Just a little bit of fun me and my buddy took the FAL and his M&P10 out and ran them side by side. We may turn this into a more scientific competition in the future running out to 500 yards and through some course type things but for now just buckets of golf balls and paint tins at 100 yards.



I'm the idiot on the left

Ammo was the same Federal 308 and we both shot each others rifles.









Initial impressions: Felt recoil with the M&P10 was a lot heavier, probably due to it being an all around lighter weapon. First time hits were easier with my FAL but maybe that is because i'm used to it. He was using a red dot vs my open sights. He eventually switched to using a scope and when he got it dialed in he was hit dead center at 100 yards every time.

So in short i'd been neglecting my FAL for sometime because i'd been using my TAVOR and SBR at the range. After today i'm back in love with her. Simply put I forgot how fun it was to shoot! Thanks to this forum for getting my started!

Once we decide on some ground rules and whether this is going to be an open sight comp or we will run optics I will post back here. I would expect the AR pattern rifle to beat me out over a distance but I guess time will tell. Will try to keep this thread updated with results when we start punching paper.

Looks fun, I'm jealous!

I'll be watching for more.  
Are you just going to compete on accuracy?  Time element?  
The FAL, as you observed, is typically heavier than most AR10 clones, so felt recoil is less and allows faster follow up shots.  In almost every other aspect, i.e., ergonomics, mag capacity (looked like you were using 20-rd mag for FAL and 25-rd for M&P), bolt design, optics adaptability, aftermarket accessories, the FAL is at  disadvantage.
In an action match e.g., 3-gun, setting, the heavier weight of the FAL becomes a disadvantage.

Thanks for sharing!

I'll be interested to see how this turns out. I have an M&P-10 but have no experience with a FAL even though I've always wanted one.

What i'm thinking is doing the following:

1) Straight up 5 shot groups at 100, 200 and 300 yards (don't have anywhere for 400 and 500 right now), rested.

2) Standing accuracy at the same distances

3) Standing accuracy with shot time measured.

4) I want to set up some kind of course with us either running both 20 rounders. <- what i am thinking is probably 5 stations with sprints in between (times measured and accuracy measured) and from different shooting positions. I already have this mapped out the question is whether i can fit it into the space i have available. Should be able to though. The reason for running 20 round mags for the course will be that 5 shot groups will be required on each target necessitating one mag change during the course.

My main concerns are what you have already hit on though the FAL is a lot heavier (hence the quicker follow ups and lesser felt recoil) but once i start lugging that thing around i'll probably tire out pretty quickly if i'm not resting the rifle. Also agreed on the optics front, i've always kept my FAL stock and unaltered but I guess if i'm going to do this right i need to invest in a top cover rail or some other form of mounting device for a red dot and scope. The issue with this is, as you already noted, the FAL isn't known for being that optic friendly, especially with scopes.

I'm pretty sure if it was some pro shooters doing this then there would be a clear winner but i'll post up anyway.

For the time being I might do some rested and standing tests with irons on both rifles at shorter ranges and reach out further once i'm got my thoughts together but suggestions are certainly welcome!

I don't see it.  FAL mags are available in 25- and 30-round sizes.  The DSA scope mount top cover is bulletproof and easy to install.  I'll give you the bolt, although that's arguable given the AR's predilection toward shearing lugs.  

The supposed ergonomic advantage of ARs over FALs just doesn't exist.  ARs are better than anything else, but FALs still have a slight edge.  The safety has a 45-degree throw and can be engaged and disengaged without having to shift one's grip.  The magazine release can be hit with the index finger like on an AR, but is easier to index.  The charging handle is in a location that allows more leverage (although to be fair you need to use more strength to charge a FAL), and you don't have to break cheekweld to work it.  The bolt hold open is in a location where it can be activated by the same hand that's holding the charging handle back, allowing the bolt to be locked back with one hand.  When locking a magazine in place, your thumb ends up on top of the bolt hold-open and just pushing down releases the bolt; no need to shift one's hand or slap the side of the gun.  All manipulation motions are distinct and unique, index off locations that are either easy to find or where one's hands are already located, and don't disrupt one's hold on the rifle.  

In the interests of full disclosure, I started on FALs before going to ARs.  The two have distinct manuals of arms with different philosophies and I just happen to prefer the economy of motion and interconnectedness of the FAL over the AR's large-muscle manipulations.

Good post and I don't disagree with what you said I would argue however that carrying the FAL over any kind of extended period is more of a task than the 308 AR (obviously) i'm also keen to see how the groups hold up over long distance.

And it's clearly a matter of preference, having started with the AR platform a couple of years before I started with FALs.  The same fine motor skills that allow dropping the magazine (which I can do with my shorter fingers if I release the grip) and locking the bolt back with one hand while not releasing the cheekweld are the ones I lose first when I'm running from cover to cover in an action match.  I suppose the same would be true if someone was shooting at me.  I also prefer the straight shot of mag reload versus the swing lock motion of the FAL.  Standing or at the bench, I'll hook that recess over and over.  Prone, or on my back hanging upside down, the little things begin to matter.

At the end of the day, to each his own.  And practice, practice, practice.

P.S.  Until I get better with the Windham 308 SRC, I'll be shooting the next event with .....an FAL.

It's not my M&P10 i have stuff lying around my house he can have for it though so i think he's going to trade me some ammo for the stuff. But i agree the standard m4 style stock on it does it no favors.

To OP

you definitely need to mount a scope for longer distance competition, matching, at least, your friend's scope in magnification and quality. However, I suspect that for longer distance the AR has an edge because of bolt design. I was reading Blake Steven's book on the FAL, and it quoted FN's original acceptance spec calls for a 3 MOA. But then your friend.s AR is lighter and I wonder if that might take that edge off. Regardless, I can't wait to see a bench type competition under identical conditions.

