The Free Talk Live BBS
Free Talk Live => General => Topic started by: Rusty Nut on July 09, 2009, 09:43:00 PM
-
I'm in the market for a semi-auto .308, right now I'm leaning towards a PTR-91. I'm still considering an ar10 or a LR-308, the mags for both are pretty gay though. Opinions?
-
FN-FAL.
(http://www.petmeats.com/fnfal.jpg)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FN_FAL
In b4 John Shawwwww.
-
Those guns are so fucking ugly though. Mags cheap?
-
Those guns are so fucking ugly though. Mags cheap?
A. That is the opposite of what is true.
B. No. It's a real man's gun.
There's a reason they call it the Right Arm of the Free World.
Mags are in the 30-50 range.
The only other gun you should even be looking at is the M-14/M1A, and the mags for those are about fifteen bucks more.
-
I just got a bunch of FAL mags for $12 each shipped from some local people. Deals are out there.
-
BTW, it's my most reliable semi-auto I own. Haven't had one failure to fire or eject or anything.
-
BTW, it's my most reliable semi-auto I own. Haven't had one failure to fire or eject or anything.
And if you do, you turn the dial up a notch and blow the crap out. :-P
-
BTW, it's my most reliable semi-auto I own. Haven't had one failure to fire or eject or anything.
And if you do, you turn the dial up a notch and blow the crap out. :-P
I was reading about the adjustable gas block on wiki, sounds pretty kewl. How much does a new one run in obamadollars?
-
DSA SA58 (http://www.dsarms.com/SA58-FAL-Standard-Rifle-308-Cal----SA58STD/productinfo/SA58STD/) list as $1700.
-
DSA's are way expensive, that's more than a springfield m1a and it seems kind of gimmicky like a springfield. Is it worth it over a century?
-
The gun store around here has an Imbel FN-FAL for just under $1000. they also have a Springfield M1A which as I understand it is manufactured for Springfield by Imbel. Its a Brazilian company. I didn't check on the price but I would guess that it is about $1400.
I would personally go with the M1A. It just feels better. The sights on the FN-FAL are too far back for me. I also think the iron sights on the FN-FAL are horrible. I can sight in much quicker with the M1A than with an FN-FAL. Though I heard it is easier to mount a scope on an FAL than it is to mount one on an M1A.
I heard that the trigger is much better for the M1A than the FAL. You can get match grade triggers for the M1A but I couldn't find any for the FAL.
You have a lot more options with the FAL as far as accessories. There are folding stocks, all those cool rail things. It seems like all you can do with the M1A is to get either wood or synthetic stock and get a shorter or longer barrel.
The FN FAL has a carrying handle. How cool is that.
-
Mine (the one in the pic) is an IMBEL kit built on a DSA receiver built by a guy in my state known form making really good FAL's. I got it locally for $1k in a private sale at the height at the Obama gun buying craze. I'd say that's about the going rate for them right now that I've seen. Maybe $800 for a Century.
-
I hear a lot of bad things about Century. There was a Century HK91 at the gun store a while back and it looked like a retarded chimpanzee spot welded the receiver together. Though they do have this which I am tempted to buy. http://www.jgsales.com/product_info.php/p/galil-style-golani-rifle,-223-caliber-/products_id/1624
I have an Imbel parts kit. I'll be getting a receiver when I get a little bit ahead on money.
I've actually been pricing the individual parts. From DSA website, the Lower Reciever is $129. A complete front end is about $450-$500. Upper Receiver is $450. You might be able to assemble a new rifle for a lot less. Still investigating that though.
-
You might be able to assemble a new rifle for a lot less.
I've watched the AGI FN-FAL video, and you need at least one very specialized tool to screw the barrel into the receiver that's $120 (http://chilirat.com). Plus you have to headspace it. With all the time you'd have to put into it, I don't think it's worth it.
-
Century this, Century that.
I own six century rifles, of various makes and models. They are all fine.
People who tell you that Century sucks are selling you something else.
-
Oh, and as a person who owns two M-14's and an FN-FAL, I can say that I like the FAL more, even though it's heavier.
-
Damn I wanna own a gun. :?
-
I'm leaning towards a century FAL. What moa can I expect from a century out of the box?
-
I'm leaning towards a century FAL. What moa can I expect from a century out of the box?
Cardboard box. Usually a mag, and a cleaning kit.
It will be banged around a bit, and the finish won't be perfect. This is normal for a converted gun that may be 30+ years old.
The gun will work very well, though.
-
I uploaded the AGI FN-FAL video if you want to watch it:
http://petmeats.com/stuff/
-
I also think the iron sights on the FN-FAL are horrible.
