Posted: 11/13/2005 5:04:38 AM EDT
I could post this in FAL files or someplace but I would rather post here. After speaking with other board members and doing some reading im starting to lean towards the FAL over a PTR91. It seems IMBEL is the receiver of choice. How accurate are your builds fellas, I will actually want to scope it. Allen I know your the FAL king so once its a go ill let ya know 
|
|
Actually P806 is the FAL King, I'm just a student. However, it's such a great gun I think y'all should have two (or more). IMBEL receivers are milspec. DSA, Coonan, etc - don't think so. Century might still have some IMBEL receivers left, I didn't buy them all. Search here: falfiles.com |
| I have an older Century inch gun on an Imbel receiver. I like it. I like it better than the HK91 I had. It is so easy to clean compared to an AR. I can not say mine is really that accurate but I have never shot anything than surplus in it. If I had to sell my guns it would be the last one I would let go. It grows on you the longer you have it. |
| FALs are quite the system of battle rifles. Over 70 countries didn't go wrong with their choice. Imbels are the last of an FN approved receiver and are forged, they have also become rare due to the latest idiotic ban. If you can get one go for it, you will be happy with your choice. I rate DSA and Dan Coonans a tie for second, CAI third, and hesse/vulcan a distant last. |
|
Imbel receivers are great for builds I have used three of them with out a single problem. DSA receivers are arguably better simple because DSA heat treats the entire receiver instead of spot hardening it like Imbel. Imbel's procedure is correct DSA just goes the extra mile and charges more for it. In conclusion DSA is second to Imbel only because of cost not quality. I have never seen an FAL consistently shoot better than 1.5 MOA at 100 yards using five rounds of Portuguese ammunition. Standard in my experience is 2 - 2.5 MOA. I am not saying some rifles will not do better just do not expect it. Match ammunition did not make any appreciable difference overall in group size. FAL's are battle rifles not match rifles and I assume you have accepted their limitations. They are excellent rifles and I highly recommend them. |
|
Lots of time and money has been spent to make FALs accurate shooters. Here are the main problems/solutions. -Barrel, well...you need a good one, if possible float it. Ed Vandenberg does a really trick float setup -Headspace, too tight or too loose both detract from accuracy, my best shooter is a Century mutt with a pretty crappy looking barrel, but the HS was just right after setback. -Trigger, well FAL triggers usually suck, Don't mess with it too much or you'll get doubles though. -Bolt/carrier/receiver slop. This is the deep dark secret to accurate FALs, and the reason most Century receivers won't make good shooters. For details I suggest a trip to FALfiles, but trust me, I've seen the effects of loose vs tight tolerances here. Bad tolerances here are the source of the ever-popular 'vertical stringing' some FALs exhibit. Overall I'd say most FALs are 2-3MOA guns, with the odd sub 2MOA in the mix and some a lot worse. |
Stimpy is right on the money! My favorite FALs are my two R1 Imbel builds, one with a new Argie chromed line barrel and the other with an 18" Steyr barrel. If I do my part they'll shoot under 2 moa. I do like my G1 built on a DSA receiver and my STG built on a Coonan, they're equally as accurate, If I do my part that is. The best trigger is by far an milspec part, my para sports an original FN and is very nice. |