Armory Sponsor
Posted: 7/11/2006 6:01:32 AM EDT
One of the weaknesses of the FAL (IMHO) is the rear sight. I've been considering selling my FAL until I saw this, now I'm wondering if I can finally have AR15 style sights on my FAL. Will a detachable AR15 A2 style rear sight line up correctly with the standard front sight to use this? If so this is a dream come true. |
I have a standard gas system, not a para. Not really interested ins an Ar15buttstock either. Any comments on my questions? Thanks. |
|
Before everybody gets all excited about mounting AR rear sights on their FAL, remember a few things: 1) The OEM, standard StG58 FAL sights, front and rear, have click adjustments for initial xero that come out to 1 cm@100 yds. That is a finer adjustment for initial zero than on any standard AR sight. 2) Unless someone has manufactured a rear sight for the AR that is calibrated for the .308 cartridge, all the ranges on the elevation drum will be those for a 5.56 bullet's trajectory, not the trajectory of a .308. Unlike the admittedly mediocre OEM FAL rear sight, you will not be able to dial in a range. 3) End result will be a sight that does not have as fine an initial zero adjustment, and will be pretty much limited to a BSZ. Sure, you could count come-ups (and -downs), but I would think that would quickly get confusing, especially under pressure. In short, this is a good idea not carried through, at least yet. Maybe they'll offer a properly 308-calibrated rear sight, and then I'd be interested. Right now, as things are, you could mount a Para rear sight on your FAL, and achieve pretty much the same result, for a lot less money. |
Why do you say that? I'm planning on getting the para sight so I would like to hear why you think it is inferior to the AR sights and also what your expectations are and how you use yours? Thanks |
I have no problems with either the Para or standard rear sight on a FAL for daytime use... my favorite is a DSA hooded rear sight (not para type) with the aperture slightly enlarged. The hooded rear sight helps a lot. FAL rear sight is closer to the eye than AR sights, this leads to a little different "look". I don't think that just dropping an AR sight onto a FAL is going to have the effect you want, as the para type rear sight is very similar.
Not getting the answer you want in two hours on an internet board so you're selling your rifle?? WTF, or  ing?If you can describe the effect you are looking for someone can probably help you achieve it. |
Like the poster above it really depends on what you expect. I took my FAL through a rifleman training course and found the Para sight performed decently for 25m-200y. I don't like the fact there aren't windage markings on the bottom center of the sight, like on my Bushmaster Detachable carry handle, so I can bring the windage back to center, without having to remember how many clicks this way, or that way. The Para sight really isn't that bad, infact it would be great for 0-200 IMHO. I guess I'm just spoiled by my AR15 sights, and thought that new DSA system would offer me a way to get them. |
I actually decided to sell her last week, but waffled when I read of the new DSA lower. Still debating, will probably sell. Just wanted to hear some opinions on that lower system.  
|
|
Here's what I did on my FAL: 1) Installed "Z" spring and proper rear sight adjustment screws, so rear sight could be click-adjusted. Note, the rifle wasn't shipped with spring, and had smooth adj screws. DSA shipped the parts to me N/C. 2) Installed 700M rear sight base. You'll have to adjust your front sight down a bit, so make sure yours has enough post to allow for this. 3) Annealed, drilled, and tapped standard aperture so that it would accept commonly available screw-in peep apertures. Without any aperture, the threaded hole is a perfect ghost ring rear sight, great for low light, and very quick to use. You can install apertures of any I.D. up to .150", which is plenty for dusk, and still good during the day. The really small apertures make the front sight post a lot clearer, for those of you with aging eyes. 4) Installed new coil spring in the rear sight, and shimmed it a tad. No rear sight wobble now. I tried the short Belgian hooded rear sight, and it did its job. But, I wanted the option of being able to shoot in low light levels, and the small, non-replaceable aperture of the Belgie didn't allow that. |
While good for it's day, the FAL rear sight has a number of weak points. It only adjustable for elevation at 100m intervals because of it's sliding design. While it is click adjustable for windage, you have to unscrew one side and screw in the opposite side to get the sight to move. The aptiture is a little on the large size on the metric rifle, and absoutly huge on the inch guns. This makes it a little difficult to shoot as accuratly as an AR style sight.
|
That's not a big problem. Took mine off and a few minutes with the vise and a few careful adjustments I took care of that problem. I got it so tight that I had to have some lube on there so I could move it at first. Now it's perfect and very solid. The problem I've read with using the AR sights is that they are calibrated for use with the .223 cartridge. The clicks won't translate the same with .308 |
Not entirley true. While the marked distance on the drum will be off, the sights are still true for either 1\2 or 1\4 minute of adjustment. All you have to do is remember your come ups and you'll be on target. The sights on my M-1A are good enough to get me center of mass using the numbers on the drum, but I still need to fine tune the zero to get the rifle to hit where I want.
