User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 2/29/2024 8:34:23 AM EDT
I want a 16" Para FAL something awful and have for a long time. I plan to make it a reality in the next couple months. wanted to see what actual accuracy that people who own them are getting, rather than going off "the FAL is a 2-4 moa gun." Would love to see some firsthand experience.
|
|
|
|
LA, USA
|
Posted: 2/29/2024 9:09:39 AM EDT
[#1]
I won't know where any targets are but I seem to remember 2 moa or really close. any rifle is going to look its best with ammo tuned to it specifically. if you shoot battle pack 147s you will group larger than FGGM 168s. in my experience you can rank 308 battle rifles, scar 17s, hk91, fnfal a close third, m1a, but I have no experience with others. find the ammo it likes and you should be happy with the rifle from DSA. good luck!
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/29/2024 10:37:05 AM EDT
[#2]
James Reeves TFB tv did a recent review on the DSA Para Fal. His groups were as expected, pretty damn awful.
|
|
|
|
FL, USA
|
Posted: 2/29/2024 11:29:48 AM EDT
[#3]
Reliable sources have said that the FAL tends to walk its shots up as the barrel warms up.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/29/2024 11:50:34 PM EDT
[#4]
3-4 MOA seems to be average, check these guys out……
 FN FAL Para to 500yds: Practical Accuracy (Iron Sights, South African) |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/1/2024 12:01:52 AM EDT
[Last Edit: Jkees]
[#5]
You cant get an exact answer unless you are measuring the exact rifle you are buying.
But another thing to keep in mind is that the front sight is on the upper and the rear sight is on the lower, so when reading reviews its important to know if they are using irons or a mounted optic. If the optic is mounted then you remove this possible variable of tilt between the receivers, and can result in a better MOA reading. In my opinion if you are concerned with measuring moa on the rifle instead of minute of good enough then a FAL probably isn't for you. Not to say you cant get a FAL with decent accuracy, but there really are not any companies that make a tuned FAL, so it's something you would have to do yourself, or just get lucky. I got a stg-58 kit with earlier FN barrel, it floats around 2 moa for me depending on load and fire rate. But yeah, I would say on average with normal ammo expect around 3 MOA or so. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/1/2024 1:36:49 PM EDT
[#6]
Is it just this specific rifle or is this an FAL thing?
I've never owned a FAL, but growing up word on the street was they were pretty accurate. Fast foward 20 years or so and I want a FAL. Watched the same TFB video and basically left with the impression FALs are 3MOA guns. Acceptable, but I was under the impression they were 1.5-2 moa guns |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/1/2024 10:52:11 PM EDT
[#7]
Im not an arfcom 1 moa super sniper, but my DSA parafal was a 4moa+ gun with iron sights and GGG ammo
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/2/2024 2:18:27 AM EDT
[#8]
OEM FALs were expected to perform better than 4 MOA from the factory or they were rejected. Militaries would also remove such rifles from service. The inaccuracy if the FAL is rather exaggerated. A competitive shooter on the FAL Files was able to achieve a sub-MOA mean radius.
That said, DSA may not perform as well as an original. Hard to say for sure. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/2/2024 4:24:08 AM EDT
[#9]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By campower: Is it just this specific rifle or is this an FAL thing? I've never owned a FAL, but growing up word on the street was they were pretty accurate. Fast foward 20 years or so and I want a FAL. Watched the same TFB video and basically left with the impression FALs are 3MOA guns. Acceptable, but I was under the impression they were 1.5-2 moa guns I have owned multiple M14 clones, G3s and their clones, FALs and AR-10s. The FALs are the least accurate of the bunch but they are perfectly suitable for what they were designed for…a battle rifle. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/2/2024 4:40:49 AM EDT
[#10]
Its a DSA you are lucky if you can get it to shoot consecutively enough to group at all.
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/2/2024 10:29:19 AM EDT
[#11]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Ghostface: I have owned multiple M14 clones, G3s and their clones, FALs and AR-10s. The FALs are the least accurate of the bunch but they are perfectly suitable for what they were designed for…a battle rifle. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Ghostface: Originally Posted By campower: Is it just this specific rifle or is this an FAL thing? I've never owned a FAL, but growing up word on the street was they were pretty accurate. Fast foward 20 years or so and I want a FAL. Watched the same TFB video and basically left with the impression FALs are 3MOA guns. Acceptable, but I was under the impression they were 1.5-2 moa guns I have owned multiple M14 clones, G3s and their clones, FALs and AR-10s. The FALs are the least accurate of the bunch but they are perfectly suitable for what they were designed for…a battle rifle. Same, I dumped my G3 clone and FAL in favor of a M1A. I recently added AR10. G3 / FAL accuracy wasn't worth the price of ammo back then or now. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/2/2024 4:03:48 PM EDT
[#12]
The FAL is not a surgeons scalpel; it's a Bowie knife.
