I'm pondering one of these two. The prices are pretty comparable when looking at a standard M1A from Springfield and a new FAL from DS Arms. Right around $1400 or so. Is there anything to recommend one over the other? Is one inherently more accurate than the other? What kind of groups at 100 and 200 yds can I expect with good handloads? How well do they work with non-military ammo (incl softpoints) in general? I know Springfield recommends only mil ammo to prevent slam fires. Is this really a problem?

I like the adjustable gas system on the FAL, but having the scope on a removable top cover is not that great of a plan to me. It will be scoped and used for targets and hunting, if I get the urge. I have never shot a sample of either of these types.

I did have a CETME for a few years that I really liked, but it was hell on brass and anything but milsurp ammo would not feed correctly. I got other odd brass behavior/abuse due to the roller lock action's timing and factory ammo. When fed milsurp, it was great though! Very good accuracy, but I could not use the ammo I wanted and it was sold.

SO, I'm now looking for another automatic 308, and the adj gas system of the FAL has my attention. Which would you buy and why? thx...

I've had both. Sold my Belgian FAL, and have an M1A.

I never shot anything but surplus ammo in either.

The FAL adjustable gas system didn't seem all that adjustable to me. I followed the instructions on setting it properly, and once the gun got dirty (<200 rnds), I'd have to set it to fully closed to get the gun to cycle. It wasn't easy to adjust either. The sights on the FAL are nowhere near as adjustable as an M1A.

The M1A works fine, but I hate, Hate, HATE the fact that using a Springfield Armory scope and mount, that the scope's axis is about 2 inches above the axis of the bore. I basically have to put my chin on the comb of the rifle to see through the scope.

What'd I get? If I didn't live in a lame state, I'd get another FAL. I already own an accurate .308, so there's no need for a scope on a semi-auto for me. FALs handle better, look better, and I think magazines are cheaper.

Hello,
My vote would be for the M1A for several reasons. Number one is the far superior sight system found on the M1A. I happen to mfg. weapon sights based on the M1 Garand, M 14 U.S. Service Rifles and the basic same sight is used on the M1A as well. I am at this time finalizing the sight system to work on the FN/FAL and the demand for same is huge due to the poor sight on the weapon.
It is indeed rare (I have never seen) to find a FN/FAL in a military rifle match due to not only the sights, but the trigger is not suitable for serious match type performance either. It does not lend itself to accurate shooting in my experience and as I mentioned, have never seen one used at Camp Perry or other locations as well.
As for reloading, most military self loading weapons are harsh on brass, but usually get as many as 4-5 reloads out of LC brass before it is beyond reloading. Reliability of M1A is quite good and rarely see a malfunction at the range. Can't say about the other weapon for have not seen any used and do not know about the reloading.
Scope use on either is not the best way to go due to what you mentioned of the height above C/L of bore. One can attach the nylon cheek pad to elevate the eye to meet the scope, but to me that is a hassle. The rear sight is quite easily adjustable to whatever distance and is recognized as the finest sight ever on a military type weapon. Many 600 to 1000 yard matches shot with the M1A.
I would not question the durability of the FAL for it is and the battlefields of the world are strewn with them and especially in Africa (try the Congo region)and yes the mags are cheap, around 8-10 bucks, so that is a slight advantage if you are going to purchase boxes and boxes of mags??
In closing, I like the M1A, have shot them for years, very accurate, excellent weapon in all respects, but that is just me. Others who vision slogging around in the swamps, bogs, or other hostile places might prefer the anvil qualities of the FAl. To each his own and Favor Center!!
dsiteman

Do not judge the FAL line by the CETME(pos)! Also if you want a truly fine FAL look for a Lithgow(Aus) L1A1. Good stuff,IMO. derf

I also own both. My M1A will shoot circles around the FN all day and the sights are FAR superior on the M1A. I like the "feel" of the FN better and as mentioned earlier the fact that you can by 8 magazines for the FN for the price of one M1A magazine. But if I had to go with one it would be the M1A.

quote:

It is indeed rare (I have never seen) to find a FN/FAL in a military rifle match due to not only the sights, but the trigger is not suitable for serious match type performance either. It does not lend itself to accurate shooting in my experience and as I mentioned, have never seen one used at Camp Perry or other locations as well.

