Whats the difference HK91, FAL, SAR8

J

Jamie Young

New member
Whats the difference in design on these guns? Is it a Quality difference? Different internal Configurations. At first glance They look similar in design to me. Whats the difference? HK91 and SAR8 aren't parts guns right? FAL is ?
 
Whew...

Well, to start off, and to thin down the definitions to two types, the SAR8 is mainly just a Springfield Armory model of an HK (actually mde in Greece, I've heard). The HK system is completely different from the FAL system. The FAL system is a locked breech, gas operated semi-automatic. It is not necessarily a parts gun any more than an HK-91 or G3 is. If you buy one today, chances are that it's a parts gun no matter what type it is, due to inport restrictions on complete rifles. After firing a round in the FAL, some of the gases are directed through an adjustable gas system to a piston. The piston pushes against the bolt, and forces it rearward.then the bolt returns to battery under spring pressure, picking up the next cartridge on the way. The HK system, is a roller-locked, blowback mechanism. There is no gas tube. When a round is fired, the pressure builds, and (as I understand it) as it's faling, the bolt rollers unlock, and allow it to cycle, picking up another round. Describing the HK system is difficult...I wonder if anyone has a cut-away pic on the roller system for SopaPop?
 
The HK is a roller-delayed blowback. It's not a locked breech system.

When the cartidge is discharged, the rearward force tries to propel the bolt carrier to the rear. The rollers are forced into a recess of the receiver by a cam inside the bolthead. When the bolt carrier moves backwards, the cam (firing pin really) allows the rollers to drop inside the bolthead and the bolt carrier can continue to the rear. The delay in the rollers movement is what allows gas pressure to drop to a safe level.
 
The operating priciple behind the FAL series of rifles is the same as any gas operated rifle. The details differ a bit from your Mini-14 in that the bolt tips instead of rotates and the gas piston doesn't travel the same distance as the bolt/carrier (it's considered a "short stroke gas piston" for this reason).

Definately check out that http://www.hkpro.com link for the operation of the HK's system. It's truly unique.
 
I didn't know there was a difference. To me they all looked the same. I've really been going crazy the last month or so because I've been to a couple Gunshows and shops looking for an FAL. My main problem is I want a perfect scope mount and I've gotten too many IFY comments about FAL scope mounts. It doesn't seem the FAL was meant to be mounted with a scope. Much like the M1 Garand. I know you can do it but there seems to be too many bugs to work out. I've seen SAR8 rifles and HK91 rifles thinking they were FAL's and they all had sturdy scope mounts. They were higher priced and mags were more but not any more than an M1A mag. I really like the design more than the M1A. Which ones are more accurate in general? I'm looking for the one that gets the most out of the .308 round?
 
Battle rifles usually aren't best suited with scopes...however, the M-14 and M1As typically do great with them. To me, though, you should have quik-detach scope rings with your M1A and be able to use the peep sights very well to fully be able to use the rifle. That's what I'm doing now, learning to use the peep sights more. Being able to use both is a real advantage, and with a good mount and rings, you can tak eht escope on and off and they'll be quaranteed to not lose zero (ARMS). The M-14s and M1As are considered to be mroe accurate than the HK and FAL rifles GENERALLY SPEAKING. I think most of us have heard of FALs and HKs that will shoot under 1", but the percentage of goodshooting M1As is higher. Much thanks to Dave Frinfrock for the better explanation of the HK system. Your Mini-14 is designed after an M-14 action. The FAL, instead of the bolt rotating (as Destructo6 has already mentioned), the bolt lowers into slots at the fromnt of the receiver, providing the locking surface. If you've been looking for one, I'd highly suggest you try to find someone with an FAL or G3 so you can see how the two operate.
 
A question concerning accuracy of the M1A vs the FAL... Wern't the M14 and the FAL both designed to be battle rifles, with the associated tolerances of manufactured parts and medicore accuracy, by match standards. Springfield and others, driven by competition shooters, have brought levels of accuracy of the M14/M1A to levels never intended with the production arms. It seems possible, with the same degree of develompent, that comparable levels of accuracy may be possible with the FAL. Granted it has a significant strike against it with the sight on the lower receiver, but it could be moved, and a match barrel fitted. I'd be interested in the accuracy potential of a tuned and tweaked FAL. Toying with building one up some time soon.

Bri
 
Some guys over at FNFAL files have FALs that will consistently shoot under an inch...it's very possible. However, I haven't heard of sub-MOA HKs.
 
