I'd be curious to see how some of those drills would be timed with people who don't fumble non-ARs so much.  I can load or change a mag on a FAL much faster than some of the folks I saw in that video.  Also, they should have not used muzzle brakes.  I found it interesting that the FAL tied for 1st place with the braked XCR-M in a test where muzzle brakes would affect the results despite not having a muzzle brake itself (the video says it had a "Belgian brake", but such a thing does not exist; the combo device does not act as a brake or compensator at all).  I also found it interesting how well the BRN-10 did compared to the more modern-style AR.  And that bullpup thing just seemed awful.

The FAL didn't have a brake, either.  Just an ordinary combo device made by DSA.

FAL Operator patch

The only thing I ever weigh anymore is total loadout for a Run-and-Gun match.  IIRC it was around 30 lbs without the hydration bladder filled last time I ran one.

Attached File


Attached File

Good movie .

FAL

" />

M1A

( from someone who owned a fal, and multiple ar10s and still has 5 m1a rifles. )

DPMS or Rock River!

2, 1, 3.

Personally, I really like the FAL.  Not as intrinsically accurate as the AR, nor as modular, but it can hit man-sized targets consistently at pretty decent ranges if the shooter does his part.  Sturdy, reliable and combat-tested, and I prefer the ergonomics over the standard AR.  Still sees service today in parts of the world.  It's a capable rifle, even if not the most ideal in certain areas.

If you can borrow the tools and are patient and jump on good parts deals, it's also still possible to get something built just under $1,000.  In any case, it shouldn't cost a whole lot more than that.  Sadly, excepting the occasional lucky deal well below market rates, really cheap FAL builds with the higher end receivers are a thing of the past (my 2011 build was under $550).  With luck on the kit and a decent deal on an older Coonan receiver, you might still get something for PTR prices.  Building them isn't too difficult as long as everything is in good shape and within spec.  You can probably buy a build for under $1,000, but you want to buy from someone reputable when it comes to FALs.

I've liked them since I was a kid.  A FAL is my go-to rifle, currently, and while I'm putting together my first AR-15, for now my FALs are the only self-loading combat rifles I own.  They are dependable.  I have a light and tactical sling on one of them and with the DSA mounts, you can have a solid scope-mounting option (if a bit heavy).

I think they are underrated in the accuracy department.  While the standard was 4 MOA, many can do better than that.  I've seen straight builds using excellent and NOS conventional parts, with Steyr barrels, get down around 1.5 MOA with quality ammo (using optics, usually).  One Italian competitor who documented his rifle thoroughly on the FAL Files has placed in or won multiple European service rifle matches with his (which do sometimes include ARs).  Using a quality barrel with a match crown (I forget if it was Parker-Hale or Walther Lothar), a trigger job, reaming of the flash suppressor like on NM M-14s, eliminating play between the upper and lower assemblies, and using handloads, he was able to get sub-MOA groups consistently out to 300m with irons.  ARs, SCARs, and others have greater accuracy potential, nevertheless, but the point is that the FAL is no slouch, especially if you don't use shot-out barrels and worn out parts.

All of that said, ARs are definitely worth a strong look, although it unfortunately seems like there are a variety of specs, and they are not interchangeable.  It would have been nice if manufacturers had just used the real AR-10s as a starting point for specs and advanced the design from there into modern standards instead of everyone doing their own scaled-up AR-15.  Seems like an area where much research is warranted.

SCARs are decent.  Stocks don't seem to hold up well in service, though, and at least with the SCAR-16 (not sure about the 17), lowers can break.  I'm not sure you're getting a whole lot extra for the big premium you'd pay over a nice AR or FAL, especially since upgrades are also a good idea (like a Geissele trigger).  Shooting one did not give me the "I have to have one" sort of feeling.

CZ Bren 2 really looks interesting.  I really want to check it out once they enter the country.  Supposedly, they will be priced significantly lower than SCARs.

BM-59 and M-14 are not bad options if you're looking for a traditionally stocked rifle.

Not a big fan of the G-3, mainly on account of the ergonomics.

