history, I don't see how it has any more of it than a number of designs, several of them from The West (BTW, I thought Belgium and other western European nations were still considered "The West").
That mechanism has been serving this country very well since WWII, and still sees limited use, by some reports, esp in the mountains of Afghanistan, where the rifle's accuracy, range, and power are most needed.
Heck, on the same token, the AR has a good deal of history itself--at least enough to compare to any "Euro-trash." And I say this fully acknowledging the FAL is an awesome battle rifle with a lot of honorable service to its credit. But in terms of history, I don't see how it has any more of it than a number of designs, several of them from The West (BTW, I thought Belgium and other western European nations were still considered "The West").
Winston_Smith
Member
Everyone will have a preference. I found this article to be fairly objective.
http://billstclair.com/DoingFreedom/gen/0702/brifle.html
http://billstclair.com/DoingFreedom/gen/0702/brifle.html
I wasn't comparing it with the Garand. Garand is a different rifle from another time. Apples vs oranges. actually even M14 is not exacly in the same generation with FAL. More in a generation with SKS, FN49, MAS-49, VZ.52.
I was considering western Europe when I was reffering to the "West".
While the AR has a long history it still didn't come near the wide aceptance that FAL enjoyed over time. In the second half of 20th century, it was accepted as main battle rifle by more countries then any other rifle except the AK.
ElToro
Member
the FAL has seen service all over the planet and i think its service record stands for itself. getting into a quality rifle is cheaper than a m1a
the m1aalso had a brief but distinguished service and is still used in some units and its reliability and accuracy potential is very good as well.
if i lived in free america, id buy a DSA in a minute
but i live in PRK and can only have rifles with no evil features like pistols grips. so i will have to live with my socom and m1a
if you have a choice, get the one that fits you better
the m1aalso had a brief but distinguished service and is still used in some units and its reliability and accuracy potential is very good as well.
if i lived in free america, id buy a DSA in a minute
but i live in PRK and can only have rifles with no evil features like pistols grips. so i will have to live with my socom and m1a
if you have a choice, get the one that fits you better
Not quite. The number is actually closer to 100 countries.
So was the M1 Garand. It was originally designed around a .276 caliber round. The army made Garand "stretch" it to fit the .30-06.
I'm curious to know what you believe the history of the FAL is.
Tough call, but I think it really comes down to how it feels in the hands for the individual...sure you can get the Sage stock set-up for the M1A, but I think that detracts from the original clean lines whereas the FAL is made for a pistol grip stock.
I like both...easy decision
Unless I was heading off to an urban fight where I knew .308 was needed, I would opt for the FAL. Even though I have three and they are incredibly stout and reliable battle rifles, I think the M1A (mine is an original "Bush" model) gives you a better all-around rifle. I don't think iron sights is an advantage anymore with the aftermarket sights for the FAL's...my AR-style para-sights are just as accurate as my M1A sights. I do agree that the FAL is a much easier weapon to break down and clean in the field, but that's a minor issue that can easily be rectified with good habits and practice.
Scoping a FAL is just as easy as an M1A and although I think I'm a little more accurate with my M1A, I don't think you'll see much difference inside of 400-500 meters which is more than adequate for 99.9% of SHTF/combat use.
If I'm going to a fight, I'll take my FAL. If I'm going to the woods for SHTF where I'll be hunting along with a good possibility of a fight, I'll take my M1A.
ROCK6
I like both...easy decision
Unless I was heading off to an urban fight where I knew .308 was needed, I would opt for the FAL. Even though I have three and they are incredibly stout and reliable battle rifles, I think the M1A (mine is an original "Bush" model) gives you a better all-around rifle. I don't think iron sights is an advantage anymore with the aftermarket sights for the FAL's...my AR-style para-sights are just as accurate as my M1A sights. I do agree that the FAL is a much easier weapon to break down and clean in the field, but that's a minor issue that can easily be rectified with good habits and practice.Scoping a FAL is just as easy as an M1A and although I think I'm a little more accurate with my M1A, I don't think you'll see much difference inside of 400-500 meters which is more than adequate for 99.9% of SHTF/combat use.
If I'm going to a fight, I'll take my FAL. If I'm going to the woods for SHTF where I'll be hunting along with a good possibility of a fight, I'll take my M1A.
ROCK6
Art Eatman
Moderator In Memoriam
Condition Yellow: "Be alert and aware of your surroundings." All that good stuff.
Y'all weren't aware that the OP wanted his answer in October of 2008.
You're late.
Y'all weren't aware that the OP wanted his answer in October of 2008.
You're late.
- Status
