Any one know how to build a FAL?

**Partisan1983** · 02-19-2011, 01:52 AM

There were sand cut metric bolt carriers made......not exactly rare or common, but DSA (and others) did sell 'em for a time being......and no they were not Para carriers.

**abpt1** · 02-19-2011, 08:17 AM

LOL so I got my receiver and some ammo this month learned how to rebuild the lower (thx Deth!) next warm day Ill weld my selector stop in.... then I just have to go slap it together......lol

**rahatlakhoom** · 02-19-2011, 02:36 PM

Originally Posted by deth502

wow, that looks like one hell of a gap to fill in the back.

how many different receivers is that? im guessing its gotta be at least 2 to get the pieces big enough after grinding clean.

Try 3. I had the original STG stub, (cut across the thread contact area). Compressed and rewelded the slot. G1 magwell pieces. Inch mid-section.
G1 tail end. And the gap at the end was a mother. I was beading one blob from one end to the other until Mason met Dixon.

**ak474ever** · 02-19-2011, 04:25 PM

Originally Posted by rahatlakhoom

No heat treating was done.
I've put 120 rds through it so far.
I did not use a mill. Carbide burrs, die grinder, 4" angle grinder, hand files, small dremel type grinding wheel to
cut the bolt carrier channel and all the other small grooves.
Alignment using attachments gets the process started.

Looks really good. What type of welding rod did you use?

**rahatlakhoom** · 02-20-2011, 07:37 AM

Gas shielded Mig wire. .024" mild steel.
Welcome to Gunsnet by the way.

**Penguin** · 02-20-2011, 08:45 AM

Originally Posted by rahatlakhoom

Try 3. I had the original STG stub, (cut across the thread contact area). Compressed and rewelded the slot. G1 magwell pieces. Inch mid-section.
G1 tail end. And the gap at the end was a mother. I was beading one blob from one end to the other until Mason met Dixon.

Did you have any problem getting the charging handle to fit since you used an inch mid section? The slot for the charging handle is milled a bit different between inch and metric.

**deth502** · 02-20-2011, 08:59 AM

now, i dont know this for sure, but i thought the only difference in the charging hanle slot was the length of it, with the inch receivers having the front of it cut short.

**rahatlakhoom** · 02-20-2011, 09:01 AM

Originally Posted by Penguin

Did you have any problem getting the charging handle to fit since you used an inch mid section? The slot for the charging handle is milled a bit different between inch and metric.

The specs on both types of receivers are extremely close.
It did not present a problem. I was pleased at how the different sections lined up.
Late 50's and through the 60's must have been the golden age of machining tolerances.
I'd venture to say that FN was leading the charge for the FAL to be the battle rifle of choice
back in the day. It has my vote for being the most versitle, robust .308 rifle.

Originally Posted by deth502

now, i dont know this for sure, but i thought the only difference in the charging hanle slot was the length of it, with the inch receivers having the front of it cut short.

I have an inch front stub. I can see that there is no divot up front in the slot for the retention pin to lock into.
So, perhaps an inch handle is a bit forshortened. Still, plenty of room for alterations.

**Penguin** · 02-20-2011, 09:04 AM

Originally Posted by deth502

now, i dont know this for sure, but i thought the only difference in the charging hanle slot was the length of it, with the inch receivers having the front of it cut short.

I belive they are slightly different but I don't have a metric one to compare against my L1A1's

**Penguin** · 02-20-2011, 09:06 AM

Originally Posted by rahatlakhoom

I'd venture to say that FN was leading the charge for the FAL to be the battle rifle of choice
back in the day. It has my vote for being the most versitle, robust .308 rifle.

FN marketed it heavily and, I think very sucsesfully. It was used by 90 or so different countries. It was used by just about every one who wasn't using an AK with the notable exceptions of the US and the germans. The US looked at adopting it. The germans used it until they were not granted a licinse to make their own, then they adopted the G3.

