So Tell Me About The FN FAL

[cslinger]

I have never exactly been a FAL fan because I have never held one that felt right to me and I have always felt they were pretty ugly.

I know about the FAL's history and that it is very highly regarded as a reliable, robust piece. I just want to know if it really would make a good .308 semi auto to own.

I ask this because I handled the most beautiful, comfortable FAL I have ever seen this weekend. It was a DSA SA58 T-48 with European Walnut furniture and a 16 inch carbine barrel. It was absolutely stunning in both appearance and feel.

So tell me about the FAL. Would a better choice be an AR10? I really don't want to take a chance on Springfield Quality control regarding the M1A so lets leave this guy out of it.

So FAL freaks give me the skinny.

Thanks
Chris

 

[keederdag]

definitly a better choice than the Company that calls themselves Armalite Ar-10. The FAL is all steel, and meant to be re-built over and over. I prefer inch pattern rifles, but I know DSA makes a good gun. Pricey though. The Fal has several things going for it over any AR-10. Adjustable gas system, very modular desighn, really cheep mags, Afore mentioned all steel construction=long life. AR-10's have a reputation for accuracy, but so do Fal's; and FAl's are battle proven. I think only about two countrys adopted the AR-10 and in small quantity's. Reguards Keeder

 

[hillbilly]

I'm a FAL freak.

I saved and waited for two years to buy a Springfield M-1A, until I got into FALs.

Battle rifle accuracy......not sniper rifle, but battle rifle.

During their heyday, 94 different countries adopted the FAL as their service rifle.

In fact, it was probably only good old fashioned internal politics which kept the US from adopting the FAL as well.

Rugged, reliable.

Also, 20 round mags can be had for as little as $5. I know of one internet site selling them for $3.95 if you buy at least 10 of them.

In addition, you can also find the nifty little SUIT (Sight Unit Infantry Trilux) scope for the FAL. It's a combat prism site with a 300 yard and a 600 yard setting. Again, that's not a precision sniper scope.

Off a rest, if I do my part, I can shoot 2 to 3 inch groups at 100 yards with my Franken Fal, cobbled together out of a parts kit and an Imbel receiver.

The only gripe I have about my FAL is that it's fairly heavy.

hillbilly

 

[keederdag]

Also a plus, like hillbilly stated, the Trilux/Suit sight. Our Cousins across the water insist on great optics for thier battle rifles. SUIT sights are awsome, I just wish I could get a new SUSAT for my AR!

 

[Zak Smith]

The FAL is a great battle rifle. They're sturdy, soft-recoiling, and reliable- they just keep on shooting. Nice low sight plane. Mags are super cheap. Building a FAL is somewhat harder than building an AR-15. The barrel is screwed into the receiver and that is how barrel timing is determined. Headspace is set by replacing the locking shoulder which sits in the upper receiver behind the mag well.

Trigger can be improved some, but there's no hope of approaching an AR-15 "match" trigger.

For precision shooting, the AR-10 is a better choice due to inherent accuracy and the direct gas impingement system. The piston of the FAL is an advantage for reliability, but degrades accuracy and quick-shooting due to the extra reciprocating mass.

Adding a scope to a FAL is done by replacing the upper receiver dust cover with a machined aluminum version with a Weaver rail on the top - it has a series of plates that squeeze the sides of the upper rec. The end result is that the optics are mounted very high relative to the natural position on the FAL.

-z

 

[gun-fucious]

heres where that pretty wood comes from:
http://www.ironwooddesigns.com/2Aprodpage/1zFALprod.html

 

[Ian]

Mags for $5 each? Heck, I just ordered 10 for $35 + shipping from Tapco (www.tapco.com).

I'm no expert, but I'd easily choose a FAL over an AR-10 for anything I'd be doing with it.

 

[kotengu]

"the optics are mounted very high relative to the natural position on the FAL."

I would disagree - different mounts are of different height. The limiting factor on FAL low scope mount is the front bell of the scope running into the handguards, which is an issue on the AR as well.

