Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 3
Posted: 3/19/2006 5:18:37 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 3/19/2006 5:20:47 PM EDT by GroundFire201]
I really like my M4 and never had any problems with its functioning, but I think for my needs a Para FAL would be better. I'm ordering a DSA Para FAL very soon and am thinking of switching my gear over to a 308 format.

The M4 and Para FALs are about the same lengths, and both will have railed foregrips, so I can add lights, VFG or IR lasers. The reason I like the Para FAL is that its more adaptable. It can be used in CQB or long range 600+ yards, and it can do it better then the M4. Plus, its more durable. Also, it can be used to take down large game if needed for food or protection while camping out.

I guess I'm posting it here to get the opinions of the AR/M4 crowd for the M4/AR Vs the Para Fal. And if the Para is better why doesn't our military use it?


PS I like M14/M1As but they are harder to mount optics. With that in mind I will still keep my AR and M1A

Link Posted: 3/19/2006 5:27:07 PM EDT
Well I can see where you're coming from but gosh dangit thats why we have AR-10 conversion kits! I use a .308 on an extensive basis and it's no more effective than somebody who can accurately shoot a .223. Hell if you hit an elephant in the right place behind the ear you can take it down with a .22 magnum. Your reasons aren't really that justified for spending a mucho stash of cash on the FAL. Naturally we all feel the need to expand our armories but we need to be practical. And if you want good optics mounting on a .308 platform go with the damn Socom2 or Socom16. THey shoot at least MOA and are much more affordable than the FAL for the accuracy potential. By all your reasons you should get a Socom2 over the FAL. Plus you can get a folding stock for the Socom2 and have it be even smaller.
Link Posted: 3/19/2006 5:30:06 PM EDT
The 5.56 does remarkedly well against HUMAN targets. That being said, there may come a time in which you will need to kill something that's not human.

308 would be versatile IMHO, so good choice on your move. However, i'm not about 100% practicality and such, and prefer the looks of the modern black rifle
Link Posted: 3/19/2006 5:37:19 PM EDT
The socom2 with rail would be about the same price as the DSA Para with rail - around 2100 bucks. To mount optics like NV, ACOG or ELCAN its very high and forward. I have tried it on my M1A already.
Link Posted: 3/19/2006 5:42:02 PM EDT

Originally Posted By gordon_freeman:
The 5.56 does remarkedly well against HUMAN targets. That being said, there may come a time in which you will need to kill something that's not human.

308 would be versatile IMHO, so good choice on your move. However, i'm not about 100% practicality and such, and prefer the looks of the modern black rifle



how's this for a modern black rifle
DSA Para Tactical

Or this DSA OSW
Link Posted: 3/19/2006 5:44:37 PM EDT
I ALMOST took pics of my newest R&D monster next to the M1A and ParaFAL for comparison earlier today... I might do it tomorrow to help you out.

The ParaFAL is nowhere near the same length as an M4, it's closer to a fencepost, and an M1A is like a telephone pole. The folding stock on the FAL is way too damned long for usage with armor, or for any kind of close quarters shooting, and the rear apertures are so tiny as to making the attempt to aim at night useless. To top that off, it's heavy. If you add a railed handguard it's even heavier... Mounting optics is a nightmare...

If you get a chance, shoot a few hundred rounds through one before you buy. It'll cahnge your mind.
Link Posted: 3/19/2006 5:50:17 PM EDT

Originally Posted By GroundFire201:

Originally Posted By gordon_freeman:
The 5.56 does remarkedly well against HUMAN targets. That being said, there may come a time in which you will need to kill something that's not human.

308 would be versatile IMHO, so good choice on your move. However, i'm not about 100% practicality and such, and prefer the looks of the modern black rifle



how's this for a modern black rifle
DSA Para Tactical

Or this DSA OSW



Those are both louder than a dozen 10.5" ARs firing simultaneously. And the stocks still suck. If you get the OSW, make sure you get a can or a moderator or something for it. And don't forget to check out the weights posted by DSA. They're damn heavy.
Link Posted: 3/19/2006 6:00:42 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 3/19/2006 6:01:34 PM EDT by Resolved]
I've got an FAL Carbine... Trigger was terrible, had it worked on and it's better but still not anything like what is available on the AR platform. Gunsmith said by design, can't be made into a match style trigger but as stated, it's alot better that it was from the factory. (was 15lbs. of grit and creep, now is around 4 with a slight amount of predictable creep.)

