Poor guy, hand him an olive branch and he sticks it in his eye. God bless

Orion 1,

The US has a history of quickly abandoning inadequate or probelmatic service rifles.
You didn't mention any concerning the FAL, are there any others execpt for it's added weight?

Yep, their gas systems couldn't be more different. Yet the M-16 soldiers on in every clime and place....... you didn't say but, do you think the AR's gas system is a Better design?

At this point, if I needed to go larger caliber, and top accuracy was paramount, the AR10 would be my choice over the FAL but, if the FAL would hold .7 MOA or better it would be the one I'd get for sure. Thanks for the link the the FAL site. My dad will be getting a new upper for his and he'll want to check out his options for best accuracy. His AR10T smokes the FAL in the shape it's in.

I understand your point of view as to the other points you make, I just don't always agree with the "flock" mentality. One could also argue that the flock (the rest of the world) uses the FAL too, I guess I just agree with that flock.

[ 06-07-2003, 05:20: Message edited by: Brent Moffitt ]

Orion 1: "Both the M1A and the AR-15 are intrinsically more accurate designs than the FAL, and the FAL will never catch up in the accuracy department, no matter how much money you throw at it."

Axel: "Orion1, you are a hero to morons everywhere! KevinNY you must be stupid as well."

Orion, where you when this fool needed that information 6 years ago?
I feel like I flushed $5k and two years down the toilet trying to get 1" groups and building more FALs. None of my FALs [And I have built 6] could be counted on for better than 6" at 100 m. And in all those year none ever did better than 2.5" for a wallet group.

I am sure the FALs were great battle rifles, but I would rather hit myself on the head with a hammer than try to get a 1" groups with one.

My shooting and handloading inability has been bounded: My 257 averages in the 800s with me at the trigger and in the 500s with my brother shooting.

My dads FAL shoots about 2-4" groups is all, I've seen loads do much worse but 2-4 inches is pretty consistant. Still sucks though. Plenty good for moose fairly close in though.

Clark, what do you believe the intrinsic flaw of the FAL is? The rear lock-up, bolt carrier/bolt assembly?

I have seen rear lock-ups that were incredibly accurate, although not FAL rifles, as long as pressures were kept below 50,000, that is. The bolt carrier/bolt assembly is a new variable for me as I have never worked with a rifle of such configuration for accuracy work.

In all honesty, I figured the biggest problem was the chrome lined milspec barrel and it's LOOSE chamber! That was why I was thinking that a match grade barrel without the chrome lining and much tigher concentric chamber would be a BIG improvement. It sounds however, like you have been down this road and learned that this approach is not going to work.

Axel

[ 06-07-2003, 16:53: Message edited by: Axel ]

Axel,
I could never figure out what makes FALs inaccurate for me.

I heard all over that guys were getting 1.5" groups, but I discounted that as bragging.

One problem we all have is that there are so many varibles in accuracy, that an individual never has the time to test everything and must eventually rely on the mythology.

This guy is an established scientist and he did not invent or test to succeed. He is just following gun culture mythology proceedure to get accuracy.
http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&selm=2ks7kc%24p9u%40news.u.wash ington.edu

I built four '98 Mausers and they just keep getting more accurate. That is why I really like this forum: it is Mauser oriented.

Maybe if I went back to FALs now, with the basics I learned from Mausers, I would do better.

[ 06-08-2003, 21:43: Message edited by: Clark ]

There is a group buy on Kreiger barrels over at www.FNFAL.com