-
If you enjoy the forum please consider supporting it by signing up for a NES Membership The benefits pay for the membership many times over.
Calling All FAL Experts
- Thread starter jasonj84
- Start date
Second the motion. But get on it. Joining over there can take awhile.
Sweet looking FAL. The wood furniture looks particularly nice. I know a lot more about the British SLRs, but yours is configured like an Stg 58. Many, many FAL type rifles in this country are mixmasters, so who knows?
This one doesn’t look like a CAI rifle, though.
The Stg 58 was Austria’s FAL. Your receiver seems to be made by FN. They only made “real” military Stg 58s around 1960, and yours doesn’t look that old.
In MA, that’s maybe a $1200 rifle? It’s been awhile since I was up to speed on the FAL market here.
not new guy
NES Member
- Joined
- Dec 7, 2009
- Messages
- 36,031
- Likes
- 54,138
Looks like this, down to what must be the repro s/n: http://poulinantiques.hibid.com/lot/23431-97349-116628/d-c--industries-fal-stg-58-semi-auto-rifle-/
In MA its worth triple that ^^^^ all day long.
From the website linked above:
| Price Realized | 2,350.00 USD |
|---|---|
| Date Sold | 4/10/2017 |
FALs appreciate in price, especially in prohibitive states, they don't depreciate.
It does appear to be a "Metric" FAL, not an L1A1 or "inch FAL". The best way to check is to see what kind of mag it uses.
The inch mag has an elipse carved into the front of the mag well and the mags have a small "elitical tongue" that fits into the carving so when you lock up you roll the mag from to back into the mag. IT's a really solid lockup, too.
The "metric" FALs have the more traditional 'bird's beak" protruding from the front of the mag. It's much smaller and then inch mag.
Regardless about what you'll read, these mags are NOT interchangable even though they carry the same 7.62 x 51 ammo. The inch mags will NOT fit into the metric rifles. The metric mags will fit but won't lock up properly and won't feed properly.
"Metric" mags were easier to find rather then inch mags but I'll bet both are tough today. Owning one of these surplus rifles does carry a bit more responsibility as you should be aware of 922R compliance. Mag bases can be used to comply. You'll know more here from Tapco:
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct...section922r/&usg=AOvVaw0nkdoPMczQZ8JXEcX8jIIk
Rest assured that I've never known or read about anyone being arrested for falling out of complaince. What happens is that if a rifle was to be taken for examination, it would be surrendered permanently if it was out of compliance. So, keeping the correct number of parts is important. Be SURE to read the Tapco link and then do some more research.
My very favorite rifle that I sold last from my rather large collection was the FAL. It's used by over 60 countries as it Main Battle Rifle and was supposed to be used here when the M16 became it's competitor. NATO was looking for some uniformity and the .308 rifle was it. It's still in the field today. ALL L1A1 rifles, from the factory, were semi-auto only. Metric rifles had the selector switch. Even so, the ATF has always refused to allow us to buy an authentic Brit L1A1 (of Canadian C1A1) claiming it's a machine gun. It's not, never can or will be, either. So, to own an L1A1 you have to build it on a civilian receiver. The "metric" rifles, howeverer, were MGs so swapping semi-auto mags into them was justified.
What makes them distinctive from one another is the type of stock, muzzle comp, grip, and other small accessories. Find them all from one country and you can pretty much duplicate one down to the last screw.
Rome
The inch mag has an elipse carved into the front of the mag well and the mags have a small "elitical tongue" that fits into the carving so when you lock up you roll the mag from to back into the mag. IT's a really solid lockup, too.
The "metric" FALs have the more traditional 'bird's beak" protruding from the front of the mag. It's much smaller and then inch mag.
Regardless about what you'll read, these mags are NOT interchangable even though they carry the same 7.62 x 51 ammo. The inch mags will NOT fit into the metric rifles. The metric mags will fit but won't lock up properly and won't feed properly.