**deth502** · 02-20-2011, 09:23 AM

i believe the us actually fielded the fal on a short basis (a trial run, possibly what you meant by "looked at adopting it") but ended up not doing it. cant remember the time frame of the story as to weather it lost out to the m14 or the smaller 223. i have, however, seen a us govt offical manual for one that were supposedly issued with the rifles.

on another development note, i think the fal is one hell of a good solid gun, but there are those who disagree. the rifle was initially designed for a much smaller intermediate cartridge during the same time russia was developing their intermediate cartridges (7.62x39) from lessons learned in ww2 against the germans. it was only at the very end of its design that it was changed to be a full power 308 rifle, and many say that the design is only marginally adequate for the larger cartrige.

**Penguin** · 02-20-2011, 09:31 AM

The version the US tried was the T48. And we did limited troop trials with it. It lost out to the M-14. It was belived at the time that a lot of the M1 garand machinery could be used to build it and reduce the cost of adopting it. That proved to not be the case though. Also the M-14 did much better on the arctic testing that the T-48.

The FAL was orginally developed around the round the Stg-44 shoot the 7.92 Kurz if I remember right. FN built it in 7.62 NATO at the request of britian. The brits were really hoping the western world would get behind one caliber and type of rifle. It was belived that the US had made an unofical deal with Churchill that the US would adopt the FAL if the Brits would adopt the 7.62 NATO round. At the time the british were pushing an intermidite cartridge concept and, the US was steadfastly against it.

While I would like to go into more detial I have to get going for work but, that is a breif run down.

**abpt1** · 02-20-2011, 09:43 AM

Originally Posted by deth502

i believe the us actually fielded the fal on a short basis (a trial run, possibly what you meant by "looked at adopting it") but ended up not doing it. cant remember the time frame of the story as to weather it lost out to the m14 or the smaller 223. i have, however, seen a us govt offical manual for one that were supposedly issued with the rifles.

on another development note, i think the fal is one hell of a good solid gun, but there are those who disagree. the rifle was initially designed for a much smaller intermediate cartridge during the same time russia was developing their intermediate cartridges (7.62x39) from lessons learned in ww2 against the germans. it was only at the very end of its design that it was changed to be a full power 308 rifle, and many say that the design is only marginally adequate for the larger cartrige.

I was just reading this with my coffee ...

Now for some interesting information on the FAL. These rifles headspace by the action of the bolt dropping into the receiver and pushing against the locking shoulder. The engineers who designed this rifle wanted to be able to compensate for stretching of the receiver over the life of the weapon. To do this, they made the locking shoulder in different sizes to allow for different headspace requirements as the rifle aged. In the FAL’s non-neutered configuration it is a main battle rifle, a machinegun, and designed to consume large amounts of ammunition in a very short period of time. Because of this the FAL was over built and given the ability to have a "liberal" headspace and still function properly and safely

http://www.alpharubicon.com/leo/barrelingthefal.htm

ok this locking shoulder WTF is the deal is there any way I can find out what size i need before I mount / time the barrel ?

**rahatlakhoom** · 02-20-2011, 02:14 PM

Originally Posted by abpt1

I was just reading this with my coffee ...

http://www.alpharubicon.com/leo/barrelingthefal.htm

ok this locking shoulder WTF is the deal is there any way I can find out what size i need before I mount / time the barrel ?

No. The headspace must be acquired with the barrel in it's correctly timed
position. Locking shoulder install is the last step.

**Penguin** · 02-20-2011, 06:38 PM

Once you have the barrel on there is a gauge that you can get that tells you what size locking shoulder to use. Once you have it in double check with head space gauges.

**abpt1** · 02-21-2011, 11:08 AM

OK so if its too big at that point can i take it down and If its too small I need to buy one .

**deth502** · 02-21-2011, 03:25 PM

you shouldnt take it down, but it is possible. the surface is hardened, so taking the hardened layer off will not do good things for the longevity of it. ive stoned a few thou off them before to get a fit, but i wouldnt go more than that.

**abpt1** · 02-21-2011, 04:52 PM

Originally Posted by deth502

you shouldnt take it down, but it is possible. the surface is hardened, so taking the hardened layer off will not do good things for the longevity of it. ive stoned a few thou off them before to get a fit, but i wouldnt go more than that.

ok well Ill just wait and order the right one if it dont fit ..