Warning

 

Close
Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Cancel Confirm
7325 Online
bravocompany bravocompany bravocompany
brownells brownells
tnvc tnvc tnvc
AR15.COM
bravocompany
Login / Register
bravocompany bravocompany bravocompany
brownells brownells
tnvc tnvc tnvc
vortex
Holosun
palmetto
fightlite
RS
silencerShop
cz
geissele
aim
magpul
primaryArms
springfield
JRH
OSIGHT
brownells
Guns
GS
bravocompany
colt
skd
midwest
7325 Online
silencerShop
Guns
RS
GS
skd
geissele
OSIGHT
bravocompany
primaryArms
palmetto
cz
midwest
springfield
colt
aim
vortex
brownells
fightlite
Holosun
JRH
magpul
4/22/2016 8:23:30 AM EDT
I've been a FAL fan for many, many years - ever since owning a commercial G series FN FAL imported by Browning before 1968.  I've sold them all now except for two:  a DSA Congo Para (pic 1 below) and a DSA stainless SA 58 that has been a project gun for many years (pics 2-4 below).






The full sized gun started life as a gun built by DSA with Israeli furniture and an Argentine barrel.  The gun was marginally accurate, routinely shooting 4MOA+ groups with ball ammo.  I decided to do whatever I could to shrink these groups to at least half that.

I started by having DSA mount a standard weight 21" "match" barrel and DSA's version of a Belgian Combo device.  To my surprise, this was no improvement at all.  No worse but certainly no better.  As with many other FALs in my experience, unexplained vertical stringing was the main issue.  I addressed every aspect of the gun I could to include a close fitting front hinge pin and a tight lockup.  Since the upper and lower receivers were a matched stainless set, I had no worries in that department.

Over time I also upgraded the buttstock and forearm, as well as the rear sight.  Finally, and after watching a bunch of high speed videos of FALs firing, I determined that a heavier profile barrel would stiffen up the entire platform, allowing the gun to shoot concentric groups without vertical stringing.

That led me to have DSA install one of their medium weight "match" barrels.


I received the gun today and after a thorough cleaning and a few pictures I took it to the range.  The target on the left is at 100 yards using Portuguese ball and the picture on the right is using Serbian M118 which is an inexpensive version of Lake City Match using a 168 grain match bullet.  It has proven marginally accurate in a variety of other gun but I tried it just to see how it would work.  I worked just fine I think.  All shooting was done at 100 yards with iron sights.

The Port ball shot about 3" but printed a nice concentric group without fliers.


The Serbian M118 put 10 out of 12 shots into less than 2".  The high and low shots were called out of group just after I shot them.  The three on the left are the original sight in group before moving the group over to center it up.


Last, the slightly heavier barrel brings the guns weight up about a bit to 9 lbs. 14 oz. but the balance is much improved.
4/22/2016 10:37:58 AM EDT
[#1]
It would seem to me relying on surplus ball ammo to show you how accurate a FAL is would be an exercise in frustration. Have you  ever tested your rifles with handloads?
4/22/2016 2:19:26 PM EDT
[#2]
No, and I never intend to.  I have large quantities of both ball (Hirt, Port, DAG, L2A2) and Gov't match (M852, M118, XM118LR, etc.) and that is what the gun is intended to shoot.  I focus all of my reloading efforts on my precision rifles.
Keith
4/23/2016 1:08:50 AM EDT
[#3]
I'd call 2 MOA out of an FAL with Serbian ammo damn good.  I twisted three barrels on myself and headspaced them fairly tightly to try to do what you managed, and even with federal GMM I couldn't achieve those results.  Color me impressed.  

I did enjoy tinkering with FALs.  
4/23/2016 1:10:35 AM EDT
[#4]
Have you considered mounting glass? Usually you can better hit what you can better see...

Irons is probably even way worse than using milsurp.
4/23/2016 6:56:06 AM EDT
[#5]
Quote History
Quoted:
Have you considered mounting glass? Usually you can better hit what you can better see...

Irons is probably even way worse than using milsurp.
View Quote



That was one of the steps I took to extract the most out of the gun a few years ago. But it made the gun too heavy and unwieldy.


With this barrel setup, the gun now has excellent balance, and it's no heavier than my other Milsurps.