Hmmmm! What class would the FN/FAL fire in ..... if shot at Camp Perry, dsiteman? Might that have something to do with them not showing up at Camp Perry?!!!

DaMan

The hk is a good rifle. Look at the new ptr 91. I have one and it shoots everything great. They are brand new and not parts guns. They are very accurate but not as good as an mia. But then neither is a fal. The base ptr is around 700 and they have higher pricer target models as well. Good luck

Hello DaMan,
Well, let's see now, there are probably several hundred XC (across the course) matches shot throughout the nation each year and as mentioned other than Camp Perry, but still have not seen one used. For the National Matches, one could try, not a good idea, to shoot the FN/FAL in the military service rifle class, but have not seen anyone brave or foolish enough to try it yet. Oh yes, there are plenty of "legal" opportunities to use the FN/FAL in matches, but just won't work very well, that is my point. Aside from the lousy sight system, terrible trigger, the accuracy of the FN/FAL lends itself to battle type situations and not to match accuracy as the M1A will deliver. I have not seen even a rack/service grade M1A/M14 not shoot well, and those match ready will easy deliver 1/2 moa accuracy. There are bolt guns out there that will not do any better.
If by chance you try an FN/FAL in a match, be sure and let us know how they do. Favor Center!!
dsiteman

I have owned and fired several different M1A's, H&k 91's, and FN-FAL,s. They are all good rifles, but very different.
I suggest you shoot all 3 and pick the one that suits your needs the best.
The M1-A is by far the best for NRA type shooting. It has the best adjustable sights, and can be had with match bbls different stocks, etc.
"Everyone" says the FN has the best ergonomics.I had a regular FN and a Para Fal. I prefered the Para. I liked the FN the least of the 3.
My favorite for a field/combat rifle is the H&K 91. It is the easiest to scope. The mount is QD and holds its zero. You can change the stock and fore end without effecting the zero. The bbl is free floating. Rapid fire does not change the impact point as the bbl heats up.
I have done quite a bit of hunting with the 91.
I have NEVER had any problem with Soft point ammo or reloads in any of the three. All 3 are excellent rifles, just different.

In todays world for a personal battle rifle I would take a hard look at the M1-A Bush Rifle or the SOCOM, both with the scout scope mount.

quote:

For the National Matches, one could try, not a good idea, to shoot the FN/FAL in the military service rifle class

Hmmmm! And here I thought the "Service Class" High Power were limited to US issue type service rifles that were issued in fairly large numbers. I didn't know FN/FALs were US issue.

I thought if an FN/FAL were used, it would fall into the "Match" class. Entering into the "Match" class with an FN/FAL would be stupid. But M-14s are also outclassed in the Match rifle category.

Is this correct, dsite?

DaMan

Hello DaMan,
Well, you are correct on both points, the FN/FAL is not a U.S. weapon and it would have to be shot in a match class as it were. However, even with that lattitude, I have never seen anyone attempt to shoot in any class with the weapon. I am not sure of the remark about the M1A being outclassed in the match rifle class for at ranges up to the 600 yard line, the M1A will deliver very fine accuracy I think you would admit. Of course that depends on the shooter a great deal, but have seen some Master and High Master shooters deliver definite match rifle scores with the M1A.
In any case, would suggest the person attempting to make a decision about the purchase of one or the other, decide what he is going to do with the weapon, matches, accuracy, or just "shoot..." in an informal manner, the FN/FAL may serve him better. The market has a bunch of surplus military ammo out there and if reloading is not an issue, then the FN/FAL may well be the right choice. Price is generally lower for the FN/FAL and kits are available as well.
Favor Center!!
dsiteman

PS If you do purchase the FN/FAL get back with me in a couple months and I will be offering a fine useable sight for the weapon.

Hey Captain,

Straight up, the M1A shoots rings around the FAL.

As mentioned above the iron sights on the M1A are outstanding and should be as they are the same ones used on the M1 Garand.

