What about the FAL?

[Charlie Foxtrott]

When the shot goes down you would be advised to own one.

They will help you quite a bit.

 

[Stirling]

I own an Indian SLR. It's a copy of the British SLR. I had a Rhodesian gunsmith look it over and it works. He suggested I cut it down to 18" but I liked the classic look.

I also owned an R2. I thought it was a Portuguese G3 but later learned than it was actually an R2. The furniture was slightly different. It was changed to be more compatible with the harsh climate we have. Unhappily it had to go because it was select fire.

I think the FAL looks better and handles better than the G3 so my preference would be an FAL Para. That said, the G3 works as well.

Here's a pic firing one on the range. My son with the SLR.

 

[wundudnee]

I got mine at Tulsa about five years ago for $1,400.00 with three magazines.
It's my reach out and touch something rifle. I didn't realize I needed a FAL, but it reached out and grabbed me. Yes I know the carry handle is on backwards.

 

[A10]

Had an L1A1 some years back and really liked the rifle. The top cover was replaced with one with a rail, and I scoped it with a Leupold 3-9. It shot well. I could bounce beer cans at 300 yards pretty handily with it. Traded it off.....no particular reason.

 

[SnidelyWhiplash]

I had a SAR-48 I bought new back in the ‘80s. I always liked but rarely shot it. I like the AR-10 platform better. I ended up selling the SAR last year before moving across the country.

 

[teletech]

I do think the FAL is the best-looking battle rifle, particularly with wood furniture. The ergonomics are a little better than middle of the road, they don't get in your way like an AK or G3, but aren't awesome. The problem has been accuracy.
First try was an Australian parts kit with a very limited run receiver with some weird geometry that needed work to run right. Once it finally ran well the fact it was inaccurate was disappointing, but one new barrel later it was at least a sub 3" gun. I was spoiled with 1-2" Garands, so I didn't appreciate how good that was for a FAL.
Next was a DSA L1A1 with lovely new walnut furniture and new US barrel. She was a beauty that wouldn't shoot better than 6". Sigh. You know it's bad when mounting the SUIT isn't harmful to your accuracy!
Most recent experience was a British-parts on CAI/Imbel receiver gun that also wouldn't shoot. The barrel had been chopped in the name of compliance, so re-crowning that, swapping around bolts and carriers for tight headspace and whatnot produced a gun that shoots .3" at 25yds, .6" at 50yds, and 7" at 100!
The only thing I can think that would make things that bad is a bent barrel. Sadly the choices are surplus (roll the dice), or new DSA (spotty QC of late and I'd rather not pay the accuracy penalty for chrome-lined).
Turning a barrel from a blank from Douglas or somebody would be the move, but I just don't have that sort of free time.
I did work to tighten up the hinge on the receiver recently and haven't tried it since, so it will be interesting to see if that helps.
At this point I'm about ready to give up.
Suggestions are very welcome.

 

[target tech]

This is one of two that I have, I would like to find a nice set of NBC hand guards, but nice originals are crazy expensive. My other is a factory 16” DSA STG-58. The short one is battle rifle accurate, but the 22”er can be a 2” at 100 yds gun.

 

[Ameshawki]

Had the itch for an FAL for some time, but man that is a complicated market. Parts guns, frankenguns, CAI garbage, some really nice $tuff priced accordingly, new manufacture that may or may not work, expensive mags, expensive ammo, hit or miss accuracy, the list goes on.

But I still want one.

 

[LVSteve]

I do think the FAL is the best-looking battle rifle, particularly with wood furniture. The ergonomics are a little better than middle of the road, they don't get in your way like an AK or G3, but aren't awesome. The problem has been accuracy.

Thing with the FAL design is that there are least three ways to hose the accuracy.

1) Headspace. The tilting bolt of the FAL locks up against a replaceable locking shoulder that sits across the width of the receiver. On assembly did your FAL end up with tight headspace, or generous 7.62 NATO headspace?

2) Handguards 1. Each handguard is secured to the gas block at the front, and a tongue at the back that fits inside a lipped metal ring. OCD people like them tight, but are they the same tight left to right? If they are not, then as the gun heats the zero wanders up left to right or vice versa depending on which handguard is exerting more force. The thin barrel is a factor here, obviously. You may guess how I know this.

3) Handguards 2. Because of the way the handguards fit, it is not always clear where the vertical force is going when you rest the gun. Is it going into the receiver because the rear location is tight vertically, or is more than desirable going into the gas block well down the barrel? Again, there's that thin barrel.

4) The piston tube. The gas piston sits in a tube that runs from the receiver to the gas block. Should it be loose, or should it be tight. I'm unsure of the correct answer, because I've read conflicting thoughts/reports on this aspect. My gut feeling is that it should be loose, so that any expansion of the tube cannot exert a force on the gas block and barrel.

5) Rounds in the magazine exerting pressure on the underside of the bolt when it's in battery. This "issue" may be a thing, or it may be Internet lore. I guess a Prussian blue test would prove it one way or the other. The premise is that as the magazine empties, the force on the bottom of the bolt changes. Some have even opined that it is a fundamental flaw in all tilting bolt designs. I don't buy that, as the SKS and the MAS 49 don't have any obvious accuracy problems when used with the right ammo. Maybe the FAL does have an issue with rounds in the mag contacting the bolt, but if it does I'd bet it only happen with non-military ammo with long ogive bullets.

 

[teletech]

Thing with the FAL design is that there are least three ways to hose the accuracy.

1) Headspace. The tilting bolt of the FAL locks up against a replaceable locking shoulder that sits across the width of the receiver. On assembly did your FAL end up with tight headspace, or generous 7.62 NATO headspace?

