M14 Forum

ppcshooter1 · February 11th, 2012, 11:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bikertrash

Theres no markings at all on the mag that wont always release. The mag that fails to feed has FA USA printed on the follower. I bought it new from Turners gun shop. It is a blocked 10/20 mag that has the floor plate tack welded to the body to keep it CA compliant. So I cant disassemble it. The rifle is awesome! I will look for new mags and see if that fixes my problem.

That may be your problem. Somebody did a bad job making it CA compliant. I'd take it back if you can. DS Arms sells 10 rd mags. They're not as long as that modified 20 rounder but will probably work a hell of a lot better.

Marty

Bikertrash · February 11th, 2012, 12:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ppcshooter1

That may be your problem. Somebody did a bad job making it CA compliant. I'd take it back if you can. DS Arms sells 10 rd mags. They're not as long as that modified 20 rounder but will probably work a hell of a lot better.

Marty

Great. Thanks. I'll order one. I dont care about looks, I prefer function. It was the only one they had and I needed it. As for the rifle, its got SAW furniture, a Bushnell 3200 10x40 scope and extensive work. Cut the threaded portion of the barrel off, welded on a new compensator and machined back down. It turned out really nice. With the iron sights i could hit a milk jug at 200yds. Thats accurate enough for me. Its not intended to be a precision rifle anyway.

jbrooks · February 11th, 2012, 02:22 PM

[QUOTE=SOCOM42;801652]...
...When I started there the t48 was done and gone. I was just a high school kid working as part of the training program as a toolmaker. ..QUOTE]

Good info. Can you please expand on your work at the armory (I assume SA? You're from MA...)? Pretty cool place for a high school kid indeed! Did you continue beyond that?

JWB

ppcshooter1 · February 11th, 2012, 02:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SOCOM42

The fal's built at h&r were done on "soft tooling" no long run sets were built. They were considered tool room samples, being that most parts were built by toolmakers.The fal rcvr was a hell of a lot easier to build and headspace. for the most part standard cutters are used whereas dozens of custom profile cutters are needed for the 14.

When I started there the t48 was done and gone. I was just a high school kid working as part of the training program as a toolmaker.

Jbrooks, you overlooked the answer to your question.

Marty

SOCOM42 · February 11th, 2012, 03:05 PM

[QUOTE=jbrooks;801873]

Quote:

Originally Posted by SOCOM42

...
...[B] ..QUOTE]

Good info. Can you please expand on your work at the armory (I assume SA? You're from MA...)? Pretty cool place for a high school kid indeed! Did you continue beyond that?

JWB

It was H&R and as I said, started during the 14 program and worked there 5 different times through to 1975. Lived two miles from the park ave plant.

jbrooks · February 11th, 2012, 05:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ppcshooter1

Jbrooks, you overlooked the answer to your question.

Marty

No, I read his post more than once before I posted. He gave a good answer, BTW.

Thanks,

JWB

jbrooks · February 11th, 2012, 05:59 PM

[QUOTE=SOCOM42;801893]

Quote:

Originally Posted by jbrooks

... Lived two miles from the park ave plant.

Lucky Dog!

JWB

SOCOM42 · February 11th, 2012, 06:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jbrooks

no, i read his post more than once before i posted. He gave a good answer, btw.

Thanks,

jwb

what do you mean by good answer?

Ivan1GFP · February 13th, 2012, 05:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jbrooks

Sorry, I really must disagree:

Minus:
The sights are much worse. There is no user adjustable windage. Not true. The rear sights on both standard and para are windage adjustable by the user.. The elevation adjustment is typically just for each distance rather than MOA clicks. Not true. The front sight has click adjustments for elevation. If your ammunition does not conform to the sights, you have no solution. Definitely NOT True. The rear sights tend to be a bit wobbly. Not true.

Scope mounting in a secure manner is more difficult. Look at the pic of my para with DSA Extreme Duty Mount. As solid as any M14 mount. In fact, my S&B co-witnesses on both my M14 and FAL, with no adjustment between the rifles. Perhaps this is just "Different" because as we know, the M14 has its own scope mounting issues. Let me countt the ways...

There are some accuracy reducing issues that are difficult to resolve: The fit of the handguards and the front sling swivel on the barrel are two that come to mind. You can get free-floating barrels if that is your desire.

The tipping breech block does not have the same force in closing the action as does the M14's rotating bolt. Very subjective. Never been an issue.

The trigger pulls tend to be gritty and poor. Easily adjusted.

The FAL is a battle rifle, not a match tuned rifle. Never meant to be, but if you put a few thousand bucks into it like M14 match shooters do, it comes close. It may not be as accurate as a match tuned, unitized, bedded, bells-and-whistles M14 match rifle, but it's a lot cheaper and does the job it was designed for.

JWB

The sights on the FALs I have seen ARE generally pretty wobbly. Samples are the Belgian, Argentine, British. The Belgian and Argentine I have examined in detail. Either one can move about 1/32 inch sideways and there is no spring or other mechanism to return them to any particular position. The British sight flips down and ALL of them wobble a little fore and aft which does not inspire much confidence but probably doesn't hurt much either. The Para sight is different and I have NOT examined that in detail.

