School Me on FALs

[QuebecoisWolf]

So I'm at Engage Armament yesterday for the sale when I see an STG58 on the wall. Though Engage offered me a good deal, given my economic situation it wasn't "an offer I couldn't refuse." Besides, I have an obsession with carbines and figured that the para would be more up my alley. And then I realized I don't even know the proper manual of arms for FALs, let alone how to properly inspect one. That info is fairly easy to Google. What's harder to find is specific information from other shooters. So I figured that I'd come here and ask. I'm looking for any info or any advice whatsoever, but I'd love to hear from the resident FAL maniacs about their preferences and experience. Share as much or as little as you want.

The purpose of this FAL? Primarily as a range gun and a source of awesomeness and badassery in the collection as well as (hopefully unnecessary) SHTF work alongside my AR-15 and M590. Why FAL? Because I like the ergonomics, the history behind the design, and they're more exotic than M1As and HK91 variations. I have heard that they're a bit sensitive to sand, but I'm totally rocking the Yugo and a Speedo if we ever host a range day at the beach.

Never mind. I'll get to my questions now.

1. Muzzle device: I've seen para muzzle brakes as well as AR-style, Belgian short, Steyr short, and military standard flash suppressors. Are any of them noticeably better or worse?
2. Bipod: Is the FAL bipod any good or is dead weight that you remove, toss in your gun-related junk bin, and never see again?
3. Barrel length: 21 inches vs 18 inches vs 16.25 inches. As a carbine fetishist, I like short barrels, but at the same time worry about flash, noise, and wasted muzzle velocity with 7.62 NATO. I've also noticed that 21 inch barrels tend to have a long flash suppressor, making them closer to 23-24 inches which is very long for a tactical rifle. Anyone have any advice, ballistics data, pseudoscience, anecdotal evidence, range experience, fortune cookie wisdom, or war stories? I'm totally on the fence about barrel length. Or maybe I need to start saving money for two FALs.
4. Receiver: Metric vs Customary/British. I get the difference and understand that Metric mags tend to be cheaper and easier to find. What I don't get are DSA's references to Type I and Type II receivers. What's the difference and should I stay away from one type or another?
5. Carry handle: I think that FALs look naked without them, but I want to know what you guys think.
6. Scope Mounting: Not a huge priority for me, but what are the options besides the built-in picatinny rails? Is there a scope mount for standard FALs? I may eventually decide that I just must have an optic of some type.
7. Stock: Fixed vs Para folder. After shooting the Mosin, I have recoil on the mind. How bad is recoil with the Para stock? It seems awfully narrow to me, but what do I know? I do know that the DSA sidefolder has the tightest lock-up I've ever seen in a folding stock.
8. Manufacturer: I'm thinking of DSA and don't mind being on a waiting list. This is a dream gun and I'm willing to custom order from the factory if need be. I've also heard that DSA will build from parts kits, but have no idea how to choose a good kit. And no Century guns, please. I've gone 1 for 3 with them despite my best efforts.

Thanks in advance! Whether ten words or ten pages, any replies will be appreciated!

 

[hole punch]

I'm happy with my IMBEL on DSA metric. that's all i have to say.

oh, and everyone should have at least one FAL.

 

[jawn]

I think 7.62 NATO is supposed to be optimal out of 18"+ barrels. It's a fairly efficient round from everything that I've read, but if you go shorter than that muzzle blast increases. A forum post that I can't seem to find the link for had 150gr 7.62 NATO at a bit less than 2400FPS with 16" barrels, ~2500FPS with 18" barrels, and ~2600FPS with 22" barrels.

I guess it depends on the distances you intend on shooting with it. I know I wouldn't go room clearing with an FAL, so I'd probably go with the 21" barrel if I were to get an FAL.

Also, it was good to meet you yesterday.

 

[QuebecoisWolf]

I think 7.62 NATO is supposed to be optimal out of 18"+ barrels. It's a fairly efficient round from everything that I've read, but if you go shorter than that muzzle blast increases. A forum post that I can't seem to find the link for had 150gr 7.62 NATO at a bit less than 2400FPS with 16" barrels, ~2500FPS with 18" barrels, and ~2600FPS with 22" barrels.

I guess it depends on the distances you intend on shooting with it. I know I wouldn't go room clearing with an FAL, so I'd probably go with the 21" barrel if I were to get an FAL.

Also, it was good to meet you yesterday.

Good meeting you too. Thanks.

