New FAL owner.

[wolfdog45]

Hello every one. I have alway's wanted to get a FAL, I alway's heard nothing but good things about them so when i got my tax return this year the first thing I bought was a new vehicle for my wife and a FAL for myself.
I found a Izzy heavy barrel carbine made on a Hesse receiver that I liked and bought it. It has a 16" barrel with the muzzlebreak permantly fixed to be the legal 16".
Right when I got it I took it out to the range and put a 100 rounds thru it.
I had read how to adjust the gas regulator and so i did that. My gas regulator has the numbers from 1-7 on it, and I have it set on 2 because thats where it will eject and rechamber without any problems.
I shot it from 75 yards the first 20 rounds. Great group, didn't have to mess with the sights at all. I then moved to 100 yards and fired another 20 rounds, another great group. I moved to 150 yards and shot the rest of my ammo. I ended up making 2.5 group at 150 yards.
I was surprised with that because I was using some real cheap Monarch ammo, and the barrel is really only 14".
I am a real big FAL fan now, and I am trying to learn everything about them.
I didn't like the old buttstock that came with my FAL so I bought a new one that was shorter and took the old one off. Man I was not ready for that project. I did not read up on how to install new butt stocks and so i had quite a time trying to put the new butt stock on with the spring and not using the right tool.
I finaly got the new stock on and I like it a lot better, but I won't be changing the butt any more with out the right stuff.
Well I just wanted to post on how great these FAL's are and now I like them a lot better than I like my Ar's.

[brownknees]

Well I just wanted to post on how great these FAL's are and now I like them a lot better than I like my Ar's.
Hope, there is, for this one, Obi Wan:wink:
Welcome aboard.

There is a real purpose for the .223 round, despite all the criticism of it.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
as a primer for the .308! :uhoh: :rofl: :rofl:

[CWizard]

Just ordered my FAL. DSA stg58 18 inch carbine. (CWizard does the happy dance!!) I hope I like it as much as my M1a. At least the magazines will be cheaper,lol. Guess I should get some dies and do some serious reloading. I already load for .30-06 and handguns but is drudge work.

[WEA]

Maybe I can piggy back on this thread and get an answer to an "accuracy expectation" question.

Standard Inch Pattern L1A1 parts kit on an Entreprise receiver. Refurb job being done by VOX, including new spring kit and DSA Scope Mount Dust Cover.

What can I expect in way of accuracy at 100, 300 & 500 yards? Cost of ammunition is not an issue. I'll use what ever is needed to get the job done. I am also getting into reloading so I might be able to maximize the platforms potential with some home brew. The expectation of accuracy will determine the scope to be mounted. Suggestions on scopes would be welcomed also. Use of iron sights at anything over 100 yards is problematic do to "old eyes syndrome".

Is there anything that can be done to improve long range accuracy? A barrel change might be one, but I've not really had a chance to play with what I've got to determine if its needed.

[brownknees]

3" @ 100 is "normal" with milsurp.

Can a barrel change help?
Maybe. If the barrel is bad then it'll help, otherwise not.

Will optics help old tired eyes?
Yes! they helped mine:uhoh:
Personally I like either the Hensoldt FERO, or the SUIT scopes over the big, honkin zoom varmint hunter types, but that's just my experience.

Reloading?
Yup. It'll help as you'll be able to tune the load to the rifle, something mass made ammo just can't do.

Will it ever be a tack driver?
Probably not as it was never designed to be.

Mainly you'll improve accuracy by having the mechanics dead right. Things like minimum headspace, correctly locking bolts & other mechanical fit & function.

Do not use a tight sling when firing as the rifle is very different fron a free-floated wood stocked rifle.
:beer:

[J. Armstrong]

Wolfdog, welcome aboard :beer: . Now that you are infacted, kiss your checking account goodbye - it is a never ending addiction !!!

WEA, brownknees tells it like it is. There are all sorts of tales, both true and imaginary, of 1 moa FALs but the bottom line is the FAL was never intended to be a precision platform, and there are some inherent limitations in the design which make improving it much a crap shoot. 3 moa was the design parameter and expecting more can mean either good luck, spending beaucoup bucks, or just plain disappointment. Be prepared for any of the above if you insist on a long range sniper weapon. If creating a sniper grade FAL is approached as an interesting project I suppose that is okay, but just go in with eyes open and reasonable expectations.

[W.E.G.]

Accuracy?

As one of our esteemed members has said, "Its an axe, not a dental pick."

You want something for shooting gophers, I think you should look elsewhere.

Me and Bugs shot these 100-yard equivalent targets OFFHAND FROM THE MAGAZINE at 50 yards.

30 shots each - 10 scoped, 10 EOTECH 10 irons.
The scope was the hardest to pull the trigger on.

