Which way is the best to go?  I'm thinking both in terms of reliability and spare part availability.

I was really leaning towards the metric, since that is what DSA makes, and they have a reputation of being very high quality.

But lately I'm reading about a lot of folks having or getting L1A1 (inch) FALs.

Also, it's my understanding that a metric receiver will accept inch magazines, but an inch receiver will not accept metric magazines.  So that seems to bias it back towards the metric.

go metric easier to find parts and very cheap

Personally I think the metrics look better.  

Quoted: Also, it's my understanding that a metric receiver will accept inch magazines, but an inch receiver will not accept metric magazines.

Nope, it's the other way around. Get both!  

This is a very interesting question.

One authority, Rawles, says inch rifles take metric magazines, so go inch.

Another authority, Boston, says metric rifles are of better quality, so go metric.

Many of the parts are and always have been interchangeable and the advantages of one can now be added to the other. The inch rifles have a larger safety which make it as easy as an AR to flick on and off. But now DSA makes the same safety in metric and it only takes a few minutes to swap the part.

Inch magazines are hard to find and expensive, but that could change tomorrow if a shipload of them arrives. DSA just started making inch receivers too. Some parts are a little more expensive and harder to find, but if you have the gun you are probably willing to put in a few more minutes to find the part.

Reliability is the same.

So what to get?  Either one is fine.

There is no functuional difference in either design. There is however a shortage of US compliance parts for inch guns. HTS kits are hard to find, and very few companies that make plastic furniture. No one that makes US inch wood (AFAIK). Mertic mags fit an inch receiver, but they wobble. I have both, but I'd be hard pressed to replace my inch rifle due to the lack of parts.

For furniture.

Ironwood Designs

Don't really care for the L1A1's sights.  The pistol grip is square with corners, not very comfortable to hold.  The metric pattern's pistol grip is angled so steeply that it places stress on the shooting hand's wrist.  The inch pattern's folding charging handle and mag release is better, but unless you want to stay original, you can swap out these parts on a metric FAL.

Quoted: Don't really care for the L1A1's sights.  The pistol grip is square with corners, not very comfortable to hold.  The metric pattern's pistol grip is angled so steeply that it places stress on the shooting hand's wrist.  The inch pattern's folding charging handle and mag release is better, but unless you want to stay original, you can swap out these parts on a metric FAL.

The metric pistol grip angle problem can be remedied by replacing it with an M249 pistol grip.  They are a drop in fit and really make a big difference.  M249 grips are US made and are plentiful.


To the original question, I prefer metric pattern F ALs. Magazines and spare parts are more plentiful at present and the metrics are more asthetically pleasing to my eye.

It is possible to get the best of both. My build is on a Imbel receiver using a Argy open ear barrel while it is a metric barrel it requires the use of a inch rear sight which folds down. I also used the DSA L1A1 style metric safty and a metric fold down charging handle.

DSArms makes an inch receiver (L1A1) as does Entreprise.
DSArms Inch L1A1 Receiver
Entreprise Inch L1A1 Receiver

VOW makes an inch charging handle.
VOW Inch Charging Handle

Ironwood Designs makes wood inch furniture.
Ironwood Designs Inch Stock Set

Falcon Industries makes an Inch Pebble Grain plastic pistol grip.
Falcon Industires Inch Grip

The new phoenix from the flames FSE will start production on inch HTS. They emialed me yesterday with the info.
FSEUSA Inch HTS

Now we have again Seven US parts without mag followers or floorplates to build with. Yes I have been doing a little research siting at my desk.