My Thoughts on the FN FAL

[MCMXIautomatic]

In recent years, the FN FAL has really caught my attention. With its straight, clean lines and businesslike appearance, it’s a modern classic that also sports all the politically incorrect features that all of us AR and AK guys love. I’ve even heard people refer to the FAL as “the original black rifle”. Having learned of its storied history on the front lines of the Cold War in conflicts around the globe, as well as its solid reputation for ruggedness and reliability, I can say that my interest in the design has only continued to steadily grow. But sadly, despite its age, the FAL largely still seems to be an unknown among the great majority of American shooters.

What my thoughts on the FAL boil down to are that it is much more obscure in the United States than it deserves to be, and I really can’t understand why it isn’t more popular. There is only one company that I know of (DSA) that makes new production examples for the American market, otherwise you have to either build one from a kit or buy one of the Century builds that was known to be either hit or miss. Contrast this with the innumerable companies making ARs and AR accessories, as well as the growing number of companies producing AKs, and all the attention that those platforms get, and it’s clear to me that the FAL just doesn’t get enough love, especially considering that it appears to have a potential for modularity and modernization that is comparable to the AR. And after having handled a few here and there, one of my biggest impressions was that the ergonomics are just so wonderfully intuitive. I really think the FAL (along with the H&K G3 family as well) could really be a solid competitor to the AR-10 if only it was more prevalent in the US market, especially considering that it already long ago established itself as one of the world’s great combat rifles.

So what do you guys think? Have any of you had similar thoughts?

 

[Coal Dragger]

The FAL was instantly made obsolete when FN introduced the SCAR 17. The SCAR is lighter, more accurate, more optics/accessories friendly, more ergonomic, more end user configurable. The FAL is a classic no doubt, but if I want a 7.62NATO battle rifle that is not an SR-25 variant I would pick the SCAR 17 every time. I'd probably pick the SCAR over the SR-25 too to be honest.

Aside from nostalgia and collectors I don't see a large market for the FN FAL anymore.

 

[Robert]

I love my FAL. Easily one of my favorites, but it is what it is. And that is a battle rifle that is combat accurate, designed in the late 40s and early 50s. 2-3 moa accuracy is plenty for combat, and for me. But the FAL is not as accurate as most AR pattern rifles. People have spent thousands of dollars trying to make the FAL match grade only to give up and get an M1A or AR 10. DSA makes a "free float" tube for the FAL which I have on my rifle. It is not a true float tube as it clamps to the barrel. Now, it clamps right in front of the receiver where the barrel is thickest and most stable but it clamps to the barrel none the less.

Mounting optics is not that easy either. I have the DSA top cover for optics which is a well made piece, but the stock does not lend itself to optics mounting. Cheek weld is all wrong. Magpul makes a stock that adjustable for the FAL but it ain't cheap. Honestly I think a better upgrade would be the DSA Hampton lower that does away with the crappy stock rear sight and allows the user or AR style sights.

 

[GBExpat]

I bought my first FAL Variant (2, actually) 16 years ago ... and built my first FAL (of several) within the next 6 months.

I think that the FALs built from cut kits are excellent rifles for those of us who enjoy shooting over irons.

Unfortunately, most folks appear to be interested optics and the standard FAL form-factor is not particularly optics-friendly.

I still have 3. One that I built from an StG-58 kit (w/bipod) that can reliably hit golf balls at 100yds ... over irons. Another that I built, my "carbine", with a shortened barrel (had to open the port a bit due to the lost barrel length) that is my favorite full-power .30cal (thumper) for walkabout. For knockabout travel (it is rough-looking but accurate & reliable) I have my original 2001 FrankenFAL that I got off of Gunbroker.

Actually, I still have enough extra parts in my kit to build 2 more, I just haven't gotten around to it.

Yeah ... I like the FAL.

 

[FL-NC]

The FAL is a great rifle. I had the opportunity to train on it for the first time when I went through the SF weapons course in the 80's. I also worked with it some overseas training with our allies. I like it better than the M14 and MUCH better than the G3. However, in modern times its hard to beat the AR platform due to all of the upgrades and accessories available, whether its an AR10 in a sniper configuration or in a "tamer" service rifle guise. Did not care too much for the SCAR. Most of us thought it was a solution looking for a problem, but the 7.62 version was often used in favor of M14 variants and MK12 rifles.

