Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Site Notices
9/22/2017 12:11:25 AM
Posted: 12/11/2005 8:55:47 PM EDT
Come the first of the year I am looking at purchasing my first .308. Right now I am leaning towards a FAL. M1A or M14. Please advise. I would like to spend between $700-$1200.

Important to know:
Length
Make
Model

Thanks All

JM
Link Posted: 12/12/2005 1:01:28 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 12/12/2005 1:05:10 AM EDT by myitinaw]
Sir,
Do yourself a big big favor and
purchase Boston's Gun Bible.
It is a wealth of info, and includes ratings
on Battle Rifles [incl all the above]
and accessories. The book is
worth its weight in gold.
Boston rates the FAL slightly Higher
than the M1A, if
the FAL has a few
minor modifications.
Without the mods they are
neck and neck in overall
recommendation.

Mosey over to Amazon,
and purchase the Bible!
Link Posted: 12/12/2005 3:07:34 AM EDT
Also, the best rifle will be determined by your usage. A standard length M1A has the capability to outshoot (accuracy wise) almost any FAL on the market with same ammo. But, M1As are expensive, replacement parts are harder to come by, mags are more expensive... you get the idea. The best rifle is based upon the job you want it to do.
Link Posted: 12/12/2005 5:36:17 AM EDT
Thanks for your feedback:

I will look into the Boston Gun Guide.

I am looking for deadon accuracy but I am also looking at a gun that is easy to clean maintain easy to fine spare parts and inexpensive magazines for. Is their a battle rifle that I am over looking that can provide me the items I desire?

Thanks again.

Link Posted: 12/12/2005 6:26:42 AM EDT
i vote for fal.
Link Posted: 12/12/2005 7:11:27 AM EDT
Posting on the FAL forum you already know what our answers will be. The M1A is more accurate but the FAL is close behind in accuracy. If you want a scoped rifle then get the M1A. If you want a battle rifle with red dot or iorn sights then get the FAL. If you want to shoot surplus ammo get the FAL. Or commercial/handloads with the M1A. The ergonomics are better on the FAL to me due to the pistol grip. I think it's a better battle rifle but the M1A would be a better long range rifle.
Link Posted: 12/12/2005 7:47:42 AM EDT
I don't know M1A but FALs are very accurate. a shooter friend of mine shoots 1'' group at 100m with reloaded ammo using his StG58
Link Posted: 12/12/2005 8:07:01 AM EDT
They are BOTH fine "bet yer life" battle rifles, of proven reliability.
You won't go wrong with either.


That being said, I chose the FAL.
ergo, mags, parts, etc.
Link Posted: 12/12/2005 4:11:14 PM EDT
I finally broke down and bought an M1A. It's and older one with all US GI parts. It's about 1/2 MOA more accurate than my FAL. It's a pain in the butt and expensive to scope them compared to the DSA mount on the FAL. It had some slight reliability problems with the scope mount installed. None before. Problems were solved with the right ammo selection. It likes Aussie ammo. I had to buy a cheek rest for it because the scope was high. It kicks more than the FAL. It has a slightly better trigger than the fal (stg58), but not much. I shoot the FAL often, and the M1A not often at all. My vote goes for the FAL, and this M1A will likely be for sale soon.
Regards, Willy
Link Posted: 12/12/2005 4:16:47 PM EDT

Originally Posted By myitinaw:
Sir,
Do yourself a big big favor and
purchase Boston's Gun Bible.
It is a wealth of info, and includes ratings
on Battle Rifles [incl all the above]
and accessories. The book is
worth its weight in gold.
Boston rates the FAL slightly Higher
than the M1A, if
the FAL has a few
minor modifications.
Without the mods they are
neck and neck in overall
recommendation.

Mosey over to Amazon,
and purchase the Bible!



Good advise, it is a must read.
also

<­BR>
Get both.
Link Posted: 12/12/2005 4:34:15 PM EDT
Metric FAL (Imbel on Imbel kit) + Aimpoint M2 on ARMS mount = Goodness !!!