Another thing to consider is the FAL will not be as accurate as a AR again by design. It is a good weapon though... just don't give your M4 away, you'll probably want it back!
Link Posted: 3/19/2006 6:07:05 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Capn_Crunch:
I ALMOST took pics of my newest R&D monster next to the M1A and ParaFAL for comparison earlier today... I might do it tomorrow to help you out.

The ParaFAL is nowhere near the same length as an M4, it's closer to a fencepost, and an M1A is like a telephone pole. The folding stock on the FAL is way too damned long for usage with armor, or for any kind of close quarters shooting, and the rear apertures are so tiny as to making the attempt to aim at night useless. To top that off, it's heavy. If you add a railed handguard it's even heavier... Mounting optics is a nightmare...

If you get a chance, shoot a few hundred rounds through one before you buy. It'll cahnge your mind.



Its a 16 inch barrel like the M4 and the collapsible stock makes it shorter then the collapsible M4 stock, so the only difference is the receiver. The receiver cant be that much difference in length. Even if the receiver is longer the para collapsible stock is shorter then than M4s stock and would make up for the longer receiver. It would be nice to have a comparison of lengths folded and extended.

As far as it being heavier, I like heavier rifles because they are more stable when walking and shooting. I find my M1A easier to shoot while walking because there is less rifle movement. Also, the FAL is 10x stronger and more durable.

Mounting optics doesnt seem too bad in the pic but I dont have an FAL to try. Maybe someone else can chime in here. DSA with EOtech

You do have a very good point about the stock being long. Maybe I can have it cut a bit shorter and rewelded an inch shorter.
Link Posted: 3/19/2006 6:09:42 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Resolved:
I've got an FAL Carbine... Trigger was terrible, had it worked on and it's better but still not anything like what is available on the AR platform. Gunsmith said by design, can't be made into a match style trigger but as stated, it's alot better that it was from the factory. (was 15lbs. of grit and creep, now is around 4 with a slight amount of predictable creep.)

Another thing to consider is the FAL will not be as accurate as a AR again by design. It is a good weapon though... just don't give your M4 away, you'll probably want it back!



True it might not be as accurate, but is much more reliable "by design" and accurate enough.

All good points here.
Link Posted: 3/19/2006 7:14:12 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 3/19/2006 7:15:30 PM EDT by GroundFire201]
Damn you guys your making this difficult!

Now I'm thinking I should stay with my M1A and get a SAGE stock for it.

Link Posted: 3/19/2006 7:17:44 PM EDT

If the SHTF plans involve moving on FOOT, then the AR wins every time for me, simply because of the amount of ammo that can be carried.

But, if it involves moving in a vehicle, or being in a fixed location, then a .308 rifle becomes a really attractive proposition, in my opinion.

Link Posted: 3/19/2006 7:23:04 PM EDT
Why not convert your AR/M4 to .308 caliber? In my opinion, the M16 system has a little better ergonomics than the Para FAL.
Link Posted: 3/19/2006 7:23:16 PM EDT
I went ahead and got both

But, if these new RRA .308s pan out, I will sell my FAL and get one of them for parts compatibility, and b/c I just like the AR.
Link Posted: 3/19/2006 7:32:51 PM EDT
ever notice how when you go to a gun forum there always seems to be an AR section but not a FAL section? Its because the rifle is better for the purposes most people need/want a rifle. You kinda make the same argument ive heard a million times on the ak vs ar discussion, the ak is more reliable, but not as accurate. Thats all well and good if your dropped out of a helo and have to fend for yourself in the wild for months without a cleaning, but your reasoning doesnt seem to make sense to me for what most people need a rifle for. That being said it is your decision so buy whatever you like.
Link Posted: 3/19/2006 7:40:43 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 3/19/2006 7:52:53 PM EDT by okguy91]
it a darn good Ideal. My SHIF rifles are HK91'S. People how say the ar15 is a good for 500-600 yard for the most part have not done much shooting at this range. can you shoot a ar 15 at that range yes with 77 or 80 grain match loads. Better hope the wind is light that day. Can 308 nato load hit 500 yard steel all day long. if you live in town I am sure 223 is fine but I don't live in town.
Link Posted: 3/19/2006 8:02:56 PM EDT

Originally Posted By SLAPhAPPY1:
...is more reliable, but not as accurate. Thats all well and good if your dropped out of a helo and have to fend for yourself in the wild for months without a cleaning, but your reasoning doesnt seem to make sense to me for what most people need a rifle for.


