|
|
Joined: Nov 2007
Posts: 1,206
Campfire Regular
|
OP
Campfire Regular
Joined: Nov 2007
Posts: 1,206 |
Without taking out a second mortgage, what's the best of the FALS out there now?
Unreconstructed to the End.
Dum Vivimus Vivamus
Death smiles at us all...but only FMF Corpsmen smile back
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2009
Posts: 13,860
Campfire Outfitter
|
|
Campfire Outfitter
Joined: Sep 2009
Posts: 13,860 |
An STG58 from DSA, I have a 16in Para on order. You don't get the aluminum lower like you do with the DSA built guns, but it is hundreds less. I had a rack grade STG58 with an Enterprise reciever that was an MOA rifle with a 4X scope. I only sold it because of the guns excessive LOP, that's why I'm getting a para since that stock is easy to shorten.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 24,667
Campfire Ranger
|
|
Campfire Ranger
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 24,667 |
What TAK said; or the Imbel FAL from DSA. Pretty much, if DSA makes a FAL, it's built right. The FAL is IMO THE .308 battle rifle to have, it's much better than the M14/M1A.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2003
Posts: 67,746
Campfire Kahuna
|
|
Campfire Kahuna
Joined: Nov 2003
Posts: 67,746 |
Much Better than an M1A? Oh my!
Sam......
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 24,667
Campfire Ranger
|
|
Campfire Ranger
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 24,667 |
Yeah, I stand by that one. The US had to fix the competition for the M14 to win against the FAL. And which other NATO nations bought the M14? And who bought the FAL?
Don't get me wrong, I'm most certainly not saying the M14 is a bad rifle, it's a great rifle. But the FAL just clearly out-classes it in damn near every category. Balance, handling, reliability, accuracy...yep, I went there; accuracy. Until you properly bed an M14 the FAL will typically shoot anywhere from .5-1.0 MOA better groups than the M14 (not that it much matters, they both have accuracy quite sufficient for most any job you could throw at them.)
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2007
Posts: 274
Campfire Member
|
|
Campfire Member
Joined: Jul 2007
Posts: 274 |
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2011
Posts: 2,387
Campfire Regular
|
|
Campfire Regular
Joined: Nov 2011
Posts: 2,387 |
Another vote for DSA. Great product and customer service. Had a FAL from them years ago and wish I'd kept it.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 22,274
Campfire Ranger
|
|
Campfire Ranger
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 22,274 |
FWIW, DSA is no longer listing Imbel rifles on their website: http://www.dsarms.com/FAL%20Imbel%20Rifle/products/208/I liked the idea of having an FAL for a long time. I grew less enthused when I saw some owner surveys, where only about half of their owners said they'd do less than 2.5 MOA.
"...the designer of the .270 Ingwe cartridge!..."
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 24,667
Campfire Ranger
|
|
Campfire Ranger
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 24,667 |
FWIW, DSA is no longer listing Imbel rifles on their website: http://www.dsarms.com/FAL%20Imbel%20Rifle/products/208/I liked the idea of having an FAL for a long time. I grew less enthused when I saw some owner surveys, where only about half of their owners said they'd do less than 2.5 MOA. Well, first off consider that 2.5 MOA will give you solid hits out to 700 yards, which is the pracitical limit of the .308. But for those who are claiming 2.5MOA I'd inquire as to which ammo they're using. Seems every time I feed a FAL good match ammo, it's tickling the 1MOA mark; slightly over, or slightly under. Keep in mind that a non-match M1A typically won't out-shoot a rack grade FAL. And keep in mind the DSA STG-58's and Imbels are milsurp kit guns. Your typical military FAL will often have damage to the crown due to careless cleaning by conscripted soldiers. I don't believe DSA re-crowns the barrels on those guns before they go together. So a quick re-crown job and those guns are typically comfortably under 2MOA. For a combat rifle, 2-2.5 MOA is more than sufficient for anything you could ask of your weapon. Many will require more, but I tend to think they're either bench shooters or wannabe snipers. Often you'll see guys turning to the AR-10 variants for that extra accuracy; which is fine (and even makes some sense) if it's a range toy. But the AR-10 variants (with the exception of the one's currently in use by the US military) are NOT combat rifles. I just think American shooters place way too much demand on accuracy, often at the expense of reliability.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2011
Posts: 2,280
Campfire Regular
|
|
Campfire Regular
Joined: Sep 2011
Posts: 2,280 |
Kevin that last post might hold too much truth for the general public.
