I'm just looking for somewhere to start reading about FALs since I know very little about them. I know there are inch and metric guns but I don't know what that means, and I know there are different manufacturers of various quality. If someone could just point me in the right direction that would be greatly appreciated. Thanks!

fal files is what to google
to tell the difference in inch and metric look how the sights read meters=metric
yards= inch patteren
right arm f the free world
get one soon

I went to FAL files but couldn't find anything comprehensive. I also googled but couldn't find much either.

I thought inch vs metric had something to do with mags?

Inch (Commonwealth) and Metric (Belgian. There's nothing metric on an FAL except for Israeli barrel threads and some of the rear sight markings.) magazines feature different front locking tabs. The former has a square lug brazed on, while the latter has a "beak" punched out from the inside. Theoretically, Commonwealth-pattern receivers can use metric magazines, but that is not guaranteed.

FN produced rifles with sights marked (and graduated) in yards for the U.S. Army, SADF, and Irish military at minimum.  The evaluation/trials rifles for Britain and maybe Canada could have been marked that way as well, but I forget.  People have done parts kit builds here in the U.S. with yards-marked sights.  I think H&R and High Standard's FALs were also yard-marked.

So-called "Inch" rifles are the Commonwealth rifles made by Australia, Canada, and the UK.  Indian rifles are pretty similar, but have some differences plus a couple of features partially in common with other rifles ("metric" ones).  IIRC, the blueprints use the same units of measure as FN's.  Differences can include the front and rear sight designs, the gas port being located at 45 deg. from vertical, IIRC (with corresponding changes to the gas block and plug), 21" NBC barrel as standard, various differences in the handguards, stowable trigger guard (for use with gloves), somewhat diferent construction of lower and stock, the use of a derivative of the long flash suppressor as standard, retention tabs on the top covers (the Canadian ones and earliest British ones had charger-guide top covers), different receiver lightening cuts (except for some Canadian rifles), different carry handles, extended selectors, sand cuts as standard (not in Canadian rifles, though), BHO without the last shot feature (in some cases), different magazine catch (optimized for left-handed actuation), folding charging handles as standard, different means of attaching certain FCG parts and the pistol grip, differences in the magazines, and a few other small differences.  Indian rifles are pretty similar if rather crude, although the rear sight is a hybrid of the FN and British designs.  A number of parts are interchangeable with FN and similar rifles from other manufacturers.  Some are not.

FN made rifles along with FM in Argentina, IMBEL in Brazil, Steyr-Daimler-Puch in Austria, Lyttleton Iron Works (subsidiary of ARMSCOR) in South Africa, Nigeria, Israel, and a company in Greece (I forget the name).  Mexico, Venezuela, and I think others did partial manufacturing or assembly only.  HK made some parts for a bit.  I think FM is still making small amounts for the Argentinian military, IMBEL is making a modified version as the IA2, and I believe Nigeria may still be making them.  So-called "metric" rifles vary widely in configuration.

Domestically, mostly if not entirely without any FN licence, receivers and other parts (plus assembly of rifles) has been done by Entreprise Arms, DS Arms, Hesse, Century, Coonan, and others, plus assembly in the U.S. on imported receivers (typically FM or IMBEL).  Quality has been spotty with many, sometimes with serious issues.  DS Arms used to have LMT make its receivers, but it no makes them in-house and has had huge QC issues on them and with other parts.  Coonan is the only company that makes receivers currently besides DSA (which also makes complete rifles) and it seems that they are no longer providing real customer service for defects, are having QC issues now, and are scaling back their receiver manufacturing efforts.

I own a FAL mutt.  Mostly STG parts, I think wit a cheap receiver everyone loves to hate.

I can tell you:
1) FALs are not too heavy
2) FALs do not kick too hard
3) FALs do not have bad triggers
4) FALs are not inaccurate

Had I bought a FAL before I had my M1A I might not have ever bought an M1A.

The one issue I don't like with the FAL is scope mounting.  I just can't bring myself to trust that clamp on dust cover that the scope mount attaches to.  When I had a scope on it that scope/mount/dust cover never came loose, I just don't feel comfortable about it.

Couple of 5 shot groups, with SA surplus, at 100 yds.  Iron sights with my eyes.  With glasses I can't see the target very well.  Without glasses I don't see the front sight very well.  If I can catch the right time of the day when the sun is shining from the front and lighting up the front sight better then I can see it better.