|
Maybe i'm expecting to much but if your going to the trouble of building this how much harder could it be to build a sight adjustment wheel thats marked for 7.62 Just "seems" like the thing to do to me 
|
As I said above, that is fine during a liesurly afternoon at the range, or even during a known-distance Match. Remembering your come-ups (and -downs) in a different shooting environment, under pressure may not be possible for many, if not most people. As currently configured, the sight is undeveloped, and Unsat, IMHO, for serious social purposes. |
|
I have only used the FAL Para sight once, it was to zero it in at 50yds. After that I installed an EoTech and never looked back. I am still trying to figure out what you guys are talking about the zero. Are you saying it is hard to make adjustments during combat? Once your weapon is zero why would you make adjustments? As for the large aperature, I have the Para, so aperature is not a problem. Sites wobble? Again no problem with this on the Para site. |
That was my next point. Once you battle sight zero your weapon, you don't go changing it around every time the range to your target changes. You hold high or low depending on your zero and range. Anyone who is advocating changing rear sight settings in combat is either an idiot or a fool, or quite possibly both.
|
Sounds like someone's calling me "an idiot or a fool...".  What I intended to say is that for most instances the calibrated rear sight would be left on the BSZ setting. On most 7.62 NATO rifles, this would correspond to 250M/275 YDS. If a shot presents itself at a distance within the rifle's and shooter's capabilities, but exceeding the BSZ setting, and if the shot makes sense tactically, then adjust sights and shoot. Re-set to BSZ when long-distance engagement is over. Of course, you can hold over if you like and guesstimate. At sufficiently long distances, the target may be hiding somewhere behind your front sight blade (if he is still there at all), and your point of aim hovering somewhere in the air over his head, but go ahead and try it. What do I know, I'm "an idiot and a fool". |
|
Let me clarify my statements a bit. If you have a stock rear sight, then you can adjust for distance out to 600m in 100m increments. If you have a para rear sight you have the flip aptiture and some fancy holding off. If you use an AR style elevation adjustable sight, then all you have to do is spend some time at the range observing how the marked evelation adjustments affect POA\POI. The correlation between striking high at 100m and what range it actually represents is well known, and then you know what you have to do to hit out to whatever range you're shooting at. Your biggest problem with changing sight settings in combat is forgetting that you did so. I've seen it happen at target matches when nothing should have distracted the shooter from dialing in the proper elevation. In combat you might not notice the problem unitl someone is close enough to kill you. I coppied the following off the first site I could find (http://www.chuckhawks.com/definitive_service_caliber.htm), but it illustrates that out to 500 yards, you don't have to adjust your sights to hit the target. Other than a bona fide sniper who dials in each and every shot, I've never read or heard an account from someone who was doping out their shots in combat. Bullet Path in Inches at Zero Range of 300 yards (100, 200, 300, 400, 500) 5.56mm NATO (63 grain @ 3200 FPS): +3.68, +4.58, 0.00, -11.81, -33.33 7.62 NATO (168 grain @ 2700 FPS): +4.79, +5.58, 0.00, -13.02, -34.75 .30-06 (150 grain @ 2700 FPS): +5.06, +5.94, 0.00, -14.20, -38.49
|
|
This is pretty close to sig matarial here: "Other than a bona fide sniper who dials in each and every shot, I've never read or heard an account from someone who was doping out their shots in combat." It just conjurs up a funny image of some ol' boy fiddling with a rear sight while the world around him is going to Hell in a handbasket. |
|
Well, Sarge, I think that your advice is good for someone using the AR in a range setting. Mine is perhaps more oriented to the field. As for adjusting iron sights in combat, see " The Iron Sight Sniper", pgs 133-138 in Roy Baumgardner's "Precision Shooting With The M1 Garand". The book is right to hand, but there are other accounts by other authors. We will just have to agree to disagree, and let the readers of this thread decide for themselves. |
|
If I didn't already have a sig line I'd have to use it. 2006 Sgt_Gold, all rights reserved.
