I've been steering toward an "IOR" M2 4X24 Illuminated 30mm Tactical from DSA.  If not what else?  Should I keep it simple and be an Iron-Man?  Sometimes simple is better.  Hmmm....choices.  What do the FAL vets think?

I've got a shweet STG58 from DSA with a 20" barrel and the carry handle.

Personally, I'm partial to the ACOG or ELCAN.

Check out the "Super deal at Tapco"thread for some mount/optic opinions. HiramRanger is the topic starter.

I was lukewarm on the M2, ELCAN was OK. Would need an ACOG with maximal eye relief for the FAL, which limits your choices.

Great question.....

I am in the same situation and have been leaning towards the IOR M2 4x24 as well. However I have heard the eye relief is not sufficient for the fal.  Anyone know if this is true or not?

TA01B...I am madly in love with mine





Details: ACOG 4x32 Scope with  .308 Full Line Red Illumination Features black
crosshairs during daytime and tritium illuminates reticle at night.
The reticle ranges out to 800 Meters for 7.62(.308 cal).

Magnification:    4X
Eye Relief:       1.5 in
Exit Pupil:       8 mm
Field of View:    7.0 degrees
Length:           5.8 in
Weight:           9.9 oz
Field of View:    36.8 ft at 100 yds
Adjustment:       3 clicks per inch at 100 yds.

Tritium Activity: 100 milliCuries in one source

I looked at the ACOG's too.  But that 1.5" eye relief will make me flinch every time.  You don't have that trouble with your FAL?  I would think it'd be a problem.  I don't know.

The M2 looks like a nice fit, and will probably be my choice.  My next question would be the height of the rings.  I've never thought the see-thru rings were too helpful on lower power scopes.  Plus the cheek weld is horrible.  Gotta rest the stock on your chin!

What do you think about see through rings for the irons?

BTW, advice taken on the mount/brass catcher, thanks raf.

Well, my experience with the M2 and my DSA SA58 was like this. Unless I removed my rear sight, I needed high rings. I got IORs high (or was it x-high, can't remember?) see through QD rings. Cheek weld sucked. Added stock cheek pad. Could no longer get a good look at the irons through the rings. On top of that, I wear glasses and didn't like the rubber eye piece (which you can remove). The M2 was a pita to sight in, compounded that the factory manual sucked and IIRC, the adjustment directions were actually reversed. You loosen a screw and coarse adjust the reticle. Strange. Glass was OK.

1.5 inches is piss poor eye relief for a FAL. The models with 2.5+ are better, IMO. The Elcan worked ~well on the FAL, but you still need the cheek pad, and no iron sight availability unless you remove the Elcan. My FAL is happily back to irons.

Another option which I think is better than the M2 is either a 1-4VXII or 1.5-5VXIII Leupold, which you can get with an illuminated reticle.

If you scope it, let us know what you think...

I will.  That's the only concern I have left...will the medium rings clear the rear post using the M2?  I should probably contact DSA and see what they think.

You could also look at the Trijicon Accu-whateverthehelltheycallit.  They have a 1-4 variable with a lighted reticle and BAC.  IIRC, the eye relief is something like 3.5"

I use a Comp M with a Tapco weaver dust cover and the original Aimpoint mounting ring.  Sits low enough that you can cowitness the iron sights.

Why would you scope it?  Can't see the iron sights or don't want to be bothered to learn to shoot it?

I've heard numerous complaints about the eye relief being too short on both the Trijicon TAO1 ACOG and the IOR M2.  I was going to go with a TA11 ACOG but it sat up too high.

I ended up going with a Leupold Vari X II 2-7x33 on Leupold LOW mount quick release QWR rings.....Check out the pic at this link, it sits as low as the iron sights and you can get the scope off the rifle quickly with the quick release rings.

www.ar15.com/forums/topic.html?b=6&f=7&t=169575

The scope has plenty of eye relief and can be used on 2x for close distances, like within a house, but the 7x allows you to get better magnification at longer distances.  A jack of all trades.

Here is the Trijicon Accu-Point:



I kinda like the 1-4X model.  It has lots of eye relief, illuminated reticle and is fairly trim.

www.trijicon.com/

Quoted: Why would you scope it?  Can't see the iron sights or don't want to be bothered to learn to shoot it?

Who's asking the questions here Numbnuts?

Hey guys I appreciate all the feedback.  I'm gonna toss these ideas around for a couple days.  They all sound good right now!  I'm so filled with ideas now I might need to get an FAL for each scope.

