-
If you enjoy the forum please consider supporting it by signing up for a NES Membership The benefits pay for the membership many times over.
-
Be sure to enter the NES/MFS May Giveaway ***Canik METE SFX***
FAL Rifles
- Thread starter Adam_MA
- Start date
I have an "Inch" FAL, an L1A1.
FAL's were used by numerous countries, and almost adopted by the US. There's 3 varieties, Inch, Metric and Israeli.
Inch are British, Canadian and Austrian.
Israeli are exactly that, Israeli.
Metric are the European and South American versions, used by Germany, Belgium, Austria, Argentina, Brazil and other countries.
I like mine, it's made with a British kit on an Imbel receiver.
FAL's were used by numerous countries, and almost adopted by the US. There's 3 varieties, Inch, Metric and Israeli.
Inch are British, Canadian and Austrian.
Israeli are exactly that, Israeli.
Metric are the European and South American versions, used by Germany, Belgium, Austria, Argentina, Brazil and other countries.
I like mine, it's made with a British kit on an Imbel receiver.
USMA-82
NES Member
A good place to check out is:
www.falfiles.com
There is a ton of info on FAL's under their FAQ threads. One of the big differences between english and metric is the mags they use. The metric has a small tab on the front that locks into the mag well, and the english has a large tab. This means an english version can use both, but metric will only fit metric.
I have a STG-58, which is the Austrian Metric version distributed by DS Arms. Bought it at Collector's Guns several months ago. If you have any other FAL-specific questions, feel free to ask.
KK
www.falfiles.com
There is a ton of info on FAL's under their FAQ threads. One of the big differences between english and metric is the mags they use. The metric has a small tab on the front that locks into the mag well, and the english has a large tab. This means an english version can use both, but metric will only fit metric.
I have a STG-58, which is the Austrian Metric version distributed by DS Arms. Bought it at Collector's Guns several months ago. If you have any other FAL-specific questions, feel free to ask.
KK
Adam_MA said:
Metric and Israeli rifles will require Metric Mags.
Inch rifles use Inch or Metric, but Metric fit loose.
They both use the same ammo.
A few parts can interchange, some can't. Availability is about the same.
I agree with checking out FALFiles. My username is the same as here, and USMA-82's is as well, IIRC.
Adam_MA said:
Well, let's see here....
7.62x51 (308 Win). Yup passes there, enough power.
Reasonably cheap mags. Yup, passes there.
Rugged, almost beat the T44 to become the M14. Yup, passes there.
AR-15 type ergonomics. Yup, passes there.
Yup, I would consider mine a GOOD SHTF Rifle.
Before you buy one, check it over. If it's got an Imbel receiver, it's GOOD. If it's got a Hesse receiver, PASS. There's a lot of discussion on FALFiles about this, check it out there.
I'll warn you, it's a good forum, but there's some awfully hard headed folks over there. Adam, you've met me, and probably have figured out that I'm not one (smart enough) to leave a pissing contest. I rarely visit FALFiles anymore. THere's some good folks over there, but also some stubborn and ignorant jerks. DABTL (Dumb Ass Bill The Lawyer) can be politically biased, but when he talks firearms, listen well. He knows what he saying. I had a few sparring contests with him before I essentially quit posting there, and I made sure to make my peace with him before leaving. He's NOT the reason I left. A couple of jerks from the Carolinas pretty much left a BAD impression on me. Arrogant jerks, one even tried to screw me on a deal he tried to set up after lying his ass off. Unfortrunately for him, I knew the gun better than he did.
Try PMing or e-mailing amdburner here or there or bykerHD over there (he has a user ID here, but I don't remember it). I personally know both of them, they're Vermonters, and they both have Metric FALs. They're great people to ask.
USMA-82
NES Member
Adam:
You actually have to click on the "FAL Forum" link at the bottom of the front page to get to the forum.
Good SHTF gun (or TEOTWAWKI)? You Bet! For a good analysis and comparison of battle rifles, read "The Boston Gun Bible" by Boston T. Party. The M1A edges out the FAL in his latest edition, but just barely.
For planning purposes, I see the FAL as my 100 - 600 yard gun. My 25 - 100 yard gun is the AK, and any number of handguns for up close and personal.
For high drool factor, also check out www.dsarms.com but be prepared for sticker shock!
If I recall, though, they are still selling 20-round, used, very good condition magazines for $5 each. Got 10 of them just for my basic load...
KK
You actually have to click on the "FAL Forum" link at the bottom of the front page to get to the forum.
Good SHTF gun (or TEOTWAWKI)? You Bet! For a good analysis and comparison of battle rifles, read "The Boston Gun Bible" by Boston T. Party. The M1A edges out the FAL in his latest edition, but just barely.
For planning purposes, I see the FAL as my 100 - 600 yard gun. My 25 - 100 yard gun is the AK, and any number of handguns for up close and personal.
For high drool factor, also check out www.dsarms.com but be prepared for sticker shock!