I never hear anything bad about the FAL except for scope mounting. It doesn't have to be sub MOA but its got to be able to shoot under 2inches at 100yds and have a reliable scope mount on it. I get the Negative reactions about scope mounts thats why I haven't gotten one. I've been threw enough crap trying to mount a scope on my SKS. I think Iron Sights are harder to use in low light conditions and I need help past 300yds with Iron Sights. Does everyone here shoot FAL's with Iron Sights?
 
There are a lot of HK rifles that will do MOA. There's the PSG-1, MSG, and some of the -91s. Problem is that these and their associated parts are outrageously expensive if you can even find them.

The FAL, with a good barrel and assembly, should be able to give you 2 MOA and perhaps less. Parts and accessories are readily available and reasonably priced. The DSA mount is supposed to be very secure.

The M1A should give you good accuracy and parts are readily available, but can get pricey, particularly for magazines.
 
Yeah the price of the M1A and Mags is well..... Its common knowledge EXPENSIVE! Thats a rich guy gun. I still might go for the FAL because getting an M1A with all the doodads is going to be around $1800. Mags seem to be around $45 which is more than PMI Mini 14 mags.
 
i've been lucky enough to have owned the M1A, HK-91 and FAL, at different times so these are impressions rather than a direct comparision.

i thought the M1A recoiled the most and was the heaviest, i also thought that it was the least tolerent of variences in ammo. i had a problem of vertical stringing as the receiver beat itself into the stock.

the 91 was a machine, very tolerent of dirt in the action, delayed blowback action would function with everything including squib reloads (the pressure regulates how long the action is delayed in opening), mine had a horrible trigger but i fired a buddy's PSG-1(tuned match grade 91) which had a match trigger and was the most accurate of the three. mid-range price ($20ish) on extra mags due to the large number of counrties that use the HK. very stable platform for mounting a scope.

i am currently putting together my own FAL. it was the western counterpart to the AK-47, used by the most countries which is why mag are the most available (bout $10), go "metric" rather than "inch". the best out of the box trigger(non-match) and an adjustable gas system to tailor to your loads. the 2 that i have shot were very accurate (great peep sights)and very ergonomically designed, was known as the "rolls-royce" of battle rifles. Downside: top cover much like the AK (thats why the rear sight is on the lower receiver), most stable scope mount is from DSA (bout $100). i'm going with a lighter cover and sight (tasco optima 2000)
 
You've heard some good technical differences between the
two, so I'll simply add my anecdotal account.

I have had the opportunity to use original Belgian FAL's, DS Arms SA-58's (own one), and "kit" FAL's (Hesse rcvr). I've also had a short amount of playtime with the HK. There's nothing bad to say about either weapon, IMO. The mags on the HK, while very expensive, are also built like the proverbial... The FAL adds a brilliant feature: that of an adjustable gas bypass. As the weapon fouls, or gets dirty, more gas can be diverted to the piston to "power through" the crud and keep functioning.

My FAL operates flawlessly, is sufficiently accurate (< 2 MOA with surplus ammo!), and is very comfortable to shoot. Unless you're wanting to have a collectable FN-FAL, I'd say get the DS Arms SA-58 DSA. The waiting list is typically long, and the standard model fetches about $1,500. I wouldn't bother with the kits, but that's just one man's opinion.

I do shoot my FAL with iron sights, but have also mounted an Elcan scope on the DSA Weaver base. Contrary to what you may have heard about other FAL scope mounts, this one is rock solid and requires no machining to install. The only drawback is that the Elcan mounts rather high - not the fault of the DSA base. If you want to use the iron sights, have a gunsmith ream out the rear aperature to make it more useable for CQB or low-light.

If you'd like to see my setup, email me, and I'll send you a shot of it...

Best,
Steve

ps. A quick plug for a great book that gives MASSIVE amounts of comparison detail on these and other battle rifles is "Boston's Gun Bible", from Javelin Press - [url]http://www.javelinpress.com/[/url]

pps. No, I do not work for DS Arms! (If I did, I'd have about 4 more SA-58's!)
 
I have FAL made up from assorted leftovers on a CAI L1A1 Sporter receiver. It has the two apature rear sight, little hole for good light work and ghost ring size hole for fast n furious.

What I like bout it. Accuracy every bit as good as my issue Garand. Few parts and they are big enough to find when dropped. Adjustable gas system allows carrying loads for different occaisions. Cheap magazines...under tem bucks for good ones.

Sam
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top