+1
I, personally, would love an FAL or SOCOM but fact of the matter is the AR does so many things well that its slight shortcomings are not enough to keep it from being one of the best battle rifles in the modern era. I would take an M4 into any situation and never feel "out-gunned". IMHO the only weapon more versitle than the M4 would be an 870 shotgun.
Link Posted: 3/19/2006 8:23:19 PM EDT

Originally Posted By okguy91:
it a darn good Ideal. My SHIF rifles are HK91'S. People how say the ar15 is a good for 500-600 yard for the most part have not done much shooting at this range. can you shoot a ar 15 at that range yes with 77 or 80 grain match loads. Better hope the wind is light that day. Can 308 nato load hit 500 yard steel all day long. if you live in town I am sure 223 is fine but I don't live in town.



+1... HK-91 with a A3 stock and CQD Dieter 3pt sling...perfect in my opinion. As long as you buy some spare parts...you'll be set in a SHTF situation. Mags are cheap as dirt and the rifles shoot forever...I'd argue as reliable as an AK... 0 malfunctions in the several thousand rounds I've but through mine in the year I've had it...
Link Posted: 3/19/2006 8:57:26 PM EDT
Evening all

+1 for the HK91 in reliability. All in all it is one heck of a reliable rifle but there are some things that it definitely needs for a SHTF rifle. First it needs some trigger work. My friends was 8lbs+ before the trigger work. Second it needs a better mag release. That means either getting a paddle mag installed (best to get a gunsmith to do this unless you are sure that you can do the work without violating ATF 's rules) or the tac latch. The tac latch from what I've read works but it looks less than sturdy.

+3 for M1A. Yes it is long. Yes it can get heavy. So you can go short barrel with it. To me though I find that the M1A sights to be the best Military Rifle issued sight in the last 40 yrs. Mine works well and I trust it.

In the end though get what you want just remember that for a SHTF rifle you must be absolutely sure it will work and work every time.
Link Posted: 3/19/2006 9:11:36 PM EDT

Originally Posted By TylerM_8:
Why not convert your AR/M4 to .308 caliber? In my opinion, the M16 system has a little better ergonomics than the Para FAL.



You can't convert an AR15/M4 to fire .308. There is no conversion kit...period!

The AR10 is an upscaled version of the AR15 that fires 7.62NATO/.308. The only thing interchangeable between and AR10 and an AR15 are a few of the fire control parts.

How long have you and "ironsight-boy" been shooting ARs?
Link Posted: 3/20/2006 4:10:49 AM EDT
You don't need to justify it, if that's what you want. I've carried M16s, M4s, M14s and FAL in combat zones. Go with what you can support and hit with. Just finished the All Army Championships shooting the M16 out to 500 yds (shot it last year with the M4), used the M14 from 600-100 yds. All weapons used iron sights and prone unsupported. So train with what you have and be proficient with it. Did keep a battle field pickup FAL para in Iraq that would shoot and keep a 20 round mag within 6" at 300m. With rails/upper reciever rail the FAL is easier to mount optics/lights then the M14 so equipped.

CD
Link Posted: 3/20/2006 4:15:57 AM EDT
I just made the opposite switch. I went from being a FAL-only guy for the last 8 years or so to being an all AR guy. For my .308 needs I'll eventually be going with an Armalite AR10 carbine.

I love the FAL, and do believe it to be the absolute best battle rifle ever made. With that said, the overally weight savings that I was able to achieve with the AR was a huge factor in my change. If you "M4" your FAL you are going to wind up with one heavy-ass rifle. He-man or not, you can carry and shoot a lighter gun for a longer period of time and more comfortably than you can a heavy gun. In the vein of "the best gun for any situation is the one you have with you", I opted to switch everything out to the AR platform as I'm much more likely to have the lighter gun with me and much more likely to be rested enough to shoot it.
Link Posted: 3/20/2006 12:06:23 PM EDT

Originally Posted By in_burrito:
I just made the opposite switch. I went from being a FAL-only guy for the last 8 years or so to being an all AR guy. For my .308 needs I'll eventually be going with an Armalite AR10 carbine.




