Lot 5, 2-86.

Everyone I know who bought ammo from this lot got it from militaryshooters.com, myself included.

Just the opposite for me. The M-14 fit me perfectly. Better sights, better accuracy and an outstanding tuned trigger.

Accuracy on my one and only FN-FAL was mediocre. The FAL is a great firearm and nobody should feel under gunned owning one. The adjustable gas block and the ability to tighten headspace with spare parts is a huge advantage in the field.

Needs a poll but this.
ETA: I assume we are talking an infantry battle rifle vs. target rifle at typical ranges correct? Korea/ Vietnam type scenarios are very different than Camp Perry. 7.62X51 should have been a non starter to begin with for a infantry rifle. The FAL trialed many better caliber options from the get go.

Best I ever shot in highpower was 489-22x with a M-1A. I have only come close to that with tricked out AR-15's once. Now that optics are allowed the entire game has changed.

I expect smaller targets are coming in the future.

I would very much like to clone that rifle. I don't think the DSA version is quite there, and I really need to research FALs more to see what I would need to change out to get it there. I think there are some differences between his rifle and the stock DSA para model.
Of course, that's after I finish my G3K clone and finish up buying everything I need for that and my G3 clone.

I was thinking no difference on cloth but quite different on vehicles, buildings, fortifications, trees  etc.

FAL

In the beginning I had to lug around a M-14 and it sucked.

Both.

He's got the GL front sight, and the standard combo device on the muzzle. Pretty sure its easy enough to do. You don't really need either. Other than that its DSA top cover mount and an aimpoint, and then a bunch of "cloth".

The G3K is fun but the ballistics are more or less AK like out of a 12" barrel.

Just FYI, the rifle on the left in the bottom pic I posted is the same rifle as in the pic I posted and the one you posted being held by Bruce Leslie (the Ranger).

The rifle is not a DSA rifle at all.

The barrel is either an FN or LIW NBC barrel that's been cut from 21" to about 16 3/4".  Combo device is the typical earlier style, either FN or LIW-made.

Handguards are FN plastic or fiberglass, or LIW plastic NBC type.  They are either black or dark grey (the latter color would almost certainly be fiberglass FN).  There's a Weaver rail section attached to the left side through holes drilled into the handguard for mounting the light.

Grenade sight gas plug is the medium-length type for the STRIM 65 grenade, and is either FN or LIW-made.

Receiver is a para nose-cut and CHC Type 2 made by FN.  Not sure where these came from, contract-wise.  The receiver is a replacement receiver.  I presume it is sear-cut.  Carry handle has been clipped off, leaving the ring of the wire in place as a spacer.

Bolt and carrier are most likely FN SADF-contract Para parts.

Obviously it has the DSA scope mount.

Trigger housing, folding stock, etc. are FN SADF contract Para parts.  The stock in particular is very unique and only a handful exist in private hands (all in South Africa AFAIK).  Virtually unobtanium.  Trigger housing is a factory Type 1 Para from FN.  Not sure if FN did the lightening cuts on these or not.  It has the South African property UM mark on the left-hand side and the serial number under the frame lock lever (a horizontal replacement, probably made by LIW), with the serial number stamped with a punch below the left side of the rear sight so it'll be visible with the new frame lock lever. I presume the internals are all FN.  An FN 2-600m tangent sight for use with fixed-stock rifles is installed.

The folding stock itself was made to be used with the fixed-stock tangent sight.  It is relieved at the top for the sight.  The swivel was located near the bottom and the stepped part near the top is not relieved to accommodate the swivel and no provision is made for installing one in the usual spot.  It is otherwise the same as other FN folders.  Stock bolt is the wider type made for factory para trigger housings, made by FN.

I'm pretty sure it has a narrow-foot BHO device.

Uses a standard fixed charging handle, the earlier style made by FN with the round face and lightening cut on the underside.  Black plastic knob.

Not sure exactly which Aimpoint model and mount he's using, or what light and mount he's using.

Looks like he's using some sort of sand or khaki color, and a light olive color of some sort for the spray paint, plus Hessian wrap.  Finish underneath is the standard black baked-on enamel paint over manganese phosphate.

He's using some sort of black one-point sling.  Not sure what type.  Attached with an HK-style hook, I think.  Has some sort of fastex QR release, which is disabled by tying the sling at that point.

Basically, except for the scope mount, light rail, and accessories, all parts are either made by FN or LIW (Lyttelton Ingenieurswerke, in Pretoria, South Africa).