 

[entropy]

I like them. I built one for a former British Army NCO who missed his. They are a good battle rifle, but as many have pointed out, The AR variants and the M1A are capable of more accuracy and easier optics mounting. I still enjoy firing a FAL while given the chance however.

 

[Acera]

I carry one as a truck gun. Look at the number of countries that adopted it for front line service, then look at the number of countries that adopted the M-14. That will explain a lot why it is not popular here, Americans tend to have a love affair with the M1 Garand, and it's offspring. Nothing wrong with it, but we tend to gravitate toward what we are familiar with, trained on, used by our forces.

Always loved the dual meaning marketing slogan, "The right arm of the free world".



.

 

[fpgt72]

The FAL was instantly made obsolete when FN introduced the SCAR 17. The SCAR is lighter, more accurate, more optics/accessories friendly, more ergonomic, more end user configurable. The FAL is a classic no doubt, but if I want a 7.62NATO battle rifle that is not an SR-25 variant I would pick the SCAR 17 every time. I'd probably pick the SCAR over the SR-25 too to be honest.

Aside from nostalgia and collectors I don't see a large market for the FN FAL anymore.

Do you feel the same way about the M1A?....doubt it because it is 'merican

 

[M1key]

Decades long FAL owner here. Also owned all the others: M1s, M1As, HK91s, CETMEs, and Saigas. Owned six and still own two FALs and the Saiga. Love the sleek lines, robust action, good battlefield accuracy.

The SCAR looks like a pregnant guppy by comparison. But, whatever turns yer crank...

M

 

[MachIVshooter]

The FAL was instantly made obsolete when FN introduced the SCAR 17. The SCAR is lighter, more accurate, more optics/accessories friendly, more ergonomic, more end user configurable. The FAL is a classic no doubt, but if I want a 7.62NATO battle rifle that is not an SR-25 variant I would pick the SCAR 17 every time. I'd probably pick the SCAR over the SR-25 too to be honest.

Aside from nostalgia and collectors I don't see a large market for the FN FAL anymore.

I wholeheartedly disagree.

IMO, the SCAR was a huge step backward. The ergos suck, reciprocating charging handle was beyond stupid, excessive felt recoil for it's weight, uses expensive proprietary mags and is generally ugly. Of the .308 semi autos, the SCAR is pretty much at the bottom of the list for me, below even the M1A and CETME.

I've compared my DSA Para carbine side-by-side with a 17 at the range. I was pretty excited to try the SCAR, but found myself sorely disappointed.

 

[Coal Dragger]

Do you feel the same way about the M1A?....doubt it because it is 'merican

No I feel that the M14/M1A was obsolete and stupid the minute it was put to blueprints. The fact Springfield Armory (the govt' arsenal) actually wasted time and tax payer resources producing them is hugely stupid. We should have adopted the FN FAL at that time, or even further developed the AR-10. We should also have not bothered demanding the 7.62NATO be adopted either.

 

[Coal Dragger]

I wholeheartedly disagree.

IMO, the SCAR was a huge step backward. The ergos suck, reciprocating charging handle was beyond stupid, excessive felt recoil for it's weight, uses expensive proprietary mags and is generally ugly. Of the .308 semi autos, the SCAR is pretty much at the bottom of the list for me, below even the M1A and CETME.

I've compared my DSA Para carbine side-by-side with a 17 at the range. I was pretty excited to try the SCAR, but found myself sorely disappointed.

We can agree to disagree on that. As a former infantryman I would take the lighter weight of the SCAR every time over the other options for a 7.62NATO rifle. The need to hump something around for hours on end everyday, and use it dynamically will make a guy appreciate a light relatively handy firearm. If range use was all I was considering and the softest shooting, most accurate 7.62NATO semi auto was the goad (and cost was no object) then a Knights Armament SR-25 easily is the best.

I haven't found the ergonomics to be bad at all on the SCAR, the stock adjusts nicely for me for optics or irons and length of pull, the safety is easy to reach and activate. I am not thrilled about the reciprocating charging handle but for me it is not a deal breaker either, to be honest if I were to acquire one I would be adding the extended hand guard because I like a more forward grip and that gets my support hand away from that charging handle anyway. The aftermarket has some solutions for the shape and angle of the charging handle as well.

