FAL ... why not more fans?

J

Jeff Thomas

New member
I've had a number of folks tell me how much they think of these rifles, and I've read a bit in Boston T. Party's 'Bostons Gun Bible' ... he spends a good deal of time extolling the virtues of the FAL.

So, why isn't this rifle more mainstream? Mag's are apparently quite cheap. The .308 caliber is a very capable round for many uses beyond that of the .223. And, at least in post-ban versions, they can be had for fairly reasonable prices. But, there seems to be relatively little discussion and appreciation for them on TFL.

Curious as to your thoughts. Thanks.

Regards from AZ
 
Maybe http://www.fnfal.com takes a lot of the discussion away from this board. Often FAL questions are referred to that board whey they're originally posted here.

Personally, I think the FAL is the finest 7.62x51 battle rifle yet fielded and wish we'd adopted it, instead of the M14, way back in 1958.

As you've said, it's currently the best deal in full size battle rifles, except for the CMP M1.

Even though I'm in the PRC, I've been tempted to buy a few receivers and parts kits, because they couldn't get any cheaper than they are now, can they?
 
Personal likes and dislikes are funny. I've had an HK 91 and a Match M1-A, and shot the FAL. I have a Bushmaster which groups quite nicely. But, I just don't care for them. Don't even know why.

I have an M-1 which is fun to shoot, once in a while, but I probably awouldn't bother but that I carried one in Basic Training.

I've always been a bolt-action guy, and when I think, "Let's go shooting!", that's what I grab.

So, by and large, it could well be aesthetics over quality or price.

Dunno.

:), Art
 
It's probably also a plain lack of exposure to the FAL series; from a US standpoint, the M14/M1A or the M1 Garand are THE .30-cal battle rifle, and that's all most shooters are ever exposed to. If you try one, you'll like it.
 
I got tempted by reliable design and cheap magazines+ammo. Never got used to its ergonomics and went back to AR15 and "tanker" Garand. FWIW, I have similar misgivings about AK series.
 
Personally its my favorite type of rifle. Some people find them long, or awkward. But thats all just opinion. I think they rock.

In fact, I'll go out on a limb here and say that if John Browning had been around another 20 years, and asked to build a main battle rifle, he would have designed the FAL. :) It was designed by his protogee after all.
 
Dang it Jeff! SSSHHHHHH!!!!!

Its a Riflemans best kept secret!!!!

If more people start loving the FAL like I do - then more and more people will be buying them and prices will go up!
 
FAL...why not more fans reply

If you are unsure of your desire to purchase an FN FAL rifle here are some facts to contemplate. The U.S. military was 100% correct in not adopting the FN FAL rifle. The M14 was and is a superior rifle as compared to the FN. The M14 functioned much better extreme cold and in sandy, dusty conditions. The Brits tried to alleviate this problem with the FN but only partially succeeded by putting groves in the sides of the FN bolt. The M14 has a different rotating bolt that is not plagued by this problem. The M14 has a non-ajustable gas system that will work with light cast lead bullets all the way up to full power military loads. The FN Fal has an ajustable gas system that has given the useres nothing but trouble. You must reajust the gas system everytime you switch ammunition. A real time consuming headache. The FN gas tubes are also a nightmare. The short metric or long inch pattern tubes soon become loose at the solder joint and start to leak gas causing problems with ejection. The long inch pattern tubes are difficult to keep clean. The FN trigger is not the best versus the M14 which can be fine tuned to perfection. The straight FN stock makes it almost impossible to quickly snap the rifle to the shoulder and shoot. The English instructed their recruits to carry the gun's butt stock over the shoulder with the muzzle pointed downwards. This was a very awkward way to carry the weapon. Also the FN is a difficult gun to mount a modern telecopic sight on. You must buy a special top cover type mount which is secured to the weapon with a series of screws located on each side of the mount. The M14 has a pre-drilled hole in the receiver that lets you instantly mount or dismount a telescopic sight. If you must choose between the two weapons by all means buy the M14 instead of the FN. If money is no object buy them both but buy an original FN for the investment value. A parts gun will such as put together by outfits like Century arms using inferior American made parts will cause you nothing but trouble and you will end up replacing the American made parts with a higher grade of American made parts such as the parts DSA arms sells but these parts are also not as good as the original military parts which are illegal to put on a parts gun. Buy an original for the investment and you will also have less headaches when shooting it. Hope this info helps. Buan Ziua (Have a nice day) The Wild Romanian.
 
I have only held 3 FAL rifles and I have never fired one yet. I should be getting mine from DSA any day now and I'll soon find out how good the gun is. The reason the FAL is not more popular is the fact its a foreign gun. Most of the guys I know that got AK's was the fact there so cheap and ammo sells for pocket change. Sure FAL mags are cheap but everything else is expensive. I hardly ever see FAL's at gun ranges and I see far more AR's, Mini 14's, M1A's and AK's. Its partially Financial and partially because there Foreign guns.

The reason I chose the FAL over the M1A was the fact that I would have spent about $2000 for the Gun,Scope Mount, Scope and Mags for the M1A and the FAL is going to cost me about $1300 for everything. From what I've read and heard about both guns the M1A has a slight edge in the accuracy department but neither one really outshoots the other.
 