 

[mikec]

4. Receiver: Metric vs Customary/British. I get the difference and understand that Metric mags tend to be cheaper and easier to find. What I don't get are DSA's references to Type I and Type II receivers. What's the difference and should I stay away from one type or another?

In the beginning FN created what we call the Inch receiver for the Brits. Then NATO wanted the West German army to have a modern battle rifle and the FN G1 was born. Around the same time the Austrians adopted the StG58 version of the FAL. These both used the "metric" receiver.

Some of the metric receivers that were used in training, started to develop cracks. Most of these guns had many thousands of rounds through them and lots of full auto use as well. FN then developed a new receiver which they called the Type II, meant to address the full auto, heavy round count issues that some military forces encountered. The original receiver was then called the Type I.

The Type III is a cheaper to make, export design. Cheaper to make, basic.

In a semi auto only, civilian rifle you should not see any issues with either a Type I or Type II receiver. If you were ever able to have a full auto FAL built and seriously had the $$ to fire 20,000 + rounds/yr full auto, use a Type II receiver.

8. Manufacturer: I'm thinking of DSA and don't mind being on a waiting list. This is a dream gun and I'm willing to custom order from the factory if need be. I've also heard that DSA will build from parts kits, but have no idea how to choose a good kit. And no Century guns, please. I've gone 1 for 3 with them despite my best efforts.

Check AIM Surplus's site. Right now they have some DSA FAL's made with IMBEL kits.

http://www.aimsurplus.com/product.aspx?item=F1DSAIMBEL&name=DSA+Imbel+FAL+.308+Rifle&groupid=11

DSA is the king of the market. Every now and then I hear that Entreprise, yes it is spelled weird, has gotten their act together and is making some decent rifles.

 

[BFMIN]

1. Muzzle device: I've seen para muzzle brakes as well as AR-style, Belgian short, Steyr short, and military standard flash suppressors. Are any of them noticeably better or worse?
Not really but inch pattern & metric pattern are not interchangeable, the screw threads are right & left hand. The early Inch pattern slot flash hiders could “banana peel” There is some slight difference in felt recoil, some “combination devices” actually enhance recoil a tad as they were flash hiders, & grenade launchers, not muzzle breaks. The Steyer short is a fudged copy of the “Stolle” device, designed to shoot through barbed wire (really!) They ring like a tuning fork after firing, very disconcerting if you’re not ready for it.

2. Bipod: Is the FAL bipod any good or is dead weight that you remove, toss in your gun-related junk bin, and never see again?
It depends what you expect it to do. It’s not junk, but it won’t make the FAL a varmint rifle either. It will shift the POI quite a bit, several inches @ 100yds. There is a technique to get the best out of it also as it is mounted directly onto a light thin barrel. If you just fling the legs down, drop to the prone & fire away it’s worse than useless. The right way is to go prone, drop the legs & then lower, not drop into the feet. Keeping hands 100% away from the hand guards & not pressing down, or twisting sideways helps as well. Also push forward so the legs are floating, not locked into the detents. This allows them to rotate under recoil without bending the barrel mount & dispersing the shots. Basically you have to remove all variable stresses from it, including side torque. If you do these things then it is as good as using bags on a bench.

3. Barrel length: 21 inches vs 18 inches vs 16.25 inches. As a carbine fetishist, I like short barrels, but at the same time worry about flash, noise, and wasted muzzle velocity with 7.62 NATO. I've also noticed that 21 inch barrels tend to have a long flash suppressor, making them closer to 23-24 inches which is very long for a tactical rifle. Anyone have any advice, ballistics data, pseudoscience, anecdotal evidence, range experience, fortune cookie wisdom, or war stories? I'm totally on the fence about barrel length. Or maybe I need to start saving money for two FALs.
Nothing under 18”! 2 reasons why. Gas action is negatively effected with shorter barrels. Enlarging gas ports is a work round, not a cure. Also sight height is changed as the barrel shortens. The front sight is a nubbin instead of a post with shorter barrels & even that may not be enough to get a good zero with a real shorty. (That’s why you see adverts for “extra tall” rear sights) an 18” with a Belgian, or Imbel type muzzle device is probably the best shortened combination IMHO.