I'd agree, the AR-10 is more of a "target" rifle, but between the price of the mags, and the other things I don't like about the AR platform (poops where it eats, horrible "charging handle") I prefer the FAL. If you're wanting to have more of a target gun you can modify the FAL to do that as well - I just shot my FAL "spacegun" at a 3x600 match, and the rifle was NOT the limiting factor (it's the nut behind the trigger). Find the right 'smith, and you can get the same results, with a better platform, for less money than the AR-10. You just have to modify the FAL the same way the "target" AR has been modified (match barrel, free-float handguards, trigger job, match sights).

If you're looking for more of a "battle rifle" there's no contest, for the reasons already stated.

 

[Zak Smith]

kotengu,

My point is that the sight plane on a FAL using the iron sights, which is pretty "natural" with the low stock comb, is only approx 0.25" above the top of the upper receiver (ie, where the carry handle attaches).

With DSA-type scope mount, the top of the upper rec lower than the top of the weaver rail. So figure about 1/4" to the top of the weaver rail, and then an additional at least 0.8" for the rear bell of a small scope (e.g. a Leupold VXIII 1.5-5X with a 1" front and 1.6" rear bell diameter) to clear the weaver rail.

That's over 1" higher than the stock sight plane.

-z

 

[kotengu]

That's true, but the DSA is the highest mount that I know of. I know the TAPCO and the Williams (now out of business) mounts are no higher than the original topcover was. I think it's kind of a moot point, though - on just about any rifle, when you add a scope you should add a cheekpiece to keep a good cheekweld because of the higher sight plane.

If you want to add a compact scope or a low red dot, I don't see why the sight plane would change much.

 

[Chris Rhines]

Once upon a time, I had a FAL. It was a mixed blessing.

Things I liked - very good ergonomics, in some ways better than the AR. Charging handle is in exactly the right spot for us right-handers. Cheap magazines. Cheap parts. Unusually comfortable stock.

Things I didn't like - I had a lot of trouble with magazine-related failure-to-feed malfunctions. Finally got it worked out, but it soured me on the system.* You can't use a shooting sling with a FAL; the sling tension will pull your shots off, and no one makes a good float tube for the FAL (I've seen some good custom one-offs, though.) Not very accurate (about like an AK, 4-6" groups, off the bench, at 100 yards.) Horrible iron sights, sloppy and inconsistant adjustments.

If you really like the FAL, then go for it, but I won't get another one. One piece of advice - get a DSA or a professionally built kit gun on an Imbel reciever. Mine was a Century/Imbel gun, and I suspect that many of its shortcomings were the result of poor construction.

My next MBR will be an AR-10, for what it's worth.

- Chris

 

[JShirley]

4-6"? My G1 averaged less than 2" groups at 100 yards, when kotengu test-fired it for me. Century was the sour note in your equation.

 

[keiser]

FAL good points: Charging handle, mag release and saftey all easy to operate for right handers.

Bad points. Saftey is hard to operate compared to other systems. Easy to overshoot the semi-auto position and end up between detents. Weapon will not fire. (Oh ????!!) This can be fixed by making sure you have a stop at the semi-auto position. If you are not into speed, then this doesn't matter. The gun is long which makes it a bit slower getting on target. Also, weight is more than an AR-15. The sight is the biggest weak point. If someone would come out with a good adjustable sight like the AR-15 for the FAL, that would end this problem. Also, the sight aperture is too small for night shooting.

Overall, I still like the rifle and enjoy shooting it. Every rifle has it's quarks and once you are used to them, it is a good and useful rifle.

 

[atek3]

Have to disagree w/ chris on the "professionally"
My friend and I are total gunhacks and the Imbel On Imbel parts gun we built (using a file, a vice, and a magic marker ) has been utterly reliable and is certainly "battle rifle" accurate. But hey, to each is own.

atek3

 

[surfinUSA]

I have what is probably considered to be the worst of the FALs, a Century L1A1 built on a Hesse FAL-H receiver. Its not the best looking of the FALs. However, this gun is nothing short of outstanding. I will run this gun against any other FAL including the brand new DSAs, preban FNs, and any of the so called custom assembled guns (nothing but a parts kit with a nice refinish, Hell guys on FAL files do this all day long in their garages so why pay a "custom" builder a king's ransom).

My Century is accurate and 100% reliable I could not have asked for a better gun. The funny thing is that if I had found these gun boards before I bought it I would probably have passed it up, based on the internet stuff you read about them and bought a more expensive one.

