FN-FAL vs. AR in .308

[rifleman_0311]

Hi everyone! I would like to get your opinion on which rifle you think is better, a FN-FAL, or an AR chambered in .308 such as Armalite’s AR-10 or DPMS’s Long Range .308. Please list the pros and cons of both. Thanks!

[Dorkface]

well if i had to choose between those two i would choose the FAL. but if i didnt have to choose between them i would say the M-14. i know a few guys who got rid of their ar-10s because of jams and stuff. then they got M-14's.

[rifleman_0311]

Originally posted by Dorkface@Jul 6 2005, 07:25 PM
well if i had to choose between those two i would choose the FAL.* but if i didnt have to choose between them i would say the M-14.* i know a few guys who got rid of their ar-10s because of jams and stuff.* then they got M-14's.
Hummm... Okay. Thanks for your 2 cents.

[Mainiac]

I've owned all three, now I'm down to one. The M-1A is ok but very difficult and expensive to scope. The AR-10 is ok but mags are pricey. The FAL is easily scoped with DSA's top cover for bout $50. Mags can be had for as little as $3. Reliability is excellent. The FAL is the only choice for me.

[Mainiac]

In my opinion, having owned both. The AR-10 is a slightly more accurate rifle, reliability is good but parts are pricey. Mags run, depending on where you get them, from $50-$75 each. The FAL from DSA is acceptably accurate and reliability is excellent. Having fired over 2500 rds. of surplus from everywhere in the world, I have yet to experience ONE malfunction of any kind. I buy the cheapest mags I can find, average between $3- $7 each. DSA's Picatinny top cover is first rate, easily installed and doesn't obscure the Iron sights in any way. Add a set of Leuopold "QRW" rings and your scope and you can go from scope to irons in about 10 seconds, with repeatable zero on the scope. If I could have only one rifle it would my DSA with the 2.5-10 Simmons Aetec with illuminated reticle. Done deal Hope this helps.

[BusMaster007]

I'm seriously giving thought to the Rock River Arms version of the AR10.
My original hope was to get the Bushmaster .308 ( which turns out to be the RRA design in the first place! ).
Now that RRA has it back --- my ArmaLite AR10 may be trading fodder.
I like the FAL magazine option.

http://www.rockriverarms.com/subcats.cfm?Category=05

I'd opt for the lower one:
http://www.rockriverarms.com/images/r308mid.gif

[dchi]

My vote would be for a new production ar 10 unless the high price of mags bother you. Armalite redesigned the mags and mag catch to fix the feed problems some of them had. I had a FAL liked it but it was moderately accurate, I have a NM M1A too heavy for field work kicks the hardest of the 3 but is a real tack driver. I shot an AR10 with muzzle break, had a great trigger and very low recoil for a .308. They should be the most accurate of the 3 in standard grade. Scope mounting would be cheap and easy and its the lightest of the 3.

[gunrun45]

I'm a m14 fan. Scoping is not an issue with me because I don't think I would ever scope one. Next would be the FAL design. The 308 AR platform would be a far thrid place. I have considered building a 308 AR platform gun here in CA (compliant of course), but parts are spendy as well as mags. I don't care much for the AR gas system either. I have owned or do own an M14 and FAL in the past but never an AR platform 308.

[BusMaster007]

My vote would be for a new production ar 10 unless the high price of mags bother you. Armalite redesigned the mags and mag catch to fix the feed problems some of them had. I had a FAL liked it but it was moderately accurate, I have a NM M1A too heavy for field work kicks the hardest of the 3 but is a real tack driver. I shot an AR10 with muzzle break, had a great trigger and very low recoil for a .308. They should be the most accurate of the 3 in standard grade. Scope mounting would be cheap and easy and its the lightest of the 3.

The 2003 AR15.com/ArmaLite AR10 of mine is really special to me.
I bought it with the Match Trigger; Carbine fixed buttstock; and the full-length upper rail with the quad-rail attachment on the big-tube forend. It's 'different' looking and a pleasure to shoot.

It's just that I got it because I didn't like my L1A1 Klinton Sporter that never funtioned at 100% and the way the scopes had to be mounted.
I had the factory muzzle brake installed and later regretted it, even though it covered up the unsightly appendage on the end of the 'infantry weight' bbl. ( I've got a Phantom FS to put on it, but I have to send the upper to an ArmaLite Authorized shop to have the MB removed first. )

I know the new mags for the AR10 are better, even though they're a little pricey...I'd still be willing to salt away $$$ for them if the other options don't work out for me.

I appreciate what you've pointed out. Thanks.:)

[AF FAL]

For reliability the FAL for sure.

For accuracy, the AR-10 platform with a free floated barrel.

For a gun that is easy and cheap to modify with qualified gunsmiths that can work on it, the AR wins hands down. It's easy to rebarrel, easy to find parts, and there are alot more advertised smith's for it.