Too much fun to shoot and a very tough combo. Mil-spec rifle and Mil-spec sight.

I really love M14's too....

But from now on it's just FAL's for me (and my little Bushmaster shorty too)

Shoot safe,

Flyer
Link Posted: 12/12/2005 5:08:21 PM EDT
awesome feedback.

I know all feedback is a little slanted due to where I posted this string but thank you all for your feedback. It sounds like I am going with the FAL hands down. I did some other research and found that dollar for dollar the FAL is the way to go. Does anyone have some feedback on what length has worked best for them. I have shot a DSA stg58 straight from the box and it was dead on. I also love the intergrated tripod. Cheap mags and are able to take the worst kind of plinking ammo with great results.

So the questions still lingers....

Length
Make and Model recommendations (for the money)
Scope options.

Also if para style is the way to go will i lose any accuracy?

Thanks

JM


­
Link Posted: 12/12/2005 5:57:17 PM EDT
FAL!
Link Posted: 12/12/2005 8:09:54 PM EDT
I don't like Para stocks. Yes they look neat and make storing the rifle in a smaller space possible. But the stock is uncomfortable to shoot and imagine cheeking it in minus 20 degree weather! I like my Fals to be either 21" or 18" barrel length. Your rear sight regulation is set for a 21" but the 18's sure do point well. My recommendation for a production FAL would be a DSA STG-58, built with DSA's receiver and Austrian STG surplus parts. A fine rifle under $900. If you shop around you can find FALs built by talented builders in the 600 to 800 dollar range. I see them for sale quite often at a certain forum dedicated to the FAL rifle. Never know, you might find one for sale here!
Link Posted: 12/13/2005 4:23:13 PM EDT
The M14 beat out the FAL in the military tests but in actual usage there is very little difference between the two. Pick the one that is the most comfortable for you and you can't go wrong.
Link Posted: 12/14/2005 7:02:54 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 12/14/2005 7:04:08 AM EDT by Dano523]
Standard battle type rifle, FAL/HK since it, parts, and mags are cheap.

If you want to take the rifle to the next step of being more accurate with iron sights, them the M-14/M1a since NM parts are available.

If the game plan is to scope the rig, then the AR platform in 308/flat top is the better choice.

In regards to the FAL, the DSA stg-58a is going to be your best bet, and you should be able to find one for around $800 new.


www.dsarms.com/catalog-list.cfm?Category=04&storeid=1&CFID=4770708&CFTOKEN=65713143
Link Posted: 12/14/2005 7:03:57 AM EDT
Learn from my thread

The poll speaks volumes.
Link Posted: 12/14/2005 7:50:08 AM EDT
No pistol grip? No thanks!
I love FALs!
Link Posted: 12/15/2005 11:58:05 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 12/15/2005 11:58:54 PM EDT by Maddogkiller]
Unless you are planning to shoot in high power competitions, the FAL is a better value. Magazines are insanely inexpensive, spare parts are common and relatively inexpensive, and the $500 saved will buy 2 1/2 cases of milsurp ammo.

I have an M1A and I enjoy shooting it. I also have 4 FALs that I also enjoy shooting. If I had to choose one or the other, I would not hesitate to buy an StG58 and blast down the road smartly.

Another reason to pick an FAL is that there are so many variations of the FAL and so many accessory choices.
Link Posted: 12/16/2005 3:02:52 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 12/16/2005 3:03:33 AM EDT by patriot73]

Originally Posted By dar48:
Also, the best rifle will be determined by your usage. A standard length M1A has the capability to outshoot (accuracy wise) almost any FAL on the market with same ammo. But, M1As are expensive, replacement parts are harder to come by, mags are more expensive... you get the idea. The best rifle is based upon the job you want it to do.




The M1A is no more accurate than a properly built FAL. I have several FALS and an M1A. MY FALS shoot on average approx 1/2" tighter at 100 yds than the M1A.