|
|
In the Army I could hit silouettes targets with the same zero from 50-300 yards no problems with Iron sights. I qualified Expert this way. I can understand snipers making windage and elevation adjustments with magnified scopes for targets greater than 300 yards away because with scopes you can see the target and will need the adjustments for the extra distance. For non magnified stuff such as Iron Sites and Eotechs there is no need to make sight adjustments because you barely can see beyond 300 yards anyways. If you are hitting targets at 500 yards using non-magnified sights I give you credit for natural magnified-binocular vision that most of us don't have. |
That's one of the issues with detachable AR sights that doesn't show up at the short ranges so commonly available, but can appear in real life. The non-detach rear sights have more vertical adjustment, allowing aimed shooting at longer ranges than possible with the vertically-challenged detach-handle rear sights.. |
No offense, but the Marines train at ranges longer than that, and they do not use hold-overs. Maybe you should not limit yourself, and think about what is possible, instead of how you have always done it. Hopefully, neither you nor I are dogs too old to learn a new trick or two. Point is, you have to be willing to learn. Most limits are self-imposed. |
|
USMC units that partcipated on the march to Bagdad found their atempts at supressive fire from their M-4's and M-16's lacking at 500+ meter ranges. The fact that they train to punch paper at 500 meters dosen't mean that they can accuratly observe their supressive fire at those ranges. I regularly shoot out to 600 yards with irons, but I doubt I could hit a moving target that was trying to evade me at that range. If it's too much trouble to use a 5.56 drum, why dosen't someone get a .308 rear sight from Armalite or DPMS or RRA that is calibrated for that round?
|
|
If it's too much trouble to use a 5.56 drum, why dosen't someone get a .308 rear sight from Armalite or DPMS or RRA that is calibrated for that round? quote] Are those rear sights calibrated for the .308? I have a DPMS, but the sight looks just like a standard .223 AR detachable. |
You do make a good point... I still don't like how the entire rear sight slighly moves left and right with minimal pressure though. Thanks for everybody's input, this has turned out to be a very informative thread. |
I have her all packed up for a trip I'm taking out of town, I'll give her a thorough look and post results and pics in a few days. Thanks for the heads up Gamma762 |
Do bear in mind that as you mentioned the Army and the Marine Corps have different BRM qualifications. While I do not know the standards for a Marine (and therefore may be “blowing smoke”), I do know that a Soldier is not scored based on where he hit the silhouette, but rather if he did, regardless if it was in the head, chest, or stomach, which is an important factor in this debate in my opinion. A Soldier only has to engage semi-silhouette out to 300m, but they are only up for a couple of seconds, and on many occasions two are up at the same time. Furthermore, as Cartmen noted, the range can vary up to 250m. While that is not to say the Army has a better/worse BRM program than the Marines, I believe the Army's BRM does have a slight upper hand in actually simulating combat conditions (as much as they can be in the safety of a firing range). In any case, the purpose of this is to illustrate two points. First, is that while "dialing in" can be very effective, it is not always practical in actual combat (as opposed to sniping). Secondly, there is a reason Soldiers do not "dial in" their sights for qualification as opposed to the Marines. P.S. I am very interested to see where this debate goes, seeing that it initially started with someone simply asking if he could put AR-15 sights on is FAL. |
Wow.
The USMC KD qualification course is far from realistic. |
|
You DON'T have to use an AR stock with the Kaiser Works lower, it will accept a folder also - look at the pics, the top one has a folding mechanism that an ACE skeleton stock will bolt to. The point is you can use any stock ACE makes or any kind of AR stock and make it fold or not, you can do this with a DSA lower too if you get the adaptor from ACE. If you saw the lower at DSA, how did you miss this: www.dsarms.com/item-detail.cfm?ID=008P&image=picgblk.gif Just a guess but I bet it lines up with the rail lower. Also my guess is that the Kaiser Works and DSA with the built-in AR sight are an attempt to improve the FAL rear sight, and the rails are for using flip sights for backup with optics. Seems obvious, but I'm just guessing. Neither solve the problem of the rear sight being mounted on the lower and the front sight on the upper. And just my opinion, sliding a FAL sight back and forth for 'precision work' is like......I don't know, it's like something really stupid. Gimme a break it's a POS, that's why Gary Jeter and others who really know FALs have been racking their brains for years trying to figure out something better. Go search on the FALFiles. But I'm happy for you if you can put a couple in the same hole at 1k with the stock rear sight - I can't. |
Hey, don't get me wrong. I'd be delighted to have a better rear sight available for the standard FAL. In modified form, as I outlined above, it's acceptable, not good. You want POS, let's talk barrel-mounted tangent rear sights. Finally, I never made any great claims of marksmanship in this thread, certainly not putting them in one hole @1K. Not when my FAL sight stops at 700M. |
Armory Sponsor