[Guest]

I originally bought my M1A expecting it to be a tack driver, which it is not. I'm thinking about trading it in on a quality FAL, and was wondering what kind of accuracy folks see out of that platform. We're talking full-length rifles, not carbines, no match mods or upgrades.

 

[uncle guns]

I have an FN Herst. and an imbel, & 3 m1a's for me the m1a's are much more acc. .... I guess it might be cause the m1a feels traditional and the fn feels front heavy and un-balanced, it is my opinion that more can be done to an m1a to improve it than the fn.
neither of my fn's will shoot with my NM m1a or my pre-ban, but they shoot bout the same as my std.


just my .02

 

[frankxtc]

Deltaheavy,
I have 3 FALS, two are normal barrel lengths (STG-58 and Israeli HB)
One of my M1A's is an un-modified SA preban.

Shooting good ol' Portugese or Australian NATO ball, my M1A
groups are a little better at 200 yards than either FAL.

Both FAL's have new barrels, the M1A has a Geneseo, Il.
barrel with about 5,000 rounds through it.

I think it is easier to make an M1A accurate compared with a FAL.
However, the FAL is really alot of fun to shoot, and I seem
to shoot the FALS more for plinking, and use the M1A's for
targets.

Frank

 

[Spartacus2002]

I've owned an FAL and an M1A. The M1A was far more accurate. With the same ammo, shooting 5shot groups, the FAL was 1" at 25yards, the M1A can shoot all 5 into one hole at 25yards.

 

[Smokey224]

I just got back from the range with my STG58 carbine. This was my first try with Aussie .308, having used either South African or Port. previously. Using iron sights and shooting from a prone position I was getting clover leaf groups on occasion, with 1-1.5 inches being the norm. Needless to say I'm pretty impressed with the Aussie surplus. I haven't tried it in my M1A yet but I'm eager to.

When comparing standard grade service rifles I'd give the M1A a slight edge, not much at normal combat distance but still an edge. This really doesn't have anything to do with the design of the rifles themselves, since the FALs design lends itself to greater accuracy than the M14/M1A (no reliance on friction to keep the components together, non-reliance on the traditional lock, stock, and barrel type of assembly). The M1As advantage lies in its sights and trigger, both of which are superior to the FALs. The FAL actually features excellent iron sights from a field use point of view, since they're built like a brick outhouse. On the other hand, the Garand type sighting system of the M1A features much finer adjustment than the FAL. This is vital if you're going to be shooting at extended ranges. My M1As trigger is much lighter than that of my FAL, although the FALs trigger does break cleanly which makes up for the weight issue.

Honestly, if you were expecting a standard grade M1A to be a tack driver I'd say that your expectations were a bit high. Sometimes I think people tend to expect too much from a rack grade military rifle. These things are made initially to kill men at several hundred yards in a reliable and repeated fashion, not to take the trophy at Camp Perry.

My preference is with the FAL. I find the ergonomics to be superior to the M1A. It was also a significant advance in technology when it was designed. As fine a rifle as the M14 is, it's really nothing more than 1930s technology. On the other hand, I started my rifle shooting career with an M14 so I'll always have a soft spot for it. That's why I own both

 

[M1APreBan]

I own both types of rifles, and to me there is no compairing them. The M1A/M-14 is more accurate. The FN's I have are an SA 48 and a new Century. 2-3" groups seem to be the norm with surplus ammo. On the other hand, I built my M-1A's and put them together with TLC. The ultramatch I have is IMHO, about on a par with some "target" rifles. The other two are built on SA, Inc recievers with USGI parts. I shimmed and assembled them as carefully as I could. I get 1" to 1 1/2" groups with the rack rifles with surplus(port and aussi) and cloverleaf groups with the Ultramatch and handloads. I must say that I have never tinkered with either FAL or handloaded for either one. I don't know what to do to make the FAL system more accurate. I like the feel of the FAL rifles over the M-14 types and I really like the FAL's looks, but it seems I shoot the M-14 system better. I will say that I will never willingly get rid or either rifle system. I like them both, but the nod goes to the M1A in my book...Mike

 

[Pat McD]

A friend has an AZEX Arms built FAL. I've shot it a lot and really like it. It's accuracy is on par with my Norinco M14S (basically rack-grade). It doesn't come close to my Smith Ent. match rifle. I would say that the best you can expectt from a FAL is 1.5-2.5 MOA. That's not to say there are individual specimens that won't shoot better. With the M14 system, you can definitely "upgrade" your accuracy.

Both are fine weapons. I prefer the M14. That having been said, I hope to talk my friend out of his FAL someday.

 

[David Gorzsas]

I have an ARS StG-58, and three SA, Inc M1As. My match M1A was built at Quantico. I also have a "loaded" M1A and an early M1A that was built up to NM specs. The StG-58 is more accurate than both the "loaded" rifle and the early NM rifle but it can't compete with the match M1A.

The FAL/StG-58 is more difficult to accurize than the M1A primarily because so much more has been done with the M1A. The accurizing steps are pretty well defined for the M1A whereas they are less well defined for the FAL. A well built rack grade FAL can be just as accurate as a well built rack grade M1A. A typical ARS rifle is MUCH better than rack grade.

 

[BKinzey]

Not like this poll will be slanted or anything :roll: :wink:

The M1A. The FAL has several variations and countries who built them. Quality varies.

The sighting system on the M14/ M1A is much better.

If you want accuracy ARS is an excellent choice but then you aren't getting a standard grade rifle. I wouldn't consider anything ARS builds as a standard grade anyway.

I'm not sure if there are "National Match" specs for a FAL :-?

I'm sure it would be easier to upgrade or fix your rifle than start over with a FAL.

I have 2 FALs and 1 M1A.

 

[Trung Si]

FAL more accurate than a Standard M-14?? In your Dreams :wink:

 

[Arby]

If you are looking to upgrade accuracy, I would not trade an M1A for an FAL. Both are excellent rifles. In my humble opinion and those of a number of others, the M1A is the better platform upon which to build an accurate rifle. Start with headspace and the normal upgrades. Unless you have a really jinxed rifle, the M1A should get you where you want to go within the reasonable limits and what your pocketbook allows.

I own a number of FALs. Some are of respectable accuracy, one is excellent, one is poor. Shooting from a bench, I would go with the M1A. Much better sights, fixed sight plane, "tweakable" gas system, far superior trigger group, can be bedded instead of floated (fore end), good track record in matches.

FALs are excellent rifles and can be very reliable, but the M1A has an edge on accuracy.

Why not build a FAL, to try out? They are relatively inexpensive to build and mags are dirt cheap. For many, they have excellent ergonomics.

But I would not trade off an M1A for an FAL, unless the M1A is a real dog.

Just my $0.02

 

[rlara333]

M14/M1A takes my vote.
The FAL shoots great, but it has 2 problems, the trigger and a lack of consistency. We received a DSA at a shop I worked at, for a customer who asked DSA to work the trigger. DSA told us they would do what they could. My Poly has a better trigger than this DSA. I had an CAI FAL that would shoot about 1.5 MOA at 100 yards. Unfortunately this was 1 1/2 feet to the right of POA. M14/M1A tend to shoot from 1 to 2 MOA with less loss of zero.
I guess the most important thing to do with either rifle is try different types of ammo and see which your rifle likes.
I must add, everyone should have a copy of each (FAL/M1A).
God bless
rlara333