View Full Version : Difficulty choosing M4 v FAL
Sorry for another "this or that" thread--I've done a search and not found much by way of info on this particular subject either here or on other sites.
The next firearm I purchase will be a combat-capable rifle. To me this means reasonable (but not precision) accuracy, 0-400m range, reliable, handy, and robust. I will use this rifle for training, primarily. I am pretty happy with my current handgun and shotgun, and am looking for a carbine-ish rifle to complete my arsenal.
Right now I am pretty torn between a Noveske 16" light basic and a DSA 16"/18" FAL (possibly a para model).
I am pretty convinced that I'd rather have the ballistic performance of the .308. From searching around, I think the DSA FAL will offer me the best .308 performance for the money (not so interested in .308 ARs) That being said, I know it is more expensive and harder to shoot well than .223. I can't hunt with a .223 in my state, but I would consider a .300BLK upper down the road. Besides, I could always hunt with slugs in my shotgun.
I would just go ahead with the Noveske (understanding I'd be well-served by some other AR manufacturers as well) but the FAL seems very well regarded here and seems like a good way to get into shooting .308.
I don't care about accessories/rails/optics--I want a handy, deadly, K.I.S.S, reliable, proven weapon.
For those of you who own both platforms, what are your thoughts?
Littlelebowski
12-05-11, 20:39
Training is one of your prerequisites. 5.56 trumps 7.62 every time on this. No brainer.
mkmckinley
12-05-11, 20:58
Easy one: AR and training. I wish someone had told me that years ago when I started shooting.
Own multiples of both, get an M4 Carbine type and ammo, mags, and at least a decent white light.
I'd sell me FAL's before I sold my last AR carbine, it's far more practical.
My version of civil unrest/SHTF/whatever (however implausible) involves vehicles and barriers inside 200, I think the 308 has the edge there.
I agree. However, being realistic, the idea of me shooting into vehicles in some sort of SHTF scenario is probably a little far-fetched.
Thanks for all the helpful thoughts. M4 sounds like the more practical choice.
Easy one: AR and training. I wish someone had told me that years ago when I started shooting.
+1... a class worth of 7.62 gets expensive fast. If money is no object, then go with whatever tickles you (no denying that running heavy metal hard is fun as hell).
The FAL also has another training consideration -- while there are any number of instructors that know AR-style guns in and out, finding instructors with real in-depth FAL-specific experience is a bit trickier.
If you must have .308,
What about going with an M1A?
It's funny you posted this because I actually have a DSA FAL and an M4 type carbine as my two SHTF rifles. if I had to just grab one, I'd probably grab to M4. It's a great weapon, it's easy to handle you can hump about twice the amount of ammo and parts and mags are everywhere!
On the other hand, if you have just one weapon and a pistol, then I would look at a .308. It's heavy caliber rifle and will defeat most all body armor and barriers you're likely to come across in a normal situation. It is very distict and loud sounding and it will make you pause when you hear it in rapid fire. also it's good at taking down game as well. It's a universal cartridge.
i'm curious as to why you're not interested in a .308 AR? Any particular reason?
I don't know what your background or traiing is either. The 5.56 rd is a high velocity round, but it's not worth a damn against hardened targets. If you need to shoot through a door, wall, dense cover then you're pissing in the wind with it. FYI.
On the other hand if you don't have a lot of training it's mild recoil is easily handled by males and females. It has a pretty straight trajectory and even an M4 can be effective out over 400yds.
you're probably more likely to hit what you're aiming at with the AR unless you plan to practice with the .308
I own a few dozen ARs and about half a dozen FALs.
I can't imagine going with the FAL first.
I had a FAL-Para version & several M4's. Got rid of the FAL because:
A) Heavy as hell (maybe just the way it balanced?)
B) Ergonomics. Once you try an M4, the FAL ergo's just didn't cut it for me
C) Scope mount--not a confidence inspiring setup on FAL's
D) Parts availability. Good luck locally; so if you're at a match or out shooting with buddies & something breaks, you're pretty much out of commission.
E) Ammo Cost
F) Mag insertion a bit finicky
I admit I only gave my FAL less than a year & maybe 300 or so rounds. YMMV.
I traded the FAL for a .308 AR based rifle & its the bee's knee's IMO. Familiar ergos, nicely balanced. Not too heavy if you are careful in parts selection.
