Does FAL bring any extra capabilities with it?

O

Oleg Volk

Staff Alumnus
I already have an AR15, Mak90 and a "shortie" Garand. I wanted to get a .308 because it is a common caliber and as a step up from .223
The Garand is a nice accurate rifle but holds only eight rounds and I am not wild about en blocks.

I considered an M1A (a better Garand) but the $$ are beyond my limit both on rifle and magazines. I found some well-built FALs locally but I am not sure that I can justify on for reasons other than "I like it".

I realize that 20 round magazines beat 8-round en blocks. I also think it would be easier to maintain than the Garand or the AR. However, I am unsure that .308 is that much of an improvement over, say 7.62x39, at my typical city ranges of 200m and under to make up for much heavier overall system.

Any thoughts on this?
 
Bush (tree, wall, etc) penetration will be much greater over the 7.62x39. 7.62 NATO shoots flat much longer than 7.62x39.

At close or most urban ranges, the AK would be easier to deal with for both penetration and ease of handling. The FAL is a pretty heavy thing.

[This message has been edited by Destructo6 (edited May 03, 2000).]
 
The FAL also has better sights than the AK. The FAL has a peep sight, which I find much easier to use than the open sights on the AK.

It is also bigger and heavier.

Jared
 
I am not *that* strong and I do wonder if an FAL would be too heavy. AK I got has a peep sight but the sight radius is short. I can heft an AR15 with seven 30rd mags just fine but I wonder if FAL with nine 20rd mags would prove too heavy and bulky. One other concern is the length cosidering indoor use is likely.
 
Oleg, if you are worried about weight, get the 16.5-inch carbine version of the FAL. The weight savings are considerable and IMHO it is a much handier, more versatile rifle.
 
One thing for sure, one shot kills are much more certain with the .308, hence, you may need to carry less ammo.
Also, the accuracy of the .308 round tends to be a lot better.
Sights are better on the FAL. Scope mounting is better and more stable. Parts are EASY to get.
Accessories are EASY to get. Mags are CHEAPER than AK mags at present.

I would beat any AKs out of the way with a stick to get to an FAL, and I am not a "big" guy either. I am 5'10", and weigh about 145 dripping wet.
I have previously owned nearly every AK variant there is, inclusive of Galils and Valmets in .308 and .223. They are all gone in favor of keeping my beautiful Belgian FAL.
 
OK, let me re-state the question: Would FAL be enough of an improvement over Bushmaster HBAR15/Mak90/Springfield Garand in 1)reliability 2)handling 3)ease of maintenance 4)penetration of cover to justify abandoning fairly extensive systems built around those three and getting an FAL?

Long-range accuracy is nice but I do not expect it to matter to me much (AR15/Garand are already good and Mak90 is an in-house carbine anyway). Ability to function long-term with dirt/lack of maintenance is important and this is where I wonder about Garand/AR15...

I realize that what I need is professional coaching/training and working out to get muscles for the rifles...but I only have so much time and would like to train with the one rifle I would use seriously. Right now that one is HBAR15. Would FAL+magazines+ammo ($1200 or so right there) be a worth-while move or should I just put that $1200 into vacation time and learn the AR better?
------------------
Oleg "cornered rat" Volk (JPFO,NRA)

http://dd-b.net/RKBA

[This message has been edited by Oleg Volk (edited May 03, 2000).]
 
Oleg, if you are only going to be looking at ranges of 200 meters or less, I would use that $1200 to buy a carbine upper for you AR, a boatload of mags and ammo.
 
1)reliability

-> used by "over 90" countries (http://www.fnfal.com ), for approx. 40 years. It basically tied the M1A in the Army trials in the 50s, but "we" chose the M1A b/c we already had lots the tooling from the Garand. Very simple design, easy to field strip and clean. Gas system can be tuned easily to adapt for dirt or difference ammo.
I have much much fewer feed and ejection problems with my FAL than my AR.


2)handling

-> A full-size FAL is about 41-44" long (21" barrel), depending on your muzzle brake. I would consider a 16-19" barrel with short muzzle brake (<= 1.5"). The weight of this won't be too bad (8 - 9.5 lbs), and if you use lightened Aluminum parts (see http://www.dsarms.com ), you can make it almost as light as an AR (7.25 - 8.5 lbs).

A 16-18" light FAL would be my ideal "go to" rifle, if overpenetration was not a concern.

If you add optics with a good mount, it will be at least an extra 1.5 lbs.

3)ease of maintenance

See earlier comments. Simple, robust design. You can do most user-serviceable maintenance with an unspent cartridge, quarter, and flat-head screwdriver. For the rest, you need a couple special wrenches, and some punches.

4)penetration of cover to justify

There was a thread either here or on AR15.com which compared the penetration of .223, .308 (or the almost identical .30-06), and .50BMG. The .308/.30-06 could penetrate something like 4 feet of wood, .5" of mild steel plate, etc.

From personal experience, pretty much any full-power rifle cartridge will go through a .5" thick plate of mild steel. 3/8" of hardened steel will stop most of them when using HP or lead-nosed bullets. I haven't tested them with FMJ or AP, however.

You've got three times the mass, and 2 times the frontal area. .308 can "stop" almost any animal in North America with one non-CNS shot, though I'm not sure about Bison...

-z


[This message has been edited by smithz (edited May 03, 2000).]
 
I don't know if you've looked closely at the FAL, but they're AK simple and AR ergonomic. Every time I clean my FAL, I appreciate it just a little bit more. Clean the gas plug and plug recess, the piston, bore and you are done.
 
Once you go FAL over AR - You wont look back.
Your hitting harder and farther... Your WAY more reliable - I dont care what Rikwriter says, the AR is a poor application of a less that average design. Its more rugged, and simple. Cleaning is a breaze.

Weight is a concern... it is heavier than an AR - nothing will chance that.
But the advantage is that extra weight makes the FAL a SWEET shooter.
 
Hehe, and I don't care what George says...when we had to buy a house on short notice I had to sell a good portion of my gun collection. I had a preban Argentine FAL...it got sold. I also had an M4 copy, all Colt. It stayed. I guess that says my feelings on it. So I guess once you go FAL, you don't necessarily stay FAL. ;)
That said, I prefer the FAL over any of the other 308 MBRs...but I prefer the AR over any of them too.
 
I wonder if fine-tuning the choice of rifle between AR and FAL is worth the effort and money. I know that AR over Mini14 was worth it many times over...but further improvement? I have yet to have any malfunctions in my AR but I do keep it clean...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top