Cheers

Quoted:  I'm so filled with ideas now I might need to get an FAL for each scope. Cheers

Now your thinking like a genuine FAL addict!  Welcome to the club!

Quoted: Quoted:  I'm so filled with ideas now I might need to get an FAL for each scope. Cheers Now your thinking like a genuine FAL addict!  Welcome to the club!

LOLOLOL Oh NO!  I didn't realize that when I typed it!  I've become one of YOU!!!

lol...oh well, I could do worse things with my time!

Quoted: Quoted: Why would you scope it?  Can't see the iron sights or don't want to be bothered to learn to shoot it? Who's asking the questions here Numbnuts?

Just wondering.  Most people that put scopes on their rifles in my experience do it because they think it'll make up for lack of ability. They also tend to shoot the rifle at distances that they should be able to shoot with irons no problem.  If this is not the case with you then no worries.  If it is, why not learn to shoot the rifle properly instead of relying on optics?

You assume too much.

Thanks for your contribution to an otherwise informative thread.

Quoted: I use a Comp M with a Tapco weaver dust cover and the original Aimpoint mounting ring.  Sits low enough that you can cowitness the iron sights.

any pics ??

I was considering this for my STG58 carbine

Quoted: You assume too much. Thanks for your contribution to an otherwise informative thread.

You asked if you should leave the scope off entirely, and I said yes. I may have said it in a smart-ass manner, but you asked.
I don't see how ANYONE on this thread has made a scope recommendation without either knowing what you want it for, or at least qualifying their answer by saying what THEY use their scope for.
The plain fact that you didn't have an intended function for this scoped rifle leads me to believe I assumed correctly.
Why not share what you want the gun/scope combo to do, and maybe someone will actually be able to make an INFORMED recomendation instead of the nonsense you've gotten so far.

Wow Norman.  For a guy with so many posts, you sure can be a prick when you want to be.  Who cares why he wants a scope.  We can assume a few things about his needs by his initial choice.  He isn't looking for long range applications.  That's smart because the FAL isn't well suited to long range precision work.  He isn't looking for something primarily for close quarters or he'd be asking about Aimpoints and EOTechs.  The 4x he is looking at is well suited to improving the shooters ability to see out to an effective range of around 300 yards.  

Now, the fact that he is looking at an illuminated reticle tells me he wants verstility.  He also indicated that he is comfortable with iron sights.  This implies that he wants to keep it simple or is aware of the shortcomings of glass on a battle rifle.  All of the above is why I suggested the Trijicon Accupoint in a 1-4 variable.  It can actually pass for a close quarters optic when set at 1X due to the BAC feature of the illuminated reticle.  It also would give the shooter the ability to see targets better at longer ranges when moved to 4X.

Now pipe down.  We're all here for entertainment and education and your piss poor attitude doens't add in any positive way to the discussion.

Quoted: Wow Norman.  For a guy with so many posts, you sure can be a prick when you want to be.  Who cares why he wants a scope.  We can assume a few things about his needs by his initial choice.  He isn't looking for long range applications.  That's smart because the FAL isn't well suited to long range precision work.  He isn't looking for something primarily for close quarters or he'd be asking about Aimpoints and EOTechs.  The 4x he is looking at is well suited to improving the shooters ability to see out to an effective range of around 300 yards.   Now, the fact that he is looking at an illuminated reticle tells me he wants verstility.  He also indicated that he is comfortable with iron sights.  This implies that he wants to keep it simple or is aware of the shortcomings of glass on a battle rifle.  All of the above is why I suggested the Trijicon Accupoint in a 1-4 variable.  It can actually pass for a close quarters optic when set at 1X due to the BAC feature of the illuminated reticle.  It also would give the shooter the ability to see targets better at longer ranges when moved to 4X.

I'll defer to the expert:

Quoted: You assume too much.

Now pipe down.  We're all here for entertainment and education and your piss poor attitude doens't add in any positive way to the discussion.

And I care because....
Look, did I answer abrasively? sure. Could I have maybe phrased it in a way that didn't hurt people's feelings? of course.

Who cares why he wansts a scope? Are you retarded? (there goes that abrasiveness again)
WHY he wants a scope dictates what type of scope he wants.  Otherwise this is all just pissing in the wind.  You guy's so called "informative thread" is utter bullshit.