Another vote for the M4, but if you must go 308 you may want to consider a LaRue PredatAR 7.62 with a 16" barrel.
Another vote for the M4, but if you must go 308 you may want to consider a LaRue PredatAR 7.62 with a 16" barrel.
Good call.
Thats definately one rifle I would love to own.
Whats the difference between the OBR and the PredatAR?
Heavy Metal
12-05-11, 23:28
Unless I had to man a roadblock, I would rather by far have the M-4.
bondmid003
12-06-11, 02:53
This is definitely a strange compare thread, as these rifles are like apples and oranges. It's so hard to know where to begin with how different these rifles are.
i'm curious as to why you're not interested in a .308 AR? Any particular reason?
For one, they're considerably more expensive (Predatar/MWS v DSA FAL). Also, with no AR background, any AR "familiarity" is lost on me. Lastly, it appears that the AR .308s are maybe more delicate, more suited for precision work than the hardy FAL, though this could be a misconception on my part.
I would very much like to have a Predatar or a SCAR. Heck I'd be happy with a MWS. But I'm not sure any of these are worth the price over the FAL for me.
This is definitely a strange compare thread, as these rifles are like apples and oranges. It's so hard to know where to begin with how different these rifles are.
They are both effective battle weapons, one being slightly heavier with more range and better ballistics. As seen in Libya, I'd say an up-to 18" FAL is well suited for engaging folks with AKs and ARs in an urban combat environment.
I've seen plenty of footage of competitions with guys running FALs quickly. They are different rifles to be sure, but I'd say either would fulfill my needs accounting for the obvious trade-offs.
You also need to think about support after purchase, and sustainability.
Cost of ammo, mags, availability, etc.
Get a Colt 6920 for sub $1K http://www.gandrtactical.com/cgi-bin/commerce.cgi?preadd=action&key=6920 , 10 mags from DSG http://dsgarms.com/ProductInfo/MA-02DSGB10A.aspx , and a case or two of IMI M193 http://wideners.com/itemdetail.cfm?item_id=9017&dir=18|830|845
Then spend some money to take a basic carbine course from one of the instructors here: http://store.greygrouptraining.com/TRAINING/
That will help you tremendously to get your bearings and use your carbine effectively. Effective training is the single biggest force multiplier that you can add to your bag of tricks.
Don't make a choice based on what you're seeing from news online.
These two rifles really are apples and grape fruits. Again, I own several of each, and have trained with both, and if shit went bad, I'd grab an M4 before a FAL every single time.
All things being equal I think an M4 or an LMT MWS would be the better choices. Remember that in any TEOTWAWKI/SHTF situation you need to be able to carry said weapon with a basic combat load at times. An M4 will make that much more enjoyable.
The LMT MWS isn't terribly heavy, uses PMAG's and is also very capable.
You also need to think about support after purchase, and sustainability.
Cost of ammo, mags, availability, etc.
Get a Colt 6920 for sub $1K http://www.gandrtactical.com/cgi-bin/commerce.cgi?preadd=action&key=6920 , 10 mags from DSG http://dsgarms.com/ProductInfo/MA-02DSGB10A.aspx , and a case or two of IMI M193 http://wideners.com/itemdetail.cfm?item_id=9017&dir=18|830|845
Then spend some money to take a basic carbine course from one of the instructors here: http://store.greygrouptraining.com/TRAINING/
That will help you tremendously to get your bearings and use your carbine effectively. Effective training is the single biggest force multiplier that you can add to your bag of tricks.
Don't make a choice based on what you're seeing from news online.
These two rifles really are apples and grape fruits. Again, I own several of each, and have trained with both, and if shit went bad, I'd grab an M4 before a FAL every single time.
I have read your FAL posts so your insight is really appreciated.
I think the Noveske light basic is a great deal but I just saw that pricing on the 6920. That is too good to be true. I was planning a tax time purchase but I'm gonna have to try to beg, borrow, steal to take advantage of that G and R deal.
Thanks to all.
I have always been, and still am, a huge fan of the FAL, but I recently sold my DSA SA58 PARA with the view to replacing it with a new .308 AR in the near future, probably the LMT MWS.
If it was my first "fighting" rifle I would certainly go with a quality AR15 over an FAL.
After you have an AR15 squared away and suitable training, then you should buy whatever you want.
