The Firing Line Forums

Go Back   The Firing Line Forums > The Hide > The Art of the Rifle: General

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old July 14, 2005, 10:05 PM   #1
Impact of Reason
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 13, 2005
Location: nacogdoches, texas
Posts: 205
DSA FAL vs. SA M1A?

DSA FAL or SA M1A (both standard, full size)
i'm trying to decide which of the two to buy. from what i've heard, the FAL seems to have an edge on ergonomics and reliability. the M1A seems to have the edge on accuracy. both seem to be great guns.
however, i do not shoot at all at 800 yards, and if the FAL is as good for pretty goods groups to at least 200 yards, (maybe 300 or 400 on rare occasions) then thats about all the accuracy i need.
which would you pick and why? is there any other info that you think i may find usefull? i think i'm leaning towards the FAL if the accuracy is good. i'd like to be able to mount a good scope on whichever i get.
__________________
Those who believe in gun control think that we don't need guns to protect us against an oppressive government, because the Constitution has internal safeguards, and the government should ban and seize all guns, therefore violating the 2nd, 4th, and 5th Amendments of that Constitution, thereby becoming an oppressive government.
Impact of Reason is offline  
Old July 15, 2005, 12:39 AM   #2
itgoesboom
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 16, 2002
Posts: 223
Impact,

Between the 2 designs, I would choose the M1A.

Between the manufacturer, I would choose DSA.

Just heard too many not so great things lately about the Springfield M1As, and as much as I love the design, I would feel more comfortable with a FAL, especially if this is a rifle that you need to count on.

The ability to scope actually would factor big in this decision too. While the M1A is a better platform for scoping, and should be easier to get a good mount, Springfield has been having a hard time getting that part down.

While I haven't heard any complaints about DSA's scope mounts.

I.G.B.
itgoesboom is offline  
Old July 15, 2005, 03:00 AM   #3
Sturmgewehr-58
Member
 
Join Date: June 19, 2004
Posts: 40
Quote:
FAL is as good for pretty goods groups to at least 200 yards, (maybe 300 or 400 on rare occasions)
I have no problems consistently hitting a 24" steel target at 600 yards with an iron-sighted FAL. That may not be good enough for competition shooting, but I know that is good enough for what the FAL is: a battle rifle. I built the rifle myself using surplus STG-58 parts and an Imbel receiver. I expect a DSA made FAL with new parts would shoot very well and should meet your requirements.

Of course, a well-made M1A is an excellent rifle, and would also suit your purpose, but I don't own one. I can build three FALs for the price of one M1A.
__________________
Thus saith the Lord GOD; This is Jerusalem: I have set it in the midst of the nations and countries that are round about her. And she hath changed my judgments into wickedness more than the nations, and my statutes more than the countries that are round about her: for they have refused my judgments and my statutes, they have not walked in them.
Ezekiel 5:5-6
Sturmgewehr-58 is offline  
Old July 15, 2005, 11:51 AM   #4
Impact of Reason
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 13, 2005
Location: nacogdoches, texas
Posts: 205
well what sort of 100 yard groups can you get from the FAL? i don't need anything spectacular but i would at least like some pretty good 100 yard groups. i dont see why it wouldnt be capable of this, i would just like to hear from someone with experience with it what sort of 100 yard accuracy it has, since that is there range where i do 90% of my shooting.
__________________
Those who believe in gun control think that we don't need guns to protect us against an oppressive government, because the Constitution has internal safeguards, and the government should ban and seize all guns, therefore violating the 2nd, 4th, and 5th Amendments of that Constitution, thereby becoming an oppressive government.
Impact of Reason is offline  
Old July 15, 2005, 02:41 PM   #5
AZ Jeff
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 26, 2002
Posts: 186
Your run of the mill FAL should turn 3-4MOA with decent ball ammo.

An issue grade M1A will do similarly. (Notice I said ISSUE grade, not match prepped.)

From a pure accuracy standpoint, the two will be about equal. The biggest advantages an M1A will have over a FAL is the following:

1. better, more precisely adjustable sights on the M1A
2. better, cleaner/lighter, trigger
3. ability to use a sling WITHOUT affecting point of impact.
AZ Jeff is offline  
Old July 15, 2005, 03:09 PM   #6
Handy
Junior member
 
Join Date: August 31, 2001
Posts: 8,785
My understanding is that an all factory new DSA FAL is a little better than an issue gun.

The typical Springfield is LESS reliable and more fragile than an issue M-14. Broken cast parts, etc. Plus the scope problem.


The M1A sights are better for match shooting - but that's a very specialized doctrine. Normally, you'd never touch the windage knob on a battle rifle.