As for windage adjustable, I can put two clicks on a M1 / M14 sight for windage or conditions and be pretty sure of the effect. I can then return the sights to center and be confident the zero is maintained. With screws as seen on a typical FAL, you really can't just make an adjustment and be confident of the effect without test firing on a known distance range.

As for the front sight, yes, you can make adjustments, but not for field conditions with any hope of return things to your original zero. If you find that your 400 meter setting is a few inches low, would you make the front sight adjustment and then expect all the other range settings to also correspond? What if your ammunition isn't M80 ball but is something like M118 with a different trajectory? How do you compensate? You really can't do it in an effective manner.

Regarding free floating barrels, you need to re-engineer how the handguards fit. The sling swivel is a loop on the barrel. This is not a good place for accuracy. I noticed you don't have a front sling swivel on your gun in the photograph. There really isn't a good solution without a serious re-design in this area, and the redesign won't maintain appearance. Note that the Tokarev SVT-40 has handguards similar to the FAL. The Dragunov SVD does not for accuracy reasons.

Regarding scope mounts, the typical method is to weld something onto the sheet steel top cover. The M14 has its issues, but my own experience is that even with a single point mount using the slots on the receiver, the zero can be maintained even when removing and reinstalling the mount between shots. I agree the mounts that clamp onto the FAL receiver are at least comparable to the best M14 solutions.

Regarding triggers, tuning the M14 trigger is so simple that even a home hobbyist can do it in a fairly reliable fashion. Even *I* have done a few. The FAL trigger is MUCH more complicated and definitely beyond the average hobbyist. I DO know it can be done because I experienced the work of one gunsmith who worked for Armscorp (?) in Baltimore, MD many years ago. Other than that, every other FAL I have ever tried the trigger on still had the gritty non-returning factory setup.

As for bolt closing, a slightly long cartridge is bad news in either action, but I believe you need to have a bit more headspace with the FAL action to be safe. This one is really open to debate. I have had oversized cartridges in BOTH types of guns, The FAL had the recoil extension stuck in the stock because the bolt carrier could not close. It was jammed fairly badly. A typical M14 jam isn't any better though opening the action is easier because of the rotating bolt.

Thanks for the audience.
- Ivan.

KYShooter · February 14th, 2012, 04:55 AM

In regards to triggers, I wholeheartedly agree that the M14 trigger is easier to smooth out and is, in my opinion, one of the best rifle triggers there is (not just military). With that said, the FAL trigger, though difficult to make "smooth", can be greatly improved with some simple steps. First, you can lightly stone out the rough areas of the parts that rub (excluding sear engagement surfaces - best left to pros here). Secondly, and probably the most beneficial, is to look at the area where the trigger return spring fits between the two fingers on the bottom of the lower receiver. Frequently, the spring housing rubs on one, or both, of these fingers. If you use a file to create more clearance between these fingers so that the housing doesn't rub, it will make a noticeable difference in the trigger pull.

KYShooter · February 14th, 2012, 05:01 AM

Installing a barrel on a FAL isn't a big deal either. If it doesn't time right, you can just take some small grit sandpaper, cut a hole in it large enough for the barrel threads to go through, then, using a small section of pipe (making sure it was cut squarely), hold the sandpaper against the barrel shoulder while spinning the barrel.

An inexpensive set of pin gages, in conjuntion with go and no-go gauges, is used to determine locking shoulder width.

I've built two and, believe me, if I can build one that safely, and reliably, works, ANYONE can.

Ivan1GFP · February 14th, 2012, 10:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by KYShooter

In regards to triggers, I wholeheartedly agree that the M14 trigger is easier to smooth out and is, in my opinion, one of the best rifle triggers there is (not just military). With that said, the FAL trigger, though difficult to make "smooth", can be greatly improved with some simple steps. First, you can lightly stone out the rough areas of the parts that rub (excluding sear engagement surfaces - best left to pros here). Secondly, and probably the most beneficial, is to look at the area where the trigger return spring fits between the two fingers on the bottom of the lower receiver. Frequently, the spring housing rubs on one, or both, of these fingers. If you use a file to create more clearance between these fingers so that the housing doesn't rub, it will make a noticeable difference in the trigger pull.

I am sure that the trigger can be smoothed a bit. The problem I am describing is much more basic than that:

On most guns, when you apply pressure to the trigger, it moves back a bit. If you don't fire the shot, and release pressure, the trigger returns forward. On the ones I have encountered, the triggers DON'T return forward. I had a real good look at the guts of a Belgian and an Argentine gun and it is basically a geometry issue. This is a very strange design because the FAL's predecesor the FN-49 has an excellent trigger along the same lines as the Garand and M14. Yes, this CAN be fixed, but it takes an expert to do it.

This was well over a decade ago, so perhaps the guns are better designed now. Both guns were sem-autos but appeard to be standard military configuration otherwise.

- Ivan.

USMC6094 · March 15th, 2012, 06:40 AM

have you guys seen the pictures of the HRA FALS that are in storage at Quantico? My mouth waters everytime I see the pictures of them.......