Who owns or has used one of these battle rifles? Opinions?
Excellent article by Larry Vickers:
Having owned multiple examples of all three systems, a quality FAL is probably the best blend of accuracy, reliability, ergonomics, sustainability, and shootability.
I am by no means an expert in the subject matter, but I have owned both a H&K-91 and am a current FAL/L1A1 (frankenrifle) owner.
For the H&K
I didn’t care for the loong reach to the H&K’s safety. It was simply unreachable when shouldered, and I had to carry with the buttstock outside of my arm to reach when in a patrol position. The magazine release as well, is practically unreachable, unless you install a Tac-Latch, and that only benefits right handed shooters. The forward slanted barrel for the rear sights didn’t bother me much, except for when the light was directly behind and it emphasized the numbers on the sight, overwhelming the aperture.
The lack of a last round bolt hold-open was a bit of a disappointment, but not insurmountable.
Disassembly is a breeze and it was always reliable over the 6-7 years I had it in rotation.
For the FAL
Some have complained that the rear sight isn’t hooded and therefore is difficult to use in some sun conditions. True enough, but easily solved with the addition of a hood which is installed in a tapped rear sight. I think mine was $30 for the complete thing.
The safety is much more ergonomic, especially if using the extended L1A1/Imperial pattern.
Metric and Imperial bolt hold-open controls are interchangeable, so there is a choice for last round hold-open, or not.
If one substitutes an Canadian receiver cover, you can even load the magazine via stripper clips, plus it gives a bit of a distinctive look.
I’m divided on whether to use an Imperial or Metric magazine release, the Metric allows one to release with the trigger finger, but the Imperial is more useful for retaining the magazine in the hand when doing a change.
Summary? Both there are domestic manufacturers for both patterns, but I’d give the nod to the FAL. It’s the one that’s stayed with me the longest.
Also used all three and imho the FAL is the best rifle for ME.If you can try and shoot all three rifles as much as you can and find the one that works for YOUR NEEDS/WANTS.They all have the good and bad points… you have to decide what good/bad points you want to live with.
Also one more thing if you go with an FAL(i would go with a DSA)Try an 18in barrel version i think that has the best balance IMHO.(better then a 16in or 21in barrel);)
4thPointOfContact covered it nicely. I owned all three rifles in the past. The only one I have now is the FAL. I agree on the 18 inch barrel. Magazines are relatively inexpensive and plentiful. Spend the extra bucks for a higher end gun (FN, DSA, or Springfield) and you’ll never look back.
It has pretty much been stated above but I will go ahead and chime in anyway.
I never cared for the ergonomics and features of the HK…for whatever reason I never could take a liking to them.
I have used an M1a and a SocomII and it shot well but again the ergonomics and features were less than desirable. Modularity is also an issue for me.
One thing that really strick me as a negative was mag insertion with gloves… the rocking that needs to be done to seat the mag snagged my blackhawk solag gloves and pinched them inside the release somehow…so here I am with a hot rifle, round in the chamber and a hand stuck in the mag release…it took some careful fiddling to get me loose without sacrificing the utmost safety. F— that.
I went with a DSA FAL.
As stated above it was the best in ergonomics, modularity, dependability and ease of maintenance… On top of that parts and mags were real cheap.
I changed many of the stock features to fit a 21st century role. I added a saw stock and grip as well as a picatinny reciever cover and a quad rail handguard.
I put a T.A.G. saw sling on it and it was gtg…
I agree with the 18" barrel comment as mine was 21" not including the long flash hider… I think any way to save weight and not sacrifice accuracy is desirable with this rifle since it can become fairly heavy and cumbersome depending on the configuration. I cannot give overall accuracy to the FAL since mine wasnt a precision shooter…
If I had to choose one of the three it would be a FAL but it would come from DSA with NP3 coated parts and a match grade or premium contour fluted barrel and a speed trigger.
having owned all three, if i had to start all over again i’d probably pick a FAL in congo configuration.
L1A1, then a G3, then a Metric FAL.
Does anyone have pics? Militarymoron, what is a Congo configuration?
The only one of the three I’ve had the opportunity to shoot was a G3 when I earned the Schützenschnur while stationed in Germany, back before the Wall fell. I’ve handled an M1A some 3 or 4 times, and fumbled seating the mag every time I tried, because of the angle Lion mentioned.
http://www.dsarms.com/SA58-FAL-PARA-Congo-Rifle-308-Cal----SA58PCONGO/productinfo/SA58PCONGO/
http://www.dsarms.com/SA58-FAL-Congo-Rifle-308-Cal----SA58CONGO/productinfo/SA58CONGO/
I have the Congo version, great rifle.
I’ve had all three, still have the Congo if that tells you something.
In my opinion, if you want an iron sighted battle rifle, get the FAL. You can add optics, etc if that’s what you want, mine is stock, just a light mount on the HG’s
Hard to beat the G3/HK91, same thing, optics are easier. I do regret selling mine though and won’t be spending money on one now.
From what I’ve seen and got first hand knowledge from people who’ve used in in harm’s way-if you want an M1A, leave it stock. If you want a toy to brag about and fiddle with like a 1911, then it’s for you.
You’ve got stuck picture threads in the Other Assault Rifles section here on the board, where this topic has been discussed a few times too.
Lots and lots of pics actually.
I, too, expected this to be at “Other Assault,” but since you’re here I’ll ask, what is your interest in these choices? Is your choice of caliber firm? A year ago I asked the same question and decided on an AR-15 in 6.8spc. Just my 2 cents.
Moved over, thanks
The 6.8 option is a good one in a sense. To avoid a serious redirection of the thread, let’s keep it on topic. The 6.8 comparison, that would be a whole other thread which I think has been discussed.
Mark
I currently have all three. Here are some things that haven’t been mentioned yet:
The HK91 kicks like a mule compared to the FAL and M1A.
In my OPINION the M1A has the best sights.
The FAL feels lighter in the hand and the most like an AR of the three.
Current M1As lack a lot of USGI parts so it seems they are often hit or miss on reliability and function. You might want to look for an older rifle with more USGI parts.
Spooky
Big 10-4 on that, I’ve seen dozens of them self destruct when actually used.
That was one of the major factors that led me to the FN. I borrowed an H&K 91 and shot it side by side with a buddy’s Belgian FN 50.61 Para. The H&K has a fairly violent recoil impulse (unpleasant) while the FN’s recoil impulse is considerably softer.
Another major factor was price, availability of parts and mags. At the time, original H&K mags were going for $30 each while DSA had mint Austrian surplus magazines for $7 each.
I’m not sure I’d go that far… They do cause issues with part compatibility - it is often difficult to get Smith Enterprises scope mounts to fit correctly. That and those old GI parts were tested pretty thoroughly before being accepted…
I think the mag situation has taken a 180! I was lucky to get a good amount of mags when I bought my Springfield Armory SAR48 a couple years back. It was a little over a grand and in great shape from a production line that built “mil-spec” FALs…
Spooky
I have owned all three for a long time, my favorite is the HK 91.