Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login

Posted: 10/24/2006 6:49:06 AM EST
[Last Edit: 10/24/2006 6:49:57 AM EST by Fl10ring]
ok i finally got my ar a couple months ago and have it 80% done...time to start figuring out whats next....i own a FN police shotgun slightly upgraded a savage .22 and my 16"bushy...i had a yugo sks with a side folding stock and an 30round magazine that i sold for 250$...I think i have narrowed it down between a Fal rifle or an AK for my next gun... The AK would be left fairly stock...maby an underfolder....the Fal would be done up nicely using mostly DSA parts and would be an 18"-20" barrel with fixed stock and a scope of some sort...what do you guys think??? what would you do?
Link Posted: 10/24/2006 7:28:32 AM EST
I know the Fal is .308, but Would you get the AK in 7.62x39 or 7.62nato?
I would go with the AK anyday.
Link Posted: 10/24/2006 7:59:14 AM EST
Buy a couple of AKs . . . .
Link Posted: 10/24/2006 9:09:43 AM EST
I have an Arsenal AK-74 clone and a DSA FAL-both get taken to the range nearly every time I go, and both are great for what they are. You can't go wrong with either.
Link Posted: 10/24/2006 9:28:12 AM EST
Link Posted: 10/24/2006 9:33:48 AM EST
The FAL will cost you a lot more. Would you rather have 1 fal or 2 AKs.
Link Posted: 10/24/2006 9:44:25 AM EST
Link Posted: 10/24/2006 9:57:56 AM EST
FAL or AK huh?


Do you want to save up $300-$800 or $800-$1500?
Link Posted: 10/24/2006 10:30:49 AM EST
[Last Edit: 10/24/2006 10:34:34 AM EST by elmehfudd]
I've had both and I prefer the AK. The FAL has excellent ergonomics, better sights and better optics mounting options, but it's also big, heavy, expensive, not terribly accurate and folding stocks cost an arm and a leg and require additional parts. People knock the AK for it's accuracy and ergonomics, but I think both criticisms are overblown. AK's in 5.45, 5.56 and 7.62x51 generally deliver decent accuracy, nothing to write home about, but about 2-3 MOA or roughly the same as an FAL. As far as the AK's ergonomics go, they might not be great, but for the most part it's just a matter of getting used to them. Both rifles are very reliable, but I'd give the edge to the AK.

There are a few real issues that I have with the AK. The sights stink. The optics mounts are inferior. No LRBHO. You can make up for these a little with aftermarket parts, but in general they're still inferior to rifles that were designed from the start with good sights, LRBHO's and good optics mounts. Also, I'm not a big fan of AK's in the traditional AK caliber; 7.62x39. When you combine the poor quality sights, the poor quality ammo and a cartridge that doesn't lend itself to accuracy you end up with a rifle that can't hit the broadside of a barn.

The main reason I prefer the AK is that it's so much smaller and handier than the FAL, even in the larger calibers like .308, and in the right chamberings it delivers about the same accuracy.
Link Posted: 10/24/2006 10:39:34 AM EST
Get an Riflemans rifle an M1A .
Link Posted: 10/24/2006 10:41:34 AM EST
Show some class and get the FAL, Ak's are for poor people
Link Posted: 10/24/2006 1:57:26 PM EST

Originally Posted By A-nus:
Show some class and get the FAL, Ak's are for poor people


+1

The FAL comes complete with a touch of class, whereas the AK is completely lacking.
Link Posted: 10/24/2006 2:23:34 PM EST
Three letters FAL, you wont go wrong. The FAL has more range, better accuracy, and a hell of allot more knock down power. Put a folder on a FAL and you have a do it all rifle. OK, a almost do it all rifle.
Link Posted: 10/24/2006 3:22:17 PM EST
both great rifles....but I would go with the AK...2 reasons...lighter, and quicker follow up shots....trust me go AK
Link Posted: 10/25/2006 4:54:11 AM EST
Get an AK in .233
Link Posted: 10/25/2006 8:14:38 AM EST
FAL
Link Posted: 10/25/2006 12:33:21 PM EST
"The Right Arm Of The Free World"

FAL all the way!!!!
Link Posted: 10/25/2006 12:41:43 PM EST
my choice was to get a FAL after I had my AK. I wish I had just bought the FAL and never bothered with the AK, but that's just me and what I want it for
Link Posted: 10/26/2006 5:31:11 PM EST
Put it this way:

I feel like a mal-nourished Ethiopian trying to hit a wild rabbit for food when I shoot the AK.