I don't like the rear sight. I was thinking about getting one of these, but it's $200.
http://www.dsarms.com/Stripped--SA58-FAL-A2-Hampton-Standard-Lower---US061A2H/productinfo/US061A2H/
(http://www.dsarms.com/images/US061A2H.gif)
-
They're 800 bucks? Seems like a deal for what you get.
-
I got a used DSA SA58 for $900 a few years back.
-
I'll vouch for the century FAL too. Mine works great.
-
If I had unlimited funds, I'd go for a SOCOM-16.
Being a left-handed rifle shooter, I notice that the BAR comes in left-hand, and has removable magazines. It's certainly not overly expensive, at 800-1000 on Gunbroker.com, nor is it heavy.
The BAR it is pretty, which might offend the more "tactical" folks. :)
All that said, I have no personal experience with any 308. Sorry.
-
What kind of grouping can I expect at a 100 yards from a century FAL? I want a rifle that's capable of 2 inches or less.
-
What kind of grouping can I expect at a 100 yards from a century FAL? I want a rifle that's capable of 2 inches or less.
I get around 3-4" out of mine with Brown Bear ammo. But I'm still learning.
-
I had something that looked like a G3 in Iraq. It was nice.
-
So, I have been putting together a RockRiver AR-15 (Incredibly slow right now cause of Obama). I purchased
AR0120NMX Lower Receiver Parts Kit / Two Stage Trigger, ERGO Grip, Ambi, Black $200.00
AR0375X Mid-Length A4 Upper Half with A free floating Quad Rail, a Chrome Lined 1:9 barrel, RRA Flip Front Sight $720.00
AR0250 Tactical CAR Buttstock Kit, Black, Six Position Collapsible $75.00
AR3812L A.R.M.S. #40L Low Profile Flip-up Rear Sight $119.00
Plus the Stripped lower receiver for $220
so total of $1337 (Yeah Elite).
1. Did I get a good price?
2. Can I do the same with the FAL?
-
Wow, you paid a lot for that stuff. o.o
-
Overpaid a bit but you'll love that gun, I have a RRA entry tactical. Nice rifle.
-
Here's a review of different makes of FAL's:
September 2002
FAL Rifle Test: Do Less Expensive Models Make Sense For You?
In our testing, we found Brazil’s Imbel to be okay, and Century Arms’ lower-cost R1A1 rifle was worth a look, but we would avoid Century’s budget-priced carbine rifle.
Recipe for fun: Take a good FAL and add cheap
ûammo. This loose .308 ammo was salvaged from
ûmachine-gun belts. Of mixed origin and slightly
faulty, its cost was low.
Is there such a thing as a bad FAL? FAL is an acronym for the French words meaning Light Automatic Rifle. In our very limited experience prior to this test report, we had seen only variations on excellence in a dozen or so different FAL rifles. In the July 2000 issue, we tested the U.S.-made DSA, Inc. “shorty” version of the FAL, which at the time was listed at $1,495. We have long wondered if you could buy a functional FAL for less money, and decided to find out.
First, understand that we cannot fire enough rounds in our limited tests to find every little flaw with a semiautomatic rifle. As with a .45 auto, we consider that the firing of 1,000 rounds with zero malfunctions is a good first step in evaluating the reliability of a semiauto rifle. However, when you get to 500 rounds, or even 200 with zero problems, you’ve got a pretty good idea the rifle is a good ‘un. If it fails time and again for reasons unrelated to ammunition, you’ve got a problem child on your hands, and any problems will generally show up pretty soon in the evaluation of a given rifle.
One of our test shooters had a British L1A1 FAL, built around an early Entreprise receiver many years ago, and it performed perfectly with both types of magazines (inch and metric) and with a great variety of ammunition types. It was not a tack driver, but served its owner well until he upgraded, and sold the old rifle. The best FAL (not a match rifle) any of our shooters have personally tested would print 1.5-inch groups, with good ammo and a scope, at 200 yards. The worst would put ‘em all into about 4 inches at 100 yards. This, then, gives you some background on what good versions of the FAL may be expected to do.
The current test trio offered us an updated look at some of the currently available FALs. Two of them — one with full-length barrel, the other with carbine-length — came from the same supplier, Century Arms International. Both actions were labeled “R1A1 Sporter,” though one rifle was inch and the other, metric. The third rifle came from Imbel in Brazil, and it had a full-length barrel. All three FALs had pistol-grip stocks and ventilated forends, detachable 20-round magazines, and synthetic butt stocks. All were finished in flat black Parkerizing or something that looked like it. All three had muzzle brakes, sling swivels, windage-adjustable aperture rear sights mounted on a ramp for battle-range adjustments, and wing-protected, elevation-adjustable front sights.