Richard
Originally Posted By: slumlord
people that text all day get on my nerves
just knowing that people are out there with that ability,....just makes me wanna punch myself in the balls
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2009
Posts: 501
Campfire Regular
|
|
Campfire Regular
Joined: Aug 2009
Posts: 501 |
FWIW, DSA is no longer listing Imbel rifles on their website: http://www.dsarms.com/FAL%20Imbel%20Rifle/products/208/I liked the idea of having an FAL for a long time. I grew less enthused when I saw some owner surveys, where only about half of their owners said they'd do less than 2.5 MOA. Well, first off consider that 2.5 MOA will give you solid hits out to 700 yards, which is the pracitical limit of the .308. But for those who are claiming 2.5MOA I'd inquire as to which ammo they're using. Seems every time I feed a FAL good match ammo, it's tickling the 1MOA mark; slightly over, or slightly under. Keep in mind that a non-match M1A typically won't out-shoot a rack grade FAL. And keep in mind the DSA STG-58's and Imbels are milsurp kit guns. Your typical military FAL will often have damage to the crown due to careless cleaning by conscripted soldiers. I don't believe DSA re-crowns the barrels on those guns before they go together. So a quick re-crown job and those guns are typically comfortably under 2MOA. For a combat rifle, 2-2.5 MOA is more than sufficient for anything you could ask of your weapon. Many will require more, but I tend to think they're either bench shooters or wannabe snipers. Often you'll see guys turning to the AR-10 variants for that extra accuracy; which is fine (and even makes some sense) if it's a range toy. But the AR-10 variants (with the exception of the one's currently in use by the US military) are NOT combat rifles. I just think American shooters place way too much demand on accuracy, often at the expense of reliability. You Sir, know exactly what you are talking about, well said. 2.0 MOA was the standard for F1 (FAL) rifles here in the Australian military. The best thing about the .308W is that you can shoot through stuff. You can also use the F1 as a decent club, not always possible with a plastic fantastic.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2003
Posts: 17,230 Likes: 2
Campfire Ranger
|
|
Campfire Ranger
Joined: Dec 2003
Posts: 17,230 Likes: 2 |
Started a second thread before I saw this one DS Arms STG58 FAL .308 Whats the word on these? Metric receiver, DSA has a good rep, I think?
Fair price would be $1000?
Sycamore
...Actually Sycamore, you are sort of right....
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2008
Posts: 8,517
Campfire Outfitter
|
|
Campfire Outfitter
Joined: Jul 2008
Posts: 8,517 |
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2003
Posts: 17,230 Likes: 2
Campfire Ranger
|
|
Campfire Ranger
Joined: Dec 2003
Posts: 17,230 Likes: 2 |
"A man has got to know his limitations" Sharpening a knife is at the outer edge of my metal working skills.  Best case scenario, I'd have $600 in parts, $400 in tools, and a rifle assembled by an absolute rookie. Sycamore
...Actually Sycamore, you are sort of right....
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2009
Posts: 429
Campfire Member
|
|
Campfire Member
Joined: Sep 2009
Posts: 429 |
No, about $100 in tools. Get a kit, a receiver, the U.S. parts and you are good to go. Check the gunsmithing section over on falfiles.com.
You can piddle with the puppies, or run with the wolves...
