The FAL Files

The FAL Files (http://www.falfiles.com/forums/index.php)
-   The FN Files (http://www.falfiles.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=150)
-   -   Tell me about the Springfield SAR-48 FAL (http://www.falfiles.com/forums/showthread.php?t=291946)

jaypandolfo July 05, 2010 22:44

Tell me about the Springfield SAR-48 FAL
 
My local shop had a Springfield FAL a little over a year ago and I'm thinking that I missed out on a great opportunity to own a high quality FAL. I can't remember if it was a SAR-48 or SAR-4800.

My main concerns are 1.) is it a 100% Brazilian assembed pre-ban rifle? and 2.) how would rate them or how would you compare them to high-quality FAL variants? Thanks

emcroy July 05, 2010 23:59

They are both made in Brazil by Imbell. SAR48 is pre ban, SAR4800 is post ban and in factory configuration will have the butthole stock and fake flash hider.

They are made by an FN licensed manufacturer who made rifles for the militaries of a few nations. I'd rate them as second only to the Belgian guns.

Ferdman July 06, 2010 20:40

Here's another great opportunity: I have an SAR-4800 in excellent condition with original box I'll be putting in the Marketplace soon. PM me if you're interested.

As emcroy said, "second only to the Belgians."

ftierson July 06, 2010 22:17

While I like Imbels and even have an original SAR-48, I don't place them up quite as high as a number of others when it comes to cosmetics.

Personally, I'd put the Austrian StG-58s at the top of the list, with the Belgian guns slightly below that...

Then, we work our way down. Imbels, while fine guns, are somewhat in the middle of the cosmetic range...

But maybe that's just me... :)

Forrest

DK July 06, 2010 22:21

I like the SAR48's... they are pre-ban and forged reecivers. The type III FN-FAL is cast.

Let's see, I can save about a grand for going with a mil-spec (sans select fire-yadda-yadda) forged SAR48 VS a mil spec but cast receivered FNFAL? I'll take that deal every time.

DK

Inkognito July 06, 2010 23:00

SAR-48 is at the top of the heap along with all of the other pre-ban FALs. I don't think there is a lick of difference between them and the Belgian rifles except they don't say "Made in Belgique" on the side. In my opinion, while many of the clone rifles and post-ban mfg. FALs are fine rifles, they all come in second to the pre-bans that were built as a complete gun in an FN licensed factory (with the exceptin of anything made by Century which comes in dead last). I dabble with kits and build FALs for myself, but I place them 2nd to my SAR-48. If cosmetics are important to you, buy Avon. If function is important, buy the SAR-48. Right now the SAR-48s are one of the best deals going. I regularly see them selling for around $1400 which is less than a lot of the DSA rifles. If you get an opportunity to pick one up I would do so, someday they will dry up and that will be that. There is absolutely nothing wrong with a Belgian FAL, they are sweet rifles. But for the price of one you could have an SAR-48, a scope mount, and pretty much your choice of optics from ACOG, Elcan, or a Valdada Pitbull. The only difference is that you will be more likely to hit what you are aiming at because you could afford to mount some nice glass on it and you won't cringe every time you pull the trigger as you would with a Belgian FAL because of what you are doing to its precious value as a collector's piece. My .02.

harleyboyddk July 07, 2010 01:34

Bought my SAR-48 new. Very pleased. Has gloss black finish, though I prefer parkerized.

ftierson July 07, 2010 02:25

Quote:

Originally posted by DK
I like the SAR48's... they are pre-ban and forged reecivers. The type III FN-FAL is cast.

Let's see, I can save about a grand for going with a mil-spec (sans select fire-yadda-yadda) forged SAR48 VS a mil spec but cast receivered FNFAL? I'll take that deal every time.

I wasn't referring just to the receivers, of course. As a matter of fact, I'm a big fan of the Imbel receivers... :)

Forrest

kiddsf July 07, 2010 06:34

The SAR48 rilfes all have excellent baked enamel over parkerized finish.

IMO, the cosmetic/ the finish, SAR is probably on par with the Belgium FN FALs but FN is matte and SAR is glossy.

For pure 100% collecting purpose, I really do like the glossy finish more, but for collecting as well as shooting, I MUCH prefer the FN matte finish.

Also, SAR48s have forged steel receivers while FN Type 3 are cast steel.

I think I would go with the SAR48s when FN is $1000+ more, and not even NIB or mint

kiddsf July 07, 2010 06:40

BTW, does anyone know about whether IMBEL is a licensed manufacturer or not?