A more "accurate" gun would not have helped.

http://i227.photobucket.com/albums/dd7/rkba2da/targets/2008-05-09-BugTusselcombattarget.jpg

http://i227.photobucket.com/albums/dd7/rkba2da/rifle%20pics/FAL/Hampton-Varela-scope.jpg
http://i227.photobucket.com/albums/dd7/rkba2da/rifle%20pics/FAL/Hampton-Varela-EOTECH.jpg
http://i227.photobucket.com/albums/dd7/rkba2da/rifle%20pics/FAL/Hampton-Varela-railonly.jpg

[J. Armstrong]

Not to hijack this thread, but I was wondering if Gary has tried the EOTech in a more forward position and if so, what are your thoughts ? Haven't got around to experimenting with mine yet and have heard various opinions.

[W.E.G.]

I have tried it in various positions.

The rifle BALANCES best with it mounted toward the rear, although the red-dot appears more "grainy" the closer it sits relative to the eyeball.

Also, spent cases are more likely to smack it, the closer it gets to the port.

http://i227.photobucket.com/albums/dd7/rkba2da/FAL%20parts%20pics/brasskisses-DSAreceiver2.jpg

[English Mike]

A big +1 for putting an Eotech on a FAL for those of us whose eyes aren't what they were.
Hopefully I'll have a 3x FTS magnifier soon too.

[BigSoundRacing]

Congrats on the new/first FAL. I've owned my DSA Medium Contour for about 18 months, great quality and it is holding quarter size groups at 100 yards, very pleased.

Yes, my eyes are over 40. Leupold 4.5-14x50mm Mark 4 and an EOTech within reach.

Regards,

http://i68.photobucket.com/albums/i15/BigSoundRacing/DSC06089_80.jpg

[cbr954fz1]

becoming a fal addict is definetly bad for the bank account. i bought my century a month ago and before i recieved it i bought 2 stg58's that was built by ARS and i cant stop looking. i keep thinking if i build one it would hold me off, then i see a good deal and i'm biding again, my wife is threathing to take my computer away.
anyway, sorry for whinning and welcome aboard!! you'll be sorry you did. (the more you know , the more you want) :sad:

[StarPD]

As has been alluded to here, the FAL is considered a "Main Battle Rifle". It is NOT a target rifle by any means. That doesn't mean that with much work and expense on can't be made accurate, just that for most intents and purposes, it's neither cheap nor easy. Keep in mind that as with all manufactured goods, every rifle is different, and the luck of the draw just may get you an exceptionally accurate one, or OTOH, it may get you one that shoots 6" groups at 100 yards.

New or like new components can improve your odds, but at least some tweaking is usually required to get the most from a FAL. Probably the two most important factors in making any FAL accurate are the trigger and the sights. FAL triggers are notoriously bad, and they are difficult to make light, smooth, crisp, and reliable. For us older guys, iron sights are not the answer, but a scope makes a FAL heavy and cumbersome, as well as difficult to shoot quick repeat shots accurately. Scopes are for slow, deliberate shooting. Personally, I prefer the dot type sights. I use the Trijicon "Reflex" sight and swear by it. Others like Aimpoint, Eotech, and so on. If you go that route, be very careful which reticle you choose, it makes a big difference. Too big and accuracy suffers, too small and quick target acquisition and reacquisition of repeat targets suffers. I like the Trijicon Reflex with the triangular reticle, it provides the best of both worlds. Use the full body of the triangle for quick target acquisition, or the point on the triangle for pinpoint shots.

Careful headspacing can help accuracy too, as can free floating the barrel. All of these things will improve accuracy without compromising reliability, but anything beyond them may well affect reliability, maneuverability, and ruggedness. Others here may disagree, but I think with a really GOOD trigger, the right sights, a free-floated barrel, and known accurate ammo (that your particular gun likes) SHOULD deliver around 2 MOA. If you think about it, for all but serious target shooting, that's all you should need. What that means is for example, that at 300 yards, you won't be off your POA more than 3", and usually a lot less than that. That would be MAXIMUM dispersion, not minimum or even average.

One other issue is correct break in to get all parts bedded and seated into each other, and correct barrel break-in, depending on whether you have a chrome lined or chromemoly barrel (each requires a different break-in procedure).

Unless you can find a known accurate FAL built by someone like Gunplumber, if accuracy is really important, you might be better off buying a new DSA SA58, or even a DSA StG58. If you go that route, be careful about choosing their excellent "Medium contour" barrel. They are usually quite accurate, but HEAVY. My old SA58 with a medium contour barrel, a free floating forend, a Burris 4-12 scope (which I got rid of), a Turner Saddlery leather sling and a full 20 round mag weighed in at 14.5 lbs. It was just too heavy and cumbersome for field use, and I had Gunplumber replace the barrel with a standard barrel cut down to "Para" length (just under 18"). While some prefer a 21" barrel, and some like the 16" for maneuverability and weight savings, the "Para" length is usually considered the ideal length for most uses. It's a personal preference thing.