I feel like RAMBO on crack with a wide grin when I'm out unloading rounds with my 16" Para FAL.

Buy the one that puts hair on your chest, buy FAL!
Link Posted: 10/26/2006 8:19:05 PM EST

Originally Posted By LUGERMAN:
Get an AK in .233


+1 The SLR-106 is classy and mean all at the same time.

AKs are only the "poor mans rifle" for those who don't get nice AKs. Sure you can get a shitty WASR, that would be a poor mans rifle. Arsenal? Nah, that's really nice. Or even better, have it built by a custom gunsmith who will really do it up nice. This is classy:



AK USA built aks-74. Total cost into the rifle: around $1200. I bought it used for $750.

Btw, I like FALs, too. My buddy's DSA is a work of art just as my AKS-74 is. You will like either as long as you don't go cheap on it.
Link Posted: 10/27/2006 4:27:17 AM EST

Originally Posted By philp110:
You will like either as long as you don't go cheap on it.


Probably the best advice yet.

Cheap in either AK or FAL is a weak gun. Getting in to the higher end of either will definately put a smile on your face for years.
Link Posted: 10/27/2006 4:49:05 AM EST

Originally Posted By M4:

Originally Posted By philp110:
You will like either as long as you don't go cheap on it.


Probably the best advice yet.

Cheap in either AK or FAL is a weak gun. Getting in to the higher end of either will definately put a smile on your face for years.


There is much wisdom to this advice. Its cheaper to buy right at the beginning than to try to upgrade later.

Link Posted: 10/27/2006 4:49:23 AM EST
it is ONLY money, you can ALWAYS make more. get one now, then the other later.
Link Posted: 10/27/2006 4:58:42 AM EST
Link Posted: 10/27/2006 6:03:13 AM EST
height=8
Originally Posted By elmehfudd:
I've had both and I prefer the AK. The FAL has excellent ergonomics, better sights and better optics mounting options, but it's also big, heavy, expensive, not terribly accurate and folding stocks cost an arm and a leg and require additional parts. People knock the AK for it's accuracy and ergonomics, but I think both criticisms are overblown. AK's in 5.45, 5.56 and 7.62x51 generally deliver decent accuracy, nothing to write home about, but about 2-3 MOA or roughly the same as an FAL. As far as the AK's ergonomics go, they might not be great, but for the most part it's just a matter of getting used to them. Both rifles are very reliable, but I'd give the edge to the AK.

There are a few real issues that I have with the AK. The sights stink. The optics mounts are inferior. No LRBHO. You can make up for these a little with aftermarket parts, but in general they're still inferior to rifles that were designed from the start with good sights, LRBHO's and good optics mounts. Also, I'm not a big fan of AK's in the traditional AK caliber; 7.62x39. When you combine the poor quality sights, the poor quality ammo and a cartridge that doesn't lend itself to accuracy you end up with a rifle that can't hit the broadside of a barn.

The main reason I prefer the AK is that it's so much smaller and handier than the FAL, even in the larger calibers like .308, and in the right chamberings it delivers about the same accuracy.


Go with the FAL, I carried a SLR L1A1 (aka FAL) full time for 6 years depending on mission. Qualified Marksman (no optics) bootcamp, this weapon is accurate, reliable, simple in construction and maintenance and never ever let me down in any way.Standard sights would give me headshots 300 yards and chest shots up to 800.

The AK is a idiot proof rough commie work tool that is not designed for ANY other function then to send lead down range fast, if all you want to do is pull that trigger and make noise cheaply........buy a AK, if you want to have some kind of fun shooting a military rifle accurately buy a Australian or British made FAL, the clones aka CETME to me have been Crap anyway my 2 cents worth. comparing a Ak to a FAl is like comparing a LADA to a Chevy, both workmans tools just one is more refined lol
Link Posted: 10/27/2006 2:05:01 PM EST

Originally Posted By M4:

Originally Posted By philp110:
You will like either as long as you don't go cheap on it.


Probably the best advice yet.

Cheap in either AK or FAL is a weak gun. Getting in to the higher end of either will definately put a smile on your face for years.