PS.....I recommend a FAL.
Link Posted: 12/16/2005 3:05:00 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Dano523:
Standard battle type rifle, FAL/HK since it, parts, and mags are cheap.

If you want to take the rifle to the next step of being more accurate with iron sights, them the M-14/M1a since NM parts are available.

If the game plan is to scope the rig, then the AR platform in 308/flat top is the better choice.

In regards to the FAL, the DSA stg-58a is going to be your best bet, and you should be able to find one for around $800 new.


www.dsarms.com/catalog-list.cfm?Category=04&storeid=1&CFID=4770708&CFTOKEN=65713143



More like $1000. Prices have gone up a bit.
Link Posted: 12/16/2005 3:39:01 AM EDT
I've shot a FAL but never owned one. I wasn't impressed with the sights.

My favorite rifle is my Fulton Armory M14. It's very accurate and stone-cold reliable. It looks "conventional" enough so that I'm not embarrassed to be seen with it in the hunting woods. (I even shot a moose with it once.) I love it's feel and balance and walnut-and-steel looks. It's only flaw is that you can't mount optics on it without making it awkward and heavy. You have to resign yourself to iron sights, but they're the best iron sights ever designed.
Link Posted: 12/16/2005 4:09:02 AM EDT
Link Posted: 12/16/2005 4:30:44 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 12/16/2005 4:32:01 AM EDT by in_burrito]
I have a DSA SA58 carbine that I've had for several years. I'm selling it for a variety of reasons, but it's the best gun I've ever owned.

I have spent a few days at the range shooting a FAL, M1A, and AR10 all side-by-side, and the FAL has the lightest recoil, was the most reliable, and the easiest to get good hits offhand of the three.

For the majority of shooters the 16" carbine is the best choice as it's a bit lighter and 99% of shooters will never have a need for the benefits of the extra 4" of barrel.

This is the one I have.

ETA: Para stocks look cool, but they are not for shooters. If you're going to shoot this gun with any kind of regularity do yourself a favor and stick with the fixed stocks.
Link Posted: 12/16/2005 7:03:26 AM EDT
I have an StG58 and a Norinco M14S.

I'd say if you HAVE to choose between the two...I'd go FAL (StG58)..

More accurate. Smoother recoil. Cheaper mags.
Link Posted: 12/16/2005 10:52:34 AM EDT
Maybe after Saturday I will let you shoot one of each and let you make the call. Or just sell that HD and buy a nice DSA Carbine and be done with it.
Link Posted: 12/16/2005 10:59:36 AM EDT
FAL.
Link Posted: 12/16/2005 11:48:17 AM EDT
well after all of your responses and further discussion with erickktm it looks like DSA Carbine is going to get the winner.

Thanks you for everyone's input...

Link Posted: 12/17/2005 10:48:09 AM EDT
I had the same problem. I bought both a FAL clone and an M1A. I love them both and wouldnt sell either of them.
Link Posted: 12/17/2005 1:43:15 PM EDT

Originally Posted By patriot73:

Originally Posted By dar48:
Also, the best rifle will be determined by your usage. A standard length M1A has the capability to outshoot (accuracy wise) almost any FAL on the market with same ammo. But, M1As are expensive, replacement parts are harder to come by, mags are more expensive... you get the idea. The best rifle is based upon the job you want it to do.




The M1A is no more accurate than a properly built FAL. I have several FALS and an M1A. MY FALS shoot on average approx 1/2" tighter at 100 yds than the M1A.

PS.....I recommend a FAL.



I heartily agree. My Springfield built SA-48 w/Imbel Match reciever and ART 4 scope shoots very accurately, and better than the M1A's I have shot against in the past.

The ergonomics and comfort of the FAL are superior to the M1, and the adjustable gas system lets you tailor it to the loads you are shooting, and if it start short-stroking from being dirty in a bad situation, like a firefight, just crank it closed another notch or two. Plus, the FAl stands out in a crowd.

Go with a good FAL, you'll be glad you did.