Smart man! With the AR-10 you get all of the advantages of the AR but with a .308 punch. I sold my FAL and bought another AR-10 last year. I don't regret it on bit. The biggest drawback to the FAL systems is the sights and trigger...just pisspoor.
Link Posted: 3/20/2006 12:18:34 PM EDT



if .308 is in the cards for you, you can't beat a good FAL. simple, reliable, cheap mags (though not as cheap as 91), compact in the para config...


Link Posted: 3/20/2006 12:20:04 PM EDT

Originally Posted By desertvet762:

Originally Posted By TylerM_8:
Why not convert your AR/M4 to .308 caliber? In my opinion, the M16 system has a little better ergonomics than the Para FAL.



You can't convert an AR15/M4 to fire .308. There is no conversion kit...period!




I believe there IS an AR lower available that has interchangable magwell, that you could either slap a .308 or .223 upper on (and also a 7.63 x 39, I believe).
Link Posted: 3/20/2006 12:56:43 PM EDT
I have owned a G3, Fal, and a DPMS AP4 in .308. My pick for a .308 would have to be the DPMS/Armalite/RRA depending on your choice of maunfacturer. While I love the Fal I don't think it compares with a .308 AR. The ergonomics are better and more accessories available. Don't forget the commonality in training between it and the AR15.

At this time the only .308 I have is the DPMS and I don't miss the others.
Link Posted: 3/20/2006 12:59:11 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Martens:
Don't forget the commonality in training between it and the AR15.


This is EXACTLY the reason I ditched my FAL. Every time I went to run with it I'd miss a mag change, flub a bolt release, etc. My hope is that with the Armalite I'll be doing the same motions with the same results regardless of whether the gun is .223 or .308.
Link Posted: 3/20/2006 1:17:04 PM EDT
i like the socom II idea forget the FAL

Link Posted: 3/20/2006 1:40:10 PM EDT
Man, I can't believe what's being said here...

FALs are some of the most proven battle rifles in existence. They are super reliable, and with the adjustable gas system you can tune your rifle to your ammo. They have ergonomics that are second only to an AR. Parts and magazines are prolific.

The HK91 has awful ergonomics, no bolt hold open, and are horribly expensive. And even thought their receivers are made from stamped sheet metal, they're still heavy as hell.

M1A is a step backwards in ergonomics... No pistol grip, right side charging handle, and a touchy "rock and lock" mag retention. An M1A is a club.

AR-10(B)s aren't very reliable due to direct impingement and a poor mag design. (I still like mine and mags will be fixed soon. have
I have a FAL which I like more and more as I shoot it. It's an all Stainless DSA SA58 with the short gas system, Railed forend, DSA scope cover, SAW pistol grip, Aimpoint M2 w/ ARMS mount, MS2 Pentagon light, MS Foregrip. With all that crap on it, the overall weight comes to just under 11lbs. Not too bad considering a plain 20" A2 AR-15 is about 8lbs.

When shooting steel at around 75yds (I know, it’s pretty darn close), .308 out of a 16" bbl, really pounded the crap out of the targets (eventually breaking welds). 5.56 gently pushed the targets. This convinced me, that a .308 battle carbine is a good thing to have. It's some serious firepower.

Buy the FAL, AND keep your M4. Both are good weapons. The M4 suited more for CQB and the FAL being a better long distance Battlerifle. A carbine FAL will close the gap between both.
Link Posted: 3/20/2006 3:16:38 PM EDT
sorry i'm an M1A fan.....i like the AR-10 but i still like the M1A better
Link Posted: 3/20/2006 3:49:31 PM EDT

Originally Posted By bullyforyou:


if .308 is in the cards for you, you can't beat a good FAL. simple, reliable, cheap mags (though not as cheap as 91), compact in the para config...




+1. Love my DSA 16".
Link Posted: 3/20/2006 3:54:22 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 3/20/2006 4:17:36 PM EDT by GroundFire201]


M1A is a step backwards in ergonomics... No pistol grip, right side charging handle, and a touchy "rock and lock" mag retention. An M1A is a club.