Just a quick update. Today was our official sight in day to get our rifles on paper. We ran out of day light before we got satisfactory results at 100 yards (long story but basically we got a late start, had a mount issue on the FAL and my buddy struggled to sight in the AR). A couple of pics for the group and then i'll explain some initial findings.



Finding 1...as i get older my face looks fatter!



Just in case you are curious what our range looks like.



Ammo we are using (to avoid ammo variables).

Ok so onto real findings. First and foremost my scope is only a 3x9 and his is a 4x12. Something we will have to remedy or handicap in some way. We used his laser range find to pinpoint exactly 100 yards but to my eye it looks a little far away.

We did not really shoot for groups today but I will say that while my FAL was scoring consistent hits on targets 2-3" across at 100 yards the AR seemed to routinely be printing 3-5 shot groups with 2 or 3 rounds touching each other. At this point anything is far from conclusive but just wanted to share the results so far.

We will also switch shooters and i may invest in a better scope at some point to make the competition fair. Either way I will be making targets and stands for our "assault course" this weekend also.

p.s. yes my scope is crappy and old and its honestly something I had lying in a drawer not knowing what to do with, but it kind of fits the bill of my beater FAL nicely.

Nice to see some side-by-side comparisons by people without a bone to pick.  Thanks for sharing.

I've built 10 FAL's over the years, I absolutely love them. But the reason I no longer own even one, absolutely NO comparison in accuracy. They make great battle rifles, but at the end of the day, the M&P10 runs circles around it.

I sold my very last one to fund my newest build, that M&P10 will REALLY shine once you free float it and put a decent muzzle brake on there.



The FAL to AR10 is very similar to the AK to AR comparison. Your old school rifle should long outlast us all, but the new guy definitely has the performance edge.

What you state is what I suspect will be the end result but i'm in for the long haul and some testing. Oddly enough we (the two shooters) bother agree that after a day of shooting both rifles that the FAL is actually more pleasant to shoot based on the weight, feel and recoil of the thing (remember i'm an AR and bullpup guy first and foremost so i wouldn't say i'm biased). Having said that i'm not sure i'd want to lug an FAL around all day long in the sticks.

If we can get together this weekend i'll post up the 100 yards on paper results. then it will be 200+ (depending on how far we can go) and then all importantly the course. I may post some video of that provided you guys don't mind watching me make an ass of myself.

A FAL can be accurate as an AR but not in its standard Bubba Joed parts kit slapped together form.
First the bolt carrier needs reshaped a little bit to stop next round uplift pressure, not hard.
The mouth of the chamber needs opened up to prevent flattened bullet tips, easy
The handguard barrel area need locked up with a DSA or Vltor, UTG type handguard, easy.  Freefloating a FAL will usually cause it to be less accurate. The jerking around of the piston is not like an AR front end.
A good brake and carrier buffer can go a long way.
I consider the FAL to be more reliable and durable than an AR.308 type rifle and once you have had one with an equal ability to place rounds the FAL starts to shine.
I hear alot that a FAL is not accurate and yes if you know nothing about the rifle or why , how to make it accurate then an AR is the better option. The standard FAL takes a bit of work to accurize but it is well worth it.

I like the shoot out test you have going on.

One thing that makes me a touch nervous.....your range is all rocks, big rocks for ricochets.   Ricochets back at you or off the range.  You ever have any problems there?

I'm a FAL fan, an M14 fan, a Garand fan, and an AR fan.  Having to choose one over the other is tough for me.

For an AR in .308 I think a more fair comparison might be if it was a full rifle length and with an A2 type stock.  I think it would make it more shootable like the FAL in the long run.  You'd still be at a slight weight disadvantage on recoil.   I am not sure if the additional battery of the shooter would even out the carry weight advantage.  Might be a wash over a long day?  What do you think?

It's not rocks its actually waste concrete. The part of the pile we shoot into is basically dust, think of it as the consistency of a very soft sandstone at the most or I guess a hard sand, you can easily dig it out with your hands.

While we have both been shooting a lot individually we haven't managed to get any range time together so i'm still holding off on the shoot out for now. I do agree with you that a fixed stock on the AR would be an advantage. Overall though I am still very impressed with the accuracy of the FAL but the paper at 100 yards really show me what it can do.

OK, gotcha,  I can see the low pile of the material you're talking about now.  Just looking at the picture the whole range at first appeared to be hard rock/rubble.   Just was worried for your continued safety.

Thanks! Safety is 100% the first thing i consider any time I shoot. the nice thing about the pile, or rather the big rock looking things, (and without getting into a long discussion) is that with it being waste concrete it has had excess water added to it while still in a plastic state (think of driveway concrete as 3000-3500psi, where as this stuff is basically break apart with a hammer type deal, i would estimate well under 500psi). So it looks harder than it is.

I've certainly seem some bad bounce backs in my time, one in particular in a granite quarry with no soft backstop (wasn't me and i advised against the person firing). Understanding that the harder the surface the better the chance for total bullet fragmentation but I still like to have something soft in between me and a hard surface.

In any case as soon as I can get back out for a decent amount of time in the daylight i'll get this thing finished up!

The FAL is a 2 or 3 MOA weapon but is slightly more reliable/durable because looser tolerances and that's a solid weapon. The AR10 will be much more accurate and is still reliable. I have 3 FALs and the only one I'd take over an AR10 is for PSD or CQB and that's my OSW. With that in mind, I'd probably take a SCAR17 over the AR10.