Cameron
I agree with most of what has been said here. Start with an AR of reputable manufacture. You have picked top performers in both calibers however, and a FAL should be your second purchase...
http://i889.photobucket.com/albums/ac91/beggej/Shooting5-22-112.jpg
For one, they're considerably more expensive (Predatar/MWS v DSA FAL). Also, with no AR background, any AR "familiarity" is lost on me. Lastly, it appears that the AR .308s are maybe more delicate, more suited for precision work than the hardy FAL, though this could be a misconception on my part.
I would very much like to have a Predatar or a SCAR. Heck I'd be happy with a MWS. But I'm not sure any of these are worth the price over the FAL for me.
you have to be careful when you lump these weapons into one pile. I have a FAL, but my FAL is a DSA SA58 tactical, w/ 16inch fluted barrel, forearm and reciever rail that stretch the lenght of the top and are both very sturdy, a para folder, nickle phospate coating on the bolt and all of the internals, polished trigger.....etc. (there is about 3500.00 worth of work and parts in this rifle1).
So my FAL and your idea of a FAL or one of the FALs that Styer may be referring to is night and day! This is an accurate, sturdy and reliable weapon that could also be used as a club/mace if I run out of ammo (it is a beast in the weight dept.), but I'm 6'4" 270lbs and workout 5days either on cardio or free weights, or circuit training so it's not that big of a deal to schlep this thing around.
In contrast an M4 feels like and looks like a toy when I'm holding it. Which can be a big plus. when moving around as well.
What I'm trying to say is that you need to go shoot them both and handle them. then you need be truthful with your self on which you keep coming back to in your mind. Don't let someone else make this decision for you.
These are both well made weapons that have been battle tested and are both still being used in some capacity around the world. There's a reason for this.
also, and this is just a thought. Have you considered a high end AK in 7.62X39?
also, and this is just a thought. Have you considered a high end AK in 7.62X39?
Sure, I have. I wish I had more opportunities to try these rifles.
Sorry for another "this or that" thread--I've done a search and not found much by way of info on this particular subject either here or on other sites.
The next firearm I purchase will be a combat-capable rifle. To me this means reasonable (but not precision) accuracy, 0-400m range, reliable, handy, and robust. I will use this rifle for training, primarily. I am pretty happy with my current handgun and shotgun, and am looking for a carbine-ish rifle to complete my arsenal.
Right now I am pretty torn between a Noveske 16" light basic and a DSA 16"/18" FAL (possibly a para model).
I am pretty convinced that I'd rather have the ballistic performance of the .308. From searching around, I think the DSA FAL will offer me the best .308 performance for the money (not so interested in .308 ARs) That being said, I know it is more expensive and harder to shoot well than .223. I can't hunt with a .223 in my state, but I would consider a .300BLK upper down the road. Besides, I could always hunt with slugs in my shotgun.
I would just go ahead with the Noveske (understanding I'd be well-served by some other AR manufacturers as well) but the FAL seems very well regarded here and seems like a good way to get into shooting .308.
I don't care about accessories/rails/optics--I want a handy, deadly, K.I.S.S, reliable, proven weapon.
For those of you who own both platforms, what are your thoughts?
0-400 yards why do you want a heavier gun with more punishing recoil and less capability for accuracy? 5.56 all the way. No reason you need the terminal performance of a 308 inside of 400 yards. 77OTM will get it done nicely from 0-500, there is no magic bullet, shot placement and practical training are far more important.
ETA: If you just want a fun gun and you like FAL's, then don't hesitate to get one, they are fun great guns, just not at all what I would have in mind for duty use.
DeltaSierra
12-06-11, 18:56
From what you have said you want is a rifle, get the Noveske in 5.56.
An FAL isn't going to offer anything over the Noveske for your stated purpose for the rifle.
Also, think about the cost of ammunition...
TriviaMonster
12-06-11, 18:57
Get the lightweight colt and remington 700 for hunting and solid optics for both.
-Chris-
My M4 and FAL combo.
http://img46.imageshack.us/img46/2160/falandm4.jpg
Own many of both. I agree with much that has already been said. I shoot ARs 99% of the time. Several ARs are easily accesible, locked and loaded as HD, WD, SHTF, etc. The FALs and other .308 are stored in the safe. But, the word "cover" takes on a whole new meeting if your shooting a .308 at a threat!
Our trainig group makes a point of having a "Battle Rifle" day ever so often. After "running & gunning" with a AR most of the time this is always an eye opening experience for many of the reasons previously explained in theis thread.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.