21st Century FAL?

Messages
1,298
Reactions
1,474
Discussion topic. Pro's/Cons and thoughts?

Para style folding stock FAL, 18.5" barrel capable of mounting a supressor and chambered in 6.8X51 SIG. Composite stock with M-Lock or equivalent capability. Fluted 1:7" twist barrel to decrease weight.
IMO too heavy of a gun and too heavy of a round to carry. It really comes down to the same argument for/ against 556. 556 is roughly 1/3 the weight of those heavier rounds and when you have to hump that along with everything else that matters. Personally I think 556 has plenty of killing power for combat distances in the real world. The 6.8x51 and 7.62x51 is better only at ranges that are often not encountered or if they are its more nitch.
 

Boboclown

Messages
9,133
Reactions
17,378
Why? The FAL is a really heavy rifle. The impulse from the rifle is atrocious. Reason why it’s not worth it? Recoil… follow up shots… stock is too low compared to where the sights are… charging handle… too long of a rifle for modern combat… no rail for optic… also the fact that they are either metric or standard in the magazines.
FAL is heavy, more weight dampens recoil a bit. The recoil from the FAL can be managed through the adjustable gas block, tune it to the ammo you're shooting and it won't be bad. There's different stocks available for it, left side charging handle is more convenient for right handed shooters anyways, there are rails for optics available. Most of the time FALs just use metric anyways.

Here's an Irish individual with their FAL.
0zj21safjjx51.jpg

I know, that's not the question.

How many FALs will blow up chambered in 277 Sig? That's the question.

7.62x51 NATO - 60,000psi
277 Sig - 80,000psi
The FAL was originally designed around 8mm Kurz, then .280 British, then 7.62 NATO. Of the three, 7.62 NATO had the highest chamber pressure. The receiver doesn't really get impacted by the chamber pressure, its the chamber that deals with that mostly.
 
Messages
2,069
Reactions
2,505
FAL is heavy, more weight dampens recoil a bit. The recoil from the FAL can be managed through the adjustable gas block, tune it to the ammo you're shooting and it won't be bad. There's different stocks available for it, left side charging handle is more convenient for right handed shooters anyways, there are rails for optics available. Most of the time FALs just use metric anyways. Of the three, 7.62 NATO had the highest chamber pressure. The receiver doesn't really get impacted by the chamber pressure, its the chamber that deals with that mostly.
I know but as a whole there’s better options really for the potential 6.8x51 cartridge… I had the Cetme and 2 PTR91… just wasn’t worth it. Instead I spent $3500 on the Scar17s :rolleyes::s0108::s0112:
 

Upcoming Events

Oregon Arms Collectors May Gun Show
Portland, OR
Rimfire Challenge
Canby, OR
Wes Knodel Gun Shows
Redmond, OR

Latest Resource Reviews

Back Top