The FAL design in all its configurations is fully discussed in an excellent three-part book entitled The FAL Rifle by Blake Stevens and Jean E. van Rutten, published by Collector Grade Publications, Inc., Cobourg, Ontario, Canada. Our “Classic Edition” reference copy was published in 1993, and we highly recommend it to serious students of the FAL.
The FAL is a gas-operated rifle featuring an adjustable gas bleed to control the force of operation, so it can be set for different types of ammunition. Reloaders may want to set it so the rifle drops empties just barely clear of the rifle. The gas plug can also be rotated to a position where the bolt must be hand-cycled for each shot, which is handy for training and for a few other purposes. The rifle has its bolt contained within a carrier. The rifle opens easily like a break-open shotgun to permit easy access to the workings, and to allow breech-end cleaning of the barrel. The barrel and chamber are usually chrome-plated, which can be verified by inspection at the breech.
The action is covered with a stamped sheet-metal piece that may be withdrawn by sliding it off the back of the action when the rifle is broken open. The rifle may be fired with the cover removed. This cover can be replaced with a variety of options, such as the mount for the outstanding L2A2 scope that the British soldiers liked so much. Some of the mounts and options are very scarce.
Opening the FAL for cleaning requires cocking the unloaded rifle, and then pushing on a lever located behind the safety, to break open the action. Depending on the origin of the rifle, this lever is pressed forward, backward, or in the case of the Imbel, upward to open the action. Once the rifle is open, the bolt and its carrier, and the top cover, may be withdrawn for easy access to the chamber and barrel.
The rifle may easily be broken into two parts by unscrewing and removing the hinge bolt. The recoil spring is located within the butt stock, and its force is transmitted to the bolt through a “rat-tail” extension on the back of the bolt. Folding-stock FALs have a different spring setup.
The FAL’s front sight is placed on top of the end of the forend/gas tube, not on the end of the barrel. This gives the rifle a generally shorter sighting radius than the M14, but is more than adequate for battle situations.
The FAL also features a carry handle, which is supposed to fold and unfold with noticeable resistance. All three of our rifles had the handle, but only the Imbel worked properly, in our experience.
Military-use FALs are generally select-fire weapons, but those for sale in the U.S. as “sporters” have the full-auto parts removed and the three-position safety altered for only two positions. With the Imbel, the latter was accomplished by the polymer pistol grip. With one of the CAI rifles, nothing had been done, and the safety gave problems.
Here’s our evaluation of these three lower-priced FALs.
Imbel FAL, $680 dealer
This is the published dealer price, so you can negotiate with a local FFL for what you agree is a fair markup. On these guns, a common street price is $800.
Click here to view the Imbel FAL features guide .
Easily the best-looking of the trio, the Imbel-receivered FAL looked thoroughly professional with its even, matte-black finish, The first Brazilian FALs were made under contract by FN, but Brazil initiated production on its own, and our test rifle was made in its entirety in Brazil. The markings on the receiver indicated the maker was Fábrica de Itajubá, the government-owned company that is part of the government-owned IMBEL arms complex. The IMBEL logo and name also appeared on the upper receiver. The name “Pacific Armament Corporation — Modesto, CA” also was on the receiver. Beneath the ejection port was laser-stenciled “MODEL 444 308 SPORTER” and “LIBERTY ARMORY LIBERTY, TX.”
Fit and finish were excellent. All the parts fit as though they were made to go together. The detail work was not as good as on other samples of the FAL we’ve inspected, but there was absolutely nothing to be ashamed of. The polishing and Parkerizing were all very well done. A clever touch was that within the pistol grip were a pull-through with bristle brush, and a container for the cleaning juice of your choice. These were held in with a spring clip, useful yet unnoticeable.
The Imbel was a “metric” FAL, as opposed to the first “R1A1” tested below, which was assembled from British “inch” FALs. Proper British FALs, like the L1A1 sporter we had on loan several years ago, would take both British and metric magazines, and function perfectly in all respects. Metric FALs including the Imbel will not accept British magazines.
Part of our reasons for all this magazine discussion is that British mags are more costly and harder to find than metrics, which have sold as cheaply as $5 each within the past two years. Brit mags sell for about five times that.
Our Imbel had a fixed protrusion for manually opening the bolt, which we call the bolt knob or bolt lever. Some FAL bolt knobs have a provision for forcing the bolt forward, which is done by first pressing inward on the bolt knob. This one did not, and like all three rifles tested here, the bolt could only be drawn rearward. The bolt knob did not follow the cycling bolt. Unlike the M1 Garand and M14 rifles, nothing external moves on any of the FALs as the rifle fires and ejects.
