My friend is considering a rifle.  He really likes my R6530 and MT6731 with Leupold scope.  But he seems bent on a having a "big bullet."  He likes the 7.62X51.

I'm certainly not going to try to talk him out of it.  After all, he's followed me down certain roads just because I didn't know any better and needed to learn a lesson.  (BTW, is now a good time to tell you that my Blade Tech mag pouch just fractured because it wouldn't go tight enough to secure my WC 47D mag?  At least you went with leather for your IWB....)

He's a bigger guy than me.  I'm 5'10" and 155 pounds.  He's 6'4 and over 200 pounds.  He seems cramped on my R6530, even with the Colt M4 stock at it's longest notch.  Of course, I suggested just getting an R6530 and leaving the A2 fixed stock in place.

I don't know enough about the FAL to advise him.  The search function at this site is down, so I can't go back to all the AR10 v. HK G3 v. FAL v. AR15 posts.

So, please tell us:

AR15 v. AR10 v. FAL -- I'm not even kidding.  Really, what are the positives, negatives and equals about each of them. (PS We live in terrain that I think is more suitable for an AR15.  MOUT-type and midwest woods/hills conditions.  And we don't really have any shooting ranges beyond 100 or 200 yards.)

I've heard that the FAL has the front sight on the upper receiver and the rear sight on the lower receiver.  How big of a deal is this?

Price is kind of a consideration.  For instance, he'd probably get a $1,300 Colt R6530 over a DSA $1,800.

Is it more important to have a preban AR15 than it is to have a preban FAL?  Seems I'd be really happy with postban FAL.  Don't know why.  Just don't know much about the flash suppressor on the preban FAL versus the muzzle brakes on the postban.  If it's anything like the difference between AR15 pre/postban, I'd definitely go for the preban.  But what is the price differece?  How important is the pre/postban thing with the FAL's?

Other than handling a couple of Springfield FAL clones, I have no experience with them.  Which is good.  Because then maybe I won't be on the hood when my recommended equipement fails....

Finally, ammo -- what can the 7.62X51 do that the 5.56 cannot?  I've fired the 7.62 only in in M60.  My friend has not fired (or carried) a 7.62 at all.

What would you advise?  He figures he'll have $1,000 to spend at the first of next year and can save up or splurge a few hundred above that.

EDITED for form and clarity.

DSA "Kit" guns are $795 dealer cost.  DSA SA-58 Factory guns can be had for about $1100 if you look.  I personally like the carbine size.

FAL Mags $5 each in Excellent Condition.
AR-15 mags in Excellent condition $15
AR-10 mags in Excellent Condition $70

AFARR

The FAL he is looking at is very accurate. I think they are both great just different. I love my DSA FAL. I have the STG58A that goes for $795.00 to dealers. It looks brand new even inside. A great bargain. The next level up in the DSA line are fantastic rifles, accurate, reliable and fun!
I think I would have to own both. Which to get first? I vote for the FAL.

Tell him to buy both, just the AR first.

I agree with Garand shooter 100%!I like the AR-10 out of all the MBRs and I like it better than the AR-15.

[i]...this is one of the best opinions regarding a gun purchase I have ever had the pleasure to read![/i]
I would say the price of the DSA is worth every penny and to get as many magazines as you can in one fell swoop; including a 5, 10, and a 30-rd. if you can find one.  The 20-rd. is standard.
A couple cases of ammo and the DSA scope mount to start with and the scope of your choice with my recommendation of a Leupold 6x42 in QD mounts.
Good Shopping!

Depends.....what is he going to use it for? If the words "close combat" have any bearing, then get an AR15, as this is the ARs' bread and butter. Up close, an AR can't be beat. Don't get me wrong, though; I LOVE a .308 (it fits my shooting style much better). The main advantages of an AR are: lighter weight, which gains importance quick if you're out humping it around for awhile; and lower recoil, which is important for quick follow-up shots(a moving target at 100yds is surprisingly difficult to hit, even with an MG, and most folks won't wait around for you to get it right if you miss). If you want to let 'em know you really mean business, though, an FAL (or my favorite, the M14/M1A) gets that point across right quick-like. Just make the first round count, and strike from a distance.

I think I have just officially hit the "burn out" point, where I have read the same questions over and over and over for the past 3 years, and it's getting old now.

I'll second this idea!

...and what country uses the AR10 as an MBR for it's military??    