 

[twoblink]

The front sight is not as good as M1A..

Also, you can get the charging handle notched, and so it can become positive charging handle as well. It's not bad.. but still like my M1A better..

As a left hander, I prefer the M1A for the same reasons righties prefer the FAL.. I can charge the bolt with my recessive hand...

 

[keederdag]

Keiser, safety issue must be a metric thing: on inch gun's you have Up=safe down=repeat, around=full, if you have it, if you dont it stop's after repeat.

Twoblink, Were not supposed to talk M1A's here, but I have one as well and I dont follow you on the front sight. How's it better? Theyre about the same, except the L1A1's adjustable for elevation.

 

[TooTech]

Chris Rhines,

Entreprise makes a free-float handguard for the FAL. Sells for $89.

Is there a quality issue with this handguard that I don't know of? I don't have one but I have a friend who does, and he is very satisfied with it.

 

[justashooter]

i have ten or so of these FAL things, and think the best of the lot is a dsa 16" carbine with a suit sight. the purtyest is definitely an ironwood birmingham inch gun, with an L2A1 a close second. the m14 shoots more accurately, but carries like a club, and takes $50 magazines. the mouse gun shoots like a dream, but won't put a bullet through both sides of a car body at 400 yards (the FAL will). the ak 47 is an entirely different critter, but in a folder would be an easy close second to the dsa carbine as choice of rifle were i limited to one in a hard moment.

buy the FAL carbine with the dsa short brake, and you'll never look back.

 

[Black Snowman]

What? No links to The FAL files?

 

[Chris Rhines]

TooTech -

The Enterprise float tube is okay, but not nearly strong enough. The two rods that support the handguard can actually bend under hard use.

The one really nice custom float tube I've seen was threaded onto a large boss, which was clamped onto the barrel just in front of the reciever. The tube itself was turned out of thick 7075 Al tubing, probably quarter-inch walls. THAT was a strong float tube! It was also too heavy to shoot except off a bipod, but TANSTAAFL...

- Chris

 

[twoblink]

The front post on the M1A is better because it's a BLADE instead of a post. You don't get a parallax wrap distortion (as described in detail by Albert Einstein as it describes planetary gravitational theories)

A post is not as good as a blade, because in bright light, images around the post will "wrap" around it, and give a slight distortion. Without going into all the math, a blade has longer "shadow lines" and does not give the same effect. (Vignetting effect in photography terms)

At 500 yards, you start to see a difference..

We are not suppose to talk about M1A's? Sorry

 

[cslinger]

Let's get one thing straight. At 500 yards some Einsteinen distortion will be the least of my worries. Anything over 250-300 yards and it is cruise missile all the way for me.

So what I am thinking about is a 16inch basic carbine with the European wood and possible the scope mount dust cover.

Does this sound like a pretty solid gun.

Thanks for all the input.

Chris

 

[Onslaught]

So what I am thinking about is a 16inch basic carbine with the European wood and possible the scope mount dust cover.

My $.02...

I like the 18" barrel better than the 16", and I prefer it without the blast enhancer. Both preferences to do with less noise more than anything else.

Of the still-in-production mounts, I think the ARMS #3 is by far the best option. It mounts low, it's extremely sturdy, requires NO tools to put on or take off, and it looks better because it's the only one that doesn't stick out past the receiver 1/2" on each side. www.mountsplus.com has the discontinued 3/4 length rails for $89 while they last. The new ARMS #3 has a full length rail ala AR flat-top, and sells for $135.

 

[rangedog]

Onslaught is right on . My favorite FAL (of 6) is an 18" carbine W/ a DSA type 1 receiver and LW lower(DSA) and a "Penguin"buttstock (lighter wt., better shape than STG.) . It is well balanced and about the wt. of a standard AR at 7.5 to 8 lbs. I shoot reactive targets (clay birds) at 100 & 200 yds. on the berm with great success , about 98% ,So the sights are fine for what they are . I put this lt.wt. rifle together for about $750.00 . I also have an Imbel kit on a Imbel reciever I did for $400.00 and it shoots with the best of them . Its heavier by 2 lbs. and you can really tell the difference . Its not a target rifle , its a battle rifle.