My own FALs:

Attached File

really do like the FAL and M1a as well but with the KAC and LMT, it's hard to go that route.  Reliability, accurate, customizable, cheap parts and combat tested so it's hard NOT to go this way.

At different times, I’ve owned all four of the battle rifles.
And I say AR-10.

lol...ok

Not much.

The CZ Bren Battle Rifle if you can import it into the US. The B&T is a good option as well. Either of them will be breaking an arm and leg.

I have own 2 AR10's and a DCM .308 Garand.
I shot FAL's and .308 HK's.

AR10 is the best $$ to performance IMHO.

Attached File


The FAL has won me over. I have 2 more that aren't in the photo.

Those are good videos actually for cold start/ease of use and employment of these various 7.62 NATO rifle designs.

It would be interesting to see the comparison with an Aimpoint on all of them.



It's pretty clear that the rock-and-lock guns just don't do anywhere near as well for human interface, and require more training with them to get the mag change down.

I have to say of all the 7.62 NATO rifles I've worked with, the original Dutch AR10s have a feel and handling to them that really fits my body and stance so well, that they feel like a natural extension of me.  Interesting that the BRN-10 retro reproduction of one of those won the transition drill.

Of all the lightweight 7.62 NATO rifles and carbines I've used, the original Dutch ArmaLite AR10 and KAC ECC are the ones to beat.



The SCAR suffers from its short gas system, which really makes it hard to tame the reciprocating mass of the gun without a brake.

nice vids

a few others here

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uQz88Zs4H1o&t=60s

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4HQZOkTUtgo

I think for the videos the best way to compare would be to use people that also do not have experience with direct-insertion or AR-style rifles, or to have folks very familiar with all of them.  Every shooter there was very familiar with the AR layout and magazine type.

Maybe I'm an outlier, but I learned to use rock n' lock first and in some ways like it a bit better.  I picked it up really easy as a kid on multiple rifles, including the FAL, AK, Mini-14, and a couple of others.  I didn't shoot an AR for the first time until I was well into my teens; I had only used rock n' lock up to that point.  I just don't find rock n' lock difficult to use unless the designer totally messed up on ergonomics for the release (although direct insertion with messed up release ergonomics would probably suck almost as much).  I can reload my FAL at least as fast as an AR.  G-3 is another matter, especially without the paddle release.  My finger naturally wants to press out one of the retaining pins rather than the magazine release.  The lack of a BHO and the charging handle design also don't help.  That's one where an AR-style magazine would likely not help at all.  Ergonomics on the G-3 blow.

I'm kinda curious how a real AR-10 would have done in these tests, especially the Portuguese style, which incorporated advancements over the earlier models.  The BRN-10 is basically a DPMS 7.62 AR dressed up as an earlier variant Armalite/AI AR-10.

I've always wanted to shoot an AR-10, but I've never even seen one in-person.  A Hahn Machine reweld with an upper set up for scope mounting and a decent bore and parts conditions is a grail gun for me.  Last one I saw sell went for something like several grand (including the scope and bipod).

One thing I find interesting is that in trials it was often beat out by the FAL for some reason.  Seemed to do better than the G-3 most of the time, and better than the SIG 510.  I think it would nevertheless have won more widespread adoption if AI could have gotten its act together when it came to production.  If anti-colonial Leftist politics had not forced cancellation of further Portuguese purchases, I think it would have survived in production longer as well.

One thing I find interesting is that the new Turkish piston 7.62 AR, the MPT-76, uses a bolt carrier and buffer system similar to the AI AR-10 type.  It's not reduced for an AR-15 buffer and tube like the typical 7.62 AR design.

I agree. Most people on this site have more objective experience with a wider variety of guns than almost everyone in the military, including special operations. Granted some of them have lots of trigger time behind a select few guns, and they certainly know a lot more about tactics, but they really don’t have any basis to judge things from a purely mechanical perspective like we do. You don’t get that unless you’ve spent lots of time in the guts of different guns building and working on them.

FAL if you want something with some historicity, Galil ACE or PoF Revolution DI (depending on budget and preference) if you want a modern ergonomic fighting rifle

this makes sense

We can be friends.

this thread needs a poll