Two Qs about FAL accuracy

[tommer]

1. How accurate is a factory FAL out the medium ranges -- say five or six hundred yards?

I've read that it's not great, but I'd like some numbers and stories. Nevermind that it's a battle rifle and most engagements take place at 90yds, etc etc.

2. DSA offers a few different models with a number of features which would seem to make for greater accuracy, e.g. premuim match grade barrel, free-float [barrel] tube, match grade set trigger. Will these improvements do the trick, or is there something inherently mediocre about the action as far as accuracy is concerned?

Nevermind that it's a rough and tought battle rifle and it'll eat anything you feed it as long as it's not Israeli sand, etc etc.

 

[HorseSoldier]

My DSA carbine will do minute of man (steel chest plates) at 400 meters without much fuss if the shooter can do his part of the job. I think that the "FALs are inaccurate" argument gets grossly overstated on the internet like a bunch of other statements ("all AKs are impossibly reliable but inaccurate," "ARs are horribly unreliable but incredibly accurate").

I don't know how they'd stack up at things like Camp Perry (guess they don't turn up there much) but for practical shooting, even at debatably practical ranges they do fine.

 

[AndyC]

3 MOA is respectable for an FAL (15" - 18" at your stated distances) - handloading will usually improve that.

The more you're prepared to spend, the better it will be, of course - but you're still trying to improve an old design. Removing the play between upper and lower receivers, a decent trigger-job by using an FSE hammer/trigger/sear set, etc all help. It would take more money than I'm prepared to spend to make it a 1 MOA rifle, though.

YMMV

 

[funfaler]

Andy pegged it quite nicely.

I have several FALs, DSA Stg58, and a couple of Imbel kit guns (and a buddy with similar rifles) none of them have much trouble to hit 20" steel targets at 500 yards.

The improvements that I have made on my rifles, to make that task easier:
-Falcon's TRP kit, to reduce trigger pull
-FSE HTS
-turned front sight down to .050", from the standard .075"
-tightened up the rear sight, to reduce the wobble
-tightened up the upper/lower receiver interface (hinge pin helps)

All my shooting is done with surplus ammo, Port, SA, CAVIM.

I also have a couple of M1As. From the stand point of using iron sights, the M1a is much better, and the trigger is much better. Compared to the FAL, the M1a will make hits at 500 yards, much easier. However, if you are going to scope the rifle, the FAL (IMHO) would be better. The scope mount is tighter and cheaper. Having a scope eliminates the inaccuracy induced by the receiver slop and rear sight slop. We shoot clay pigeons at 500 yards with a scoped FAL, 8 in a row is the longest string, thus far.

 

[tommer]

funfaler,

That's good shooting. Is that a DSA, and what size are those clays?

 

[Bwana John]

I would call 500-600 yds "maximum effective range" for a stock FAL, not "medium range".

We shoot clay pigeons at 500 yards with a scoped FAL, 8 in a row is the longest string, thus far.

 

[Vic303]

IIRC FALs from factory had to be 2MOA max. Definitely minute-of-torso in battle!

 

[cameron.personal]

I was recently up in the mountains shooting at and hitting a 16" x 12" gong at 500 yards WITH IRON SIGHTS out of a DSA SA58 16.25" firing 150gr American Eagle FMJ!!!!

Remember that DSA SA58s generally have VERY GOOD barrels,

DSA uses Badger barrels that are broach cut, hand lapped chrome-moly with 1:11-inch twist and four grooves. They are double stress relieved, then cryogenically treated, with an 11-degree crown. Bull barrels, fluted barrels and integral muzzle brakes are offered.

There has been many verified examples where the DSA produced rifles can hold sub MOA with the right ammo, and the right monkey working the trigger.

Here is a quote from a Sept 2005 issue of Guns & Weapons for LE

ACCURACY
Load______________________Best______Average
Hornady 155 TAP____________0.75______1.56
Hornady 110 TAP____________0.87______1.27
Portuguese 144 Surplus_______1.13______2.19
Hornady 168 TAP____________1.19______2.55
Black Hills 168 BTHP__________1.25______2.63
Winchester 180 Power Point___1.38______3.00
Remington 168 BTHP Match____2.63______4.10

Bullet weight measured in grains, accuracy in inches for 3-shot groups from 100 yards off a sand bag.