I've read it somewhere that said IMBEL wasn't licensed by FN?

IMO, I don't think that is true, I've read many online sources as well as some books all saying IMBEL was indeed licensed, but could anyone share their knowledge?

jbrooks July 07, 2010 07:51

IMBEL was licensed.

But Rosario Argies are More Licensed. And nicer. :rofl:

(OK, I really like the SAR-48 too. :love:

I owned a gen - u -wine FN 50.63 in the "old days" and never really liked it all that much. I think the Argentine and Brazilian stablemates are above the FN, other than name recognition.

JWB

J. Armstrong July 07, 2010 08:07

Quote:

Originally posted by jbrooks
IMBEL was licensed.

But Rosario Argies are More Licensed. And nicer. :rofl:

(OK, I really like the SAR-48 too. :love:

I owned a gen - u -wine FN 50.63 in the "old days" and never really liked it all that much. I think the Argentine and Brazilian stablemates are above the FN, other than name recognition.

JWB

I'm in basic agreement, but let's clarify that we have been referring to the late type 3 FN rifles. The earlier types 1 and 2 are much, much nicer and pretty much top the heap. Much better fit and finish, forged receivers, etc. But you WILL pay for them, that's for sure !!

Lee Carpentieri July 07, 2010 08:11

Imbel Licensing
 
Imbel was never licensed BY FN Herstahl and Imbel was sued in international courts in the early 1960's for attempted patent infringements, It's the one reason you don't see FAL Marked on the recievers.

Under the terms of settlement, Imbel agreed to buy the normal 15% of small parts from FH Herstahl and machinery to produce the Fal. FN Herstahl Group also set up a plant in Brazil in 1978 to produce weapons and spares for the South American markets. The reason for this was most if not all Central and South American countries have very high import tarriffs as most have no Income tax based revenue, Some countries are as high as 50% now. I've seen and heard of some Imbel barrels blowing apart, BUT I'm suspect as to what ammo the owner was using as in surplused or reloads, But personally never had that happen with any Imbel barrel I've used.

As to who's the best, I'll stick with a Belguim made Fal as they are the originators, Not imitators. I've seen the same as some would say about Belguim Fals with machine marks on Argentines and Imbels and nothing that a good coat of paint won't cover up till years later when the paint finnish is worn from use or just oiling and rubbing down the finnish wear of the paint.

Just remember this, Don't compare American or European standards to Central and South American standards as its night and day in comparision. But personally, I'd rather have something made from Central or South America than CHINA. Now lets see what kind of shit hits the fan with this one.

DK July 07, 2010 12:23

Quote:

Originally posted by ftierson


I wasn't referring just to the receivers, of course. As a matter of fact, I'm a big fan of the Imbel receivers... :)

Forrest

Wasn't responding to you Forrest; just bloviating on my own :beer:

DK

DK July 07, 2010 12:25

Quote:

Originally posted by kiddsf
The SAR48 rilfes all have excellent baked enamel over parkerized finish.


except for the heavy barrel Izzy pattern SAR48's... they were always park over park ;)

No paint on the SAR48 heavy bbl Izzy's.

DK

kiddsf July 07, 2010 13:06

With so many people agreeing to IMBEL being licensed, I think we could all settle with that.

I can see I'm not the only one that think SAR48 non-HB versions do have nice finish on them. HB SAR48s are still nice too tho, I like those kind of parkerized finish more than DSA

jaypandolfo July 08, 2010 18:49

Quote:

Originally posted by kiddsf Also, SAR48s have forged steel receivers while FN Type 3 are cast steel.
From what I know, forged steel is stronger than cast....so would this make a big difference between the two rifles in terms of longevity?

At the moment I do have enough to spend on a SAR48 or even a Belgian FAL with a type 3 receiver for what they typically go for, I'll say that much. However if I do get a Belgian I will suffer from a strong sense of buyer's remorse, that's for sure!

I've only looked into FALs for the past 3-4 months, but what draws me to them besides the cosmetics and powerful .308 caliber is their reputation for endurance and durability. That being said, let's say I get a SAR-48 or a FN. I'd estimate that I would put roughly 500 rounds through it a year at MAXIMUM. Will proper cleaning and oiling, would it accumulate a lot of wear and tear thoughout my lifetime that will drastically hurt its value in the long run (Assuming I have the rifle for about 40+ years)?

kev July 08, 2010 19:22

20,000rds is nothing. Any receiver will take that several times over. A good receiver will take it a dozen times over, so nothing much to worry about there. You may be ready for your third barrel at around 20k, but remember,....................that's easily $5000-10,000 in ammo costs.

kiddsf July 08, 2010 20:12

@jaypandolfo,

If you have enough for a FN made FAL, you could get 2 SAR-48s.
One MINT/NIB and one used.