The magazines are expensive no doubt, but that is FN's fault for over pricing them. I guess a guy can buy a Handl Defense lower housing and run P-Mags for the SR-25 if so desired.

Ugly is subjective and is not a quantifiable performance metric.

I would also love to handle a Knights Armament SR-25 ACC (Advanced Combat Carbine), I've only seen their heavy match grade guns in person and the ACC is just a shade under 8.5lbs.

 

[Hookeye]

Too funny. The market sucks. That's why a guy just dropped 4.5K for a Belgian unfired long bbl para and another dude 2.5 for an Argy.
No arguments on price either.
Granted, the market isn't full of folks that think paint and some aftermarket airsoft bolt on makes them a BUILDER.
But for riflemen, of brain and wallet, the FAL is a real rig.
Historic and fun to shoot. Ergo is OK, weight is a bit much...............

Not that the "gang/club" matters one bit to me.
You either have an FAL or you don't.

Like a Black Widow custom recurve............a lot of the hate is simple jealousy, usually from people that blow their money on lesser things (and still aren't happy).
While I love the look of an M1A..............if I wanted a classic 7.62 rifle to shoot, it'd have to be FAL.
I grew up shooting all sorts of things, and prefer the FAL.

Unlike some folks..............I wouldn't pay 2500 for a copy or even 4500 for the real deal.
They're neat and work well for me...............but am content with a clunky .223.

Did think about a DSA in 243 win for a while.

Pops still has an unfired short barrel para (Belgian). I still like the looks of the long flashider standard (50.00).
But a bud way back had an STG58.............they look pretty neat.

 

[Hookeye]

I like some collectible aspect to guns, but am a hunter/shooter.
.308 bumper jack of a rifle does not hold a spot in what I do.
I might take one of pop's used Argy out this deer season, to pop a doe and snap a cool pic.
But that'd be about it.

Not a fan of .223 rem. AR's make dandy yote rigs though. I'd rather have a .222 (not in AR or Mini 14 pattern either)...............an old Walnut 700 VS would be OK, or a 660 or something with Anschtuz stamped on it.

Not a fan of .308 win either. Dislike 45 Colt too.
Not sure why.............not a fan of Glocks either.

Like things just a little from the norm.

Had a .300 Savage (99). Am thinking custom rifle in .300 Savage.
Could get one in .308 already factory done at considerable savings.

Not interested.

 

[FL-NC]

The original equipment to be issued with the M1 and M14 included loaded mags or clips, sling, bayonet. Attempts to modernize the M14 with things such as night vision lasers, other optics, and the like from the efforts of companies like Troy and Sage have been found... wanting. For the modern battlefield, the SCAR 17 has proven superior in the units where it has been issued. Rewind back to the cold war, and give me (and most of my peers) the choice between the 3 major 7.62 NATO rifles available back then (to be utilized with iron sights, sling, magazine, and bayonet) and you would find preference as follows: FAL, M14, G3.

 

[RPRNY]

Well, if fiddly, diddly gas guns are your sort of thing, then the FAL is great But for those of us in the know, the G3 family is of course superior and indeed, uber alles.

Joking aside, I love my PTR91 and think the FAL is fantastic, but the 7.62 battle rifle is like the battleship. It's an awesome anachronism. The adoption of the 7.62x51 NATO cartridge was a classic example of "fighting the last war" and was as poor a decision as the one that followed, the 5.56. I enjoy having one and certainly wouldn't exchange it for a little poodle-shooter AR15, but the 7.62 battle rifles weigh a ton, recoil plenty, and are difficult for anything but massed suppressive fire in select fire.

All of the great battle rifles are historically and technically interesting, but the little sissies that plague our planet today want to shoot little tiny bullets out of plastic guns that don't hurt their little sloping shoulders. Me? I'm getting more and more like the battle rifle: a crusty anachronism of limited interest to a few odd folks ;-)

 

[fpgt72]

No I feel that the M14/M1A was obsolete and stupid the minute it was put to blueprints. The fact Springfield Armory (the govt' arsenal) actually wasted time and tax payer resources producing them is hugely stupid. We should have adopted the FN FAL at that time, or even further developed the AR-10. We should also have not bothered demanding the 7.62NATO be adopted either.

The minute it was put to blueprints......beauty of hindsight it is always 20/20.

So easy second guessing things 50 years in the future.

