Springfield M1A versus DSA SA-58 FAL

Balrog

Member
Joined
Nov 28, 2008
Messages
3,237
If you were looking at 7.62x51 battle rifles, which would you pick and why?
 
As a proponent of the previous generation semi-auto battle rifle, will recuse myself.

But agree with this:


 
They’re both big, heavy, loud…and very cool rifles! :thumbup:

If you like full sized rifles like these, either one will scratch that itch. I say look around and buy the one you can get the best deal on.

Stay safe.
 
M-14 was a favorite battle rifle that I used. Mine was very accurate. I would go with the M1 since it Looks like an M-14 and likely more accurate. It is not a real one though. I like the FAL too but isn't it another clone. Whatever obsolete copy rifle trips your trigger. They are both formidable weapons. Now if I could have a Sniper version M-14 like my buddy had. That would be so cool. Picture of him and the rifle in the Book, "Black Horse Riders".
 
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.
Yea i like the DSA optic rail that is available on some of their rifles.
 
As an owner of three imported FALs: two were built from kits, the third is an SAR-4800 from Brazil, and also own a 2022 Springfield M1A Standard. But the M1A, as perfecly reliable as it is, isn’t quite as exotic as the three FALs. As with AlexanderA, i also own a PTR-91 “Classic GI”.

Be aware that some FALs appear on the Marketplace of “FALfiles” and even a few recent examples were built by the premier FAL smith: ARS / “Gunplumber”. Most of the ARS builds have his small stamp underneath and barely fwd of the receiver.
He has an ad for an L1A1:cool: he modified (a metric upper takes metric mags) , now on the 4th or 5th page of the Marketplace.

Note: FALs built by ARS and other very reputable builders—whether professional or private— are often listed in recent months/weeks at the same prices as an average or a lower-priced new DSA FAL.
 
Last edited:
If you want something that you can get match grade accuracy from, get a good M1A. If you want a field accurate rifle that will eat rocks and is dead reliable get the FAL. They are both great rifles, but the FAL is not a match grade rifle.

I love my FAL, it's the favorite rifle I own and mine is very accurate, for a FAL. I wouldn't trade it for anything. I have an AR308, it fills it's role just fine. But if I want a battle rifle I'll grab my FAL.
 
I like my Bula.

f23ooRXl.jpg
 
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.
 
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.
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.
 
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.

Are FAL's cool? Yes but at $0.70 to a $1 a round, I want better accuracy.
 
Last edited:
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.

Are FAL's cool? Yes but at $0.70 to a $1 a round, I want better accuracy.
Well, sure, but which model M1A? Standard, Loaded, Match, SuperMatch, Heavy stainless, Scout Squad 18", Socom 16......
And of course there are different DSA models.

Pitting a DSA lightweight compact against an SA Supermatch at 1000yd is an unfair fight. SA Standards don't have a stellar accuracy reputation.

I will say, my Stainless Loaded was very accurate off the bench. It was also horribly unbalanced, ridiculously long and unweildy for mounting and dismounting from vehicles, and the iron NM sights were useless for combat, being far too tiny to reaquire a target quickly after a shot. It was a pretty decent sniper weapon (with glass fitted), but I wouldn't use one as a "battle rifle."
 
I have a Springfield M1A and a CMP 308 Win Garand. These satisfy my itches for a 308 Win battle rifle.

I do not have any experience with an FAL so I cannot comment on them.
 
It [the M14] was a pretty decent sniper weapon (with glass fitted), but I wouldn't use one as a "battle rifle."
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.
 
These days, I wouldnt look at either of them, an AR in 7.62 negates either of them as a choice.

Ive had multiples of the M1A's, FAL's, and HK91's. Of those three, the choice would be between the FAL and the 91's, and they would be a toss-up, with "maybe" a sight edge to the FAL, if you lower the accuracy standards.

The FAL's are "accurate enough", but not what I consider accurate. But they have a couple of minor things going for them that might just edge them by the HK's.

Given the choice of just one, and "as they come", the HK hands down.
 
Back
Top