FN/FAL Versus AR-10 Versus Springfield M1A!

Evil ATF

Ok, I'm going to explode.We've discussed the M1A. A great all around rifle, but poor to wield up close and personal-like. We discussed the Armalite AR-10. Good rifle, great for firing in confined areas due to the pistol grip stock, yet built to weaker tolerances than the M1A. Now, someone HAD to go and mention the FN/FAL, a rifle that completely slipped my mind as a candidate for my new Main Battle Rifle. It fires the 7.62x51mm round (.308), it's clip fed, and it sports Evil's favorite option on a SHTF combat rifle: the pistol grip.Well, I know zero about the FN/FAL's. Can you guys clue me in? What model should I look at? I see quite a few varying prices here on Gunbroker for these rifles. How does the FAL stand up to the M1A? I see that it is considerably less expensive, but at what cost to quality? I'd love to be able to save $1,500 on the rifle purchase, but not at the expense of quality that may save my life someday. Please help...I'm losing it.

Lowrider

My brother has two of them and loves them. They are field tested to a fare-thee-well and used by many countries around the world as the main military issue. I can't really think of any drawbacks except a lot of people don't like foreign-made weapons. One other thing, there are two varieties of the FN/FAL. The metric and the non-metric (I think). Parts for one won't fit the other, but they look identical.

SXSMAN

I don't have the answer,but Highball might,Should be along any time now.PS I do like the fal.On my wish list.(Wish I had more money so I could buy more toys.)

Lowrider

http://fnfal.com/falfiles/ http://perfectunion.com/features/HK91_vs_FN_FAL/ Here's a couple of websites.One thing I really like about the FAL is the carry handle swings down and tucks away when not needed.

royc38

The M1a is the best rifle of the three for accuracy and reliability but the FN is probably the best all around. The reason I say this is the FN can do it all and can cover all the bases. The M1a is better in most categories but lacking in a few compared to the other three. My personal favorite is the M1a but give me a FN and you will never hear a peep out of me. What the heck buy both and forget about it.

idsman75

I've fired one FAL and it was a GOOD gun. I'd say it is probably not as accurate as the other two but would probably be my choice as a battle rifle. If you are the type that would choose an AK-47 over an AR-15 then I think the same line of thought would apply to choosing the FAL over the AR-10. I have never been too keen on the "touchiness" of the AR/M16 action as far as reliability is concerned when dust and debris are introduced. My buddy would store his FAL and rarely ever clean or oil it but it always functioned perfectly. However, most FN-FAL/STG-58 style rifles are build from parts kits. Several rifles contribute the parts to one firearm and all of those parts are at different stages of their "wear" life. This lends to inaccuracy and malfunctions theoretically speaking. However, I've been told they're darn good rifles. The one I fired had seen some wear and abuse but it was in good condition and performed very well. I would pick the M-14/M1A if I wanted a "battle rifle" that I could also hold as a prize possession but I would pick the FAL if I wanted it solely as a battle rifle. After having an M-16 assigned to me and carrying it through the mud and rain, I'd pass on the AR-10 all together.

kimberkid

I had one for about 2 months 10 years or so ago, hated it the first time I shot it, dont remember why though ... I think it had somthing to do with the scope mount, the only thing that was avaiable was a top cover mount like the we've all seen on AK. This one fit much tighter than any AK top cover mount, but it was still flimsey sheetmetal and wouldn't hold a zero ... maybe you could rig up an AK side mount or maybe there is something better out there now. Oh yeah, one last thing ... you usually get what you pay for. Cheap DSA's and the rest are all de-milled parts guns on American made receivers and with just enough US parts to make them legal, just like most of the HK clones ... I think the hi-dollar DSA's are made completely in the USA but I may be wrong.

---

GUN CONTROL: If you're not outraged, you're not paying attention!kimberkid@gunbroker.zzn.com

Highball

Yup...buy both..lolol..(jest dreamin') Metric and inch patterns are slightly different..inch mags won't interchange..unless you get the Enterpise receiver,or get the receiver opened up.Metric mags will fit both. The Stg is about the best quality,plus it has the fold-up bipod.Will shoot( as a battle rifle ) along side anything out there. Buy a kit,125 bucks,and you have every part you need to keep it running from now on. Boston's Gun Bible ( you don't HAVE IT ???) lists the FAL as THE BEST choice to have..and I concur.

