M14 Forum banner
1 - 20 of 58 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
999 Posts
what are the good traits of the fn fal and what are some problems that it suffered in combat?
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.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,727 Posts
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.
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
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
49 Posts
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.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,384 Posts
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.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
411 Posts
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 GI2
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,727 Posts
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
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
566 Posts
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
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,006 Posts
What are the good traits of the FN FAL and what are some problems that it suffered in combat?

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
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,272 Posts
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.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
68 Posts
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.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,541 Posts
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.
 

·
Retired
Joined
·
4,807 Posts
What are the good traits of the FN FAL and what are some problems that it suffered in combat?
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.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
839 Posts
The only complaint was from Israel and regarded desert sand gunking up the gun. Other than them being heavy and the mag issue from inch to metric they are fine weapons for a battle rifle
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
420 Posts
Comparison of the FAL to the M14, here is what I see:

Minus:
The sights are much worse. There is no user adjustable windage. The elevation adjustment is typically just for each distance rather than MOA clicks. If your ammunition does not conform to the sights, you have no solution. The rear sights tend to be a bit wobbly.

Scope mounting in a secure manner is more difficult. Perhaps this is just "Different" because as we know, the M14 has its own scope mounting issues.

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.

The tipping breech block does not have the same force in closing the action as does the M14's rotating bolt.

The trigger pulls tend to be gritty and poor.


Plus:
Accuracy is fairly comparable to or better than M14 types with standard barrels and no accuracy improvements with the few I have fired. YMMV.

The Gas System is adjustable to a fairly fine degree.

The ergonomics / handling are excellent. To me, the gun feels better than he M14, but this is subjective.

There is no bedding to get loose or fail. The upper and lower receivers lock up pretty tight in every rifle I have handled thus far. The same can not be said for receiver to stock fit for every M14 type I have seen thus far.

- Ivan.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
166 Posts
Comparison of the FAL to the M14, here is what I see:

Minus:
The sights are much worse. There is no user adjustable windage. The elevation adjustment is typically just for each distance rather than MOA clicks. If your ammunition does not conform to the sights, you have no solution. The rear sights tend to be a bit wobbly.

Scope mounting in a secure manner is more difficult. Perhaps this is just "Different" because as we know, the M14 has its own scope mounting issues.

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.

The tipping breech block does not have the same force in closing the action as does the M14's rotating bolt.

The trigger pulls tend to be gritty and poor.


Plus:
Accuracy is fairly comparable to or better than M14 types with standard barrels and no accuracy improvements with the few I have fired. YMMV.

The Gas System is adjustable to a fairly fine degree.

The ergonomics / handling are excellent. To me, the gun feels better than he M14, but this is subjective.

There is no bedding to get loose or fail. The upper and lower receivers lock up pretty tight in every rifle I have handled thus far. The same can not be said for receiver to stock fit for every M14 type I have seen thus far.

- Ivan.
Ivan1GFP hit the nail on the head. I could not sum it up better.

MM
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
186 Posts
Hey "ThatGuy", got alot of openended posts, with not alot of info in your bio, care to tell us what or where you're from? Curious or should i say suspious minds like me want to know? Thanks, in advance
Todd
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,727 Posts
Sorry, I really must disagree:

Comparison of the FAL to the M14, here is what I see:

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.


- Ivan.
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
 
1 - 20 of 58 Posts
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top