You might put the NIB one in safe and never shoot it, while shooting the crap out of the other one, or shoot the semi-shit out of it. That way you don't really have to worry about the value go down.

Shooting 20,000 rounds of 7.62x51 out of a single gun is extremely hard even throughout your lifetime, I don't think anyone can do that...

jbrooks July 08, 2010 20:28

Quote:

Originally posted by jaypandolfo


From what I know, forged steel is stronger than cast....so would this make a big difference between the two rifles in terms of longevity?

At the moment I do have enough to spend on a SAR48 or even a Belgian FAL with a type 3 receiver for what they typically go for, I'll say that much. However if I do get a Belgian I will suffer from a strong sense of buyer's remorse, that's for sure!

I've only looked into FALs for the past 3-4 months, but what draws me to them besides the cosmetics and powerful .308 caliber is their reputation for endurance and durability. That being said, let's say I get a SAR-48 or a FN. I'd estimate that I would put roughly 500 rounds through it a year at MAXIMUM. Will proper cleaning and oiling, would it accumulate a lot of wear and tear thoughout my lifetime that will drastically hurt its value in the long run (Assuming I have the rifle for about 40+ years)?


From Soldier of Fortune, "Rise and Fall of a Misguided Classic", Peter J. Kokalis, June 1982, Page 52: (paraphrased)

From Personal communications with Blake Stevens: The original forged receivers were expected to last 80,000 rounds, but one was observed to crack at the locking shoulder at 60,000 rounds (FN manufacture, forged)

The investment-cast FNs were expected to last 40,000 rounds.

I'm just the messenger... :skull:

JWB

Arby July 08, 2010 22:05

Quote:

Originally posted by jbrooks

The original forged receivers were expected to last 80,000 rounds, but one was observed to crack at the locking shoulder at 60,000 rounds....

I can accept the fact that forged FAL receivers were expected to last 80K rounds, but the second part of that compound sentence offers no statistical significance or relevance whatsoever as to the alleged durability of FAL receivers. One alleged failure in a universe of an uncounted number of receivers tells us nothing at all about any of those receivers except the one that failed, and we don't even know anything about what rigors it may have endured before its failure.

Nothing against Kokalis' conclusions, but one can't extrapolate anything about the durability of FAL receivers in general on the basis of one alleged premature failure.

Tim Dreas July 08, 2010 22:07

The Imbel factory while it did have an FN license Imbel didn't follow the license. The FN license, unlike the H&K license, allows any modifications. Imbel made rifles to their own standards and sometimes using their own methods or other methods, no longer used by FN.

The Argentine factory stayed current with FN and followed all FN updates and changes and even helped fill some orders for the Belgian company. When FN and Argentina went to investment cast receivers (and other parts) they upgraded the steel used from a steel similar to American 1060 steel used in the older forged receivers to a steel similar to American 4140 steel in the investment cast receivers. A lot of other parts changed too. If round count life of the rifle changed I think it might due to some of the other parts and not the upgraded steel receiver but maybe so. Imbel had cheap enough labor and was already set up for making the older style parts. Argentina changed, not to save money, but to be able to make rifles for FN of Belgium for large orders or just because it was cheaper to source them from Argentina. They would have been able to this is they went away from the current license with updates from FN. So Imbel sold to compete against FN and Argentina while Argentina had their own sales, they also help fill FN orders.

wpsuth July 08, 2010 22:10

GAH!! The dreaded cast vs. forged debate.

I'm outa' here...gone to Accurate Reloading, seeking trolls.

kiddsf July 08, 2010 22:30

@Time Dreas, so Imbel did get their license from FN but just not using the new methods to build the steel casted receivers?

So, are all Argentine and FN type 3 receiver made out of steel casting?

jbrooks July 08, 2010 22:44

Quote:

Originally posted by kiddsf
@Time Dreas, so Imbel did get their license from FN but just not using the new methods to build the steel casted receivers?

So, are all Argentine and FN type 3 receiver made out of steel casting?

My Argy Type III certainly does not look the same as my FN para 50.63 Type III. The FN appears cast, but the Argy appears to be machined from forged steel.

I always heard that Argies were forged, but Tim Dees states otherwise. Perhaps we can get another opinion...

In any case, I don't want this to go the "cast vs forged" route, I was just paraphrasing the contenets of the article.