A lot of the older rifles are spec'ed out like this, except that most have Type 2 lowers made by LIW for fixed-stock rifles that were converted to para lowers.  An Argie para conversion kit is used, typically, but also the SADF-contract FN stock and fixed-stock tangent sight.  Barrel lengths can vary from a bit under 16" to 21"  Around 17" is the most common.  Light rail types and locations on the handguard can vary a bit, as well as the lights used.  Same with paint and wrap jobs, whether an Aimpoint or reflex sight of some sort is used (or optics at all); some still have the standard para top cover instead of the scope mount, and some have the full-length scope mount that goes to the front of the receiver.  Some still have the green paint finish that was applied in the 1990s that looks the same as the green in the Rhodie camo paint.

There are other paras and fixed stock rifles in a variety of configurations in use as well.  In photos, I see these or the specific variant above most of the time.  I rarely see the DSA rifles for some reason (I know they had some issues with the quality of some parts, a known problem with DSA, which resulted in breakages; IIRC, the DSA-made hammers were breaking, among other things).

Other pics of the same rifle (some, admittedly, are too small or fuzzy to see any details):

IDK, parts wear. In the M14 you have to re-bed once in a while in the wood stock due to compression, its way less of an issue in synthetics. On a fal like that, probably a similar deal IMO.

Not sure what that particular rifle is like now.  I do know that wear and tear in the frame lock and lug will cause looseness over time.  However, this can be minimized by greasing the parts, not slamming the two halves shut like a lot of people do, and making sure to fully retract the frame lock before opening or closing the action.  A new oversize frame lock can be filed down to the perfect fit and installed to replace the worn one once it does wear enough to create some slop.

I'm sure the barrel would at some point need replacement; probably well down the road.

Part of the argument is out of the box vs "upgraded"

Out of the box like in OG as "designed by whoever"

G3
High reliability, Good intrinsic accuracy, Good modularity, Shit trigger, good irons to 400m, "ok" ergos if you train to it. (I know a lot of guys just can't get over AR ergos).

Fal
Good(ish) reliability, So-so intrinsic accuracty, bad modularity, so-so trigger, so-so irons to 600m (varies), "Good ergos" if you are an AR guy

M14
Decent reliability, Good intrinsic accuracy, minimal modularity, good trigger, good irons, "ok" ergos if you train to it.

Upgrading
G3
Scope, easy, HG easy, Stock easy, Trigger easy (if you can find a good smith to fix it for you, or are rich enough to buy a SG1 or PSG pack).

FAL
Scope easy, HG easy, Stock PITA, Trigger so-so (but easy enough to swap parts)

M14,
Scope so-so, HG/chassis easy, Trigger easy (if you find a smith to NM yours).

That being said, a modern AR-10 platform generally beats all of them in terms of accuracy and modularity, triggers etc.

This is exactly what I was talking about. I went the G3 route in battle rifles, and I know enough about the FAL to know I don't know anything.
Thanks for that info. Now I've got a start point to see what I would need to do to clone that rifle. You've given me a lot to go on.

Well, you seem to know the rifle better than me . I totally missed the standard rather than para rear sight.

Aimpoint looks M2 ish.

You can get pretty close with DSA clone IMO. I've got something like it actually, just with the standard para length barrel.

Also that guy really needs a good multiband radio...

Thanks. I'm really not familiar at all with the FAL components, what is of actual benefit, what isn't. I knew there were some differences, but again I'm really starting from zero with an FAL if I do go into those.

Honestly there isn't much there that you can't find at DSA from a practical point of view. Look at their 16" or 18" para's. You give up some velocity with the 16" bbl. Otherwise if you are mounting a RDS you don't care about the rear sight, and in general due to the hinged receiver FAL irons kinda suck anyway. Get non bipod cut HG's Though you can't really tell if you wrap em in cloth. Get you a few rattle cans, and you too can go play bush ranger .

Boom 90% right

I'd go with 18" myself, but to each their own.

You can very easily make a similar "cool guy" rifle out of a G3...

I have both, a PTR-91 and an M1A.  I would say the M1A for optics attachment and magazine exchange.

Other than that, accuracy and power both the same.

You got a paddle mag release and a decent adjustable comb height stock for the PTR? Both of those make a big difference as does a good trigger.

The M14 isn't even in the same galaxy (much less neighbrohood) as the FAL.
Hot garbage.

My dad wasn't a fan of his M14 in Vietnam. Loved his 16 when he got it

I'm building a G3K clone now, efiled for SBR today in fact. So I'm running the 12" barrel on that.
The 16" model is the one I was looking at.
Yeah, 9 months ago I had exactly zero battle rifles. Last summer I decided I need to fix that, and was looking at the FAL and the G3. I went with the G3 pattern and got a PTR GI. Now i've added a K3P.
The whole reason I stayed out of the battle rifle world is that I knew I would end up dumping a metric shit ton of money into them. With the 2 EU-lusting sausage honkey rifles I've managed to do exactly that. Now that I'm looking at the FAL again I don't see my expenses going down any time soon. And I'll have to start all over on spares and mags.
But I really like that park ranger rifle.