4. Receiver: Metric vs Customary/British. I get the difference and understand that Metric mags tend to be cheaper and easier to find. What I don't get are DSA's references to Type I and Type II receivers. What's the difference and should I stay away from one type or another?
The real differences between Inch & Metric goes a bit deeper than just magazines. Inch triggers are different, the sights are different & there is no automatic BHO on Inch pattern rifles. Mainly the changes were because the British were obsessed with sand. Understandable when you consider 90% of the fighting they’d been involved in for 40 years was in a desert! However it did 2 things. Firstly it slanted the view of the military to have everything “sand-proofed”. If you’ve ever spent any time in a desert you’ll know this is impossible. But they tried to make a sand-proof rifle that didn’t need extra maintenance in a blown sand environment, an impossibility. Secondly it gave the FAL a poor reputation for handling sand, which I don’t think it deserved. No-one ever said the old Lee-Enfields were “prone to sand failure” but the jammed up just as much as the SLR in the Middle east.

5. Carry handle: I think that FALs look naked without them, but I want to know what you guys think.
I like the carry handle & use it, but it cannot be used with 99% of optics as the sight fouls the handle. Even ELCANs foul the handle. Some open type red dots & the old Trilux SUIT work with the handle, & maybe the holosighhts, but that is about it.

6. Scope Mounting: Not a huge priority for me, but what are the options besides the built-in picatinny rails? Is there a scope mount for standard FALs? I may eventually decide that I just must have an optic of some type.
FALs are a bit hard to scope. Slide in dustcovers like the ARMS keep the function of the FAL. Bolt on covers like the DSA are permanent & lose the flexibility of slip off types. The DSA also will 100% mark up your receiver the day you fit it. Make it permanent & deal with the cosmetic blemish. The 3rd option, my favourite is the Argentine STANAG type mount, a steel, reinforced slide in mount with a NATO standard fitting. A rail can be made as an adaptor to Picatinny if you like. It’s a bit high, but it does work well & is more durable than both of the alloy alternatives, even if it is a bit heavy. (Hey it balances out the weight of the bipod up front!)

7. Stock: Fixed vs Para folder. After shooting the Mosin, I have recoil on the mind. How bad is recoil with the Para stock? It seems awfully narrow to me, but what do I know? I do know that the DSA sidefolder has the tightest lock-up I've ever seen in a folding stock.
The para stock is a bit more kicky, but not much & nowhere as much as the Moisin-Nagant. The real problem will be with getting a good cheek weld with optics & a para stock. The comb is too low anyway & with a scope it gets even worse. The hinge has bitten some with large noses, or who climb the stock as well. The LOP is shorter with the Para than a standard.

8. Manufacturer: I'm thinking of DSA and don't mind being on a waiting list. This is a dream gun and I'm willing to custom order from the factory if need be. I've also heard that DSA will build from parts kits, but have no idea how to choose a good kit. And no Century guns, please. I've gone 1 for 3 with them despite my best efforts.
Mfr: you pays your money & you takes your chances I’m afraid. Long waits, not much C/S & recently some broken factory parts are part of the game with DSA nowadays. There is getting to be a shortage of MilSpec parts & the home-made ones are having some teething problems, particularly with bolt faces snapping off at the extractor cut.

 

[mikec]

There is getting to be a shortage of MilSpec parts & the home-made ones are having some teething problems, particularly with bolt faces snapping off at the extractor cut.

Glad I have 8 or so old Imbel kits in storage.

 

[DarthZed]

FWIW. I got my 16" Para-Carbine from Entreprise Arms for $1250 last year with a scope rail cover. It seems very well made, and after I got the gas sytem dialed in, very reliable. I can't say I've noticed much difference in muzzle blast with the shorter barrel compared to my 18" PTR-91.

 

[Dan44]

I've a preban Springfield. I like it, the USA was really close to adapt it here. The "not invented here" part of the Army rejected it.

 

[JCB003]

What's with the pricing? I don't know enough about the FAL and need to be enlightened.

DSA website:

SA58STD $1,700
STG58STD $1,150
Imbel58 $995

 

[mikec]

What's with the pricing? I don't know enough about the FAL and need to be enlightened.

DSA website:

SA58STD $1,700
STG58STD $1,150
Imbel58 $995

The three guns listed are three different versions of the same platform. The SA58STD is a new production DSA rifle. The STG58STD is a rifle based on the Austrian StG58 version of the FAL. At one point DSA made all of these rifles using Steyr demilled kits with a new DSA receiver and enough US parts to be 922r compliant. Most of the imported kits are now gone and DSA is making a rifle with some Austrian parts and more US parts. The rifle still looks like the Austrian StG58 however. The Imbel58 is a rifle based on a Brazilian IMBEL made kit, with the needed US compliance parts. I haven't checked recently but IMBEL was the last remaining military maker of FAL's in the world. Not sure if they are still making FAL's for any military contracts. IMBEL also makes the frames and slides for Springfield Armory's 1911 pistols.