PDA

View Full Version : Which lower is better, inch or metric?


halfinchharvard
May 09, 2008, 01:11
I have two lower receivers, one is metric, well worn, from parts kit. The other lower receiver is inch, a little better condition. I want to send one in to moses for trigger work. Which is considered better and for what reasons? Parts availability? Grip? sights (fixed Vs. Flip up)? The regulars on this site seem to be very experienced in the details, please give me your opinions.

SIG552
May 09, 2008, 04:12
Quality wise no difference. Parts availability wise not much difference either.

If the rest of your rifle is inch then I would use the inch lower. Using a metric lower on an inch rifle will give a sight height misalignment.

Only other point I can think of is that there are more furniture options for metric lowers than for inch lowers.

SIG552

vmtz
May 09, 2008, 07:35
You could always just switch rear sights to get the correct hight.

Fr. Vince

Brian in MN
May 10, 2008, 09:55
The correct answer is: yes.

msnyder
May 10, 2008, 10:04
Inch parts are the Brits "improvements" over the original metric FAL. Larger selector switch, sleeved trigger assembly, self-contained hammer spring/plunger, etc. But it really boils down to personal preference/convenience.

halfinchharvard
May 10, 2008, 13:48
My reveiver and barrel are inch, so I need the flip-up rear sight. Is it an easy change over to put the flip up on the metric lower? I really like the metric pistol grip better.

Prototype Services
May 10, 2008, 17:41
The inch FALs are FAR superior........:biggrin:

Slo cat
May 11, 2008, 11:48
The Inch folding rear sight assembly will easily fit on a Metric lower.

I use Inch style selectors (DSA) and Inch mag releases on all my metric FAL's. These are definate improvements to the original design. And I like the Inch folding charging handle on my Para, as this fits with the compactabily theme of this rifle.

But the Inch FAL just looks klunky compared to the Metric FAL.:biggrin: :biggrin:

Best Regards,
Slo cat