Ak vs. FAL

Status
Not open for further replies.

Jenrick

Member
Joined
Mar 17, 2005
Messages
2,066
Location
Austin, TX
We always see the AR vs. AK debate. Lets try something a little different: AK vs. FAL. Been thinking about getting both, trying to decide which to go for first/possibily only.

Four criteria:
Reliability
Effectiveness
Cost
Ease of Maintenance

Reliability is the most important, the other three are about equal to me. I don't know all that much about either the AK family or the FAL family (FAL less then AK). General plan with these is going to be doing a lot of shooting in fairly rough conditions. Range queens need not apply.

So with that what are folks opinions?

-Jenrick
 
Reliability = AK
Effectiveness = generally FAL, esp at long range
Cost = AK
Ease of Maintenance =AK

What is the weighting behind your four criteria? Do a point system, or percentage....generally, if you don't rate effectiveness as super high, AK wins.
 
Reliability: Equivalent

Effectiveness: Depends on range (AK for up close, FAL for distance) and how much penetration (FAL).

Cost: AK

Ease of Maintenance: Equivalent
 
Reliability: AK
Effectiveness: Short range: AK - Longer Range FAL
Cost: AK
Ease of Maintenance: FAL

Personally I think the FAL is slightly easier to disassemble, but its a close call.
 
reliability: i agree is equal

effectiveness: at longer ranges the fal, and at closer ranges the fal in the way of knock down power, but as part of as "effectivness" i always factor in handeling, how quick it can be brought on target and used quick if need be, and for this reason for cqb i would say the ak all the way. it really is mission dependent. i think the ak would serve you best in most any real world siyuation that you will find yourself in, realistic ranes and realistic targets the ak will do just fine, even if you have to go out as far as 200yds.

cost: ak

maintanace:i know the ak is easy i don't have that type of experience level with the fal's.
 
Reliability: AK is simpler, so it wins.

Effectiveness: Doesn't count. Both the AK and FAL were designed for different purposes.

cost: AK

Ease of maintenance: Again, the AK is much simpler so it wins.

Read the sig.:cool:
 
Thanks for the repsonse.

I want to be able to shoot out to about 300 yards on a man sized (well torso) target. Don't need MOA accuracy, just enough to be combat effective.

How do the shortened models compare to each other? Are they still effective out to 300 yards or so? That's one of my biggest issues with the 5.56 is that out of short barrel it's going to have issues going out to 300 yards (I'm a fan of the fragmentation theory of wounding with the 5.56, so no debates on that issue please).

Hows the handling at CQB ranges with both fullsize and compact models?

-Jenrick
 
as much as I love my FAL....for the criteria that you set forth I would have to point you to the AK style rifle.


One massive reason that you didn't post on was ammo cost/availability...it will be there for the AK, the FAL is getting more and more expensive to feed...unless you reload....which I do.

300 meters is pushing the AK...but then again, this is in MY hands...you might be Daniel Boone compared to me. :D I'll stick with my FAL and the scout scope setup. ;)


D
 
"Tales of the Gun: The Guns of Israel"

Deals with specifically this issue. They found the guns to be unsatisfactory in reliability, and unsatisfactory in volume of accurate fire. As we all know, they quickly produced the Galil to replace it, but what I didn't know was that the Galil was first produced in 7.62x51mm, and then they found that to be unnecessary, perhaps even detrimental.
 
Ah Yes, the "Israel thought FALs were junk" defense. Somebody always brings this up eventually.

It's interesting that the UK and Austrailian defense forces never had the problems attributed to the Israelis in the same sort of conditions (Which is why there are sand-cut uppers and bolt carriers...)


Speaking as someone who shoots FALs, AKs and a .308 Galil, this is apples to oranges to bananas:

Accuracy: Long ranges (FAL) Short Ranges: Equal
"Stopping power": FAL punches harder but both will do harm to a torso at any range.
Reliability: Equal
Ease of maintenance: Equal (Both field strip without tools)
Ease of initial manufacture: AK (Stamped models, anyway, not milled)by a nose
COST: Right now, AK hands down since FAL uppers and kits dried up and doubled in price. 80% receiver flats for AK's are much more home-smith friendly than a 80% FAL upper.
Mag capacity: AK, there are more 30-rd mags for AKs out there than FALs, and AKs have drums, FALs don't.

Resale Value: FAL by a nose.


As far as shooting 300yds + with an MBR, obviously long barrels are going to be the way to go, why chop down to carbine length and then expect MOA or MOT accuracy at 1000'????
 
Having had both and shot both, I'd say there are a few things to consider first.

1. Maker. A Century built FAL or Maadi built AK are not going to be up to the same level of quality as other makers, so educate yourself before laying your money down.

2. Ammo. Brought up before, but it seems that the cheap 7.62x51 ammo has dried up at this point, while 7.62x39 ammo is still pretty reasonable right now.

3. Ballistics. This is an apples and oranges comparison since the AK is designed for shorter ranges and the FAL for longer. Hell, the first sight setting on my Fal is 200 meters! The AK is pusing it at the 300 yard mark while the FAL is just getting warmed up. That being said, I wouldn't want to get hit with either one at that range!:what:

4. Price. All things being equal, an AK will cost right around double what a FAL will run you, and that's not chump change by any means.

5. Weight. The FAL runs to 9 pounds depending on the configuration, the AK is significantly less. Ammo weight may or may not be a factor in your case.

6. Reliability. From my experience either will get the job done. I don't typically seriously abuse my weapons but they do get used hard, and occaisionally they get a full detail cleaning. Some AK's and some FAL's have chrome lined barrels which will prolong their service life, but these are more money.