+1. FALs and AKs both make fantastic rifles when they're well made. My DSA is a dream to shoot, and as for well made AKs......I shot Philp110's Chris Butler AKS-74 today. All I can say is that an 8 year friendship may well be ruined by my unbridled envy. That gun makes my Arsenal SLR-105 look like a WASR in comparision. You are a bastard for owning that Phil.
Link Posted: 10/27/2006 2:50:24 PM EST
so you can engage someone out to 800yrds with a FAL...mmm ok, and why would you want to do that in a SHTF situation.....also the AK is only good for spraying lead real fast and making noise? mmm...ok maybe to someone who isnt actually a rifleman......the AK is a great battlefield rifle and QUITE accurate when you actually AIM out to 400yrds......also the CETME came first and was bought out by the Germans which eventually became the G3......Germans wanted to buy the rights for the FAL and make it there G1 rifle but were denied.....CETME is not a clone
Link Posted: 10/27/2006 4:03:47 PM EST
I can't see bothering with putting a scope on the average fal. If you use one at all, keep it to a low power one. FAL's are just not accurate enough to use at distances that would require more than about 3 or 4x. The fal I have shoots more like a shotgun than a rifle, so I wouldn't even bother with that. My AK is more accurate... no lie. Of couse, I know there are some fal's that are reasonably accurate, but I think the average from what I've seen is probably around 4moa. Go with the AK. It's lighter, just as accurate/inaccurate and you really don't need the extra power of the 7.62x51 nato cartridge since when fired from a fal, it's probably not gonna hit anything past AK range anyway.
Link Posted: 10/27/2006 6:00:34 PM EST

Originally Posted By Ultramatch-Shooter:
Go with the FAL, I carried a SLR L1A1 (aka FAL) full time for 6 years depending on mission. Qualified Marksman (no optics) bootcamp, this weapon is accurate, reliable, simple in construction and maintenance and never ever let me down in any way.Standard sights would give me headshots 300 yards and chest shots up to 800.

The AK is a idiot proof rough commie work tool that is not designed for ANY other function then to send lead down range fast, if all you want to do is pull that trigger and make noise cheaply........buy a AK, if you want to have some kind of fun shooting a military rifle accurately buy a Australian or British made FAL, the clones aka CETME to me have been Crap anyway my 2 cents worth. comparing a Ak to a FAl is like comparing a LADA to a Chevy, both workmans tools just one is more refined lol


I have owned an R1A1 and an SA58 and there is no way I could call either of them accurate. Two of my AK's have shot better, (SAR3 and Saiga 223), one shoots about the same as the R1A1 (the Saiga 308) and even my MAK90 outshot the SA58, (let me tell you it pissed me off royally to have a $1300 gun that didn't shoot worth shit. That one went right back to the gunshow).

One other thing to keep in mind about FAL's, unless you plunk out the dough for an SA58 or a preban, you'll be getting a gun made out of parts that have been used hard and come from several different guns.
Link Posted: 10/27/2006 6:34:04 PM EST
Definitly get a DSA.

Link Posted: 10/27/2006 8:51:59 PM EST
Get an AK. The are fun as hell to own and shoot.
Link Posted: 10/27/2006 9:45:51 PM EST

Originally Posted By elmehfudd:

I have owned an R1A1 and an SA58 and there is no way I could call either of them accurate. Two of my AK's have shot better, (SAR3 and Saiga 223), one shoots about the same as the R1A1 (the Saiga 308) and even my MAK90 outshot the SA58, (let me tell you it pissed me off royally to have a $1300 gun that didn't shoot worth shit. That one went right back to the gunshow).


There's no way any AK should be out shooting a DSA SA58. Mine is capable of 1"-1.5" groups if I do my part, and I think most people get similar results. Most AKs in 7.62x39 will get 3"-5" groups, while nice AKs in 5.45 group more in the 2" range (can't say about 5.56 AKs because I haven't fired one). So I would call my FAL quite accurate. If you fired a DSA that was grouping that poorly, then it was likely a lemon. Certainly something wasn't right with it. The Badger barrels they use are awesome.....