I have an Imbel 17" para (with a Rhodesian folding stock) that I assembled in gunsmith school on an LMT-produced DSA Type I receiver.

I will tell you:
1) FALs are heavy, compared to other 7.62 NATO battle rifles.
2) FALs have tame recoil due to their weight (and the adjustable gas system).
3) FALs all have horrible factory triggers. They can be improved, but not to the extent of the SCAR, AR10, G3, or M14. Most smiths get around $150 for trigger jobs on FALs due to the difficulty. Jard used to sell a replacement FCG for $160.
4) FALs are known for vertical stringing, as evidenced in the above excellent group. This is because their bolt tilts to lock, and varying pressure (from the rounds in the magazine) affect the engagement of the bolt into battery. It's just inconsistent. Fixing it requires intense fitting, and thicker dimensions than currently produced parts. DSA experimented with a DMR version, but I think the fit wore out too fast (for military use), and it was too much precision fitting to maintain in a production environment.

Once you decide to find your own FAL spend a little extra time and money
and get a Springfield Armory SAR-48 version of the FAL. Standard barrel
or Para version.

Those are made by Imbel in Brazil.
Very much worth the extra time and money to own a completely factory
built FAL.

You will be happy you did.

Agreed.   That is if you don't mind a T3 receiver.

How do I find one and what do I look for to know it is what I want?

Start here: http://www.falforum.com/index.php?article/2-the-springfield-armory-fal-the-sar-48-and-sar-4800/

You'll have to decide what you want. I wanted a paratrooper model on a Type I receiver, so that's what I built. The only factory option for that at the time was the DSA Para Congo, and it was $$$.

FALfiles.com has the best technical info.

As has already been stated, FALFiles will have more info than can be processed. In the Reference and Data section look into the Eureka! thread. All that you seek and more awaits you.

Hang out on Gunbroker and the FALfiles until you come across an SAR-48.

Lot's of info online about the SAR-48.

I'll send you pics of mine if you PM me.

So for some reason when I try to click on those threads I get a message saying I do not have permission to access that page. I even registered an account and still no dice.

I think you've got to click the link they emailed you to activate your account, same as most places.

Yeah I clicked the link and finally got an email saying my account was activated. But now the links just take me to the search page with the search bar already filled in to "Beginner" or similar. Maybe that is what its supposed to be but I thought it would take me to a thread?

If you want a primer on the FAL go to Marketplace on FAL FILES and find the for sale thread for the new book The FAL Primer: The collectors Guide to the FN FAL and SLR Rifles.  265 pages 1200 color images.

Pretty sure I spent the better part of at least 2 years researching and learning, buying a nearly complete rifle to assemble, buying kits, buying tools, hanging out at the FAL files forum, making friends and asking for a lot of help trying to build FAL's. Steep learning curve! Got it done. Have some nice shooting rifles. None are 'technically' correct or 'pure' in any sense but they're all together.

All I can say is, pick one you like, start collecting parts and tools and build it.

Retrospectively, ya, buying an SAR-48 is a more direct approach. However, I can honestly say I've built a few FAL's and have a rudimentary understanding of how it all fits together and how it's supposed to work.

I have been extremely fortunate with FAL's. I've had a lot of help and assistance and technical direction from people who've spent a life time with FAL's.

Mark Graham ("gunplumber" from Arizona Response Systems on FALFiles) knows quite a bit about the design as he builds some of the better "kit" guns on the market.

My short recommendations to a FAL newbie:

1) Don't buy someone's garage special.
2) Don't buy a gun with a cast receiver (e.g. Enterprise, newer DSA, anything from Century that doesn't say "Imbel" or "Made in Brazil", etc)
3) Don't buy an INCH pattern as a first FAL (mags are harder to find, folding rear sights suck as do folding charging handles)

and most importantly ....

4) Just find a FACTORY ASSEMBLED SAR-48 with the standard 21" barrel.  Be aware ... the SAR-4800 is a post ban gun and some SAR-48 receivers were sold bare so don't fall for some bubba's handy work.

Unfortunately I may have to go with something cast, unless I can find a receiver and a parts kit and decide to build it myself. It looks like SAR-48's are going for over $2000. From my brief search though I found an Imbel kit for $575 and an Imbel receiver for $550. I have no idea if I'm looking at quality parts or not though.