The pistol grip was angled sharply to the rear, which made it hard for most of our test shooters to move the safety (down is off) without repositioning the shooting hand. The British version was a whole lot easier to access and, we believe, a better setup than this one. None of the three FALs had provisions for lefties. The trigger broke at just under 10 pounds, and it had significant creep.
The adjustment for gas escape, just behind the front sight, was very stiff. Its dial had sharp-edged serrations for good grasping with the thumb, or for levering with a screwdriver or similar tool. Normally this is not changed, once it’s set for your favorite ammunition.
We had to do significant sight correcting of the Imbel to get it to hit our target. This involved shifting the rear sight, via its opposing screws, to the left, and lowering the front sight to get the bullet impact high enough. A clever spring lock held the front sight adjustment securely. The rifle had more than enough adjustment for these corrections, but we felt the rifle ought to have been better sighted-in by the maker. The Imbel alone of the trio had a pinch-lock on its rear sight ramp, which made coarse range adjustment much easier than with the other two rifles. The base setting on all three rifles is for 200 yards (or meters), with graduated marks for 300, 400, 500, and 600. The rear sight blade, which held the aperture, was fixed on the Imbel, but folded on the other two.
Click here to view "Accuracy and Chronograph Data."
On target, the Imbel did its best with the Barnes X-bulleted PMC ammunition, averaging about 2 inches. In this particular rifle it outshot the Winchester match ammunition, which was a big surprise to our shooters. There were no problems with the rifle except for one failure to feed the last round in the magazine, but that was with an old and obviously worn magazine. With good magazines, it was a very good rifle.
Century Arms International R1A1 Sporter, $390 dealer
As we noted above, the published price for this CAI model is $390, which would make $450 a fair street price, in our view.
Click here to view the Century Arms International R1A1 Sporter features guide .
We didn’t think this full-length rifle was all that pretty. The newly made polymer butt stock and pistol-grip fit was very poor. The finish on the upper and lower receivers was not at all the same, one appearing decidedly green, the other, matte black. The carry handle flopped loose on the gun, which was a great annoyance. The action would not stay open no matter what magazine we put into it. We had to press upward on the bolt stop to get the bolt to stay open, and with a metric magazine in place, the bolt always slammed shut when we removed the magazine.
This rifle was apparently built around some surplus British L1A1 parts, from the evidence of markings and the dust cuts in the bolt. However, we thought the workmanship was slap-dash at best, with rough edges left here and there, plus the mismatched finish. The chrome-lined barrel looked to be in outstanding condition, so we hoped for good performance on the range. Yet we already had a faulty rifle that would not hold open its bolt, so we had low expectations for the firing-range tests. We measured the trigger pull at 8 pounds, with significant creep.
The safety and grip configuration were of the easily operable British style. The safety was easy to take off or put on without shifting the grip on the rifle. The bolt knob, also of British Commonwealth style, folded forward out of the way, which gave the rifle a trimmer appearance than those with protruding knobs. Yet we found that if you have a rifle with problems, that folded-down bolt handle was a real pain, because we constantly had to dig it out to pull the bolt back and attempt to lock it open after emptying the magazine.
There was a significant gap between the front of the bolt carrier and the rear of the receiver with the bolt in the closed position. This didn’t appear at all on the Imbel, which was tightly closed, but did appear slightly on the Hesse-actioned rifle tested below.
On the range, we found the rifle didn’t always feed from one of the British magazines that came with it. The other, nearly new, British magazine was not much better. Commonly the rifle failed to pick up the last round from the magazine, and sometimes missed a round in mid-magazine. We tried a nearly new metric magazine and had better feeding luck, but again it was not perfect. Our best guess is that the cut for the magazine within the action was a bit too low, so the rounds were not held high enough in relation to the bolt. Pressing upward on the magazine didn’t help cycling. We had several rounds rammed into the front of the magazine well by the bolt, and the bullet was driven into its case. This was with both match ammo and the Barnes-X-bulleted PMC ammo. We considered this to be another indication of the magazine being held too low in the rifle.
The trigger was easy to use despite its heavy pull weight. Unfortunately, we got the accuracy we expected, which was poor. The smallest three-shot group we got was 4.4 inches, and most were closer to 6 inches. Along with the failures to feed, we got a distinct impression you’d have to be a real fix-it shooter to get your money’s worth out of this rifle. However, this FAL fired every round that made it into the chamber, and ejected them with a good degree of regularity, but feeding was problematic. We had better luck feeding the rifle from a near-new metric magazine, but it seemed to interfere with the correct function of the bolt stop.
Century Arms International R1A1 Carbine, $390 dealer
Pricing for this CAI gun follows the track of the Long Rifle R1A1 above. About $450 is what you might expect to pay at retail, if you were to buy the gun. But we would not do it.