SUB MOA with a FAL who would of thunk it...

I added a mid range optic (1.1-4 power) and I am very happy with the groups that my rifle shoots using Balck Hills 175gr BTHP.

Remember that there are many things that effect accuracy in a FAL:

Barrel (chamber, neck, rifling, crown)
Trigger (weight and break)
Sights (irons or optics)
Bolt Lock up (this is where the FAL can suffer a lose in accuracy, the locking shoulders have to be "just right" to consistently chamber each round, even the amount of mag spring pressure on the bolt can mean each round is chambered differently).

What does NOT effect accuracy is barrel length.

Mil surplus guns can range from 3 to 8 MOA due to a combination of poorly fit or worn locking shoulders, worn poor quality barrels, bad trigger etc.


Here is mine with the scope and mounts and the sheek piece riser on a Magpul stock.


Regards,
Cameron

 

[cameron.personal]

From a 2003 issue of Guns & Weapons for LE

PERFORMANCE
DS ARMS SA58/FAL CARBINES .308
__________________Velocity_____________________Accuracy
Load______________High Low Average_____________ES Camo Black
Black Hills 168 LP____2415 2402 2408______________13 1.75 1.75
Black Hills 168 HPBT__2487 2445 2461______________42 1.75 1.50
Black Hills 175 HPBT__2397 2365 2382______________32 2.25 2.50
Federal 175 HPBT____2403 2352 2377______________51 2.00 2.00
Hornady 168 TAP____2451 2420 2440______________31 1.75 1.60
Hornady 155 TAP____2505 2473 2491______________31 1.75 1.75
Remington 168 HPBT_2525 2487 2507______________38 1.50 2.00
Bullet weight measured in grains, velocity and ES (extreme spread) in feet per second (fps) by Oehler35P Chronograph, accuracy in inches for 5-shot groups from police cruiser’s hood at 50 yards.

Not bad with most loads sub 2 MOA

 

[Father Knows Best]

Cameron, is that an IOR Valdada 1.1-4x tactical? If so, that's exactly the scope I was looking at for my SA58 Para. How do you like it for that application? What rings are you using?

 

[cameron.personal]

It is the IOR 1.1-4 I got it from DSA for a little under $700 with the illuminated CQB reticle.

​

I got the "high" IOR mounts from them too as I needed the IOR to sit right above the Hampton Lower A2 rear sight for correct eye relief, the "med" or "low" mounts would work if I didn't have the A2 rear sight I think.

The glass is extremely clear for a $2695 optic let alone a $695, and the reticle combines the best of a CQB horseshoe and an ACOG type BDC reticle.

I have shot the IOR side by side with the Leupold MRT with the SPR and I am impressed with the IOR. I even looked through the IOR side by side with a Schmidt and Bender and wouldn't pay more for the Schimdt. YMMV

I friend was so impressed with mine he got one for his RRA Middy

 

[cameron.personal]

 

[Father Knows Best]

Very cool. Thanks!

One more question -- from the pics, it looks like you have the IOR QD lever rings. Can you use your irons through them, or do you need to remove the rings to use the irons?

 

[cameron.personal]

Because the FAL sights are so low you cannot see the front sight through these rings. If anything sits directly on top of the rail it will block out the front sight. Also while they say they are "QD" levers they are NOT Quick Detach. They are just a thumb lever on a regular bolt. They require multiple revolutions to mount and dismount and will NOT hold a repeatable zero, unlike true Quick Detach mounts that have a throw lever and a cam.

Here is a picture of the rings...

the lowest lateral piece (that sits on the top of the rail) blocks my front sight.

Cameron

 

[iamkris]

Here's 2 iron sight 3-shot sighter groups using standard SA surplus on my new SA58 Para. The elevation difference is my screwing down the front sight