A lot depends on how exacting you want your clone to be.  For some, trying to get it as close as humanly possible is part of the fun (or at least the objective).  Others just want the basic idea.

Surplus parts exist to get most of the way there.  Get an R1 or FN SA-contract NBC (non-bipod cut) barrel and cut it down to 16.75" (it's an odd length; DSA uses 16.25").  FN or South African NBC handguard.  Any combo device with the wrench flats down lower.  Grenade sight gas plug of that type.  DSA Type 2 carry-handle and para cut receiver; an older one made by LMT stands a better chance of being good quality, although supposedly their latest receivers aren't as bad as the rest of their in-house production.  Get some beat up carry handle and cut off the ring and install that.  FN or SA tangent sight (or any other that s 2-600m, has the lightening cut in the base, and engraved numbers).  FN or SA-made charging handle of the type I mentioned.  An OEM stock with the hinge modified (filling in the hole for the swivel and relief cut with weld and making it appear uncut, making the holes for installation of the swivel down low, and cutting the top to accommodate the rear sight) is the only way to replicate that stock.  FN unmarked spare para bolt carrier with numbers and UM mark engraved to match an FN SA-contract bolt.  Lower is tricky if you want to be exact.  Closest you can get (real SADF-contract para lowers are also unobtanium) is to get an unmarked FN steel replacement para lower, cut the recoil plate if necessary to give it a Type 1 profile, and mark it in the same way as the real one.  Doing the same to a DSA, assuming the top part has the same form as the FNs, would also work if you don't need it to be so exact.  Surplus parts for the rest from any manufacturer would work fine, although FN would be the most exact for most of them.  Find a similar Weaver rail and bolt it on.  DSA scope mount.  There you go.

If you don't care so much about the details, and just want the basic idea, I agree that a DSA rifle will get you close enough.  Pretty much an shorter-barreled para with fixed charging handle, no carry handle, and scope mount, preferably a Type 2.  My preferred length is the 17.2" length, but DSA's shorter barrels are all 16.25" or 18".  I think most DSA lowers are 7075 these days (not a bad thing; FN made lightweight rifles that replaced a number of steel parts with an alloy called hiduminium; these could get down close to 8 lbs.).  DSA barrels and handguards on all of their production rifles not built from kits are bipod-cut AFAIK.  They had some NBC barrels made for the Israeli parts kits lacking them and for their own builds of such kits on their receivers.  You can install a rail for a light through the vent holes like on my rifle I posted earlier.  It's a Magpul MLOK plastic rail.  A little work with a file on the rail and it fit.  If you still want a tangent sight, there are surplus bases for para rifles that are 2-500m and require no folding stock modifications which use the tangent aperture.  DSA uses either the two-position 150/250m rear sight or the fixed 250m rear sight on their paras.

I really want to finish my BM-59.  I have most of the parts.  Just need to figure out how exactly I want to do the Cali-legal stuff on the muzzle end (I want to be able to restore it to standard configuration in free States), get a receiver, charger guide, and probably a Schuster adjustable gas plug, and send it in to Tim Shufflin.

Sorry, I was out hoarding toilet paper and snus in preparation for the Mexican beer apocalypse.

Attached File

exactly this.

The M14 was a solution to a problem that existed in 1930. It was literally obsolescent before it was even adopted.

Gear logo Imbel.

Once there was the correctly sized LS installed, it was fine. There was enough support left on the hole to not be an issue.

HOW DARE YOU!!!

Much of what is posted above is dead wrong.

The US NEVER had enough M14's to meet it's own needs.  In essence, M14 production was a shit-show from day one. Production was ALWAYS behind what was anticipated/promised, for a variety of reasons.

Because of that the US .gov NEVER offered M14's for sale to client states while it was in production.  They transferred the tooling to Taiwan only AFTER the ceased production in the US.

And nobody in Africa EVER made FAL's.

"Real" FAL's were made only in the Commonwealth countries and Belgium.  Unlicensed copies were made in Brazil and India.  Full stop.

That looks like a fun stage.  I presume you were allowed to load before embarking on the boat so as to avoid dropping unrecoverable mags.

Are you implying that an M1A couldn't have completed that stage in that time?

Your HP score is much better than I'd expect with a FAL- though I suppose match ammo would make a huge difference in that regard.

I have all 3

You can push the safety off with your thumb, then "slide" your thumb off the trigger guard to acquire your shooting grip.  So easy you can do it in the dark.  

I have done it that way hundreds of times- in the "stress" of a competition several times- and never an ND.

Attached File


SAR-48 Brazilian made FAL is my preference over a GI M14 or even a real German HK.

If you want an FAL and you can find an SAR-48 buy it.
Fit and finish superior to even an FN made FAL.
Hammer forged full chrome lined barrel.