If I recall, though, they are still selling 20-round, used, very good condition magazines for $5 each. Got 10 of them just for my basic load...
KK
M1911
Moderator
I've got a FAL, an AR10, and an M1A. I'm not trying to start a flame war, but I'm really NOT a fan of the FAL. I won't say that I hate it, but I'd take an AR15 (yup, a .223) over a FAL in heartbeat.
Magazine Changes:
The AR10 has the good magazine release system of the AR15 -- a simple push button. Both the FAL and M1A require you to push a lever and rotate out the magazine. That's slower and easier to mess up.
To replace magazine, in the AR10 you simply stuff it vertically into the mag well. Both the M1A and FAL require you to hook the nose of the magazine in the well and then rotate back to lock in place. If you don't push the nose of the mag deep enough into the well, then it doesn't lock in place.
The net result is that magazine changes in the FAL and M1A are MUCH slower and more easily fumbled.
Magazines:
FAL magazines are cheap and readily available. That said, the only gun that I've had the magazine base plate come off (dumping a pile of rounds at my feet) was the FAL. That's rather disconcerting.
M1A mags are available. They are really STOUT. Nice stuff. Pricey, though.
AR10 mags are modified M1A mags, so they are even more pricey.
Sights:
The FAL sights are at best rudimentary. The M1A and AR10 rear sights are far superior.
Triggers:
The M1A trigger can be tuned by most any gunsmith. The AR10 is available with a very nice match trigger -- I think it will take any AR15 match trigger.
Good luck finding a gunsmith who can tune a FAL trigger. And the FAL trigger sucks out of the box.
Off-hand fit:
The FAL receiver is overly long. As a result, the handguard is way, way out there. Consequently, it is very hard for me to shoot offhand -- I just can't comfortably reach that far and support it with my left hand. It just feels like a boat-anchor to me. In contrast, the M1A fits very nicely.
Fitting a scope:
The AR10 can be had as a flat-top, making it easy to fit a scope. The FAL requires a nasty dustcover that screws to the receiver. There are several scope mounts for the M1A, but most all of them are problematic.
Adjustable gas cylinder:
Many FAL fans promote the adjustable gas cylinder valve as being a good thing. Do you know what can happen if you have the gas cylinder valve open too far? Then ejection is too soft. And the cartridge case may get stuck between the bolt carrier and the dust cover. The FAL is the only rifle that I've ever wound up kicking the operating rod handle to try to unjam. Not fun. Been there, done that, hope I never do it again.
Lots of folks like the FAL. It doesn't work for me. Of the three, based on my experience owning all three, I prefer the M1A, then the AR10, and far in the rear, the FAL. YMMV.
Magazine Changes:
The AR10 has the good magazine release system of the AR15 -- a simple push button. Both the FAL and M1A require you to push a lever and rotate out the magazine. That's slower and easier to mess up.
To replace magazine, in the AR10 you simply stuff it vertically into the mag well. Both the M1A and FAL require you to hook the nose of the magazine in the well and then rotate back to lock in place. If you don't push the nose of the mag deep enough into the well, then it doesn't lock in place.
The net result is that magazine changes in the FAL and M1A are MUCH slower and more easily fumbled.
Magazines:
FAL magazines are cheap and readily available. That said, the only gun that I've had the magazine base plate come off (dumping a pile of rounds at my feet) was the FAL. That's rather disconcerting.
M1A mags are available. They are really STOUT. Nice stuff. Pricey, though.
AR10 mags are modified M1A mags, so they are even more pricey.
Sights:
The FAL sights are at best rudimentary. The M1A and AR10 rear sights are far superior.
Triggers:
The M1A trigger can be tuned by most any gunsmith. The AR10 is available with a very nice match trigger -- I think it will take any AR15 match trigger.
Good luck finding a gunsmith who can tune a FAL trigger. And the FAL trigger sucks out of the box.
Off-hand fit:
The FAL receiver is overly long. As a result, the handguard is way, way out there. Consequently, it is very hard for me to shoot offhand -- I just can't comfortably reach that far and support it with my left hand. It just feels like a boat-anchor to me. In contrast, the M1A fits very nicely.
Fitting a scope:
The AR10 can be had as a flat-top, making it easy to fit a scope. The FAL requires a nasty dustcover that screws to the receiver. There are several scope mounts for the M1A, but most all of them are problematic.
Adjustable gas cylinder:
Many FAL fans promote the adjustable gas cylinder valve as being a good thing. Do you know what can happen if you have the gas cylinder valve open too far? Then ejection is too soft. And the cartridge case may get stuck between the bolt carrier and the dust cover. The FAL is the only rifle that I've ever wound up kicking the operating rod handle to try to unjam. Not fun. Been there, done that, hope I never do it again.
Lots of folks like the FAL. It doesn't work for me. Of the three, based on my experience owning all three, I prefer the M1A, then the AR10, and far in the rear, the FAL. YMMV.