Before you take WR's advice...

Before you take WR's advice, go play with one yourself. There are several manufacturers of quality USA parts for the FAL. You can mix and match with the original parts as long as you do not have more than 10 imported parts from "the list." (See fnfal.com for that list.)

With regard to the adjustable gas system, most consider it an advantage, not a disadvantage. Your M14 or AR gummed up? Too bad, you can't "turn up the gas". Yours are the first compaints I have heard about the gas tube.

There are at least two buttstockk styles to choose from - the straight Austrian-type, and the humpback UK/Argie/NZ type. There are US versions of both types.

There are several quality scope mounts available. The DSA is considered the best. It is very sturdy and can be removed and replaced without loss of zero.

I will concede that there is a limit to how good you can make a FAL trigger, however. Perhaps someone could invent a new drop-in replacement.

-z
 
I, for one, have one of the Century "parts guns" that I greatly enjoy. I wish I'd bought an additional receiver and parts kit before these rifles were banned here in California. I have not shot an M1A, but I don't doubt that they have several advantages. My FAL is certainly not a match rifles (the trigger is pretty lousy, among other things). But it is reliable, magazines are cheap, and it's a kick to shoot. I guess it depends on what you want/expect. I do plan to get an M1A one of these days (I bought a bunch of magazines before the ban kicked in), but I don't regret getting my cheap FAL at all.

Doug
 
Doug, you can still buy FAL receivers and parts kits, you just can't fully assemble one legally.

My Austrian STG-58 kit gun has a full length gas tube that is sloppy as hell, but it runs perfectly at the #4-5 gas setting.

I have a hard time believing that a rifle that spent only about 10 years in US service is that superior to the FAL that spent 30+ years in service throughout the world.
 
I'm under the impression that the reason the M14 was replaced by the M16 was due to the decision to switch to the 5.56x45mm cartridge and a shift towards the pray and spray philosophy. The M14 is a poor full-auto rifle, but it is a "marksman's" rifle. Besides, that's what an M60 is for.

The M14 is still in service with Special Forces units. I know that Navy SEALS allow their better marksmen to choose an M14 (it was on the Discovery Channel!).
 
I've got to put in a disagreement. WR, you are the first person I have ever heard of complain about the gas system. The trigger pull is heavy, but it can be lightened, but I will agree the M14 can have a better trigger. Reliability? The only FALs I've ever heard with reliability problems were the ones the Israelis used to try and replace the BAR. The gun was never designed to do that and of course failed. Nothing beats the BAR for that kind of work.

I have an inch tube (wow, don't read that the wrong way) ;) , it is a piece of cake to keep clean. Pop the top off, remove the plug and run a rag down it a couple of times. I do not even do this every time, just occasionaly after I shoot.

Hard to snap to the shoulder? about the same as any other pistol gripped weapon. Kind of like an AR15, only heavier.

Cold weather? Ask the Canadians how they liked their C1 for 30 years. Seemed to work just fine for them.

Scope mount, the original M14 mount is not the be all end all of scope mounting, thats why there are three generations of M14 mounts to work all of the shifting problems out. The DSA style mount is rock solid, and the one disadvantage is that you can't pull it off to clean the gun, but you can still clean the gun, just not as easily.

Speaking of cleaning, I can field strip my FAL in about 2 seconds, push a button, out pops the bolt, spray it with break cleaner, wipe it off and relube and you are good for about another 1000+ rounds. :) You have to clean your M14 from the muzzle, bummer.

Don't get me wrong, I like both weapons. I just happen to like the FAL better, so I bought one of those first. But the M14 is a fine gun. And a point of interest, back in the day, M14 vs. FAL. Both were reliable, both passed the tests with flying colors. Most of the testers and infantry officers preffered the FAL, but the M14 won because it could be built using existing M1 Garand tooling.

And bringing up shoddily put together parts guns is a moot point, I've seen some Chinese M14 copies that were truly disgusting. :) All fine weapons have their imitators.
 
I have an M1A and a FAL. I much prefer the M1A. It balances much better for me. The FAL receiver is overly long, putting the handguard way, way out there. I don't have short arms (32" sleeve), but the FAL just doesn't fit me. The sights are only fair and the trigger is poor. In contrast, the M1A has excellent sights and a very good trigger right out of the box. And lots of gunsmiths can tune the M1A trigger in their sleep.

Regarding the adjustable gas system on the FAL, be sure you don't open the valve too much. If you do, the case won't fully eject and will jam between the bolt and the dust cover. You'll then have a heck of a time clearing the gun -- trust me on this, I know from direct experience :(

The idea that you would adjust the gas system in battle seems ludicrous to me. Don't know your valve is like, but mine is bugger to turn. Never missed having the ability to adjust my M1A -- it works every time.

If you mount a scope on the FAL, then you can't remove the dust cover, making cleaning a royal pain. The FAL is easier to take down than the M1A.

Honestly, I don't understand why the folks say the FAL is the be-all and end-all. It's a good rifle, but it is far from perfect.

