Now the FN FAL is a superb .308 rifle. When deciding which modern rifle to covet there was 4 real choices for me: AR-10 style, HK G3 style based on the CETME - like the HK91 or SR9 (or just a real CETME for that matter), the FN FAL style, and the Springfield M1A style.
All have pluses and minuses, and I settled on the M1A, mainly for its similarity to the Garand, and the fact it wasn't an AR.
But the big minuses for the the other types was the rarity of replacement parts. I didn't know an FN FAL clone was made domestically. Hmmm. Intriguing.
No, I'd still go with the M1A.
The FN FAL was know as the "the right arm of the Free World" because of it's adoption by NATO and non-Pinko countries. Always a good recommendation, that. It looks like the US Army leaning toward the .308, and FN hedging their bet for the same round in the early 50's, sounded the death knell for a British designed rifle with a cartridge in .280 caliber. If that .280 cal had been adopted we might not be dealing with the shortcomings of the .223 today. Ah well. With the .280 out of the way, the European part of NATO had the FN FAL to go head to head with a US Army Garand variant. The Garand style won, and we got the M14 rifle. Then a fw years later we got nuthin. And the AR-15 carbine was adopted and called a rifle. All because the M14 was too light for a machine gun. It's wings were too short on an M14 for a Strategic Bomber, too, but that shouldn't be a criteria for a rifle!
Again, ah well. It serves still in the role it excels at. Semi-auto rifle fire. Even if extant model made long ago are getting a bit long in the tooth.
Back to the FN...
It's piston operated, not direct gas, so the workings don't foul as fast. It's just as inaccurate as other shoulder rifles when fired as a machine gun. It requires a bit of machining to make, adding to the cost per unit, so that is a problem for the purchaser, be they individuals or gov'ts. But he M1A also has a lot of machines parts. (A compliment the AR type... they are cheaper to make with lighter and easier to machine anodized aluminum).
I don't know how much actual manufacturing goes on in the Illinois plant, and the website isn't chock full of info apart from model select as DSA Inc. They may be importing components. But it looks like they are not "parts" rifles. Many FN FALs available in this country can be iffy because they are assemble from mix and match parts from all over. You don't know if you have a quality piece until you purchase and use it. But a source like DSA should alleviate that problem and be a single source.
That is, if Illinois doesn't shut the place down or force them to move. I bet Indiana would take them, but moving is always a hassle. Of the unfriendly states, Illinois is probably third, behind California and DC. (Maryland, New York, and Massachusetts round out the Seven Sisters of unfriendly states. I said 7 but listed 6, cuz I forget the 7th. Hawaii? Connecticut? Wisconsin? I forget...)
Anyway, I'm pleased that the FN is out there in this form. But it doesn't change my preference.
1 comment:
The DSA FALs are American made right down to the barrels. They do have some imported parts for sale but the assembled guns are complete American built copies of the FAL, not kitbashes like a Century.
That is why they are so expensive. A DSA FAL runs between $1500 and $2500. I have a DSA FAL receiver I plan to assemble on using mostly DSA parts and total cost will put me around $1200 all up. Very well made guns. Also hard to find because they are quite popular.
Post a Comment