As a general rule of thumb, a nice FAL will always be noticeably more accurate than a nice AK, particularly if that AK is chambered in 7.62x39. Lie I said in an earlier post, both are great rifles.
Link Posted: 10/28/2006 11:21:56 AM EST
wrong....accuracy is not all about the rifle...and mostly due to the person behind the trigger....I have owned preban, and DSA FALS...yes they are great rifles but definately not less than 1MOA rifles....they are battlerifles and 3-5in is a norm and VERY respectable....same for the AK, LIKE I SAID when you do AIM..5.45..or 7.62 doesnt matter, if you do your part and you practice practice practice your going to see how those groups shrink....I get 1MOA at 100rds with my Vector polish parts AK....and have posted pics of other targets as well.......remember it is NOT all about the rifle...its the shooter doing his part...and also the type of ammo you are using

I say buy both, but I am trying to save you a little money....for me there was no damn difference between my DSA tactical fal(by the time I was done had alsomost $2000 into it) and my preban FAL they both shot the same....I like the AK better for resons stated before....quick follow up shots...very light...accurate out to 400yrds or so(more than enough)...reliable....and parts are plentiful(and cheap as hell).....do your self a favor buy an AK I suggest Vectorrs(great rifles and customer service was great) buy a SHIT LOAD of ammo with all the money your saving from not buying a DSA FAL....and PRACTICE PRACTICE PRACTICE :)
Link Posted: 10/28/2006 12:18:39 PM EST
[Last Edit: 10/28/2006 12:33:17 PM EST by mco119]

Originally Posted By survivorman:
wrong....accuracy is not all about the rifle...and mostly due to the person behind the trigger....I have owned preban, and DSA FALS...yes they are great rifles but definately not less than 1MOA rifles....they are battlerifles and 3-5in is a norm and VERY respectable


The skill of the person firing the rifle has an enormous effect on overall accuracy, so I agree with you. That said, 3"-5" groups with a DSA are not typical, or at least that is not the best the rifle can do. Some DSAs ARE capable of close to 1MOA accuracy, assuming the shooter knows what he's about and good ammo is being used. In honesty, I tend to think the whole debate over group sizes is somewhat trivial when discussing battle rifles; they're designed to hit a man sized target, not to be a tack driver. So I think 3"-5" groups are perfectly acceptable....doesn't mean a nice FAL (or AK for that matter) can't do much better.

ETA: Not sure this matters much, but stumbled onto an article about DSAs from Soldier of Fortune. It's an older article, with both DSAs being the ban models with muzzle breaks. Anyway, the medium contour version shot .8" groups and the 16" carbine achieved 1.1" groups. Keep in mind this guy is an expert shooter, plus the ammo was some nice Black Hills stuff. Still, shows they are capable of 1moa groups. SOF article
Link Posted: 10/28/2006 1:00:06 PM EST
[Last Edit: 10/28/2006 1:00:32 PM EST by survivorman]
dont get me wrong I know the FAL is capable of better groups...that is why I said depending on the shooter and ammo used....yes the FAL and AK norms will be between 3-5 in because they are battlefield rifles...I also agree that group sizes are trivial...when the SHTF I am not worried about placing all 5 shots in the same hole....just doesnt happen, I am more worried about placing my shot somewhere fast and doing enough damage to keep the bad guy down long enough to get my ass out of there.....that is why I think the AK is better of the 2....again fast follow up shots, accurate out to 400yrds or so...and light......my AK with a loaded mag weighs about 7.5lbs were my FALS weighed in at 10 to 12lbs.....big difference
Link Posted: 10/28/2006 4:45:06 PM EST
height=8
Originally Posted By survivorman:
wrong....accuracy is not all about the rifle...and mostly due to the person behind the trigger....I have owned preban, and DSA FALS...yes they are great rifles but definately not less than 1MOA rifles....they are battlerifles and 3-5in is a norm and VERY respectable....same for the AK, LIKE I SAID when you do AIM..5.45..or 7.62 doesnt matter, if you do your part and you practice practice practice your going to see how those groups shrink....I get 1MOA at 100rds with my Vector polish parts AK....and have posted pics of other targets as well.......remember it is NOT all about the rifle...its the shooter doing his part...and also the type of ammo you are using

I say buy both, but I am trying to save you a little money....for me there was no damn difference between my DSA tactical fal(by the time I was done had alsomost $2000 into it) and my preban FAL they both shot the same....I like the AK better for resons stated before....quick follow up shots...very light...accurate out to 400yrds or so(more than enough)...reliable....and parts are plentiful(and cheap as hell).....do your self a favor buy an AK I suggest Vectorrs(great rifles and customer service was great) buy a SHIT LOAD of ammo with all the money your saving from not buying a DSA FAL....and PRACTICE PRACTICE PRACTICE :)



Survivor Man opinions are like assholes, everone has one....this (PRACTICE PRACTICE PRACTICE ) is one thing i actually agree with you that makes sense probably coming from some TV Rambo wannabe....don't feed BS info to a guy that wants an honest REAl opinion on where to spend his hard earned cash.