Dont know why people always say the M1As dont have a pistol grip?!
M1A with pistol grip

As far as having a right side charging handle, all you have to do is rack the charging handle once. Every reload of a mag requires only a touch of a finger from the left hand, like an AR, if you have a Smith Bolt Release or Rooster 33 Bolt Release, which go for $50.

The only problem I see with my M1A is the mounting of optics. Optics like scopes or night vision sit too high and far forward but the AimPoints seem to work well.

The reason I dont like the M4 for an all around SHTF rifle is that;
1. its not durable especially in harsh environments like sand/mud
2. the rounds are too small for longer range or large game
3. they have poor penetration against cars or other cases where you need penetration like thick bush.

Dont get me wrong, I think that the M4 is great for war since the targets are people and the range is 200 yards or less, but for an all around SHTF rifle you can't beat the FAL or M1A. I'm moving toward the FAL because I have an M1A and the FAL is better for mounting optics. The AR10 is the same as the AR15 but in 308. Its not as durable as the FAL or M1A. This is not a discussion of 223 vs 308 but one of all around usefulness.

A lot of good points on all sides. Keep them coming!
Link Posted: 3/20/2006 4:16:33 PM EDT
If I need a SHTF rifle in .308, I'll take a [DSA] FAL.
Sorry, but an AR10 isn't combat proven, is prohibitively expensive, and has magazine issues. No way would I trust life or limb to one.

A good FAL is reasonably priced, reliable and tough gun. With gas adjustment, can tolerate differing quality of ammunition. Adding optics is easy enough - but I don't need them anyway.
What other .308 battle rifle can do that?????????? None.

A FAL is the perfect complement to my M4.
Link Posted: 3/20/2006 4:57:00 PM EDT
I do like the FAL's alot.

I think the SA SOCOM is an abomination making money off the "Tactical" market. I think the best bet right now in an M1A/M14 platform would be a LRB 18" tanker model.

If the 6.5 Grendel pans out, it's looking to be one of the best calibers going.
Link Posted: 3/20/2006 5:13:30 PM EDT

Originally Posted By dxdgenert:

Originally Posted By SLAPhAPPY1:
...is more reliable, but not as accurate. Thats all well and good if your dropped out of a helo and have to fend for yourself in the wild for months without a cleaning, but your reasoning doesnt seem to make sense to me for what most people need a rifle for.


+1
I, personally, would love an FAL or SOCOM but fact of the matter is the AR does so many things well that its slight shortcomings are not enough to keep it from being one of the best battle rifles in the modern era. I would take an M4 into any situation and never feel "out-gunned". IMHO the only weapon more versitle than the M4 would be an 870 shotgun.



I highly doubt the 870 express is as versatile as a rifle that can shoot distances, but why do u think the 870 is so versatile?
Link Posted: 3/20/2006 6:08:28 PM EDT
Get a FAL and do it the right way, build it yourself. The DSA para FALs are good but overpriced. A good setup would be this:

FAL parts kit (south african or Imbel) $199-$299
Gunparts Guy 18" barrel (for accuracy) $274.99 shipped
VLOPSI para lower (takes any AR15 BUIS and any AR15 stock) $250
Grenadier Precision scope mount (scout or standard) $89 - 99
Para bolt carrier $85 and spring assembly $23.50
DSA type 1 receiver $400

Total $1236.49-$1336.49 for an awesome setup

You can sell the parts you don't use from the parts kit to lower the total cost. You could get a BUIS and skip the scope mount but you would need to para cut the receiver (~$25) and use a para top cover ($20-30). You could get an excellent condition Imbel kit and cut down that barrel to keep it under $1000. If you do choose to go with a DSA para, don't go with their scope mount (bulky and no RTZ).
Link Posted: 3/20/2006 6:22:35 PM EDT

Originally Posted By GroundFire201:
Damn you guys your making this difficult! hinking