7. Accessories. You don't mention it, but the support equipment for these is an issue for some people. There are many parts and accessories available from different manufacturers for both these rifles, but the AK stuff is generally cheaper. Many AK's have scope mounts built in, so that can be an advantage. FAL mags are cheap and plentiful, but really only in the 20 round capacity.

Well, there's a few things to think about. Hope this helps.
 
Evan, I would like a FAL if I could get one, I'm not knocking them or you as a person, but, well the guy asked, and that's a pretty damned good example of an entire military which switched from FALs to a type of AK.

And he specifically mentioned reliability, which the Israelis specifically complained about. They never said FALs were junk, unless you can provide a reference for your statement. They simply felt that the rifle did not meet their needs. Funny thing, but the UK and Australia figured out the same thing, except not experiencing total war meant they took longer to reach the same conclusion.

Also you left out hit probability - maybe the thread starter wants to waste ammo, and wonders which rifle he could fire the fastest and still hit the target. You could probably tell him, just how many hits you can make on a target for the same time it takes you for each FAL hit.

And you forgot the cost of the ammunition, in your cost calculation. Imo that's the #1 or #2 criteria in any firearm, no ammo = just some fancy plumbing.
 
Four criteria:
Reliability
Effectiveness
Cost
Ease of Maintenance

I'd call reliability a wash. Both are pretty solid performers.

For effectiveness, I'd +1 the other posters who've already noted a degree of apples and oranges on that issue. I think I would slightly favor the FAL simply because it has better ergonomics and, if not using some sort of optic, better iron sights.

Cost -- AK wins hands down for the gun. You can get an entry level AK for under $400. You're lucky if you can find an entry level FAL for $600, and at that price you may or may not encounter reliability issues secondary to Century Arms/Hesse/Entreprise or some amateur gunsmith botching the job.

Mags are cheaper for the FAL currently, but AK mags aren't terribly expensive. Ammo favors the 7.62x39 now that surplus supplies of both calibers are drying up.

Ease of Maintenance -- I'd call it a wash, personally.

Hows the handling at CQB ranges with both fullsize and compact models?

The AK beats a full-size FAL in terms of handling. Get a FAL with an 18" or 16" barrel and stack it up against an AK and it's pretty much an even playing field as far as manueverability goes.

For other CQB issues, the AK holds more rounds using standard mags and can hold more rounds than the FAL is one uses non-standard mags (30 rounds for the FAL, 40+ for the AK, etc.).

Downsides -- the AK controls are horribly layed out for a CQB gun (at least in my opinion, and all my combat marksmanship training has been with M4s, so this obviously colors my thinking). The FAL has a safety you can engage and disengage with your firing hand thumb and a charging handle you can operate without taking your firing hand off the pistol grip.

AK safety can barely be finger swiped into fire position if you've got big hands, but even then it's a poor placement and design for CQB shooting. The easy solution is to run you weapon hot all the time, which is also a great recipe for accidental discharges, etc. The charging handle is on the right, meaning you've either got to take your firing hand off the grip or roll the weapon.

Both weapons have magazines you have to rock into place, which is slower in general and harder to accomplish than the straight push into the magwell you have with ARs and some other weapons. Under stress it's much easier to botch a combat reload with an AK, FAL, or other weapon using the same general layout, since it requires a degree of fine motor skills (getting the mag engaged and rocking) rather than the gross movement of finding the magwell and slamming the mag home.

Overall, if you can only get one, I'd say it depends on your budget. If you have, say $600 or less to spend, I'd say go with an AK, and shop around for a nice one. If your budget is $1000 or $1500 or less, I'd vote for a 18" barrel FAL, ideally a Para model.
 
Were FAL's only made in .308, or by chance were there other chamberings?

I've seen FAL relicas done in .223 (the ATR), but don't know if anything official exists.
 
you should factor in weight as well
and the weight of ammo
as well as price of ammo and mags
 
I'm not going to say "get both".

Get one. Then get the other one. ;)

If I had to give up one, it would be the AK. Personally, I can't think of anything that the AK can do and the FAL can't, but lotsa stuff the FAL can do and the AK can't.

ImblFAL4.jpg
 
Last edited:
Were FAL's only made in .308, or by chance were there other chamberings?

I've seen FAL relicas done in .223 (the ATR), but don't know if anything official exists.

DSA makes some models in .243 and .260 that are available, though I have no idea what kind of wait there is for that.

The Brazilian military has been using a 5.56mm version (the MD-3, I think) for years, but they've never been imported to the US, I don't think. (FN did the same thing, but had some issues and went with the FNC instead -- again, don't know if any of the CAL 5.56mm rifles were ever imported.)

Some offshoot of the Special Weapons firearms corporation called Red Rock (SW --> Bobcat --> Red Rock???) is supposed to be introducing a 5.56mm FAL (takes AR mags). Last I heard there was some positive comments over on the FAL Files, based on some respectable folks looking at pre-production rifles, but I don't know if they've been released yet and if the positive reputation has held up.
 
^ HorseSoldier - thanks for the information. I like the idea of the FAL as a rifle for me to own, but will admit to being a bit intimidated by the .308 cartridge (both in recoil feel and price).

So, back to the current argument. In my case, I'd take the AK due to the cheaper gun/ammo and supposed great reliability. Sure, it can't reach out like the FAL, but think I'd be content with the range of the AK.

Now, you can change up the argument by looking at an AK in 5.56, but I assume we are just talking about 7.62 x 39.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top