7.62x39 is an inferior caliber compared to 7.62 especially for long range work. read my original post again: especially this section :


, if you want to have some kind of fun shooting a military rifle accurately buy a Australian or British made FAL, the clones aka CETME to me have been Crap anyway my 2 cents worth. comparing a Ak to a FAl is like comparing a LADA to a Chevy, both workmans tools just one is more refined


see personal opinion take a MILDOL and chill....but thats my opinion.

Have a nice day!
Link Posted: 10/28/2006 5:53:38 PM EST

Originally Posted By mco119:
There's no way any AK should be out shooting a DSA SA58. Mine is capable of 1"-1.5" groups if I do my part, and I think most people get similar results. Most AKs in 7.62x39 will get 3"-5" groups, while nice AKs in 5.45 group more in the 2" range (can't say about 5.56 AKs because I haven't fired one). So I would call my FAL quite accurate. If you fired a DSA that was grouping that poorly, then it was likely a lemon. Certainly something wasn't right with it. The Badger barrels they use are awesome.....

As a general rule of thumb, a nice FAL will always be noticeably more accurate than a nice AK, particularly if that AK is chambered in 7.62x39. Lie I said in an earlier post, both are great rifles.


That was my oppinion too and that's why I got rid of that gun as soon as I figured out I couldn't easily fix it. It seemed to be due to the barrel heating up, since my groups would typically be about 1" wide and 8" high and would always start at the bottom and rise to the top. I bought it used, but it was so clean it appeared to have been unfired. There wasn't even a ding on the scope mount where the brass ejects.

5.56 AK's are pretty accurate guns however. 2 MOA is pretty much the norm with decent ammo. My SAR3 will do that and I suspect that my Saiga will too, but so far I've only fired it with Radway Green and it's shooting about 2.5 MOA with that. From what I've seen, I'd give the edge in accuracy to a .223 AK over an FAL. I'd consider the big AK's, (7.62x51 or 7.62x54R), to be about the same as an FAL accuracy wise and I'd say the FAL is more accurate than an AK in 7.62x39. I've never fired an AK in 5.45, but my understanding is that they deliver similar accuracy to the 5.56, but the limited cartridge selection gives the 5.56 an edge.
Link Posted: 10/28/2006 7:51:42 PM EST
[Last Edit: 10/28/2006 8:02:55 PM EST by survivorman]
you are so right my friend opinions are like assholes and your stinks.....TV wannabe rambo? you got me....as for my posts go back and read a little better....real opinions?? I thought thats what I was givin...MY OPINION....if you dont like it move on.....7.62x39 an inferior round mmmm...ok why dont you ask the boys coming back from overseas if they think its INFERIOR and doesnt get the job done....or better yet go on patrol and have one pointed at you...tell me then if you dont think its capable......yes my OPINION still stands....IMHO that the AK is a better choice I said it once and will say it again...lighter, faster follow up shots, More than accurate for someone who actually does a little bit of shooting....the FAL is a GREAT battlefield rifle...and gives good battefield accuracy but the biggest problem for me is the weight....I love 308 just as much as the next guy....but 7.62x39 round inferior? BLAH dont be ignorant....you might also say a 22 is inferior(actually has put more things down than any other round) but put in the hands of someone who actually knows what the hell they are doing(not an armchair commando) and you can get the job done. Like I said before I enjoy BOTH rifles....but I will never be unloading on someone or something out to 800yrds, and I am going to guess here and say neither will you.....the AK is MORE than capable out to 400yrds and that IS plenty enough for me....even if I was in a SHTF situation why the hell would I engage someone out at 800yrds???? I wouldnt and neither would you, most engagements happen between 50 and 100yrds......for me at that distance I can throw rocks, but quick follow up shots with my light AK is all I would need :) you can have the refinement of your 12lb brick....by the way can anyone tell me what a MILDOL is lol :)
Top Top