"Metric" mags were easier to find rather then inch mags but I'll bet both are tough today. Owning one of these surplus rifles does carry a bit more responsibility as you should be aware of 922R compliance. Mag bases can be used to comply. You'll know more here from Tapco:
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct...section922r/&usg=AOvVaw0nkdoPMczQZ8JXEcX8jIIk
Rest assured that I've never known or read about anyone being arrested for falling out of complaince. What happens is that if a rifle was to be taken for examination, it would be surrendered permanently if it was out of compliance. So, keeping the correct number of parts is important. Be SURE to read the Tapco link and then do some more research.
My very favorite rifle that I sold last from my rather large collection was the FAL. It's used by over 60 countries as it Main Battle Rifle and was supposed to be used here when the M16 became it's competitor. NATO was looking for some uniformity and the .308 rifle was it. It's still in the field today. ALL L1A1 rifles, from the factory, were semi-auto only. Metric rifles had the selector switch. Even so, the ATF has always refused to allow us to buy an authentic Brit L1A1 (of Canadian C1A1) claiming it's a machine gun. It's not, never can or will be, either. So, to own an L1A1 you have to build it on a civilian receiver. The "metric" rifles, howeverer, were MGs so swapping semi-auto mags into them was justified.
What makes them distinctive from one another is the type of stock, muzzle comp, grip, and other small accessories. Find them all from one country and you can pretty much duplicate one down to the last screw.
Rome
It looks like an STG58 parts kit. I am saying that. Based on the flash hider and handguards which are definitely STG. The lower and bipod could be STG too. It was originally built between 1969-1970.
Whoever assembled the gun. Built it on a Coonan G1 receiver. They used wood furniture. To make it look like a G1 FAL. However the current flash hider is incorrect for a G1. Almost all the FAL's you see. Are built on parts kits. Just like yours. It's a very nice looking gun. Matching STG58 parts kit $800+, receiver $435, paint & assembly $450+.
Whoever assembled the gun. Built it on a Coonan G1 receiver. They used wood furniture. To make it look like a G1 FAL. However the current flash hider is incorrect for a G1. Almost all the FAL's you see. Are built on parts kits. Just like yours. It's a very nice looking gun. Matching STG58 parts kit $800+, receiver $435, paint & assembly $450+.
Last edited:
I have nothing to add, except I am so jealous right now.![[laugh]](/xen/styles/default/xenforo/smilies.vb/012.gif "Laugh [laugh]")
Back 10 years ago, we were all hustling five, six, or ten FAL 'kits' complete with barrels and every piece except a usable receiver. Enterprise made some as well as CAI and a number of others. There were "single brow" and "double brow" receivers and magazines were a couple of bucks a piece in a box of a couple dozen. It was truly a rifle builder's mecca. Understand, however, that there were NO AR kits at the time. We were building FALS because they were readily available and cheap and parts were everywhere. The, like so many other chapters in gun lore, the FAL trail dried up with legal issues, lack of surplus and costs being driven up, etc., etc. Today the "kits' are rare and you've got to really dig to find help with an assembly. But, the FAL is a wonderful rifle. Same goes for the L1A1 and it's varients.
45collector
NES Member
I inherited a literal shit ton of parts kits from my father before he passed away. Every sub machine gun/ light machine gun/ heavy machine gun kit you could dream of, he had it. I sold all of it except one, an STG58 kit which I built into a sweet rifle. Besides funding the build, all those kits I sold also funded two trips to Ireland and my Mustang restoration.
I did not refinish anything on the rifle after I built it. I like the FrankenFAL look of it. Turns out the lower in that kit was actually an IMBEL. The upper is Austrian though. The bore is perfect, and when building this piece (the only firearm I ever built myself) I timed the barrel to the receiver perfectly on my first try. I had bought all the tools/ jigs/ gauges etc I needed to build it from the FAL files and also sold them all on that site when I was done and had fired at least 300 rounds through it to make sure I didn't screw anything up. The upper is DSA. I replaced all springs with a complete kit from Falcon Arms. Can't recall where I got the brake from, but I had Mike Pigney in Taunton pin and weld it for me. Everything else I did myself. Shoots sweeeeeet.