Honestly, this is the reason I posted the smart-ass response.  It's clear from what you guys posted thus far that you're just into hanging the latest cool shit from your rifle, not actually buying something with a purpose.

wait, I just answered my own question.  The purpose of the scope for most (not all, if you're the exception you know who you are) that have posted thus far is the cool factor.  In that case, by all means, carry on.  It's your $$.

The bottom line is, with a parts gun, DSA or not, the accuracy weak link is the gun (or maybe in this case the shooter), not the sights.  The gun is as accurate as anyone with a bit of practice should be with iron sights.

I took my SA58c right out of the box and went to an FDCC shoot a couple of years ago and with iron sights I outshot most of the glassed shooters who had been "practicing" with their scopes for months.

Quoted: The bottom line is, with a parts gun, DSA or not, the accuracy weak link is the gun (or maybe in this case the shooter), not the sights.  The gun is as accurate as anyone with a bit of practice should be with iron sights. I took my SA58c right out of the box and went to an FDCC shoot a couple of years ago and with iron sights I outshot most of the glassed shooters who had been "practicing" with their scopes for months.

You seem to be equating accuracy with the use of a scope.  And you call me retarded?  Scopes don't let you shoot better.  They let you see better.  A guy who has practiced with his beloved iron sights at the range against nicely defined circles will be quite shocked at his inadequacy when trying to pick out a deer standing broad side at 200 yards in the fall woods.  The bravado of being an "iron man" will fade quickly as the white flags bounce from view.

Your choice of sights has nothing to do with your ability to shoot.  It has nothing to do with the skill level of the shooter and it has nothing to do with the size of ones genitals or lack thereof.  It only has to do with one's choice of how they wish to view a target.  Now find some valium.

Quoted: Quoted: The bottom line is, with a parts gun, DSA or not, the accuracy weak link is the gun (or maybe in this case the shooter), not the sights.  The gun is as accurate as anyone with a bit of practice should be with iron sights. I took my SA58c right out of the box and went to an FDCC shoot a couple of years ago and with iron sights I outshot most of the glassed shooters who had been "practicing" with their scopes for months. You seem to be equating accuracy with the use of a scope.  And you call me retarded?

To be clear, I didn't say you were retarded, I asked if you were. And if you think that the intended use of the scope doesn't affect the choice of scope, you've answered the question.

Scopes don't let you shoot better.  They let you see better.  A guy who has practiced with his beloved iron sights at the range against nicely defined circles will be quite shocked at his inadequacy when trying to pick out a deer standing broad side at 200 yards in the fall woods.  The bravado of being an "iron man" will fade quickly as the white flags bounce from view. Your choice of sights has nothing to do with your ability to shoot.  It has nothing to do with the skill level of the shooter and it has nothing to do with the size of ones genitals or lack thereof.  It only has to do with one's choice of how they wish to view a target.  Now find some valium.

I couldn't agree more. And that's exactly the point.  A scope DOESN'T help you shoot better, but everyone seems to think it does.  I found that when I was selling guns at least 75% of the people I sold scopes to were tired of trying to learn to shoot with irons, and thought that buying a $1k scope would solve all their problems.
Therefore their choice of sights had EVERYTHING to do with their ability to shoot.

Those are all generalizations.  In a specific application a parts gun with milsurp ammo is not going to be accurate enough to warrant a scope for many applications.  That's my opinion.  You can disagree if you like, but so far I'm not clear if you do or not.

Back to the topic at hand, and since I didn't realize so many of the FAL shooters were such sensitive souls...
1) Hokie, can you shoot the gun with iron sights?  Are you able to do so accurately?  I would suggest that if the answers to the two questions above are no, you should learn to do so.  It's the same reason that in grade school they teach you to do math before they let you use a calculator.
2) What do you want the scope for?  Are your eyes bad and you can't see the irons?  Are you looking for a benchrest gun (I think that's a waste with a parts gun but ymmv)?  Do you want a tactical rifle with a do-all scope?  Do you want something for CQB?  Do you want something for low-light conditions?  etc.
I know cliffy109 made assumptions about your intended use based on the specific scope you asked about, but I'd like to hear more straight talk about what you intend to do with the rifle/scope combo.

Everything (almost) the other guys suggested is good for something, but if that something doesn't apply to you then what's the point?

If you ask me to recommend a vehicle, I'm going to tell you to buy a honda civic.  That's not going to work too well if you need to haul building materials is it?  Same thing here.  Figure out your application, and tailor your equipment to that application.

I cant answer for Hokie, but I can say for me, the answer to#1 is No. and hell no.