Forget the sage, its too heavy. Vltor is coming out with a modstock in three colors, much lighter no modifications to m1a just drop in and rock. Only 500. bucks too.
Link Posted: 3/20/2006 6:24:07 PM EDT
I would think that for SHTF, the amount of ammo you can practically carry, along with other SHTF essentials, would make the .223 a better choice.
Link Posted: 3/20/2006 6:24:17 PM EDT
I love the AR but if I had to have only one gun it would be a M14 or a FAL.
Link Posted: 3/20/2006 6:27:13 PM EDT
here are 2 examples of a M1a with NV Mono
the first one the mono sits too high and a cheek rest will be needed and it has to be adjustable
you will have to keep adjusting the cheek rest to change from scope to irons because the scope sits much higher

M1A with NV mono

the second one is on a SAGE stock but looks too far back

SAGE with NV Mono
Link Posted: 3/20/2006 6:34:16 PM EDT
I might get flamed for this but I think FALs are fugly.

I'll take a SOCOM II though.
Link Posted: 3/20/2006 6:44:21 PM EDT

Originally Posted By ptoguy2002:
I would think that for SHTF, the amount of ammo you can practically carry, along with other SHTF essentials, would make the .223 a better choice.



you only need a large amount of ammo if your at war.
as stated before the M4 is excellent for war but not much else

what if you have to bug out to the woods and you come across a bear 50 yards away
I would rather have 20 rds of 308 then 30rds of 223

what if you were in a large field and had to take some one out at 600+ yards

again the M4 is a great rifle and I'm still keeping mine but so far I'm not convinced that, over all the M4 is better then the M1A or FAL. The FAL and M1A have more to offer
Link Posted: 3/20/2006 6:49:18 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Salmonaxe:
Man, I can't believe what's being said here...

FALs are some of the most proven battle rifles in existence. They are super reliable, and with the adjustable gas system you can tune your rifle to your ammo. They have ergonomics that are second only to an AR. Parts and magazines are prolific.

The HK91 has awful ergonomics, no bolt hold open, and are horribly expensive. And even thought their receivers are made from stamped sheet metal, they're still heavy as hell.

M1A is a step backwards in ergonomics... No pistol grip, right side charging handle, and a touchy "rock and lock" mag retention. An M1A is a club.

AR-10(B)s aren't very reliable due to direct impingement and a poor mag design. (I still like mine and mags will be fixed soon. )

I have an AR-10, but that's for long range target shooting. I had a HK 91 clone, and I got rid of it because its ergonomics were just plain clunky. I shot a Socom II and I liked it for its accuracy, everything else was too clunky. (Socom II would be a good CA legal gun.)

I have a FAL which I like more and more as I shoot it. It's an all Stainless DSA SA58 with the short gas system, Railed forend, DSA scope cover, SAW pistol grip, Aimpoint M2 w/ ARMS mount, MS2 Pentagon light, MS Foregrip. With all that crap on it, the overall weight comes to just under 11lbs. Not too bad considering a plain 20" A2 AR-15 is about 8lbs.

When shooting steel at around 75yds (I know, it’s pretty darn close), .308 out of a 16" bbl, really pounded the crap out of the targets (eventually breaking welds). 5.56 gently pushed the targets. This convinced me, that a .308 battle carbine is a good thing to have. It's some serious firepower.

Buy the FAL, AND keep your M4. Both are good weapons. The M4 suited more for CQB and the FAL being a better long distance Battlerifle. A carbine FAL will close the gap between both.



Big +1 to all of the above except the M1A part! And if you have a .223 and you run in to a bear then all you have is a noise maker and a light weight club! Any one who goes in to bear country with a rifle that the caliber starts with a number under 3 is a fool.
Link Posted: 3/20/2006 7:17:56 PM EDT
FAL's are very nice 308 guns and fun to shoot. I was thinking about getting one myself until I helped a buddy work on his FAL. OMG -- trying to do any home-smith work on one of those is like getting all your teeth pulled.

BTW -- If I am hunting bear, I am not using anything .308 caliber either. Maybe a 50BMG with 750gr Amax rounds.

Link Posted: 3/20/2006 7:25:21 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 3/20/2006 7:27:09 PM EDT by John44]

Originally Posted By First_LSK:
FAL's are very nice 308 guns and fun to shoot. I was thinking about getting one myself until I helped a buddy work on his FAL. OMG -- trying to do any home-smith work on one of those is like getting all your teeth pulled.

BTW -- If I am hunting bear, I am not using anything .308 caliber either. Maybe a 50BMG with 750gr Amax rounds.


