Yea i like the DSA optic rail that is available on some of their rifles.Whichever one you like more. Either one should serve well from a function perspective. The FAL is arguably a better platform for mounting optics, but if you prefer iron sights the M1A's stock sights are hard to beat.
Agreed. I don't have one, mainly because I can't decide which of the several available versions to get. This lack of standardization is hurting the design.All that said......AR10 for the win.
The testing process used to choose the M-14 over the FAL was rigged to the point of absurdity. The FAL never had a fair chance as we couldn't have a European firearm be our battle rifle. That would be un-American.Ive never had a FAL but Uncle Sam picked the M14 so it is probably the way to go. Nobody ever got on the line at Camp Perry and outshot the USMC with a FAL that I know of.
Well, sure, but which model M1A? Standard, Loaded, Match, SuperMatch, Heavy stainless, Scout Squad 18", Socom 16......The M1A will be significantly more accurate out of the box than the DSA FAL.
I owned both dumped the FAL for poor accuracy.
James Reeves did a recent review on the DSA. The accuracy on the DSA, as expected is horrible.
Upgrading the Classic Rhodesian FAL Rifle: Is it Worth It?
In this video, @JamesReeves takes a look at the DSA Bush Tracker FAL rifle, a modern take on the classic FN FAL. We compare the accuracy of the standard 21" ...www.youtube.com
Are FAL's cool? Yes but at $0.70 to a $1 a round, I want better accuracy.
And that's exactly the conclusion the armed forces ended up with, continuing to use the M14 as a "Designated Marksman Rifle." The M16 became, by default, the "battle rifle," but its utility is limited by the cartridge (compared to the 7.62 mm NATO). So now the search is on for a caliber replacement.It [the M14] was a pretty decent sniper weapon (with glass fitted), but I wouldn't use one as a "battle rifle."