M14 Forum

ThatGuy

What are the good traits of the FN FAL and what are some problems that it suffered in combat?

SOCOM42

they do not work well in desert/ sand environments even with the sand cuts.

Too close fitting parts with lots of surface area for sand to get into.

Will not work well in full auto in what is refered to as the "bang, bang, jam" syndrome.

However in temperate and jungle climates kept cleaned and lubricated they work great.

jbrooks

Those are some pretty interesting comments regarding a weapon that has been adopted by 90 countried, in use all over the world since the 1950s, in all terrains and in all conditions...

The FAL was deemed equal to the M14 in performane (Ref: Hatcher's Notebook, Second Edition). The decision to go with the M14 was largely political and the claim that a lot of the machinery from the Garand could be used to build the M14. Not true after all, but the politicians and military brass won the day.

Your best souce for everything FAL is here:

http://www.falfiles.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=150

You will find FALS all over the Middle East, in Afghanistan, Iraq, Lybia, Syria, etc. Lots of recent threads in the Falfiles with reports/pics of FALS in combat. The stories about sand don't seem to apply to these areas.

Take a peek at Ol' Dirty, fired over 16,000 rounds, from 2003 to the present, with NO cleaning at all. Read the entire thread:

http://www.falfiles.com/forums/showthread.php?t=68486

Like the M14 clones, you will find poorly assembled FALs. But a factory FAL is just about the perfect battle rifle.

JWB

JBS

The only thing I found that takes a bit getting use to is it gives the feel of a very long narrow weapon and can be a bit gangly to lug around in brush but that may just be me. This one I built several years ago and it shoots very nicely. Pay attention if you build one to metric and inch parts. As said before if you don’t have access to a FAL Smith check out FalFiles.

Attached Images

L1A1 right side.jpg (36.0 KB, 21 views)

KYShooter

Well, I'm no combat veteran with one but with the shooting of the three I have, I can say:

- Average 2-4 MOA accuracy with NATO ammo
- VERY easy to field strip and clean
- Quite easy to fully dissassemble/reassemble
- Sights are simple and rugged though not as adjustable as the M14
- As rugged as I ever need. Never had issues or parts breaking/flying out
- The DSA scope base makes scoping the rifle easy and rugged
- Felt recoil is quite small given the caliber
- Spare parts, if ever needed, are relatively cheap and abundant

Yes, I admit I'm biased towards the FAL.

guitarguy774

I'm with the Larry Vickers crowd on this one. It's not the most accurate, nor the most reliable. This rifle is the middle ground on just about everything in the battle rifle world. If I needed a TEOTWAWKI rifle, I would pick the G3. If I needed a rifle to cover a lot of open ground, I'd pick the M14. If I needed an all around duty rifle, I would gladly carry my FAL.

Be forewarned the gas system can confuse you if you think about it too much

jbrooks

My factory Argentine FAL, forged receiver and Schmidt-Bender 1.25 - 4x scope. 21 inch barrel. Yes, the rear sight is missing, I don't need it cuz' my eyes are too old...

Next to a Colt 6920, 16 inch barrel.

Both in transport mode, both are fine weapons, both are great for SHTF .

Just basic tools, no bells and whistles on either.

JWB

Attached Images

FAL_AR.jpg (35.6 KB, 17 views)

ppcshooter1

It wasn't called the right arm of the free world for nothing. I have a DSA SA 58 full size I bought back in the late 90s. Shoots 1.5 moa with surplus ball. I can have it field stripped, cleaned and back together before I can have a Garand or 14 field stripped. No tool field stripping. You can adjust the gas system to your ammo. If you start having function problems you can close the knob a click or two to provide more gas pressure to cycle the bolt. All in all a fine weapon.

Marty

donmor53

An FAL/L1A1 is one hell of a rugged, dependable 7.62 NATO battle rifle IMO.

dozier

If you are considering buying a FN/FAL, and are trying to compare it to other combat rifles, I'd suggest you purchase a copy of "Boston's Gun Bible". Available at Fred's($20), and probably online. There are a lot of pluses to the FN, but there are also some minuses when compared to other battlefield rifles. Also quality varies greatly with the different manufacturers. You just have to decide which qualities are important to you. dozier

hammer 1

It was adopted by everybody, the sand thing came from Israel,it jammed more than the AK,(what doesnt) that the arabs were using. Aparently Larry Vickers said it would be his choice in a battle rifle , with the mags loaded down to 18 rounds. A 2MOA rifle is still minute of man for a long way out there.

Stg1944

Wonder if any British soldiers, who had their L1A1's taken away, and replaced with the SA80 would like to chime in on this.

Rosco917

I have a DSA58, its light for a rifle of the 7.62 cal. and very nice to carry in the field, it would make a great patrol rifle, should it ever become necessary. Cleaning and field stripping is quite easy. It's as accurate as you would need for a longer range combat rifle, I really don't consider it a squad sniper rifle.
It would be one of the last rifles I would part with, even though I am quite take with my m14's.

Charlene32

i dont have a combat review for the FAL, but from my recreational experience:

Pros:
very rugged and reliable firearm. adjustable gas system. very easy field strip(in the field). very accurate for what it is. the FAL is a down right tough as nails battle axe.

Cons:
in comparing it to an M14, it is a clunky boat anchor that does not have the same balance in handling. the sights are not as fine tuned. not what i would call a smooth shooter like the M1 or M14.

Old Sarge

The FAL and M14 are both outstanding combat rifles. The M14 was chosen by the US military for a few reasons. The M14 had fewer parts, weighed about 1 pound less than the FAL, and did perform better in arctic/extreme cold and sandy environments. Both rifles were judged suitable for US military use. I would not feel under armed with either weapon.

My personal opinion on weapons reliability has much to do with proper lubricants and maintenance. We were always told to use a very very light coating of oil in extreme cold or sandy/dusty environments, and then wipe most of that off....
Lubricants today are much better than our fore-fathers from WW2 and Korea. Most are synthetic and more stable in extreme cold, retaining proper viscosity.