IMBEL receivers have shot up in price in the last two years. That's a good price these days. While they are Type 4 receivers (optimized for casting by FN), they are forged. They are also, more importantly, of excellent quality.

But cast vs. forged isn't the issue so much as quality. DSA's in-house forged receivers have similar quality issues as their cast ones.

Second vote for Imbel receivers.

Twenty years ago (IIRC) when FAL building was at its peak, I had quite a few built on Imbel receivers.  All of those builds functioned flawlessly.  I ended up selling those guns and buying used DSA guns.  Sold the second hand DSA and started ordering factory direct (to my FFL) from DSA around 2007.  That stopped around the end of 2008.  I saw DSA's QC drop from the first ordered by me gun (January 2007) to the last (November 2008).  The last DSA was a Para, and literally would not function.  The selector wouldn't even budge.  They eventually worked it out, but I was done with them.  Sold all of the DSA stuff over time and bought a couple of SAR-48.

I've kept one FAL, and its a 21" SAR-48.

If I were interested in getting into FALs now I would save up for a factory (imported by Springfield) SAR.  They're going to continue to increase in value whereas a build will always be limited in value.  In fact, I've heard people mention tearing their builds down because they're worth more as parts.

I should mention, I only have one FAL because after shooting a SCAR-17 I knew my fascination with the FAL design was coming to an end.

Let the tar and feathering begin!

These points need to be repeated.

There are still things about the FAL I like better than the SCAR.  A combination of the best features of each would be neat.  Same with the SCAR being engineered to function correctly with and accept FAL magazines instead of the proprietary magazine they have based on the FAL's.  If someone could mate the REPR upper with the FAL-style charging handle with the RRA LAR-8 that would be pretty neat, as well.  The 7.62X51 Bren 2 looks interesting, though, and seems destined to almost certainly be a better value than the SCAR (the cost of the SCAR, especially once you upgrade stuff to fix things, is part of why I would not have any interest in them unless money were no object).

SCAR prices are definitely one of the reasons the design isn't more popular.  I bought my 16 when they were $2400 shipped, and my 17 when they were $2700 shipped.  I personally don't want extended rails, rail delete kits, etc.  The only thing the design needs for my application is an ACOG and VFG.  Once you stick a $1000 ACOG in a LaRue mount and a $50 QD TD MK grip ... you're looking at a $3450 to $3750 in a single firearm.  The Heavy requires mags that are $30-35 each so add another $350 for a standard 10 mag compliment and .... $4000 without ammo.

I understand FN wanting to recover their product development / testing / engineering costs, but if you examine the construction of a Scar you quickly determine it is NOT an expensive gun to fabricate.  FN can produce CHF AR barrels cheaply, so the barrel should be a non issue.  The upper is an extruded aluminum tube with some metal inserts screwed into it.  Not costly or difficult.  The lower is plastic.  The few parts that require machining (FCG, gas block, tiny piston, bolt carrier and bolt, etc) are simple.

Having said all of that ...

Even if FN dropped the price to $1500 I'd imagine they'd still have a hard time selling them in a market where dealer new Colt 6920s can be had for $850.

Having owned SCARs since they first became available, AR15s since 1984, FALs since the 1990s ... I can add this ....

Does the SCAR do anything the AR or FAL cannot?  No.
Does the SCAR do anything BETTER than the AR or FAL?  I will say I think yes.

The SCAR-H is lighter than an FAL and more accurate from my experience.  It is designed for optics mounting without craptastic FAL cover mounting.

I think the SCAR is a better design, but not in proportion to the cost when compared to an AR (SCAR-16) and FAL (SCAR-17).  Its a super premium for gilded improvements.

I've never owned a KAC AR, because I won't pay 2x the price of a Colt or 1.5x the price of a BCM.  They're all AR15s and while the KAC might have a bolt that lasts longer .. I can buy complete Colt BCG for $99.

The SCAR, however, is different.

I would be all over a Scar at $1500. I don't think that would be unreasonable. At $2700 they can forget it. I would rather have the KAC upper (for much cheaper) at that point. I wouldn't mind putting one high end AR in the safe at some point, but I'm getting off topic now.