 

[MCMXI]

My first exposure to the SLR was in England in the late '70s and early '80s. I'd shot and carried so many Lee-Enfields and liked those rifles, but the first time I saw an SLR I was really taken with them. They looked so much cooler than the Lee-Enfield and I always remember seeing a Para at the range with a 30-round Bren magazine shoved in his ... very cool at the time. Fast forward to seven or eight years ago and I bought a brand new DSA PARA with the scope base and folding stock. I really wanted to like it but I couldn't help comparing it to the POF P308 that I had (and still have). The DSA seemed to be very much overgassed, it would beat up brass, had a terrible trigger, wasn't particularly accurate, was even worse with a suppressor attached, the bolt broke so it had to go back to DSA, the "free float" forend from DSA didn't' work .. and on and on. Ultimately I sold the rifle and don't miss it one bit. I also sold an M1A Scout rifle which overall was a better rifle than the DSA. I've never shot a SCAR 17S but I've shot a bunch of AR308s and I really don't see appeal of the FALs anymore. The idea of a 2-3 moa rifle being a good battle rifle is kind of ridiculous when AR308s of today have better everything.

 

[db_tanker]

Love my FAL...bloody thing weighs a ton...shoots minute of commie bad-guy at 300 yards...magazines (at least the ones I have) are a bit picky.

BUT...this rifle will probably be on my favorite of all time list. Wanted one ever since I first saw it in a movie (Wild Geese). I prefer shooting it over my AR and AK. It has a very special place in my heart.

 

[M1key]

 

[MCMXIautomatic]

The FAL was instantly made obsolete when FN introduced the SCAR 17. The SCAR is lighter, more accurate, more optics/accessories friendly, more ergonomic, more end user configurable. The FAL is a classic no doubt, but if I want a 7.62NATO battle rifle that is not an SR-25 variant I would pick the SCAR 17 every time. I'd probably pick the SCAR over the SR-25 too to be honest.

Aside from nostalgia and collectors I don't see a large market for the FN FAL anymore.

It's also more expensive too...

 

[Coal Dragger]

No doubt that it is, but it is more capable.

Maybe some day CZ will upscale their excellent 805 BREN to a 7.62 sized model. That is a great platform, basically a CZ rip off of the SCAR with some improvements for a lot less money!

 

[MCMXIautomatic]

Joking aside, I love my PTR91 and think the FAL is fantastic, but the 7.62 battle rifle is like the battleship. It's an awesome anachronism. The adoption of the 7.62x51 NATO cartridge was a classic example of "fighting the last war" and was as poor a decision as the one that followed, the 5.56.

I'm not so sure about that. There really is no "good decision" for everything. I don't think the classic battle rifles are all that anachronistic, as you say. They've still got some life left in them, as evidenced by the reintroduction of the M-14 into US service as a DMR for long range engagements in A-stan. It's hard to argue against the sheer man-stopping and barrier defeating power of the 7.62 round.

Also, some here have stated that the FAL doesn't lend itself well to being tuned for match-grade accuracy, and it's not really a good optics platform either. However, the same can be said of the AK, which has had a noticeably growing following within the last few years in the US. And I still think that a good optics mounting solution can be found for the FAL with some ingenuity, and I'm sure that the weight can be reduced somewhat by using lightweight alloys or polymers for the lower receiver. In fact, I believe DSA has already done something along those lines.

 

[Coal Dragger]

The minute it was put to blueprints......beauty of hindsight it is always 20/20.

So easy second guessing things 50 years in the future.

Given that the FN FAL was in service in one form or another since 1954.... and the prototype was completed in 1946 while the M14 came later I'd say yes it was obsolete even in drawings. The only reason the M14 got selected was some cherry picked cold weather testing where SA intensively worked on the T44 to make it work in extreme cold, and FN made no such attempts the first round. The M14 was a poor design from the get go, there is a reason it is the shortest lived general issue service rifle in US history.

 

[Hookeye]

I shot one of my dad's Argy standards. Found the old man at the range up north and he said "give it a try".
He had a big sheet of cardboard with a black spot on it, and I fired 10 rounds.
Iron sights, off my elbows (no bag) and the bench chewed the crap out of my skin.
Walked down and the group was high and right, but all 10 could cover with the palm of your hand.
That was also 200 yards.
I thought that pretty decent for an old clunker design.
Not sure what milsurp ammo pop's had.