I did not refinish anything on the rifle after I built it. I like the FrankenFAL look of it. Turns out the lower in that kit was actually an IMBEL. The upper is Austrian though. The bore is perfect, and when building this piece (the only firearm I ever built myself) I timed the barrel to the receiver perfectly on my first try. I had bought all the tools/ jigs/ gauges etc I needed to build it from the FAL files and also sold them all on that site when I was done and had fired at least 300 rounds through it to make sure I didn't screw anything up. The upper is DSA. I replaced all springs with a complete kit from Falcon Arms. Can't recall where I got the brake from, but I had Mike Pigney in Taunton pin and weld it for me. Everything else I did myself. Shoots sweeeeeet.
That is a nice build. The word "Frankenfal" just doesn't do it right, imho. IT's a very handsome rifle in any iteration.
Building an FAL is much harder than the AR15. The AR is essentially assembled whereas the FAL and L1A1 have to be assembled and as the poster mentions, the barrels need to be timed. There are small parts needed to do it correctly with the FAL called a "breeching washer" which come in a lot of different thicknesses depending on what you need to correctly time your rifle. The L1A1 doesn't use one
I wonder what the anti gun crowd, who identify the AR as a mass killing machine would say about the FAL? The general public is ignorant of it of course. It's the most widely used rifle in the entire world anymore and was the main battle rifle of over 60 countries, almost the US as well but the M16 beat it out. Look where that has us today. Better not paint it black!
Rome
Building an FAL is much harder than the AR15. The AR is essentially assembled whereas the FAL and L1A1 have to be assembled and as the poster mentions, the barrels need to be timed. There are small parts needed to do it correctly with the FAL called a "breeching washer" which come in a lot of different thicknesses depending on what you need to correctly time your rifle. The L1A1 doesn't use one
I wonder what the anti gun crowd, who identify the AR as a mass killing machine would say about the FAL? The general public is ignorant of it of course. It's the most widely used rifle in the entire world anymore and was the main battle rifle of over 60 countries, almost the US as well but the M16 beat it out. Look where that has us today. Better not paint it black!
Rome
Dennis in MA
NES Member
- Joined
- Feb 12, 2007
- Messages
- 38,167
- Likes
- 33,119
I had a DSA Stg58 at one time. Maybe early 00's. As mentioned, when no one built AR's but rocket scientists. I hated the ergonomics of it and sold it. . . for less than what I paid. 
One of my few firearm fails.
Do I wish I still had it? No. It weighed 100lbs and never felt right in my hands. But I should have held on just for more $. There was no reason to sell it at a loss. Had I waited just a year or two, I could have gotten my money back.
I love the look. It just never felt right. But if any and all of you love it, I'm envious.
One of my few firearm fails. Do I wish I still had it? No. It weighed 100lbs and never felt right in my hands. But I should have held on just for more $. There was no reason to sell it at a loss. Had I waited just a year or two, I could have gotten my money back.
I love the look. It just never felt right. But if any and all of you love it, I'm envious.
Ya know, Dennis, you're right in that the FAL was quite heavy but so were all the other NATO rifle with few exceptions. I now sport a DPMS LR308B and, by gosh, it too is heavy and weights just a smidge less than the FAL loaded with a scope. The muscle memory between the two, however, is almost identical. I feel right at home with either rifle. The AR is a much more precision long range fighter, too. The Trilux SUIT scope that the FAL came with was really set for about 200 yards max. I always felt it could go further as the round certainly could, but that long pencil barrel would be difficult to shoot out to, say, 400 yards accurately whereas the DPMS doesnt' even breath hard to do the same.
not new guy
NES Member
- Joined
- Dec 7, 2009
- Messages
- 36,031
- Likes
- 54,138
I had a DSA Stg58 at one time. Maybe early 00's. As mentioned, when no one built AR's but rocket scientists. I hated the ergonomics of it and sold it. . . for less than what I paid.
Do I wish I still had it? No. It weighed 100lbs and never felt right in my hands. But I should have held on just for more $. There was no reason to sell it at a loss. Had I waited just a year or two, I could have gotten my money back.
I love the look. It just never felt right. But if any and all of you love it, I'm envious.
I'm still kind of surprised at the relatively low prices that many decent FALs get. I have an early DSA Stg58 that's gone up in value some since I bought it, but it's not as much as I might have guessed had I known how much other guns had appreciated over that same time.
