Sorry for another “this or that” thread–I’ve done a search and not found much by way of info on this particular subject either here or on other sites.
The next firearm I purchase will be a combat-capable rifle. To me this means reasonable (but not precision) accuracy, 0-400m range, reliable, handy, and robust. I will use this rifle for training, primarily. I am pretty happy with my current handgun and shotgun, and am looking for a carbine-ish rifle to complete my arsenal.
Right now I am pretty torn between a Noveske 16" light basic and a DSA 16"/18" FAL (possibly a para model).
I am pretty convinced that I’d rather have the ballistic performance of the .308. From searching around, I think the DSA FAL will offer me the best .308 performance for the money (not so interested in .308 ARs) That being said, I know it is more expensive and harder to shoot well than .223. I can’t hunt with a .223 in my state, but I would consider a .300BLK upper down the road. Besides, I could always hunt with slugs in my shotgun.
I would just go ahead with the Noveske (understanding I’d be well-served by some other AR manufacturers as well) but the FAL seems very well regarded here and seems like a good way to get into shooting .308.
I don’t care about accessories/rails/optics–I want a handy, deadly, K.I.S.S, reliable, proven weapon.
For those of you who own both platforms, what are your thoughts?
+1… a class worth of 7.62 gets expensive fast. If money is no object, then go with whatever tickles you (no denying that running heavy metal hard is fun as hell).
The FAL also has another training consideration – while there are any number of instructors that know AR-style guns in and out, finding instructors with real in-depth FAL-specific experience is a bit trickier.
It’s funny you posted this because I actually have a DSA FAL and an M4 type carbine as my two SHTF rifles. if I had to just grab one, I’d probably grab to M4. It’s a great weapon, it’s easy to handle you can hump about twice the amount of ammo and parts and mags are everywhere!
On the other hand, if you have just one weapon and a pistol, then I would look at a .308. It’s heavy caliber rifle and will defeat most all body armor and barriers you’re likely to come across in a normal situation. It is very distict and loud sounding and it will make you pause when you hear it in rapid fire. also it’s good at taking down game as well. It’s a universal cartridge.
i’m curious as to why you’re not interested in a .308 AR? Any particular reason?
I don’t know what your background or traiing is either. The 5.56 rd is a high velocity round, but it’s not worth a damn against hardened targets. If you need to shoot through a door, wall, dense cover then you’re pissing in the wind with it. FYI.
On the other hand if you don’t have a lot of training it’s mild recoil is easily handled by males and females. It has a pretty straight trajectory and even an M4 can be effective out over 400yds.
you’re probably more likely to hit what you’re aiming at with the AR unless you plan to practice with the .308
I had a FAL-Para version & several M4’s. Got rid of the FAL because:
A) Heavy as hell (maybe just the way it balanced?)
B) Ergonomics. Once you try an M4, the FAL ergo’s just didn’t cut it for me
C) Scope mount–not a confidence inspiring setup on FAL’s
D) Parts availability. Good luck locally; so if you’re at a match or out shooting with buddies & something breaks, you’re pretty much out of commission.
E) Ammo Cost
F) Mag insertion a bit finicky
I admit I only gave my FAL less than a year & maybe 300 or so rounds. YMMV.
I traded the FAL for a .308 AR based rifle & its the bee’s knee’s IMO. Familiar ergos, nicely balanced. Not too heavy if you are careful in parts selection.
This is definitely a strange compare thread, as these rifles are like apples and oranges. It’s so hard to know where to begin with how different these rifles are.
For one, they’re considerably more expensive (Predatar/MWS v DSA FAL). Also, with no AR background, any AR “familiarity” is lost on me. Lastly, it appears that the AR .308s are maybe more delicate, more suited for precision work than the hardy FAL, though this could be a misconception on my part.
I would very much like to have a Predatar or a SCAR. Heck I’d be happy with a MWS. But I’m not sure any of these are worth the price over the FAL for me.
They are both effective battle weapons, one being slightly heavier with more range and better ballistics. As seen in Libya, I’d say an up-to 18" FAL is well suited for engaging folks with AKs and ARs in an urban combat environment.
I’ve seen plenty of footage of competitions with guys running FALs quickly. They are different rifles to be sure, but I’d say either would fulfill my needs accounting for the obvious trade-offs.
That will help you tremendously to get your bearings and use your carbine effectively. Effective training is the single biggest force multiplier that you can add to your bag of tricks.
Don’t make a choice based on what you’re seeing from news online.
These two rifles really are apples and grape fruits. Again, I own several of each, and have trained with both, and if shit went bad, I’d grab an M4 before a FAL every single time.
All things being equal I think an M4 or an LMT MWS would be the better choices. Remember that in any TEOTWAWKI/SHTF situation you need to be able to carry said weapon with a basic combat load at times. An M4 will make that much more enjoyable.
The LMT MWS isn’t terribly heavy, uses PMAG’s and is also very capable.
I have read your FAL posts so your insight is really appreciated.
I think the Noveske light basic is a great deal but I just saw that pricing on the 6920. That is too good to be true. I was planning a tax time purchase but I’m gonna have to try to beg, borrow, steal to take advantage of that G and R deal.