Keith
4/28/2016 11:42:23 PM EDT
[#6]
But you can't hit anything and it could easily be your lack of glass....

No point in being balanced if you can't hit?
4/29/2016 12:44:10 AM EDT
[#7]



Quote History
Quoted:




But you can't hit anything and it could easily be your lack of glass....
No point in being balanced if you can't hit?
View Quote




Seems you need a scope to see his pics. He can hit.
Cprher, did you thread the rear sight for a Nat'l Match hood with smaller inserts?
 
4/29/2016 5:04:46 AM EDT
[#8]
Quote History
Quoted:

Seems you need a scope to see his pics. He can hit.


Cprher, did you thread the rear sight for a Nat'l Match hood with smaller inserts?
 
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Quote History
Quoted:
Quoted:
But you can't hit anything and it could easily be your lack of glass....

No point in being balanced if you can't hit?

Seems you need a scope to see his pics. He can hit.


Cprher, did you thread the rear sight for a Nat'l Match hood with smaller inserts?
 


Na, actually I'm at work and the company's network blocks the pic hosting sites. Even their embedded pics.

If he wants better than 3moa, I was thinking a scope would help. He described the groups, and for the extra money and match ammo, I figured he was trying for somewhere below 3moa. Even if I had match peeps, groups would open well up even if the gun was <1moa. And that's with my 25 year old eyes....

ETA: ...and 10lb gun.
4/29/2016 9:26:25 PM EDT
[#9]
I love FAL's, they are bad ass battle rifles, but just like the guy with the PTR91, these are not precision rifles. Placing them in the category does not make them so. Let's not water down what a true precision rifle is.

However, OP, you have an awesome FAL.
4/30/2016 2:13:19 AM EDT
[#10]

Quote History
Quoted:



Na, actually I'm at work and the company's network blocks the pic hosting sites. Even their embedded pics.



If he wants better than 3moa, I was thinking a scope would help. He described the groups, and for the extra money and match ammo, I figured he was trying for somewhere below 3moa. Even if I had match peeps, groups would open well up even if the gun was <1moa. And that's with my 25 year old eyes....



ETA: ...and 10lb gun.
View Quote
No fault of the irons is it?



10lbs is a medium weight. Not a bad thing for a .308.
4/30/2016 1:37:08 PM EDT
[#11]
Quote History
Quoted:

Seems you need a scope to see his pics. He can hit.


Cprher, did you thread the rear sight for a Nat'l Match hood with smaller inserts?
 
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Quote History
Quoted:
Quoted:
But you can't hit anything and it could easily be your lack of glass....

No point in being balanced if you can't hit?

Seems you need a scope to see his pics. He can hit.


Cprher, did you thread the rear sight for a Nat'l Match hood with smaller inserts?
 



I never modified the rear sight from those I could readily obtain for the FAL.  I tried a variety of those such as the Israeli rear aperture, but the size of the standard metric FAL aperture seems to work best for me.  I'm going to continue to experiment with match ammo to see if I can improve upon the 2MOA group I got with the Serbian M118.  As for those that believe true precision can only be obtained using glass, I respectfully disagree.  Another project gun of mine is my 1898 Krag.  I've been working on developing accurate full power match ammo for it.  Using the rifle in its original configuration with original sights, I've now got the ammo down to an average of 1MOA.  By full power I mean 220 grain Hornady RN over 40.0 grains of IMR4350 for an average velocity of ~2000fps.  For those interested how I got the gun to shoot so well, please read http://www.kragcollectorsassociation.org/cgi-bin/yabb2/YaBB.pl?num=1456148890.



The first group measure 1.5" at 200 yards and the second 2.5" at 200 yards.  Average - 2" at 200 yards.



Now, I'm the first to agree that outside of target shooting and beyond 200 yards a scope makes a lot of sense.  But to say precision can't be obtained with iron sights is just not true.

Keith

Sign up to continue the discussion

Create a free account to share your thoughts, follow topics, and connect with the AR15.COM community.

Register to Reply

Already a member? Sign In

bravocompany
fightlite
ar15com
silencerShop
palmetto
Faxxon
springfield
blackhills
THBRD
ar15com
gray
cmmg
brownells
SAS
RS
LAPG
LAPG
colt
Pro2A
geissele
ar15com
primaryArms