Click here to view the Century Arms International R1A1 Carbine features guide .
This FAL had a Hesse (U.S.) receiver. The receiver indicated CAI had assembled the rifle in Vermont. The receiver’s edges had an unfinished look, with roughness, burrs and sharp edges. Although none of the parts resembled the British L1A1 FAL, the rifle was again designated “R1A1 Sporter.” It accepted only metric magazines. Again, the bolt failed to stay open after the last shot, or by cycling the bolt by hand with an empty magazine inserted. The bolt knob was a big steel spool (the Imbel’s had been polymer covered) that didn’t fold.
Again the carry handle was loose on the receiver. The barrel measured 18.8 inches with its brake. The muzzle brake was crudely welded to the barrel, which made us strongly skeptical of the rifle’s performance potential. The grip conformation, butt-stock, and forend covers were not British L1A1. There were insufficient markings to tell their origin, but the forend covers resembled those of Greek FALs. This rifle had three different finishes on butt stock, pistol grip, and forend covers. The latter were dark-gray Parkerized steel. The polymer butt stock had a pebble-grained finish, and the polymer pistol grip was smooth matte black. The latter had the Imbel’s sharp grip angle and associated difficulty reaching the safety.
The lower receiver’s smooth polish did not resemble the brushed or matte finish of the upper receiver, though they were both roughly the same color. The folding-blade rear sight may have been British, because it was marked in English, “YDS.” The front sight configuration was similar to the Imbel’s.
The safety could be rotated into all three original positions. The detents were weak, and the safety routinely went too far, and got placed into a position just below the fire position, where the gun would not fire. The safety needed a positive block, which was not provided. But the bad stuff was just beginning.
Unfortunately, we could not look inside the action, because the rifle was missing its action-opening lever. The holes were there in the lower receiver, but the lever was not. In other words, the rifle was not all there. At this point in our inspection we rejected this rifle. Whatever its performance, we expect to get a complete rifle for our money.
Still, we did shoot the rifle, and found it didn’t hit the paper from 25 yards. We cut the range to 12.5 yards and found the bullets were striking 6 inches low. That’s 4 feet low at 100 yards. By moving the rear sight fully up to the 600-yard mark we got the strike about two feet low at 100 yards, but never fired the rifle at any range other than at 12.5 yards, because from that range, the bullets were striking more than a little sideways. Three shots landed into a two-inch group, which translated to 16 inches at 100 yards. With the bullets yawing badly at 12.5 yards, we chose to cease all shooting with the rifle.
Gun Tests Recommends
After our testing, we still consider the previously tested DSA rifle to be among the very finest FALs ever made. Is it necessary to pop for the best? Maybe, if your life depends on perfect function of your rifle. Most of our test shooters would choose the DSA, Inc., FAL over the Imbel, despite the extra cost. The idea seems to be that if you want a FAL for serious purposes, it makes the sense to get the very best one available. We know you won’t regret owning the best, but might come to regret a lesser rifle.
Imbel FAL, $680 dealer. Buy It. We would be quite happy with the Imbel, although we didn’t like the angle of the pistol grip because we could not touch the safety without shifting our grip. Recoil was nearly negligible, and that was the case with all three rifles. Blast from the brake was tolerable with all ammunition. Although we felt the DSA rifle would make its owner happier in the long run, some of our shooters stated they’d be happy enough with the Imbel.
Century Arms, Inc., R1A1, $390. Conditional Buy. Use extreme caution before you buy one of these. The only thing going for it was its relatively low price.
Century Arms, Inc. Carbine, $390 dealer. Don’t Buy. The rifle would not eject at all, nor would it feed from any magazine including a brand-new one. The tipping bullets were almost certainly the result of the welded barrel, and that feature may also have accounted for the bullet strikes being so low.
-
Thanks for that, helps me out a bunch. The imbel seems to have respectable accuracy, I'm still considering an PTR-91 and ar10. I can't justify shooting expensive .308 without them going where I want.
-
Thanks for that, helps me out a bunch. The imbel seems to have respectable accuracy, I'm still considering an PTR-91 and ar10. I can't justify shooting expensive .308 without them going where I want.
You think a DSA SA58 is expensive, but you are still considering a PRT-91 and ar10?
How much are the PRT-91 and AR-10's you are looking at?
-
I've seen PTR-91s go for a little over a grand around these parts, ar10s are accurate as fuck and justifiably expensive IMO.
-
Is this cool? http://www.impactguns.com/store/EAA170344%20.html
A Saiga Sporter AK in 308
-
.308 is too expensive to be lobbing around with a rifle like that.