Before you choose visit these websites:

AMBACK M1A/M14

DIFFERENTS M1A SITE

M-14 FORUMS

The FAL as made by Steyr or FN was never intended to be a sniper grade rifle, but a battle rifle. Its lightweight dust cover is very poor for attaching any type of scope mount, and as previsously discussed the issued sites are not any where close to those found on the M14 / M1A. The trigger also is a issue as its heavy pull all but destroys any sharpshooting it may have pocessed.
Again there are after-market companies producing FAL type rifles with more ridge dust covers that are more scope mount friendly, but the rifle will still not compete with the M14 / M1A.
If you are looking for a fun rifle with historical value go for the FAL, if you are thinking about using the gun for target or long range shooting then the M1A should be your choice.
As a after thought, firing the FAL/LAR in full auto mode was better than firing the M14 in full auto, but again the only value in that was if you got caught in an ambush an needed to cover an area with volume fire. Can't think of any 7.62 good at aimed fire in full auto-mode.

Oh, dsite, if you don't believe there is a vast difference in EQUIPMENT between the Match and the Service categories, I suggest you go to some large NRA HP matches.... or pick up the NRA HP competition rule book.

THE MATCH CATEGORY ALLOWS USE OF MUCH BETTER SIGHTS!

DaMan

Can't think of any 7.62 good at aimed fire in full auto-mode.

How about this?

Full Auto 7.62mm "Aimed Fire"

I have had both for quite some time & love both.
Considering what each was designed to do IF i were in combat & my life depended on one or the other my choice will be the FN/FAL!

quote:

Right around $1400 or so.

Semi-Auto .308 for 1 1/2 grand

DaMan

I knew there were fans on each side, and the info so far has been great. Now that DaMan has mentioned it, both Armalite and DPMS have 308 rifles I had forgotten about.

I read a very good review of the DPMS rifle on gunblast.com - my only problem with it is that there are only bull bbl options, and you have to go an 18" bbl to get below 10 lbs. Accuracy is very good though.

I also like the AR-10A4 as it has a 20" barrel and weighs 9.6 lbs, but Armalite says that their non-target models will get 1.5" to 2" groups. Is this true? I would think that any AR type platform can be made to shoot under 2" (and closer to 1") fairly easily.

Scoping the AR style rifles would be much easier than either the M1A or the FAL, so there is a big plus there. Who has further opinions once these two options are thrown in? Out of the four choices, which would you buy? I'm not looking for a battle rifle. Mostly informal targets (no competitions) and hunting of med to large game out to 300 meters. I'd also like the option of having no muzzle device at all. Brakes are not needed and just make things too loud. Thx again!

quote:

Now that DaMan has mentioned it, both Armalite and DPMS have 308 rifles I had forgotten about

Don't forget Bushmaster!



PS - The Bushmasters use FN-FAL magazines! These are much more inexpensive than M-14 mags and readily available! Check out this site....FN/FAL Mags

Hello,
As a suggestion only, see if you can find a place and source to shoot the Armalite and BM, etc. AR10 style 308's and shoot the M1A as well and get a good comparison. If and when you do this, let us know which one you selected. I am sure you will choose wisely.
Favor Center!!
dsiteman

Hey there DaMan,
Just read your post about equipment and you are correct about the sights. Not sure you can get any bigger matches than the Nationals at Camp Perry and hold High Master Rating in both Across the Course and Long Range. How about your classifications?? Anyway, to argue that the FN/FAL is an equivalent to the M1A/M14 Service Rifle in terms of accuracy and ease of shooting just simply will not fly or perhaps I should say "flies in the face of logic and facts..." In either case, enjoy your FN's or it's many, many variants, and Favor Center!!
dsiteman

OK, I've fired at Perry, hold a High Master card (service rifle!) and went Distinguished with the M1A.

That said, I like the Bushmaster from what I've seen of it. I've handled but never fired one.

My one remaining double-lug wears an ARMS mount that's so low I had to remove the rear sight pieces to mount the optics! Either of those two would be my choice and likely work equally well.

I'm also left handed, so the FAL's selector eats a hole in my hand. OUCH. The trigger and sights belong on a BB gun, but I do like the FAL gas system.

My two cents, since you asked! Good luck with whatever you choose.

Redial

quote:

also like the AR-10A4 as it has a 20" barrel and weighs 9.6 lbs, but Armalite says that their non-target models will get 1.5" to 2" groups. Is this true? I would think that any AR type platform can be made to shoot under 2" (and closer to 1") fairly easily.

TC, all the big "ARs" shoot extremely well and they are very easy to accurize and tweak.

Check out the site below!

Bushmaster Test