I guess the bottom line is that you CAN make a FAL RELATIVELY accurate without too much trouble, but if pinpoint accuracy is your goal, you need to consider an accurized bolt gun that can shoot 1/2 MOA. I can tell you though that shooting good accurate repeat shots with a FAL is a real hoot.

[ggiilliiee]

holy baby jesus crap jete ..ya sure your not loading shotgun shell in the fal..?? .....please tell me you were blindfolded and hanging upside down while being beaten with a steel rod and on fire ....what are you doing to those rifles ??? hehehe wescrack ???.ive never seen a group that bad in my entire life....and ive shot with LEO 's.!!!! .......also there is a way iirc to stop the strikes .

.try a polarized lens on the dot or glasses ..takes the fringe of the dot away ...........

fals arent inacurate ..just the builders ......

[brunop]

I thought this might happen...

[Bug Tussell]

OK ggiilliiee, you've seen mine, now let's see yours...

Target is 8 1/2" X 11". The head is 1/2 sheet of same - half on and half off the "torso". 50 yards distance.

3 free standing 10 round groups. When the rifle comes up, it stays up for the entire 10 rounds.

No resting between rounds. You can rest between groups.

10 rounds scoped, 10 rounds red dot and 10 rounds iron sights. 30 rounds total and ONLY 30 rounds. No best of 60, 90, 120, etc...

FAL of course. Some kind of impartial witness would help the veracity factor.

What say you?

[WEA]

Thanks for the replies. There seems to be a slight disagreement over accuracy. Which is to be expected. One MOA from an FAL L1A1 can be hoped for, but I agree we're dealing with a battle rifle not a target rifle. If I can get 3 MOA and tune to 2 MOA I'd be a happy camper. When she gets back from her refurb job I'll let you know.

Until then I think I'm going to try one of the EO Techs on my back-up rifle. Hits on a pie plate at 100-200 yards would be nice. Hits on a man size target at 300 yards would be delightful.

[StarPD]

Your goal is not unreasonable WEA. It may take a little tweaking, but I think as long as the barrel is good, it's headspaced at the close end of tolerances and you have a good trigger, you should be good to go. 2 MOA with match or other good ammo, and 3 MOA with the better milsurp should be attainable. Hirtenberger is great, if you can find any, SA and Port are reputed to be good too. I personally prefer Aussie and Spanish Santa Barbara. You will of course get varying opinions on which milsurp is "best".

I think you'll like the Eotech, as long as it has the right reticle.

I like the Trijicon "Reflex" because it has no batteries, reticle brightness in daytime is determined by ambient light (the brighter the day, the brighter the reticle), it's VERY compact, light, and rugged (dunk it in water to clean it), and it has a good sized triangular reticle which I like to allow for quick target acquisition and reacquisition of successive targets, AND the use of the point on the triangle for pinpoit shooting at longer ranges.

Regardless, the Eotech is also a good choice.
Let us know how you like it after you get it mounted and use it, and after you get your rifle back from refurb and shoot it, how it does.

Good luck.

[English Mike]

If you go for an EoTech, then the 1MOA dot/65MOA circle is the reticle to go for.
Consistently hitting pie plates at 200yds shouldn't be a problem - even a duffer like me can manage that & when I don't, it isn't the rifle or sight that's to blame......:sad:

[tangoben]

Bug Tussell (or anybody)..........excuse my ignorance, but, you show shooting 30 rounds at two paper targets...somewhat like a man shape. Why did you count the "head" shots twice for each target?

[Bug Tussell]

Originally posted by tangoben
Bug Tussell (or anybody)..........excuse my ignorance, but, you show shooting 30 rounds at two paper targets...somewhat like a man shape. Why did you count the "head" shots twice for each target?

It simulates a head shot at 100 yards and it is half the size of the "torso" so it got twice the points for "headshots".

10 round groups are harder to keep tight than a 3 shot group. And of course, off hand is more a test of the shooter than the rifle.

Personally, I wanted to shoot off a bench but WEG wouldn't have it. His gun, his ammo and his range so his rules.

He gave me a few pointers that put me in the head area. So basically, you get 30 shots to see how many headshots you can make at a simulated 100 yards off-hand.

It was fun. The FAL may not be a precision rifle but it is accurate enough to get the job done. It's fun to build and it's fun to shoot. Enjoy.

[tangoben]

Bug..Thanks for the quick reply.

[powermad]

FAL's are accurate enough..
http://i104.photobucket.com/albums/m178/powermad69/Guns/P1000666.jpg

I don't have any optics for mine yet.

These are kinda heavy rigs, to shoot them well off hand takes some getting used to.

I took a paint pen and made a mark on the wall, it is the width of the front sight at 6 ft. I stand and practice steadying the sight. After a bit I see how long I can keep it on target. Then I start holding and dry firing.

It works for me anyway.