JudgeColt

Yes, you have done it now! Now we have to defend our positions again!The three rifles mentioned were all tested in the U. S. service rifle trials of the 1950s, when the old guard ignored the test results and selected the modernized M1, the M14. (There remain allegations of sabotage against the AR-10 to cause it to fail.) Most historians beleve the M14 was the least suitable of the three. When the world military procurement establishment voted with purchase orders, the FAL won hands down. It became the most common .308 battle rifle in the world by a large margin. The AR-10 lacked market and political development and never caught on until it was reduced in size to take a varmint cartridge. In its M16 guise, it became the most common and successful .223 rifle in the world. The M14 was plagued with problems from the start and was replaced as the U. S. service rifle after only a few years, becoming the shortest-lived service rifle ever. In its M1A guise, it has been very successful as a civilian rifle, in my opinion, largely because it can be tuned into a superior target rifle. Much of the development work was done by the military armorers for service rifle matches. Civilian shooters naturally followed the military and thereby ensured the M1A's popularity. In the previous thread, I said, if forced to choose between the AR-10 and M1A, the AR-10 would get my vote. In my opinion, both the AR-10 and FAL are head and shoulders above the M1A. Choosing between the AR-10 and FAL would be more difficult. One big advantage to the FAL is inexpensive magazines. The FAL is probably more reliable under severe conditions, but that should not make much difference in home defense. The FAL is probably less accurate.If forced to choose between the AR-10 and FAL, I would still take the AR-10, probably because when I saw the prototype AR-10 on the cover of a 1956 GUNS magazine, I thought it was the neatest thing I had ever seen. First impressions last. Unlike my friend Idsman75, my experiences with the M16 were entirely satisfactory. My heart says AR-10, while my head would probably say FAL.Finally, the DSA rifles are NOT made from surplus parts. All DSA parts are new manfuacture and the quality is very high. Many variations are available. Unless one can buy a pre-ban Steyr FAL, buy a DSA and get one of the finest production military-type rifles available. I would not suggest buying one of the built-up rifles if you can afford a DSA or Steyr pre-ban. With all this discussion about an urban battle rifle, I still think the AR-15 is a better choice, but it has been fun to discuss the .308 rifles. Let us know what you select, and why.

ysacres

Dang EvilTo think I almost bought a AK 47. Now ya went en throud a dirt clod in the ole brainbox dagnabit~!@#$%^&*()

---

Ruger-Remington-RULE THE ROOST

TLynn

ysacres - that's no reason not to buy an AK.I love mine.

idsman75

JudgeColt--Thanks for the input. I was considering the FAL and the AR-10 myself once. After listening to my argument, you may be scratching your head at why the heck I'd be buying a pre-ban AR-style rifle myself. I'm not buying it for a battle rifle but more as a piece to own for a long long time to remind me that I am a soldier first -- a recruiter second. Don't get me wrong, I'd take an M16/AR15-style rifle to battle. I don't have much choice these days. From a pure function and reliability standpoint I'd take the FAL as I previously mentioned. However, the predictions (even prior to most recent incidents) have been that our battles are more likely to be fought in urban terrain against faceless enemies. In this case, the terrain (OCOKA--Observation, Cover and Concealment, Obstacles, Key Terrain Features, Avenues of Approach) would dictate that I take a short-barreled, collapsable-stock type of firearm like the M-4 currently in use by our armed forces. The carbine version of the AR-10 would suffice nicely as a .308 package. The need to be able to fire rounds in rapid succession would cause me to shy away from the .308 caliber. After several hours behind the FAL my shoulder was a wee bit sore. If I had to fire it over and over and over day after day in a war-time situation in an urban environment in gun battle after gun battle, I do believe that I would grow weary. I recognize my own shortcomings. I am of average size and stature. I would lean more towards a 5.56/7.62X39 package.When referring to the FAL as a "kit gun" I was primarily referring to the inexpensive versions. Hell yeah I'd like a DSA but EVIL ATF's previous choice of the AK-47 as an inexpensive but tough and reliable battle rifle lends me to believe that he would be more apt to purchase one of the models marketed by such companies as Centurion who build their rifles from kits. They are the most common and the least expensive.