-
I saw new DSA SA58 PARA for $1700 at a gun show last weekend. DSA lists them as $2000. That would lead me to believe you can get a standard DSA SA58 for somewhere around $1400.
-
This might be a radical suggestion.
If you want a semi-auto .308 which is accurate why not also look into semi-auto hunting rifles?
-
Or a complete AR upper in .308? Would that be compatible with a lower designed for .223?
-
No. The magazine well wouldn't be big enough.
-
Yea that's what I was thinking, but I don't have much experience with AR's
-
This might be a radical suggestion.
If you want a semi-auto .308 which is accurate why not also look into semi-auto hunting rifles?
PROTIP: Magazine fed semi-auto rifles in .308/7.62x51 are called battle rifles.
-
A battle rifle doesn't need to be semi-auto.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_rifle
-
Colloquially it is.
-
This might be a radical suggestion.
If you want a semi-auto .308 which is accurate why not also look into semi-auto hunting rifles?
PROTIP: Magazine fed semi-auto rifles in .308/7.62x51 are called battle rifles.
So now you are a pro? Is that why you need advice?
Now here is a real protip. .308 is not the same as a 7.62x51. It is not recommended using .308 in a mil-surp rifle.
Also, the difference between many military firearms and civilian firearms is mostly cosmetic. Military likes using plastic and pistol grips while civilians tend towards wood.
and many of your semi-auto hunting rifles takes magazines.
Here is an interesting rifle.
(http://thefirearmblog.dreamhosters.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2008/02/fnar-light.png)
This rifle basically looks like a souped up hunting rifle. It is made by FN Herstal and is supposed to be very reliable, sub-MOA accurate, takes AR-10 magazines and costs about $1500.
-
Pistol grip and rails all over it is your idea of a deer rifle?
-
My idea of a deer rifle is anything that is large enough and accurate enough to kill a deer. I'd go with a bolt action over an autoloader any day personally but my current deer rifle of choice is a Thompson Center Encore. A very nice and very accurate single shot.
(http://img195.imageshack.us/i/300winmag4935.png/)
and I'd actually like that one rifle if it better if it didn't have a pistol grip. The rails are just really handy though. It is also based off the Browning BAR which is a pretty good design. That gun is made by the same people who make most of the machine guns for the US military.
Considering that you seem to want accuracy over some of the other qualities this is something to consider.
Of the 'battle rifles' mentioned. Only two of them are really good candidates for sniper rifles. The AR-10 and the M-14/M1A. There might be a reason for that. The M-14 has been used by the Army for their sniper rifle for many years. They call it the M-21 I believe. I don't think the FN-FAL has ever been made into a decent sniper rifle and the only HK G-3 sniper rifle that I've seen is extremely expensive. The M-14 is also used for competition shooting. I have yet to find match grade triggers for an FN-FAL and I don't even know if they sell match grade triggers for the ptr-91.
Of course your accuracy is usually limited by the shooter and not the equipment.
-
I get 1.5MOA at 100 yards with Malaysian surplus from 1985 in my Century FAL.
I did have custom trigger and barrel work done, however.
Probably cost me an extra $400.
But here's the thing:
A. The FAL and the AR-10 (Which is no more accurate, from my experiences of 5+ models) are not sniper rifles.
B. An off the shelf M-14, even a custom job, is not a ready made sniper rifle. It is not anywhere near the accuracy of an M-21. The M-21 uses the same action, but the barrel and stock are totally different. The barrel is floated, for one, which is a night and day difference. They are not the same gun any more than than an M-24 the same as a Remington 700, which also share the same action.
If you want a long range accuracy gun, you buy a gun that is designed for long range accuracy. PROTIP: It will more likely than not be a bolt action rifle.
Having said that, 90+ percent of people can't hit at less than 3 minutes of angle anyway. Make sure you're that good before you waste the money on a gun that can do something that you can't.
-
Make sure you're that good before you waste the money on a gun that can do something that you can't.
Which requires having a rifle that can, before you can know if it's you or not. :roll:
-
Make sure you're that good before you waste the money on a gun that can do something that you can't.
Which requires having a rifle that can, before you can know if it's you or not. :roll:
You've never shot someone else's gun? (Like, by asking people at just about ANY RANGE?)
You've never gone to a range where they rent guns? (Like, almost EVERY RANGE owned by a gun shop?)
"Try before you buy" is more common with guns than it is with cars.
Please.
-
Make sure you're that good before you waste the money on a gun that can do something that you can't.
I cannot hurl projectiles at 1000 meters per second. Should I not purchase a firearm? :P
-
Make sure you're that good before you waste the money on a gun that can do something that you can't.