Better living through chemistry!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2004
Posts: 7,110
Campfire Tracker
|
|
Campfire Tracker
Joined: Nov 2004
Posts: 7,110 |
FWIW, DSA is no longer listing Imbel rifles on their website: http://www.dsarms.com/FAL%20Imbel%20Rifle/products/208/I liked the idea of having an FAL for a long time. I grew less enthused when I saw some owner surveys, where only about half of their owners said they'd do less than 2.5 MOA. Well, first off consider that 2.5 MOA will give you solid hits out to 700 yards, which is the pracitical limit of the .308. But for those who are claiming 2.5MOA I'd inquire as to which ammo they're using. Seems every time I feed a FAL good match ammo, it's tickling the 1MOA mark; slightly over, or slightly under. Keep in mind that a non-match M1A typically won't out-shoot a rack grade FAL. And keep in mind the DSA STG-58's and Imbels are milsurp kit guns. Your typical military FAL will often have damage to the crown due to careless cleaning by conscripted soldiers. I don't believe DSA re-crowns the barrels on those guns before they go together. So a quick re-crown job and those guns are typically comfortably under 2MOA. For a combat rifle, 2-2.5 MOA is more than sufficient for anything you could ask of your weapon. Many will require more, but I tend to think they're either bench shooters or wannabe snipers. Often you'll see guys turning to the AR-10 variants for that extra accuracy; which is fine (and even makes some sense) if it's a range toy. But the AR-10 variants (with the exception of the one's currently in use by the US military) are NOT combat rifles. I just think American shooters place way too much demand on accuracy, often at the expense of reliability. what makes an AR 10 not a combat rifle, not trying to be smart allick, but a serious question, also what about the one the military is using make them one. I do know the AR 10 was the original design and other people came up with the 223 idea and scaled it down after stoner.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2007
Posts: 6,418
Campfire Tracker
|
|
Campfire Tracker
Joined: Jul 2007
Posts: 6,418 |
I have an Imbel FAL, and it shoots quite a bit poorer than my unbedded LRB M14SA, even before my gunsmith unitized the gas system. The 11 pound trigger might have something to do with it, and there isn't much that can be done to alleviate that, and that's coming from an AMU armorer who tried. Don't get me wrong, I like my FAL, but given the choice, I'll go with the M14. Better sights, better trigger, dual acting op rod, and ability to mount optics are just a few things that I personally find better on the M14 type firearms. The FAL has somewhat better ergonomics, and a better field strip/cleaning procedure, IOW from the breech as opposed to from the muzzle, but from my experience in owning/shooting both types, I'll pick the M14 style every time.
If the American People allow private banks to control the issuance of their currency, first by inflation, then by deflation, the banks..., will deprive the People of all their Property,...Thomas Jefferson
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2008
Posts: 8,517
Campfire Outfitter
|
|
Campfire Outfitter
Joined: Jul 2008
Posts: 8,517 |
optics are easy to mount on a fal. slide the dustcover off and slide a dustcover mount back on. there are a few out there, and are real tight to get on and off. here's my all imbel para i built some years ago. i sand blasted every part, and used high tempt barbque paint. baked it in the over at 400 degrees for 3 hours. been a ruff tuff finish for a long time. even rode for years in my rig up truck. the paint did wear on the f/h, but a touch up was all it needed. it has a schneider machine folding charging handle now. ![[Linked Image]](http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v631/splattermatic/imbel_para6.jpg)
Last edited by splattermatic; 01/02/12.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2007
Posts: 6,418
Campfire Tracker
|
|
Campfire Tracker
Joined: Jul 2007
Posts: 6,418 |
I know, I have one. I would have to say that the M14 has an easier style to mount in the Basset/Sadlak/Brookfield type. When I placed the DSA scope mount/cover on my FAL, it required that I mod the rear sight, or remove it completely, depending upon style of sight (L1A1 or SA58) to avoid interfering with the scope mount/dust cover. Not necessary in the M14.
If the American People allow private banks to control the issuance of their currency, first by inflation, then by deflation, the banks..., will deprive the People of all their Property,...Thomas Jefferson
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 22,274
Campfire Ranger
|
|
Campfire Ranger
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 22,274 |
I always have liked the looks of the FAL; to me it's the only pretty black rifle  There are some functional advantages with the FAL where I can agree with Kevin, but the odds of me needing to fire 500 rounds at an invading horde, without cleaning, with any old ammo laying around, is rather remote. My AR-10's 16" upper has easily done 1.5 MOA or better with factory match loads, and it weighs a bit less than most FAL's (9 lbs w/o scope). The guys at falfiles are the ones who stated 2.5MOA average; presumably they are FAL enthusiasts and would try to wring the best out of their rifles, via ammo or tuning. As much as I want to like it, it will cost me $1000+ to get it shooting maybe as well as something I already have. I'm having a hard time getting so motivated 
"...the designer of the .270 Ingwe cartridge!..."
|
|
|
|
|
554 members (2003and2013, 1234, 160user, 10Glocks, 1beaver_shooter, 1Akshooter, 59 invisible),
2,435
guests, and
1,215
robots. |
|
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
|
Forums81
Topics1,192,463
Posts18,489,835
Members73,972
| |
Most Online11,491
Jul 7th, 2023
|
|
|
|