2) Handguards 1. Each handguard is secured to the gas block at the front, and a tongue at the back that fits inside a lipped metal ring. OCD people like them tight, but are they the same tight left to right? If they are not, then as the gun heats the zero wanders up left to right or vice versa depending on which handguard is exerting more force. The thin barrel is a factor here, obviously. You may guess how I know this.

3) Handguards 2. Because of the way the handguards fit, it is not always clear where the vertical force is going when you rest the gun. Is it going into the receiver because the rear location is tight vertically, or is more than desirable going into the gas block well down the barrel? Again, there's that thin barrel.

It was pretty loose initially but with a few bolts and carriers to choose from I found a selection that barely closes on a .308 GO gauge from Forrester, so I think I'm good there.

The handguard thing is interesting. I wonder if the answer (for testing) is to just remove the handguards and see how it shoots?
Something to try next.

I was aware of the magazine pressure theory and so did at least make sure to not have more than 10 rounds in at a time.

I'm also aware that double-feed designs have two feedramps, so one opens oneself up to every other shot having a different feedramp geometry. It occurs to me that if I post two targets and alternate shots, I could control for that variable.

 

[teletech]

It was pretty loose initially but with a few bolts and carriers to choose from I found a selection that barely closes on a .308 GO gauge from Forrester, so I think I'm good there.

The handguard thing is interesting. I wonder if the answer (for testing) is to just remove the handguards and see how it shoots?
Something to try next.

I was aware of the magazine pressure theory and so did at least make sure to not have more than 10 rounds in at a time.

I'm also aware that double-feed designs have two feedramps, so one opens oneself up to every other shot having a different feedramp geometry. It occurs to me that if I post two targets and alternate shots, I could control for that variable.

I went out with too small a supply of ammo to do the alternating targets thing, but did try the no-handguards test.

About ready to call this a FN-FAIL.
Tightening up the hinge and headspace made my .6" 50-yard gun into about a 2" at 50-yard gun. Handguards or not didn't matter but I was surprised on the huge POI shift in 148 vs 168 gr projectiles which was about 3" at 50yds. I tried resting on the gas block, the back of the barrel, and on my hand holding the front of the receiver/magwell with no apparent change.

I do notice my locking shoulder looks to have some damage on either side of the engagement surface, so I might try replacing that, but first I'll try to figure out what bolt/carrier I was using and see if I can get it back to a decent up-close shooter as a baseline.

It's not just the FAL, as I met a seriously-cursed LRB M-21 years back that never did shoot straight to my knowledge.

 

[DesertFox]

Had to have a HK-91 to try it. The center of gravity was way too forward, and too long of a lop for my short arms while delivering out of proportional recoil. While really liking the open sights, it got sold and bought first FAL.

Also the hk beat up the brass.

The difference between the FAL and HK91 for me was where the recoil hit me in the cheek. HK91 was a serious brass and cheek beater, at least for me.

FAL is uber cool but not without its own issues.

 

[Warren Sear]

I own this Austrian Steyr StG 58 built by me on an Imbel (Brazilian) type 3 (?) receiver about 20 years ago. The receiver does not have the same looks/exterior contours as the original (type 1 ?) receiver, but I don't care at all about that. Function is 100%.

This picture was taken at my gun club 3 days ago.

 

[BB57]

Had to have a HK-91 to try it. The center of gravity was way too forward, and too long of a lop for my short arms while delivering out of proportional recoil. While really liking the open sights, it got sold and bought first FAL.

Also the hk beat up the brass.

As you know, but for the benefit of others the HK-91 and The FAL are polar opposites in terms of ammunition flexibility.

The FAL has an adjustable gas block where you can increase the size of the gas port with any lot of .308 or 7.62 NATO ammunition until the ammunition cycles reliably. A FAL can be adjusted to eat anything in .308 or 7.62 NATO as long as it fits in the magazine.

The HK uses a roller locked delayed blow back system and proper cycling depends on a very narrow range of recoil energy. The size of the rollers and angles of engagement surfaces are precisely engineered for a specific recoil impulse to ensure the bolt stays locked until the pressure drops to an acceptable level.

If the ammunition being used gets too far away from that specific impulse, due to changes in bullet weight and velocity. Or if the powder used has an excessively slow burn rate and a resulting pressure curve that results in excessive chamber pressures when the bolt unlocks, bad things start to happen.

The chamber is fluted to help extraction of the case even if the chamber pressure is a little high, and that prevents head separations and torn rims. However, when the recoil impulse is too high the flutes on the chambers will deeply score the sides of the case and the rifle will launch it into the next county. The excessive bolt velocity also puts excessive wear on the rifle.

On the other hand, if the recoil impulse is too low the rifle won’t cycle. The The CETME B rifle on which the later G3/HK91 was based was chambered for the 7.62x51 CETME cartridge. It is dimensionally identical to the 7.62x51 NATO but used a lighter 113 gr bullet at 2600 fps to create a true intermediate round, along the lines of the .280 British that NATO should have adopted for better controllability in full auto.

The CETME C and E were designed for 7.62x51 NATO with a roller locking system engineered for the high recoil impulse.

That operating system makes the HK-91 and its derivatives extremely ammunition sensitive.

The MP5 shares the same basic operating principle but the differences in recoil impulse across various 9mm Luger loads in small enough to be well managed by the system.

 

[Glenn R. McMannly]

The FAL is a fine stopper. The big .30 caliber round packs a real punch. Not too useful on automatic fire however. Some countries issued them locked to semi only, not a bad idea.