I'm well aware of the statistical significance of a single anecdotal observation of a failure at 60,000 rounds. But that's what the article stated.

At $500 to $600 bucks per thousand rounds, I'm broke after 10,000 rounds, let alone 40,000 or 80,000... :eek:

JWB

kiddsf July 08, 2010 23:13

I think me and the guys are just trying to understand more about different variations of the FAL platform.

I really really don't think anyone can ever break a well known factory casted receiver in his or her lifetime.

Is all personal preference whether to go with forge or cast IMO.

Tim Dreas July 08, 2010 23:59

A lot of the parts including receivers may have been stocked for years with no markings or numbers on them. Argentina seems to have made certain parts for the Argentine military and certain parts for export sales and certain parts to stay current with FN. The ejector block rivets seem more similar between Argentine and FN receivers than Imbel receivers. Argentina did make special semi auto ejector blocks that give the rivers a different look and many of the Argentine semi auto ejector blocks are a bit oversized and make some magazines a tight fit. FN did use a higher frade or tougher grade of steel for the investment cast receivers over the forged receivers. The short lived type 2.5 receivers seem to be forged forerunners of the inverstment cast type 3 receivers. Argentina and Imbel made FAL's after FN quit making FAL's. India has an fn "license" for their unique version. Australia and Canada used a completely different method to make their receivers. Even Entreprise claims to have an FN license for their type 3 receivers. Of course they would have gotten the license after FN quit making FN's. Golden State Arms got a license to make Beretta BM-59 rifles and a made a lot of them using welded Garand receivers. FN's FAL license allowed ANY changes, including free updates, they just provided the original specs, including quality control but they didn't have to be followed. H&K on the other hand sold the G-3 license for a higher price than the FN's price for the FAL license. H&K was very strict and didn't allow any changes and any updates of the G-3 license required buying a whole new license at full price. Portugal bought a 1961 G-3 license and kept their G-3's at 1961 specs rather than buy another expensive G-3 license from H&K to update the rifles.

wkendwarrior2003 July 09, 2010 01:12

Quote:

Originally posted by Tim Dreas
FN's FAL license allowed ANY changes, including free updates, they just provided the original specs, including quality control but they didn't have to be followed. H&K on the other hand sold the G-3 license for a higher price than the FN's price for the FAL license. H&K was very strict and didn't allow any changes and any updates of the G-3 license required buying a whole new license at full price. Portugal bought a 1961 G-3 license and kept their G-3's at 1961 specs rather than buy another expensive G-3 license from H&K to update the rifles.
Your last sentence here is very interesting. I had always wondered why FMP and INDEP did not bother to update the G3 rifles they produced to the G3A3 type HK and most others eventually produced (tapered cocking tube with hanger). If a specific license package was purchased and they did not to purchase another one I suppose it makes sense why they kept the earlier version.

Regarding FAL receivers, to any and all concerned, you are not going to wear out a FAL receiver, Imbel or FN, forged or cast in your lifetime. I have no idea where Kokalis got his info from, but wasn't this the same guy that made some sort of comment years ago about some IMI 7.62 NATO Galil receivers being soft? Gimme a break.

kiddsf July 09, 2010 08:15

@Tim Dreas,

Your information taught me a lot, and I wish you could tell us where you learned all this information from?

I would love to know b/c I really would like to know all the differences and the development history of different FAL variants between countries.

Is it from 'THE FAL RIFLE' book?
or
Is it from some online document/sources, etc?

jbrooks July 09, 2010 09:28

Quote:

Originally posted by wkendwarrior2003
...wasn't this the same guy that made some sort of comment years ago about some IMI 7.62 NATO Galil receivers being soft? Gimme a break.
I don't know, but I bought an IMI Galil ARM in the '80s and sure enough, the receiver developed some serious peening at the rear, where the bolt carrier impacted. A buffer fixed that, but the receiver was certainly softer than, for example, my SAI M1A or Argy FAL. I sold the Galil in any case, the trigger slap just didn't feel very good.

JWB

Tim Dreas July 09, 2010 10:02

Quote:

Originally posted by kiddsf
@Tim Dreas,

Your information taught me a lot, and I wish you could tell us where you learned all this information from?

I would love to know b/c I really would like to know all the differences and the development history of different FAL variants between countries.

Is it from 'THE FAL RIFLE' book?
or
Is it from some online document/sources, etc?

One of my neighbors used to be a sales rep for FN in Belgium years ago.


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 01:39.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
©1998-2012 The FAL Files