I personally have never had problems with reliability on an AR-10, but I have heard alot of stories. I think the pressure and power of a 308 round kind of overpowers any powder fowling . Mags, get the Rock River with the FAL mag set up. ASA also used FAL mags, but not sure if they are still around. I think the DPMS 308 is the best built of the bunch, they use a stoner design mag which may be a little more costly, but is reliable.

[fire for effect]

The AR -10 weapons system locks up at the front of the bolt, while The FN FAL locks up at the back of the bolt. Because of this, the bolt of the FN flexes upon firing, reducing the potential accuracy.

[Soda Pop]

I'm primarily a Mini 14 and FAL guys, but I never had problems in the accuracy department with my DSA-STG58 FAL-Accuracy (http://www.therallypoint.org/forum/index.php?topic=1293.0)

I think the majority of the 7.62 battlerifles are capable of MOA accuracy. The M1A has the better trigger and the AR10 has a better barrel design.

Just my .02.

[fire for effect]

I'm primarily a Mini 14 and FAL guys, but I never had problems in the accuracy department with my DSA-STG58 FAL-Accuracy (http://www.therallypoint.org/forum/index.php?topic=1293.0)

I think the majority of the 7.62 battlerifles are capable of MOA accuracy. The M1A has the better trigger and the AR10 has a better barrel design.

Just my .02.

The M1A also has superb sights.

[Soda Pop]

Agreed.

[Mrblackguns]

I like FAL's and AR-10s, but I think Springfield's socom-16" is awsome!

[BigOleSwingin`]

I think you should go for the rifle that was originally designed to shoot in that caliber.

[Ontos]

I think you should go for the rifle that was originally designed to shoot in that caliber.

Hmm.... then wouldn't that technically be the AR-10?

The FAL was origionally designed to chamber that .280 British round....

[BigOleSwingin`]

Hmm.... then wouldn't that technically be the AR-10?

The FAL was origionally designed to chamber that .280 British round....

That may or may not be true, but fact is, it was built as a 7.62 x51 (NOT .308) from the start, while the AR was built chambered for the 5.56x45.
The AR 10 just looks and feels awkward, just like an FAL chambered in .50BMG would feel.

[nzmini]

The 7.62X51 ar10 came out to compete (late) in the competition to pick the Garand replacement. That competition selected the M14 and the ar10 was "put on the shelf". The 5.56 version (ar15/m16) came later.

The FAL (L1A1) was designed for the 7.62x51 rnd and later modified to the 5.56 version.

The British did research at the end of WW2 to find the ideal combat rifle round given the experience of the war they had just fought. That research produced the .280 rnd. A radical (for then) new bull pup rifle, the EM2 was designed for the round and was selected and then de-selected as the new British service rifle. The change of mind was because of US pressure for the newly formed NATO bloc to use common ammunition and as the US govt had just selected the M14 in 7.62, this was the calibre chosen. The Brits then went for the L1A1 version of the FAL. As the commonwealth countries came to replace their .303 lee-enfields they also selected the L1A1.

(I think)

[fire for effect]

as I recall, the FN Fal was originally designed to use a much shorter cartridge, similar to the 7.62 X 39. After NATO adopted the 7.62 X 51, the FN Fal was redesigned to use it. The Cartridge 7.62 X 51 was determined prior to the US choosing the M-14. as the Fal was also in the trials for the US Weapon. THe US had so much success with the 3006, that we refused to go with any cartridge that didnot deliver the same power.

[fire for effect]

...The British did research at the end of WW2 to find the ideal combat rifle round given the experience of the war they had just fought. That research produced the .280 rnd....
(I think)


The British were experimenting, and looking for a diffferent cartridge prior to WWI. They had developed a cartridge in .276 and Remington was building the P14 Enfield Rifles in this caliber when WWI broke out. The Program was trashed, and Remington was asked to convert this rifle to .303 to aid in the war effort.

[BigOleSwingin`]

[QUOTE=fire for effect;428655]as I recall, the FN Fal was originally designed to use a much shorter cartridge, similar to the 7.62 X 39. [QUOTE]

Maybe that`s the .280 cartrige Ontos was talking about.

[Ontos]

Just to add a little something...

From Wikipedia
"In 1947, the first FN FAL prototype was completed. It was designed to fire the 7.92 mm Kurz patrone (short cartridge) developed and used by the Germans during World War II (see StG44 assault rifle). After testing this prototype in 1948, the British Army urged FN to build additional prototypes, including one in bullpup configuration, chambered for their new .280 British calibre intermediate cartridge. After evaluating the single bullpup prototype, FN decided to return instead to their original, conventional design for future production.