I cannot hurl projectiles at 1000 meters per second. Should I not purchase a firearm? :P
FUUUUUUUUUUUUU
I lose.
-
Yeah, I have a completely different take on that. If you buy a super awesomely accurate rifle or handgun then you'll know if you suck.
How many people are out there right now saying, "I have 2" groups at 75 yards but it's just an old m1 Garand."
Maybe none, but I have one other anecdote.
The range master at my local indoor pistol range was on duty one day, and some guys brought in a sweet new 1911. It wasn't long before they were all complaining. "Ah man! These sights are off! They sent me a pistol with the sights off, from the fucking factory!" Well they apparently wanted a more professional opinion so they asked the range master to shoot it. A double tap right in the center of the target at 15 yards later, they knew the sights weren't off, they were.
-
I get 1.5MOA at 100 yards with Malaysian surplus from 1985 in my Century FAL.
I did have custom trigger and barrel work done, however.
Probably cost me an extra $400.
But here's the thing:
A. The FAL and the AR-10 (Which is no more accurate, from my experiences of 5+ models) are not sniper rifles.
B. An off the shelf M-14, even a custom job, is not a ready made sniper rifle. It is not anywhere near the accuracy of an M-21. The M-21 uses the same action, but the barrel and stock are totally different. The barrel is floated, for one, which is a night and day difference. They are not the same gun any more than than an M-24 the same as a Remington 700, which also share the same action.
If you want a long range accuracy gun, you buy a gun that is designed for long range accuracy. PROTIP: It will more likely than not be a bolt action rifle.
Having said that, 90+ percent of people can't hit at less than 3 minutes of angle anyway. Make sure you're that good before you waste the money on a gun that can do something that you can't.
Very few guns are ready made sniper rifles off the shelf but there are reasons why certain rifles are used over others.
-
Very few guns are ready made sniper rifles off the shelf but there are reasons why certain rifles are used over others.
I don't understand what that has to do with anything I said.
-
I really want a 1 moa semi-auto .308, thinkin' I should buy an ar10 lower and build it up.
-
I really want a 1 moa semi-auto .308, thinkin' I should buy an ar10 lower and build it up.
GUESS YOU DIDN'T NEED ANY FUCKING HELP THEN
-
I really want a 1 moa semi-auto .308, thinkin' I should buy an ar10 lower and build it up.
If you're gonna go with an AR platform, look into cryogenic accuritization for the barrel.
Like I said before, the AR-10 off the shelf isn't any more accurate than an FN-FAL, and they are harder to clean. Anyone who tells you otherwise has obviously not shot both guns a lot.
I own both and prefer the FAL, for what it's worth. Sturdier, easier to maintain, less prone to fouling, and if it does foul you can crank the gas pressure dial up and blow the shit right out.
It's also cooler looking.
EDIT: Also, here's one that's been made into a long range gun:
(TOP)
(http://iwantthatknife.com/Gallery/albums/EBR/Fal_times_2.jpg)
-
GUESS YOU DIDN'T NEED ANY FUCKING HELP THEN
Haven't decided yet just reluctant about fal accuracy, like I said I want a 1 moa rifle. I'm a somewhat decent marksman and I don't want inaccurate rifle shitting all over my paper.
I really want a 1 moa semi-auto .308, thinkin' I should buy an ar10 lower and build it up.
If you're gonna go with an AR platform, look into cryogenic accuritization for the barrel.
Like I said before, the AR-10 off the shelf isn't any more accurate than an FN-FAL, and they are harder to clean. Anyone who tells you otherwise has obviously not shot both guns a lot.
I own both and prefer the FAL, for what it's worth. Sturdier, easier to maintain, less prone to fouling, and if it does foul you can crank the gas pressure dial up and blow the shit right out.
It's also cooler looking.
EDIT: Also, here's one that's been made into a long range gun:
(TOP)
(http://iwantthatknife.com/Gallery/albums/EBR/Fal_times_2.jpg)
Hmmmm
-
Oh yeah. The AR is a huge pain in the ass to clean. It don't take long to get them all fouled up to the point that it starts to malfunction either.
-
You've never shot someone else's gun? (Like, by asking people at just about ANY RANGE?)
You've never gone to a range where they rent guns? (Like, almost EVERY RANGE owned by a gun shop?)
"Try before you buy" is more common with guns than it is with cars.
Please.
Only if you live somewhere where you can do that, at the same time as having the money to do that, at the same time as having the time to do that.
So here's a factoid: I have had one opportunity to go to a real rifle range in my life. I shot a DCM round, with an SKS that had trouble hitting the TARGET at 200 yards. I later found out why, by shooting it at a sheet of paper at about 50 feet, the resulting hole was a perfect profile of a boat-tail bullet. I think this is what in Vietnam was called "tumbling".