Right now, I'd go with a DSA. If you feel you might want to shoot high power, find a 10 year old M1A when most of the parts were GI.


Off topic - take a look at the various AR-10s. Superior accuracy and M1A sights with FAL style ergos.
Handy is offline  
Old July 15, 2005, 03:43 PM   #7
Sturmgewehr-58
Member
 
Join Date: June 19, 2004
Posts: 40
Quote:
well what sort of 100 yard groups can you get from the FAL?
I'm able to do 2" five-shot groups at 100 yards with the iron sights, but the groups get larger as my eyes get tired.
__________________
Thus saith the Lord GOD; This is Jerusalem: I have set it in the midst of the nations and countries that are round about her. And she hath changed my judgments into wickedness more than the nations, and my statutes more than the countries that are round about her: for they have refused my judgments and my statutes, they have not walked in them.
Ezekiel 5:5-6
Sturmgewehr-58 is offline  
Old July 16, 2005, 12:30 AM   #8
Impact of Reason
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 13, 2005
Location: nacogdoches, texas
Posts: 205
well thanks guys for the input. its very helpful. i think the FAL will do just fine for my purposes.
__________________
Those who believe in gun control think that we don't need guns to protect us against an oppressive government, because the Constitution has internal safeguards, and the government should ban and seize all guns, therefore violating the 2nd, 4th, and 5th Amendments of that Constitution, thereby becoming an oppressive government.
Impact of Reason is offline  
Old July 23, 2005, 06:11 PM   #9
StarPD
Member
 
Join Date: November 4, 2002
Location: Phoenix AZ
Posts: 24
If you choose a GOOD FAL, or go with the DSA SA58, you won't be disappointed. The FAL (and its clones) are extremely easy and comfortable to shoot well partially because of the pistol grip, and they are VERY easy to clean and maintain. Plus there are almost as many aftermarket "goodies" for them as there are for the AR15. My personal preference is for the 50.63 "Para", which is what I have. It's no lighter than a standard FAL, but considerably more convenient to transport and carry thanks to the folding stock and 18" barrel. BTW, my personal recommendation if you do look at a "Para" is to NOT get a version with a 16" barrel. I consider 18" to be the shortest practical barrel for the 7.62 NATO, SA's 16" barreled "SOCOM 16" M1A1 notwithstanding. Shorter than 18" reduces velocity too much, and increases muzzle blast to the shooter.

As usual, YMMV

Oh, and welcome to the age-old controversy over the .308 Win vs 7.62 NATO chambers and ammo once you get any new rifle chambered for either cartridge.
__________________
George
StarPD

"Molon labe!"
StarPD is offline  
Old July 23, 2005, 07:54 PM   #10
Doug242ti
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 29, 2004
Location: Sacramento, CA
Posts: 316
Both!
__________________
www.pbase.com/dkauer744
NRA Member
Doug242ti is offline  
Old July 24, 2005, 10:39 PM   #11
Impact of Reason
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 13, 2005
Location: nacogdoches, texas
Posts: 205
ha yeah i wish i was just loaded with cash and could afford both...
__________________
Those who believe in gun control think that we don't need guns to protect us against an oppressive government, because the Constitution has internal safeguards, and the government should ban and seize all guns, therefore violating the 2nd, 4th, and 5th Amendments of that Constitution, thereby becoming an oppressive government.
Impact of Reason is offline  
Old July 24, 2005, 11:24 PM   #12
GLOCKT
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 11, 2001
Location: 394203n/860406w
Posts: 216
I'd lean more towards the DSA FAL.
They appear to be built consistently better than todays SA products.
If I were to go the SA way I'd consider the SOCOM shorter barreled and more after market features for it oppoused to the M1A.
Just my 2 cents.
Good Luck to your future purchase.
__________________
"Those who try running, will only die tired"
Guns and more guns!
How much is too much?
GLOCKT is offline  
Old July 26, 2005, 03:01 PM   #13
iamkris
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 3, 2002
Location: SW Michigan
Posts: 296
I have both (DSA STG58A and SA M1A Loaded) and love them both. If I had to run in a SHTF, I'd grab the FAL. If I had to shoot something a long way off, I'd grab the M1A. If I was forced to switch these roles for the rifles, they'll both do fine.
__________________
NRA Life Endowment Member
SAF Life Member
NRA Certified Rifle Instructor
Ultima Ratio Civis - the last method of a citizen
iamkris is offline  
Reply

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 02:30 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
This site and contents, including all posts, Copyright © 1998-2021 S.W.A.T. Magazine
Copyright Complaints: Please direct DMCA Takedown Notices to the registered agent: thefiringline.com
Page generated in 0.08584 seconds with 7 queries