Sorry couldn't resist pushing that button [:D]

[b]Yeah.  Let's start another Forum...[/b][beer]

I believe that Sudan for a while used the AR10 as an General Issue Weapon.

I think the guy will be happy with a FAL, though I think he would be even happier with an M1A (though not the price tag!)

Now stop me if I'm wrong but the military the 5.56 because it was more of a humane weapon in war and that it's bullets where meant to wound the person.

Now if the 5.56 is a great human killer why don't some of you guys take your Ar-15 out deer hunting this year and bag a deer with it. If it can take down a human it should just as easily take down a deer right.

I was told this by a few NAM vet. I was also told that they where not aloud to use 12ga shotgun because it was to inhuman of a weapon to use in war.

OK, Tayous STOP.

The .223 was chosen for several reasons, NONE of which were it's humane wound characteristics.

Try lighter weight and easier to control than the M14 in FA mode.

Second, many deer have been taken with .22 rimfires, the .223 is more than up to the task, shot placement is, however, critical.

Lastly, the venerable 12g was HEAVILY used in Viet Nam.

Hell, the US fielded a buckshot round for the M79, a 40mm buchshot.

I second the suggestion of getting an MBR forst and foremost.  I have an STG58 and it is by far my most valued (not valuable) weapon.  IMO the 5.56 is really a great round, but I think it works best in close unit tactics with supporting fire/automatic fire.  For small unit operations of 'civilians' I think the 7.62x51 is a better choice. Generally i feel the MBR should be the first priority.  Just my .02 cents.

One important note: The supply of FAL's is limited. The AR is currently being produced in large numbers. With the FAL, buy now or never.

I personally like the FAL better than the AR10.  I have both, and am currently dumping the AR10 for another FAL.  


OSA

The AR will likely be more accurate. Ammo is cheaper, and lighter. Most important, you can use your AR in Highpower competition.

The FAL has a neat history, looks cool, and the 7.62 is better able to penetetrate cover and take large animals (despite the advantages of 7.62, the average FAL probably can't outrange the average AR). FAL magazines are cheap, and if you click on the TAPCO add at the top of the page, you can order a G-1 kit for about $124.00.

If your friend wants a FAL, he should browse the FAL files:

[url]http://www.l1a1.com/[/url]

The military began work on 5.56 on the theory that they could increase enemy causlties.




As a young dude back in the late 70s, early 80s, I heard Nam vets say quite a few things, many of which were mistaken. In Nam, 12 Gage shotguns were used, mostly with buckshot, but they also fooled around with flechetts. And they developed a canister load for the M-79 granade launcher (think very big shotgun).

They also used claymore mines, napalm, and lots of other nasty stuff . . .

tayous1 - last year my cousin got a 10 point with 5.56 - couple 'a hundred yard shoulder shot.  Year before he got two young bucks.  5.56 isn't optimal for deer, but I assure you it will kill them deader than hell.

Tate

Shot a doe with my H-bar last year. Knocked the shit out of it! Shot was from about 75 yards, behind the shoulder, under the spine.
[sniper]

With a name like "garandman" you GOTTA know I'm a BIG fan of the M1A.

However, in modern times, I just don't consider it a battle rifle. Its IS the best you can do with a .30 cal competition rifle, but it is no battle rifle.

FWIW, I didn't come to this opinion until I had owned my M1A for a few years, but then bought an FAL.

Reasons why I say this -

1. FAL in rapid fire  recoils like an AR15. M1A is all over the place.

2. Wood stock doesn't belong on a modern battle field. You can get a poly stock on an M1A, but why???? The FAL comes standard with poly.

3. the integral bipod and the carry handle make the FAL better suited to SAW useage and support fire in battle conditions.

4. Even in a life and death situation, I'd be concerned with dropping a $50-75 M1A mag in the field, and leaving it behind. Call me a tight wad.


5. Pistol grip. EVERY battle rifle should have one.

6. Gas adjustment on the FAL, to meet field conditions, even to adapt to the sniper role by shutting the gas off. M1A's scope mount has too many parts to be lost. FAL's is integral.

Well, that's enuf.

Mind you, my favorite rifle of ALL TIME is still the M1.  But I wouldn't be caught dead (or maybe I would [BD] ) with it on a battle field. Same with the M1A.

to the question posed in this thread - if your friend has ANY concerns about small caliber sizes, DEFINITELY go with the FAL.

May I recommend the DSA STG58???