 So, You're saying that South Africa never made FAL's under license to FN?

South Africa and Nigeria both produced FALs under license from FN.  Nigeria may actually still make them or parts, at least.  Rhodesia produced some parts.

Argentina also made FALs.  Venezuela made at least some parts; it definitely assembled rifles.  Mexico assembled them under license with parts from FN.  Greece manufactured FALs under license.  HK in Germany made some parts.  Israel ended up making most of the parts for its FALs, and there was also some commercial production at some point.  H&R and High Standard also made some FALs under license.  Steyr in Austria made FALs under license.  I've heard that ABNI, the original subcontractor for Entreprise Arms that made its receivers in the early days, made them under license from FN, but I've never been able to confirm that.  Obviously DSA makes them without a license.

This is a heavy bitch.

Attached File

I'm going to finally treat myself to a FAL sometime late this year. Which type is a big question because I'm only going to get one. I've always been curious what the recoil difference is between standard fixed-stock and "para" FALs.

Traditional~
Standard rifle and a super match double lug in McMillan glass stocks.



Modern~
Standard M1a in SAGE chassis.



G3 & BM59~
The G3 is the AK of the 7.62 world and eats about anything and spits it out.
The BM is in a league of its own.




One of my FAL's / STG58 on Grayslake receiver.
Converting one of my L1A1's to a para config and need to test fire a Century rifle I rescued.

 The main difference I notice in recoil is feeling the steel stock of the Para "slaps"against my cheek which could easily be corrected with some padding.

I don't notice much difference in shoulder felt recoil between the Para and most of my other FAL's. Out of them all my full length L1A1 feels like it is a bit softer recoiling than the others.

But overall imo. FAL's are the softest recoiling 7.62 rifles I've ever fired.

Owning both...and shooting both....I still have the M1A.

I don't miss the L1A1 I had.....

I could do damage with both...But being America....And me being a Freedom loving, barrel chested Patriot....The M1A is the correct answer.

But I just use it to shoot informal Service rifle matches....For serious Boogalooing, My AR's still reign supreme.

I like the para. They look cool and are fun to shoot.

But they suffer from the same things that any abbreviated gun does. Asking the same performance out of less spring. The standard rifle has almost double the spring mass and length of the para. That is more fudge factor. I've not noticed my paras any less reliable than standards but it does cycle differently. You can hear it. Just a touch slower stripping the round and going into battery. I expect the para recoil spring should be changed out with some regularity though I dont know what that service life should be.

Also, the para requires extra hassle to field strip. Not a deal breaker but it is there.

I was talking to the SA dude that used to be at the DSA booth at Knob Creek. He opined That, unless you're required to be in a cramped space like an APC, they haven't figured out a way to make the distance from your elbow to your hand any shorter. Might as well have a stock there.

Paras still look cool.

Had FN FALs, HK-91s, M1As, went through basic qualified M-14 (mine had a happy switch available).

No longer have semi auto .30cals too heavy these days.

I like my 6.8 and I'd be happy with a 6.5 Grendel but I am seriously considering a .300 BO pistol.

I like .30 cal .308 but in a light wt bolt action mag fed. 18" barrel.

Nice.

In terms of felt recoil, no appreciable difference.  Both are among the lightest-recoiling 7.62mm self-loaders out there.  The impulse of the para does feel a bit different due to the difference in how the recoil system is set up.  If you get really used to one and use the other, and are the sort that pays attention, you'll notice it.  It's not bad, just different.

Try to go lightweight if you can.  Trigger housings, trigger guards, top covers (for fixed-stock rifles), pistol grip nuts, rear swivel bases, and magazines all came in aluminum alloy versions.  If you have original FN trigger housings, they also came with alloy return spring tubes and plugs, folding stock bolts, etc.  Get the receiver with Type 1, Type 1.5, or Type 2 lightening cuts.  Use a shorter barrel (17-18").  DSA has titanium combo devices as well as steel wasp-waisted ones.  Full length gas tube can be replaced with a brazed-on short one a la the StG-58.  Those things can account for a good amount of weight.  The Belgian M2 service rifle weighed less than 8 1/4 lbs. empty, with magazine.  The lightweight G-series weighed just under 8 1/2 lbs empty with magazine.  And these were 21"-barreled rifles with wooden stocks.  If you decide to get a scope and mount, it will still be of benefit.

The field-stripping isn't a hassle with the right top cover (with the nose).  With the scope mount or the DSA covers without the nose, yeah, it's a bit more of a hassle.

Regarding the return springs, DSA's para springs are known to be significantly weaker than the factory spec., which can cause feeding and other issues.  There's only one current producer of in-spec springs, and only on smaller scales.  OEM springs have become very hard to find.