Yea I am a country boy, my bear guns are a Winchester 94 Trapper 16" bbl in .44mag holds 10 rounds and a Ruger Vaquero 5 1/2" bbl in .44mag on my belt.
Link Posted: 3/21/2006 5:26:06 AM EDT

Originally Posted By First_LSK:

BTW -- If I am hunting bear, I am not using anything .308 caliber either. Maybe a 50BMG with 750gr Amax rounds.




Im just making the point that the FAL is more versatile than the M4.
Its more durable, can accept just as many gadgets (rails, lights and lasers), and the round itself is better for all around use.

Link Posted: 3/21/2006 6:41:35 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 3/21/2006 6:46:43 AM EDT by want2race]
I'm impressed, not too much arguing on .308 vs. 5.56. Well, not TOO much anyway.

I have a couple ARs and now I have a couple FALs. I just picked up a para kit and it will look like this when finished, with the exlucsion of the rail handguard as I have no need for it.
tactical elite para I won't have any of the add on's to keep the weight down. Iron sights, no optics, no VFG and 20 rounders not 30. Plain Jane "is how I roll".

An FAL with a 16 inch barrel is about 3 inches longer than an AR with a 16 inch barrel. Even with a lightweigt lower (DSA aluminum) and 13 inch barrel (plus long flash hider to = 16inches) it is still heavier than the AR. Not enough for me to care as I do like top slings for walking.

I plan on reducing the para stock length by 1 to 1.5 inches. It's fairly easy to do and it's the main reason I went with the para stock. Plus, for storage colapsing the stock makes it much shorter (vehicle, suit case etc). I will wait for the build to be complete before cutting it though.

I have an ACE socom stock on my AR rifle. With the ACE on the shortest position and putting rear sight to rear sight the FAL stock is about the same length. Now, if I put the two grip to grip the FAL is longer. Basically that means that your shooting shoulder and head are in the same position but your trigger hand is further forward (longer length of pull, but same buttplate to rear sight length).
I shoot with the ACE fully collapsed or on the first position from fully collapsed, I like it very short because I shoot standing with squared shoulders (mostly).

The difference in function (operation of) can be overcome with training. You do have to relearn it, but just tell your spouse you HAVE to go to the range. It's about the same as switching from an AR to an M14 or HK33/91. Mag release with the M14, HK's and FAL are similar (military HK's have the paddle behind mag).

Recoil is something to consider. I put a Holland on my 16 carbine FAL and the recoil is as mild as my AR with A2 FH (helps the wife shoot the FAL effectively). Without the Holland it was actually unpleasant for even me to shoot (gas system adjusted properly).

The trigger quality is no where near what you can get with an AR (both 15's and 10's). There are no 2 stage triggers available for FALs. That being said, while you're shooting to familarize yourself with the operation of the action you will also get used to the trigger. If you've ever shot a M82 for accuracy you know what I mean. That is the worst trigger I've ever squeezed on a "precision rifle", yet you get used to it. I have hit 2MOA groups (at 100 and 200m) with my FAL and that is considered above average performance from that platform with iron sights (not pimping my skills, pimping the rifles capability).

Is it a damn fine battle rifle? You bet. Is it for everyone? Absolutely not.
I started with the FAL, then bought the AR for the wife. Now we both have one of each.


Link Posted: 3/21/2006 6:56:12 AM EDT
Para FAL is the way to go, take it from an actual owner.

I'll pass on the M1A, I've had 2 supermatches one was 18" and 2 loaded models.

The FAL is more robust and has more power than the M4.

Link Posted: 3/21/2006 7:00:47 AM EDT
Only problem with the FAL for CQB will be the (much) more pronounced recoil, just MHO.
Link Posted: 3/21/2006 7:12:41 AM EDT
Four FAL's, three AR's, if Zombies pull up in the drive, their going to meet a FAL.
Link Posted: 3/21/2006 7:44:00 AM EDT

Originally Posted By scarbutt:
Four FAL's, three AR's, if Zombies pull up in the drive, their going to meet a FAL.



It depends on how many zombies there are and how easy it is to take them out. If you surrounded by hundreds of the enemy/zombies then maybe an M4 is better. You'll be able to carry more ammo and its lighter.
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 3
Top Top