I have a .22 with which I can prune shrubs, and I've done quite a bit of archery. I know where I aim, so I do in fact want a rifle that is reasonably accurate without the sarcasm.
Some day I hope to have the time, money and opportunity all that the same time.
-
http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=205629
-
Oh yeah. The AR is a huge pain in the ass to clean. It don't take long to get them all fouled up to the point that it starts to malfunction either.
I own an ar15, the chore of cleaning them has been over-exaggerated.
-
Oh yeah. The AR is a huge pain in the ass to clean. It don't take long to get them all fouled up to the point that it starts to malfunction either.
I own an ar15, the chore of cleaning them has been over-exaggerated.
Weeeell that's not really true.
The AR is not ridiculously hard to clean, it's just much harder to clean well than your average rifle is all. I mean, The FAL has a huge hinge and it breaks in half at the back, and it's almost an inch and a half wide back there. You can stick three tootherbrushes inside the action at the same time.
It's hard to clean by comparison.
-
(http://iwantthatknife.com/Gallery/albums/EBR/Fal_times_2.jpg)
[/quote]
If it's not too much to ask, could someone describe what modifications were made to that FAL? How would that rifle compare to an M21 in both performance, and cost?
-
I just realized how sexy the fal is omg I want one.
-
I just realized how sexy the fal is omg I want one.
I suspected that, but I don't really know. :D
-
http://www.jgsales.com/product_info.php/p/cetme-308-caliber-semi-auto-battle-rifle-/products_id/2657
What did you end up getting anyways?
-
Nothing yet since my car's a fuckin' ho and keeps breaking, picked up a savage 7mm from a pawn shop though.
-
FN-FAL still hasn't jammed or malfunctioned in any way after 600 rounds.
-
Thread is TL;DR but I'm throwing my support behind the m14/m1a
-
Just curious, how do you speak "FN-FAL"
Like "pen pal" or like "FM radio" or like "F.N.F.A.L." ??
These are the things that prevent my sleep.
-
I say "effen fall", but then nobody usually knows what I'm talking about.
-
I say "effen fall", but then nobody usually knows what I'm talking about.
F-A-L
-
please, please, please
don't talk about guns on this forum
''others'' may be watching
-
I say "effen fall", but then nobody usually knows what I'm talking about.
F-A-L
I DO WHAT I WANT
-
please, please, please
don't talk about guns on this forum
''others'' may be watching
stfu
-
please, please, please
don't talk about guns on this forum
''others'' may be watching
stfu
don make me slap you round, like a bitch
-
please, please, please
don't talk about guns on this forum
''others'' may be watching
stfu
don make me slap you round, like a bitch
Ain' Gon' Happen.
-
(http://users.qconline.com/~heresy/bitchslap.jpg)
-
thanx drif
ize tryin ta have fun at the 400 lb gorillas expense
gets all twitchy w/ gun talk
seig heil
-
Not twitchy with gun talk. Twitchy with illegal gun talk. Nothin illegal been said in this thread so far.
-
thanx drif
ize tryin ta have fun at the 400 lb gorillas expense
gets all twitchy w/ gun talk
seig heil
Gun talk is okay. Gun talk that involves illegal modification of the weapon is not.
-
I shot skeet today all over a humungus target. It felt great.
-
I shot skeet today all over a humungus target. It felt great.
i jerked off over a pic of your mother today..
bitch loves a cum-bath
picture it, boy
me spraying yur momma w/ jizz & she diggin it.
you wanna play the dozens?
-
I shot skeet today all over a humungus target. It felt great.
i jerked off over a pic of your mother today..
bitch loves a cum-bath
picture it, boy
me spraying yur momma w/ jizz & she diggin it.
you wanna play the dozens?
Hahaha The Riddler = OWNED.
-
i'm way downstream nigga
hep.hep
chew on it
-
i'm way downstream nigga
hep.hep
chew on it
Ok. I don't understand this language.
-
I recommend either a FAL pattern rifle or a HK-91 pattern rifle.
If I were going into the decision fresh with a totally open mind, I would lean toward the FAL. But I just like the feel of the 91 with the slimline fore-end. Even though it kicks like a mule (problem is fixed with the rubber buttstock) and lacks the stay locked open after first shot feature. I think this was a deliberate design choice for the 91- but I don't know why they chose it. Keep mud out of the action?
On the plus side, 91's I have experienced have been super accurate (considerably more so than the FALS), on par with a decent bolt action rifle.
Also, I approve of your choice of calibers. It's nice to be able to shoot THROUGH telephone poles.
In many cases, .308 turns cover into concealment.
-Kelvin
-
Why not build your own AR-10?