John

"I am an American soldier. I fight where I'm told, and I win where I fight"
Gen. G.S. Patton
Link Posted: 12/17/2005 2:06:10 PM EDT

Originally Posted By TUBBY:
The M14 beat out the FAL in the military tests but in actual usage there is very little difference between the two. Pick the one that is the most comfortable for you and you can't go wrong.



The M-14 and FAL (T-44 and T-48 in the tests) were basicly neck and neck in the compatition. The FAL did "stumble" initially in the cold weather tests (the M-14 crowd had the oppertunity to test their hardware in cold weather chambers before the tests.....the FAL crowd did not). Not that it matters....the gas system of the FAL was "tweaked" and proved to be just as reliable as the "14".
Twords the end, it was actually assumed the FAL would be adopted. The Army preferred the FAL. They even had FAL TM manuals printed up! But in the end, Springfield armory (the original...not the current company) assured the govt that it would be cheaper to build M-14s on existing Garand machinery (little white lie...that put 'em out of buisness LOL). And we ended up with the M-14
Link Posted: 12/17/2005 2:34:28 PM EDT
SrBenelli

Great info!
Link Posted: 12/17/2005 4:50:16 PM EDT
FAL. (If you do decide to get an M1a then make sure it is an older one or a custom job with GI parts.)
Link Posted: 12/18/2005 5:14:32 AM EDT
For your price range you can get a hell of a nice FAL with money to spare for mags. You can only get an entry M1A for that price and USGI mags are $30+. I wouldn't trust a S/A M1A to my life unless it had all USGI parts. Heard too many stories from reputable people about serious problems and breakages.
Link Posted: 12/18/2005 7:33:50 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 12/18/2005 12:23:35 PM EDT by BB]
FAL para stocks are no more uncomfortable than the standard fixed stock. That is either a myth or based on something other than the para stock DSA sells, 'cause mine feels great.
You can get a better cheek weld but not THAT much better. And the upper shaft on the DSA para is either all plastic or coated in plastic, so the cold won't bother you any more than it would if you were using a plastic stock.

On the subject at hand:

The M1A is going to cost you more, if not for the rifle (like if you go with an SA58), then the mags. Both will be pretty equal in accuracy, but the iron sights on the M1A are better, and the trigger will be easier and cheaper to tune than the FAL. The FAL has a field adjustable gas system, enclosed reciever and no external reciprocating parts; and the M1A has an open receiver, an external reciprocating oprod and a gas system that was not designed to be adjusted in the field; pluses and minuses to all these but I prefer the FAL. The M1A has a more traditional stock that some find easier to shoot. The FAL has a manual of arms similar to the AR. Mag changes (for me anyway) are faster with the FAL, as it is very similar to the AR mag change.

I also like to buy rifles that make libs piss their panties in fright just looking at it; therefore I like to use their list of "Evil Features" as a list of requirements for my purchases. The more the better.

In the end, get both.
Link Posted: 12/23/2005 1:20:46 PM EDT
Link Posted: 12/24/2005 6:01:54 AM EDT
The Good News is that you will not go wrong with a quality example of either M14 or FAL.


DSA is the high end for the FAL, , and LRB's new forged M1A receiver is a Work of Art,

, but yer checkbook is gonna bleed $$ a lot.

Both are worthy , and should still be functioning fine when they are passed down to your grandchildren.
Link Posted: 12/26/2005 6:25:29 PM EDT
+1 on Boston's book as a good starting point. Don't give in to intellectual laziness. You need to explore the options - examine and try out the different rifles if possible and find the one that works for you. Sights, trigger pull, stock fit, parts cost to own plus many other factors need to be considered.
Link Posted: 12/27/2005 3:16:50 AM EDT
"I also like to buy rifles that make libs piss their panties in fright just looking at it; therefore I like to use their list of "Evil Features" as a list of requirements for my purchases. The more the better."


Hard to argue with thinking like that....



- georgestrings
Top Top