Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Posted: 10/22/2003 12:24:59 PM EDT
Some questions about the FAL...
Will the 58A shoot as well as a Standard M1A?
Does the FAL have a chrome barrel?
How does an FAL trigger compare to an M1/M1A?
What's the deal with the goofy rear sights on the FAL? Are there good adjustable M1 types available?
Thanks!
Link Posted: 10/22/2003 12:34:49 PM EDT
Link Posted: 10/23/2003 3:33:23 PM EDT
My DSASTG58 just shot a 5 round group of SA ball into 2.5" @ 100 yd with open sights. Not bad, but my M14NM with 168 Sierras will do 1". The trigger on the FAL/STG is a heavy single stage with lots of creep. Can't compare even to my service group M1 Garand. The sight on the FAL are servicable, but you "set it and forget it" on the windage, as you would on an HK, AK, or most other non-US issue battlerifle. For shooting small paper targets, ala HighPower, hard to beat the NM M14/M1a or AR. For SHTF, a well maintained FAL, M14, or AR are all good--despite arm chair quarterbacks, all have been proven in the field. Choose the one that "fits" you best and that you're confident with.
Link Posted: 10/24/2003 5:17:55 AM EDT
Well, I can shoot 1.5"-2" at 100 yds with my FALS which are all home built with DSA parts. As far as the trigger is concerned, I have decided to use FSE FCG from now on. The DSA trigger/hammer/sear are just too damn big and I have noticed the FSE has a little better pull. The FAL has been my favorite for a long time but I grew up shooting my Father's M1A which I was very good with at 12 so if a 12 year old can use an M1A, you know it is a good rifle. I am much older now and although I am a self-titled FALAHOLIC, an M1A is on the agenda, I miss it. I think these two rifles get compared too much, would you compare a mini 14 and an AR because they shoot the same round? probably not. Go with what suits you the best and what you can afford. I personally think M1A's are way, way overpriced these days considering in 1980 you couldn't give them away, same with AR's. Both are excellent rifles if you ask me and I am going to lay down the cash for the M1A soon.
Link Posted: 10/24/2003 8:08:53 AM EDT
Thanks for the info guys. I think I'm on the M1A side right now but before I'd buy anything I'll try to shoot one of each.
Link Posted: 10/24/2003 8:13:46 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Nohills:
My DSASTG58 just shot a 5 round group of SA ball into 2.5" @ 100 yd with open sights. Not bad, but my M14NM with 168 Sierras will do 1".



So to compare apples to apples:

What will your DSASTG58 do with 168gr Sierras?
Link Posted: 10/24/2003 8:36:05 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 10/24/2003 8:38:19 AM EDT by SP10]
I have a DSA SA58C and a standard M1A with USGI parts.

Both are VERY reliable.

Advantage of the M1A: better sights, better trigger. Probably more accurate (I only shoot milsurp). Chrome lined barrel. Handguards don't heat up like the metal 'guards on my DSA (since replaced with synthetics).

Advantage of the DSA. Adjustable gas system, easier to clean/disassemble/maintain. Very cheap magazines. Not sure if the STG is chromelined (the SA58 is NOT)...Probably more/cheaper FAL parts available. USGI m14 parts are drying up.

To my mind, both are great guns. I shoot my M1A better offhand. The M1A trigger and sights really shine here. Both the FAL and M1A are less than ideal for mounting optics. I have played around with glass on my FAL. I don't intend to even try with the M1A. I really like its iron sights.

Ergonomics? A toss-up. Both are inferior to an AR15/AR10 in my opinion. I'd give deploying the safety an edge to the M1A compared to an STG58 ( a bit of a each for most hands). Mag insertion and removal~equal. You CAN use stripper clips with my M1A.

I used to be a FAL guy when it came to .308 battlerifles, but that was before my Springfield. Now, I'm not so sure.
Link Posted: 10/26/2003 8:06:07 AM EDT
Gloftoe,

I just got the STG last week and its been to the range only once...to check function, etc. I'll probably get around to some 168's in the next month or so. But a little unfair to compare the NM sights on the 14 vs. the battle sights on the STG. Will let ya'll know how it does...
Link Posted: 10/26/2003 1:23:02 PM EDT
I recently sold my M1A, and honestly don't regret it too much, although they are excellent rifles.

My DSA StG-58A actually outshot the M1A in "practical" 3 Gun matches and IDPA rifle side matches.

I am not saying that it lost out in paper punching accuracy, but in using the rifle off hand and manuvering with it, I was more comfortable with the FAL.

My advice of course is to own both if you can....otherwise, I'd give preference to the DSA.
Link Posted: 11/3/2003 6:27:16 PM EDT
Standard M1A's shoot about 2.5" groups off the bench. That's what Fulton Armory guarantees for thier fine service grade rifles. That's about what I can get my STG58 carbine to do too on a good day.

Standard M1A's are supposed to have GI barrels that call for chrome lining. STGs have Steyer hammer forged barrels that are not chrome lined, but are STEYER HAMMER FORGED BARRELS. If you want a chrome lined barrel, Argentine and others that are chrome lined are very reasonable and easily available. DSA now has a contract with FN to make chrome lined barrels as we speak. Watch for those soon, they will be very popular.

It's hard to get finer triggers than are readily available on the M1 or M14. Just a little careful stoning can make a very smooth 2 stage trigger.

The sights on the FAL are inferior to the M1/M14. The sight radius is probably longer, and the sight adjustments on American battle rifles are always top notch. Riflemanship has always been a tradition with us.

DSA offers a couple of upgraded sights you can look at on their web sight. I utilize DSA's top cover scope mount. It works brilliantly and I swap my Comp M and a 6 power scope without losing zero. It's a very nice and ergonomic setup for scopes.

Incidently, in the past I spent a lot of money trying to get an M1A scoped and had miserable results no matter the cost or brand of scope mount. This was pre ARMS so maybe they make one now that is solid -
Springfield sure didn't.

Both are dependable. One you can buy Brand new magazines for $10 and under, great used for down to $4 if you shop around. The other, mags are at least $45 for new usgi.

That last argument is a big selling point for new shooters who don't have a lot of money to get well "regulated" (EQUIPED). I love both rifles however, and have a few CMP M1 Garands in my safe I'd be just as happy with for a shtf weapon if that's what I grabbed first.

Choose either and you'll be happy but wanting the other as well.



Link Posted: 11/5/2003 8:48:44 AM EDT
Dogbert pretty much nailed down the comparison. I have both of these fine battle rifles as well as an M1 and a Century CETME. (the Century CETME is not even close to the same quality as the rest IMHO).

If you can get just one you really NEED to shoot several rounds out of a good example of each and then decide for yourself. But don't compare a M1A SuperMatch ($2000 rifle) to a home built FAL ($500 rifle) and complain that the FAL trigger is heavy. It took me 20 some years to acquire my rifles, but I'd have a hard time picking any of them as favorites over the others, it all depends on what the application is. The FAL is lighter and has cheap magazines, these alone could make it your favorite. A good FAL is going to run you about as much as a good used M1A of similar field grade quality, the more accurate M1A's get more expensive. Remember, the new M1A's are full of "less reliable" cast parts.

Another alternative is the Armalite AR10, just to make your selection toughter. The AR10 is the accuracy champ from what I'm being told. I have one on order right now.

Gun poor, but Happy,
BillSP1
Top Top