I put a good scope on my FAL cuz my old ass cant see like I used to. If I could still see 6 or 800M thru iron, I wouldnt have a scope on it.

Quoted: I cant answer for Hokie, but I can say for me, the answer to#1 is No. and hell no. I put a good scope on my FAL cuz my old ass cant see like I used to. If I could still see 6 or 800M thru iron, I wouldnt have a scope on it.

See, perfect example.  I sold lots of scopes to guysthat couldn't see as good, and for them I perfectly understand. What I don't understand is people spending $1k to add something to their rifle that they already have.

I for one and really glad to have somebody here to tell us all what are valid reasons for us to spend our money.  This is especially true because it is done in such a constructive manner.  We are very fortunate to have such a person here with such a broad background in sighting systems and continues to associate accuracy with those systems.

Quoted: I for one and really glad to have somebody here to tell us all what are valid reasons for us to spend our money.  This is especially true because it is done in such a constructive manner.  We are very fortunate to have such a person here with such a broad background in sighting systems and continues to associate accuracy with those systems.

IM sent

Incidentally, when you're ready to talk about the topic at hand, let me know.

Quoted: Wow Norman.  For a guy with so many posts, you sure can be a prick when you want to be.  Who cares why he wants a scope.  We can assume a few things about his needs by his initial choice.  He isn't looking for long range applications.  That's smart because the FAL isn't well suited to long range precision work.  He isn't looking for something primarily for close quarters or he'd be asking about Aimpoints and EOTechs.  The 4x he is looking at is well suited to improving the shooters ability to see out to an effective range of around 300 yards.   Now, the fact that he is looking at an illuminated reticle tells me he wants verstility.  He also indicated that he is comfortable with iron sights.  This implies that he wants to keep it simple or is aware of the shortcomings of glass on a battle rifle.  All of the above is why I suggested the Trijicon Accupoint in a 1-4 variable.  It can actually pass for a close quarters optic when set at 1X due to the BAC feature of the illuminated reticle.  It also would give the shooter the ability to see targets better at longer ranges when moved to 4X. Now pipe down.  We're all here for entertainment and education and your piss poor attitude doens't add in any positive way to the discussion.

Exactly my sentiments.  I'm gonna sweep up that very scope for those reasons you specified.  I thought I asked a pretty basic question and recieved some great results.  Hats off to ya.

As for Numbnuts74 up there, congratulations, you are a complete asshole.

I've had the misfortune to have to wade through some of your other thread-spoilers on other topics...and not only are you a complete asshole, but you're also a consistent one.  Oh well, someone's gotta keep the balance.  Might as well be you homeslice, cause you definately fit the bill.  You really deserve your own poll, give me an IM if you need help with the topic.

Quoted: Quoted: Now, the fact that he is looking at an illuminated reticle tells me he wants verstility.  He also indicated that he is comfortable with iron sights.  This implies that he wants to keep it simple or is aware of the shortcomings of glass on a battle rifle.  All of the above is why I suggested the Trijicon Accupoint in a 1-4 variable.  It can actually pass for a close quarters optic when set at 1X due to the BAC feature of the illuminated reticle.  It also would give the shooter the ability to see targets better at longer ranges when moved to 4X. Exactly my sentiments.  I'm gonna sweep up that very scope for those reasons you specified.  I thought I asked a pretty basic question and recieved some great results.  Hats off to ya.

be sure & give us a full report when you get it
I'm interested in getting a good short-mid range optic for one of my FAL's too

I certainly will!  If I have any free time that is, seems that our beloved Numbnuts74 can't stop filling my IM box with sarcasm, not even good sarcasm at that.

I can't delete them fast enough.  Who's responsible for letting this chub have a team membership?

If I even gave a care, I'd label him a PITA.  As it is I'm gonna sue him for emotionally induced carpal tunnel syndrome!

lol

Whatever, I'll be back in a month with a full report!Thanks all!

To scope or not to scope...that is the question...

Some of you may want to try what I did with the current sights.

I replaced the rear with a hooded peep from DSA and then I replaced the front with a duplex recticle from DSA. Doing this adds the effect of a scope without magnification and maintains the basic original lines of the rifle.

Obviously, you do not gain much when the light is low. However, you may find the duplex rectical a rather cool alternate to a front post.