Have a L1A1 that I built from a parts kit on an Enterprise Arms rcvr.
Works great & I wouldn't trade it for anything. It's not a target rifle but it is a great battle rifle, as designed. The adjustable gas system allows you to shoot any available ammo, once you learn how to set it up. Start low & add a couple of clicks after it seems to function properly. Forget about it untill you change ammo. Buy a bunch of good quality milsurp ammo, up front, and you'll not have to worry about it for a long time.
Mine has digested many different makes of ammo without a problem, but some of it is much more accurate than others.
There are a couple of scope mounts which replace the top cover without gunsmithing. The best of these slides on and then clamps with 4-6 screws to the receiver. Mine is a snug fit & can be removed & replaced without rezeroing the scope. Got it from Tapco. They also have many parts and gadgets for the FAL and were a pleasure to deal with.
The only down side is the size & weight of the gun & the spare (loaded) mags. OTOH, the weight makes it a very pleasant gun to shoot and easy to control for a follow-up shot, in the unlikely event that you need one.
Works great & I wouldn't trade it for anything. It's not a target rifle but it is a great battle rifle, as designed. The adjustable gas system allows you to shoot any available ammo, once you learn how to set it up. Start low & add a couple of clicks after it seems to function properly. Forget about it untill you change ammo. Buy a bunch of good quality milsurp ammo, up front, and you'll not have to worry about it for a long time.
Mine has digested many different makes of ammo without a problem, but some of it is much more accurate than others.
There are a couple of scope mounts which replace the top cover without gunsmithing. The best of these slides on and then clamps with 4-6 screws to the receiver. Mine is a snug fit & can be removed & replaced without rezeroing the scope. Got it from Tapco. They also have many parts and gadgets for the FAL and were a pleasure to deal with.
The only down side is the size & weight of the gun & the spare (loaded) mags. OTOH, the weight makes it a very pleasant gun to shoot and easy to control for a follow-up shot, in the unlikely event that you need one.
Well, I have an M14 (semi) and an L1A1. I prefer the M14.
Personally, I won't own an AR-10. They're apparently OK guns, if you stay away from early ones. Newer ones are expensive. Mags are either M14 reowrks or new production, post ban. Both are expensive. The gun will do nothing that my M14 or AR-15 won't do. And the AR-10 is just not "me".
As to the L1A1 (or any FAL), if you're looking to mount a scope on it (or on a G3/HK91), go get a different model gun. FAL mounts are an after thought, and generally don't work well. The gun wasn't designed to mount a scope. I will say that Inch mags have a better floor plate retention method, and work.
My favorite, though is the M14. Mine is almost all USGI parts, FedOrd receiver, pre-ban. Mags can be found for reasonable prices (about $30-$35), if you look for them. In fact, Midway sells mags that have been imported from Taiwan. They're good looking mags, and should work well. They're cheaper than USGI. Avoid mags with a stamped block on the back instead of a welded block. They're junk. Scope mounts work well on the M14 as well.
If you're considering buying one of these 3 guns, I suggest you get a copy of Boston's Gun Bible, and read the full reviews. I've had both versions of the book, one where he prefers the Fal, and one wher he prefers the M1A (M14). Read the full reviews, and weigh the pros and cons for yourself.
Personally, I won't own an AR-10. They're apparently OK guns, if you stay away from early ones. Newer ones are expensive. Mags are either M14 reowrks or new production, post ban. Both are expensive. The gun will do nothing that my M14 or AR-15 won't do. And the AR-10 is just not "me".
As to the L1A1 (or any FAL), if you're looking to mount a scope on it (or on a G3/HK91), go get a different model gun. FAL mounts are an after thought, and generally don't work well. The gun wasn't designed to mount a scope. I will say that Inch mags have a better floor plate retention method, and work.
My favorite, though is the M14. Mine is almost all USGI parts, FedOrd receiver, pre-ban. Mags can be found for reasonable prices (about $30-$35), if you look for them. In fact, Midway sells mags that have been imported from Taiwan. They're good looking mags, and should work well. They're cheaper than USGI. Avoid mags with a stamped block on the back instead of a welded block. They're junk. Scope mounts work well on the M14 as well.
If you're considering buying one of these 3 guns, I suggest you get a copy of Boston's Gun Bible, and read the full reviews. I've had both versions of the book, one where he prefers the Fal, and one wher he prefers the M1A (M14). Read the full reviews, and weigh the pros and cons for yourself.
If the M1A/M14 has a USGI synthetic stock, and an issue type barrel, the FAL will be a little heavier, and feel a little lighter, due to better balance.
If the M1A had a Match stock, or a match type barrel, the FAL will be lighter.
You don't want a 7.62 NATO semi-auto gun that is light. Very hard to control during rapid fire.
If the M1A had a Match stock, or a match type barrel, the FAL will be lighter.
You don't want a 7.62 NATO semi-auto gun that is light. Very hard to control during rapid fire.