In 1950, the United Kingdom presented the redesigned FN rifle and the British EM-2, both in .280 British calibre, to the United States for comparison testing against the favored U.S. Army design of the time - Earle Harvey's T25. It was hoped that a common cartridge and rifle could be standardized for issue to the armies of all NATO member countries. After this testing was completed, U.S. Army officials suggested that FN should redesign their rifle to fire the U.S. prototype '.30 Light Rifle' cartridge. FN decided to hedge their bets and cast their lot with the U.S., given that the UK appeared to be favoring their own EM-2. In 1951, FN even made a deal with the U.S. that they could produce the FAL royalty-free in the U.S. This decision appeared to be correct when the British unilaterally decided to adopt the EM-2 and .280 British cartridge in the very same month. This decision was later rescinded after the Labour Party was ousted from control of Parliament and Winston Churchill returned as Prime Minister. It is believed that there was a quid-pro-quo agreement between Churchill and U.S. President Harry Truman in 1952 that the British accept the .30 Light Rifle cartridge as NATO standard in return for U.S. acceptance of the FN FAL as NATO standard. The .30 Light Rifle cartridge was in fact later standardized as the 7.62 mm NATO; however, the U.S. insisted on continued rifle tests. The FAL chambered for the .30 Light Rifle went up against the redesigned T25 (now redesignated as the T47), and an M1 Garand variant, the T44. Eventually, the T44 won out, becoming the M14. However, in the mean time, most other NATO countries were evaluating and selecting the FAL."

Also an interesting little clip from youtube
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zrSWpWi5eEs

What's interesting is that the .280 British and the even older .257 Peterson are VERY similar to the current 6.5 Grendal.

[nzmini]

as I recall, the FN Fal was originally designed to use a much shorter cartridge, similar to the 7.62 X 39. After NATO adopted the 7.62 X 51, the FN Fal was redesigned to use it. The Cartridge 7.62 X 51 was determined prior to the US choosing the M-14. as the Fal was also in the trials for the US Weapon. THe US had so much success with the 3006, that we refused to go with any cartridge that didnot deliver the same power.


I believe you are right sir, my mistake:)

[Secret Squirrel]

The British were experimenting, and looking for a diffferent cartridge prior to WWI. They had developed a cartridge in .276 and Remington was building the P14 Enfield Rifles in this caliber when WWI broke out. The Program was trashed, and Remington was asked to convert this rifle to .303 to aid in the war effort.

The British were experimenting with the .276 Pattern 13 rifle when WW1 occured. Total of 1,257 made. .276 cal was dropped because WW1 was the wrong time to change cal. Cal was therefore changed to .303, the name became Pattern 1914 Rifle & manufacture was started in England by Vickers.
Because of lack of production capacity & other such problems the machinery, together with "Pattern Rifles", was shipped to the US. Contracts were negotiated & production started in Jan 1916. When production ceased in December 1917 1,235,298 had been produced. ( Remington Arms, Eddystone = 604,941; Winchester = 235,448; Remington UMC = 403,126.)
Because of lack of Springfields the Pattern 13 Rifle was modified to .30-06 & became the M'17. By the end of 1918 2,202,429 had been made ( Eddystone = 1,181,908; Winchester = 465,980; Remington = 545,541) It was the predominant rifle in US service during WW1.
Post WW1 Remington continued to manufacture a "sporterised" version, the Model 30 series of rifles.

[A square 10]

the .276 inch pattern 1913 rifles[about 1000 for trials] were produced at royal small arms factory at enfeild ,

vikers ltd was contracted for 100,000 .303 pattern 1914 rifles in june of 1915 ,

they couldnt produce due to other things they were doing , contracts were negotiated with winchester , remington/union illion new yourk , and remington arms delaware at 'eddystone arsenal' , in may of 1916

the US contracted 3006 version model 1917 in spring 1917

all of the 'fine adjustment backsights' and 'telescopic' versions were winchesters

http://i144.photobucket.com/albums/r188/Asquare10/MIKESBAYONETS034.jpg

new with limited knowledge in some non-fal areas

[A square 10]

oh , and back on topic - in 762x51

i like the M14/M1A
http://i144.photobucket.com/albums/r188/Asquare10/mikesrifles002.jpg

and the FN-FAL
http://i144.photobucket.com/albums/r188/Asquare10/FN-FAL008.jpg

and so far in the AR platform im still stuck on 556x45
http://i144.photobucket.com/albums/r188/Asquare10/mikesrifles025.jpg
http://i144.photobucket.com/albums/r188/Asquare10/mikesrifles003.jpg
http://i144.photobucket.com/albums/r188/Asquare10/mikesrifles005.jpg

but im warming to the DPMS version of the 308 as im seeing it prooven at the factory , im not quite ready to jump yet tho

[deersniper6]

[QUOTE=Mainiac;348729] The AR-10 is ok but mags are pricey. QUOTE]

I thought one of the major companys made an AR-10 rifle that accept FAL or L1a1 mags. Someone will have to help me on this one.