M1911
 
I actually shot an M1A and a FAL side-by-side a few weeks ago. In doing so, I found yet another reason why I like the FAL better. When shooting the M1A in prone, the sporting stock configuration caused me to have to break my wrist downward unnaturally to obtain a firing grip. The FAL was far more comfortable to shoot from prone.

The adjustable gas system on the FAL is not designed to be adjusted to compensate for ammo types. It's not a match gun. When you've fired your FAL skatey-eight zillion times without cleaning it, you can open up the gas port a notch or two to ensure positive functioning. Yo do not, repeat do not, have to change your FAL's gas setting every time you switch ammo types (at least I dont.)

The trigger on the custom FAL I shot was notably better than on the stock M1A. Apples to oranges, you say? Perhaps, but it proves the point that the FAL trigger can be adjusted just as well as the M1A. I wish people would quit saying that the FAL trigger system is hard to work on; it's just not true.

Accuracy at the top end is comparable between the two. The FAL I shot would group just over an inch/100yds with handloads, with the factory barrel, fired semi-auto.

If you want a 7.62mm battle rifle, get the FN. It's a better all-around rifle than the M1A. If you're going to do National Match shooting then the M1A is a possibility, but a custom AR15 is a still better choice.

Later,
Chris
 
Wild Romanian -

The FAL was fired in trials against the M14 and the FAL WON hands down to all those that fired the guns in the trial. Now, I dont have all the names and serial numbers of the guys in the trial... but it is documented that the grunts liked the FAL better.
Where did you get your information? Its an epiphany of wrongness...
The reason that we didn't adopt the FAL was because it was FN. At that time we would not and could not adopt a foreign weapon for American troops. Besides, there is no Pork in it by buying a foreign weapon.
After adopting the M14 and it being big and heavy and getting a lot of complaints that within the same war everyone switched to the M16. If the 14 was so great why did we adopt the 16?

I am of the belief that if we had adopted the FAL, we would still have the FAL today and these little .223 mouse rifles would not be considered Military.
 
I'd like to find out more about those Trials between the FAL and M14? I've heard time and time again that the M14 won hands down in accuracy. I'll soon find out how inaccurate the FAL is.
 
FAL...why not more fans?

George Hill

Dear George, No one is suggesting you cannot love your FN FAl rifle, but I suggest that anyone who is interested in its development should read the book "The FN Fal Rifle" by Blake Stevens. It is my no means the ultimate authority on the FN but it is a good place to start.
There have been various tests run on both M14 and FN FAl and neither rifle was 100% reliable under all conditions and the FN was by no means ever superiour to the M14 (This was also stated the Blake Stevens book). The M14 was also not produced on M1 machinery as is generally believed. It took an entire different set of machinery to produce it. The straight stock on the FN Fal was produced to help control the gun in full auto fire but due to its light weight it, as well as the M14, were found to be uncontrollable. The FN was disliked by some who tested it because of its straight stock, which made it slower to snap to the shoulder. The FN saftey is also just about impossible to disengage without shifting the grip on the weapon. Contrast this to the excellent saftey on the M14 wich is located inside the trigger guard. The M14 with its conventional stock and quick disengaging safety is lightning quick to get into operation. The FN is awkward and deadly slow to get into the mount and fire mode.
The M14 was only slightly more reliable under extreme cold conditions but it was most definitely superior the the FN in sandy conditions. There have been many articles written about the FN when in use in desert conditions. I believe even Blake Stevens covers this in one of his chapters and Chuck Taylor (a great fan of the FN) also wrote an article in the l980's in which he speaks of the problems the Israil's had with their FN's under adverse conditions. He states this is one of the reasons they went to the Galil rifle.
As to your comments on why the M14 was replaced by the M16. The M14 and also the FN Fal were actually obsolete before the first copies ever came off the assembly line. Why was this so? Let me elaborate. Our illustrious military along with the so called geniuses at FN did not learn the lessons of history. The Russians and the Germans during WWII found out by observing soldiers in combat that if the soldier was alone he would not fire his weapon at the enemy. The Russians observed that even when the soldier was given a semi-automatic arm he would not fire it unless he was in the company of his comrades. The Russians discovered that if they put a machine gun in the soldier's hands he would fire it even it he was alone. The problem was the machine gun fired a pistol round and had only a very short range and not much penetration. This is why the assault rifle of reduced caliber was born. It enabled the soldier to carry more ammunition than the full power battle rifle and it allowed the soldier to control his weapon at full auto because of its lighter recoil. Soldiers that I have spoken with who served in Viet Nam preferred the light weight and fast firing M16 over the heavy weight and heavy recoil of the M14.
The armies of the world do not have the time or the money to train soldiers to be master shooters. In my experience even the brightest of students often take a good three years to become master shooters when competing on the national match course. The M14 and its highly accurized sniper version the M21 is best left to the highly trained military snipers. The M21 even with its light weight barrel will often shoot amazingly close in accuracy to the heavy barrel bolt action rifles used by the worlds various militaries including our own military's Remington 700.
ozi buna (have a good day) WR
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top