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/2/2024 4:36:49 PM EDT
[#13]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Kalahnikid: The FAL is not a surgeons scalpel; it's a Bowie knife. Exactly. It’s damn battle rifle god sakes. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/2/2024 10:08:04 PM EDT
[#14]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By MarkHatfield: Reliable sources have said that the FAL tends to walk its shots up as the barrel warms up. Vertical stringing is common to all the tilting bolt rifles I can think of. Something about the precise and minute geometry of the bolt lockup changing as the pressure from the magazine spring decreases. Or something. My French semi-autos seem to do it less than my FALs or FN-49. My brother's SVT definitely did it. |
|
|
|
ND, USA
|
Posted: 3/2/2024 11:14:51 PM EDT
[#15]
All my FALs, carbines and rifles were 3-4moas. Of course I can’t see the target at 100m.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/3/2024 9:43:18 AM EDT
[#16]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By marcus5819: Exactly. It’s damn battle rifle god sakes. Lol guys I'm not asking for it to be a precision rifle. I was just asking for some input from actual users on what to expect rather than just go off of the usual "it's a 4 moa gun" answer that I generally see. 2-4moa is perfectly acceptable for a battle rifle, especially a 16-18" one. Was just curious of real world results. Thank you |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/3/2024 10:08:38 AM EDT
[Last Edit: Kalahnikid]
[#17]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Blanco_Diablo: Lol guys I'm not asking for it to be a precision rifle. I was just asking for some input from actual users on what to expect rather than just go off of the usual "it's a 4 moa gun" answer that I generally see. 2-4moa is perfectly acceptable for a battle rifle, especially a 16-18" one. Was just curious of real world results. Thank you Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Blanco_Diablo: Originally Posted By marcus5819: Exactly. It’s damn battle rifle god sakes. Lol guys I'm not asking for it to be a precision rifle. I was just asking for some input from actual users on what to expect rather than just go off of the usual "it's a 4 moa gun" answer that I generally see. 2-4moa is perfectly acceptable for a battle rifle, especially a 16-18" one. Was just curious of real world results. Thank you I bought a used Para Congo last year and traded it off for two reasons. The accuracy sucked even by fal standards, and the recoil was just punishing. I'd take it to the range with a few mags and usually only shoot one mag though it because it was just unpleasant to shoot. I never tried different ammo, or mounted an optic....but I was getting 6-8moa groups. Part of that is my eyes not loving iron sights, but I get much better groups with the stg-58 kit build I have. I would not recommend buying one. I will say it was reliable though. As long as I had the gas adjusted properly I never had a malfunction. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/4/2024 9:39:23 PM EDT
[#18]
Originally Posted By bigstick61: OEM FALs were expected to perform better than 4 MOA from the factory or they were rejected. Militaries would also remove such rifles from service. The inaccuracy if the FAL is rather exaggerated. A competitive shooter on the FAL Files was able to achieve a sub-MOA mean radius. That said, DSA may not perform as well as an original. Hard to say for sure. Heard the same as well, in particular with the Belgian rifles, with 168gr FGMM, MOA to 1.5 MOA was possible at 100. Had a friend on the Fal Files over 20 years ago who was getting that with his factory 50:00 iirc |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/5/2024 1:02:33 PM EDT
[#19]
The ten FALs I own/have owned all shot no worse than 2.75 MOA with my reloads, with the best being 1.75.
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/5/2024 3:13:27 PM EDT
[#20]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By lew: The ten FALs I own/have owned all shot no worse than 2.75 MOA with my reloads, with the best being 1.75. I have an issue if Guns & Ammo from the 80s in which they test various " assault weapons" including a factory FN FAL and using PMC ball ammo (IIRC) they got 1.75" grpups at 100 yards with it |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/5/2024 3:45:38 PM EDT
[#21]
Back when ammo was cheap , .15 to .20 , and I was shooting my DSA 21" regularly , a 3" group was fairly easy off the bench. Mine was made the Steyr barrels , which I understood were very good.
The younger guy I shot with could put up a 2" group with Port ammo and irons with his FAL. Those younger eyes with that tiny rear sight! Always wanted a "Para" though. I should get my FAL out. 
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/6/2024 3:50:01 PM EDT
[#22]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By bigstick61: I have an issue if Guns & Ammo from the 80s in which they test various " assault weapons" including a factory FN FAL and using PMC ball ammo (IIRC) they got 1.75" grpups at 100 yards with it I can see it. My reloads are nothing special- Hornady 150 gr. FMJBT and mixed military cases. SD over twenty rounds last time I chrono'd them was 15. 
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/6/2024 4:02:09 PM EDT
[#23]
I had a DSA 18" about 12 years ago and was very unimpressed with it, so much so that I traded it for an M1A Scout.
|
|
|
|
IA, USA
|
Posted: 3/7/2024 8:54:12 PM EDT
[#24]
I'd go with a 18" barrel Para build.
Unless, you want AK ballistics out of a FAL. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/8/2024 8:19:47 PM EDT
[#25]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By bnz42: I'd go with a 18" barrel Para build. Unless, you want AK ballistics out of a FAL. Truth. 18/17.3" FALs are magical. |
|
|
|
IL, USA
|
Posted: 3/10/2024 4:31:56 PM EDT
[#26]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By bigstick61: I have an issue if Guns & Ammo from the 80s in which they test various " assault weapons" including a factory FN FAL and using PMC ball ammo (IIRC) they got 1.75" grpups at 100 yards with it I have shot a bunch of early 80s to late 80s PMC M80 ball. It shoots a out 2 inches out of my 14 FALs, M1As bolt 308 and AR 10s. It'd gone down to 1 1/4 in the AR10 and M1A super match with some lots. I bought it by the pallet In the early 1990s I have a lifetime supply Run out on the bullets is the limiting factor. I suspect it would go below an inch if ni picked the best 10%. |
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
