I posted this in the AR15 site and one of the posts stated that I should also post it here on the FAL board.

See here and feel free to add your opinion for or against the FAL.

Constructive input only. There are a lot of retarded people out there that are just looking to cause trouble as you will see. Just ignore them and post what you feel.

I understand that its mission specific but when you dont know the mission specs the all around better rifle is the Para FAL

I am equally armed with an AR, M1A, M1 Garand, or FNFAL. By that I mean that I am proficient with any of these. I own at least one of each and I enjoy shooting all of them. I am more proficient with the FNs because I have more recent trigger time with them.
Of these systems, I enjoy the Garand the most followed closely by the FNs. IMO, a Garand chambered in .308/7.62 is easier (read that as least expensive) to gear up for. With a scope mount that replaces the upper hand guard, optics are easy to mount. Enbloc clips are very inexpensive and you can keep thousands of rounds loaded on them indefinately and they are easy to store and transport. Plus, there is no need to keep a drop bag to store empty clips and no reason to try and keep up with or recover them.
So far as training goes, it does not take very long at all to become proficient at reloading. There isn't anyone that has even a minimum knowledge of firearms that would claim that a Garand is not dead nuts reliable or not capable of accurate long range shooting.  If you just have to have a carbine, a tanker conversion will still bring you in under the cost of a DSA FAL.

For half of the cost of one DSA FAL, you can buy a Garand, rig it with a new barrel, scout type scope mount, and several hundred enbloc clips.

The Para FN is the way to go. But there is something to be said for a Carbine FAL as well. A little 16 inch barrel with a regular stock feels perfect to me and I own 2 PARA models. M1 Garands are cool but the ammo is pricey. DSArms makes good rifles but so do some gunsmiths at the FALFiles and for less money. If you think that you might have made a wrong choice with the PARA FN then you should look at the new Navy SEAL rifle . It looks like a M14 trying to be a PARA FN with scope rails.

A FAL in my choice and here's why.....Ol' Dirty.....  in the SHTF scenario I don't think an AR based weapon could be counted on to be as reliable and as an effective weapon for self preservation and for living off the land. For the inexperienced the original FAL sights or accuracy sucks and the weapon & ammo is heavier but upgrading the rear sight or having a scope then using a dog or little red wagon to haul your MBR/ammo while traveling on foot great distances away from your bunker and supplies eliminates those concerns.  

   For a SHTF MBR I think more concern should be placed on whether or not it is going to be effective enough to drop/stop a human or bear/big game animal or disable/stop a vechile while conserving ammo, will it operate realibly in all enviorments and weather conditions and how much use/punishment will it take before failure occurs or it just wears out completely.
 
 

308 in the SHTF scenario makes sense because it can more easily do double duty as food gathering tool.

223 would work, but you are gonna have to perforate that critter something fierce.
If you want to eat deer, beef, elk, pig, etc, 308 will do it nicely.
If you are happy with coyote, rabbit, dog and cat, the AR works great.

geezzer you should post this on AR web site I statred

That 'Ol dirty was pretty cool.  Glad someone is out doing this with their rifle because I sure as hell ain't.

5 Malfunctions at 10880....oooooooh.  I took my AR out to test some new mags (third time shooting it) and had a couple major stoppages.  Granted it was the new mag and one bad round.  I had one stoppage from the extractor pulling a piece off of the brass, leaving the brass in the chamber which required a rod to punch out.  The others were FTF due to the new mag.  Never the less it reminded me why I have an FAL and one more on the way (building it now).

Thanks for that link.  

Quoted: geezzer you should post this on AR web site I statred

OK....it's there.... more fuel to the fire......

While the exploits of "Ol Dirty" are truely awesome....

If it were Truely the S impacting the rotary air handling unit...

I'd grab my AR first over my FAL (if I could only take one) for a couple of logical reasons.

(A) Ammo - 5.56 equals more ammo for the same load. If you are traveling, light is survival

(B)  Ammo - 5.56 is Military & LEO issue and would be most likely to be scrounged if resuppy needed (depending on how much the S really H T F! as in EOTWAWKI)

(C) Ammo - depending on the range used (300meters and under - 98% of typical combat distances)  5.56 is a good fight stopper at those ranges as bullet fragmention occurs - whereas most 7.62 does poke a bigger hole, but does not deposit as much energy in the target

(D) Cammo - You blend in better as a Govt. "Good Guy" with a AR, whereas the FAL stands out, and you know what they say about standing out when other people with guns are deciding if they should shoot and who first....

The FAL is a awesome rifle, and has many, Many MANY good points, for for SHTF, I think the AR has much positive to consider.

BIGGER_HAMMER

762NATO when killing things is the primary mission.
556NATO when something else is the primary mission.