Quoted: I certainly will!  If I have any free time that is, seems that our beloved Numbnuts74 can't stop filling my IM box with sarcasm, not even good sarcasm at that. I can't delete them fast enough.  Who's responsible for letting this chub have a team membership? If I even gave a care, I'd label him a PITA.  As it is I'm gonna sue him for emotionally induced carpal tunnel syndrome! lol Whatever, I'll be back in a month with a full report!Thanks all!

Ok, so I try and take it private and you insist on airing it in public, that's fine.

Do you and your little friend there really not understad that scopes have intended purposes, and that in order to make the right choice you need to know what you want it to do?  Are you going to buy a screwdriver when you need a wrench?  They both turn fasteners, and when used impproperly they will even turn each other's fasteners, but you're much better off using the right tool for the job.

Incidentally, sending you one IM, and then responding to your silly shit is hardly filling your IM box, but thanks anyway.

here's to you and your scope, may you have a long life together continuing to miss the target.

Thanks for the toast, does this mean you'll leave my thread alone now?  As witty as you are not, interacting with you is starting to bore me.

When you're not post-whorin' yourself over the great forum of AR15.com, I hope your self-proclaimed FAL skills gain you far more respect than you earn here.

Cheers and (hopefully) goodbye,

H

Quoted: To scope or not to scope...that is the question... Some of you may want to try what I did with the current sights. I replaced the rear with a hooded peep from DSA and then I replaced the front with a duplex recticle from DSA. Doing this adds the effect of a scope without magnification and maintains the basic original lines of the rifle. Obviously, you do not gain much when the light is low. However, you may find the duplex rectical a rather cool alternate to a front post.

I'll check that out too.  I have a feeling I'll be scooping up another FAL soon too!

Of the four FALs I have two are scoped, two have irons. My Izzy HB and LB clones both use their iron sights, though I have mounted a scope on the HB and have the mount and scope together, so it's just a matter of sliding the mounted scope back on if I decide I want to use it. It does a good job of holding zero.

My L1A1 has a SUIT waiting to go on it as soon as the approriate top cover shows up. I could mount it using a replacement top cover scope mount, but really wanted the actual SUIT mount.

Pictured below is my StG-58. It usually has the scope mounted.

Quoted: I cant answer for Hokie, but I can say for me, the answer to#1 is No. and hell no. I put a good scope on my FAL cuz my old ass cant see like I used to. If I could still see 6 or 800M thru iron, I wouldnt have a scope on it.

Changed answer cuz the heineken did the talkin..

The answer to #1 is YES I Can shoot the fucker irons...Just not very damn far..

Signed,

Blind motherfucker

Quoted: Quoted: I cant answer for Hokie, but I can say for me, the answer to#1 is No. and hell no. I put a good scope on my FAL cuz my old ass cant see like I used to. If I could still see 6 or 800M thru iron, I wouldnt have a scope on it. Changed answer cuz the heineken did the talkin.. The answer to #1 is YES I Can shoot the fucker irons...Just not very damn far.. Signed, Blind motherfucker

The 1-4 Accupoint is probably a great choice. I haven't been fortunate enough to try one.

I know!  I just checked the prices on SWFA.  They're pretty proud of those scopes!  I'm on a tight budget so I may opt yet for the 4X24.  I'd need $600 for that Accupoint.

But good things come to those who wait right?  That's half my problem...I can't wait!

Cnatra... sorry it took so long.

Quoted: Cnatra... sorry it took so long. photos.ar15.com/ImageGallery/Attachments/DownloadAttach.asp?iImageUnq=15174

Thanks!  Looks good !  
I think that's what I'll put on my STG58  carbine.

What rear sight is that ??

That is a sweet setup, nice stuff.

That is an L1A1 standard rear sight.  Unlike a lot of the Century Frankenfals that had an L1A1 upper and a Metric lower, mine is all inch but for the receiver...  Actually it is very well assembled for a Century... circa 1989.

I'm pretty sure the L1A1 rear sight is taller than the STG rear sight. I don't believe the STG will cowitness as well (if at all) with an AIMPOINT...'course, I could be wrong about that

Quoted: I'm pretty sure the L1A1 rear sight is taller than the STG rear sight. I don't believe the STG will cowitness as well (if at all) with an AIMPOINT...'course, I could be wrong about that

Maybe if you ramped up the rear sight of an STG to its highest point it will.  Notice in my pic the L1A1 rear sight is at its lowest setting.  I used the standard Aimpoint ring to seat it as low as possible.

That would be swell Hiram, if you were shooting at targets, say 600-800 meters away Or if you wanted to shoot a close proximity bad guy in the nuts/kneecap...