FN FAL vs H&K G3A3

Email Me When A New Comment Is Made
Show Only Poster Name and Title Sort in Reverse Order Posted

Mark F RE:FN FAL vs H&K G3A3 1/2/2004 9:21:16 AM

The FAL has a poor reputation in sandy conditions. Other than that, both are fine.

Quote Reply

ChdNorm RE:FN FAL vs H&K G3A3 1/2/2004 5:23:07 PM

I vote for the FN, based on the purely subjective reason it feels better in the hand. I do think the sights are better on the G-3, and the shorter OAL is nice. But the FAL is a little lighter and the controls seem a little more ergonomic. For the hell of it, lets throw the M-14 in the ring too. Im a huge fan of the 14, but I think id still pick the FN overall.

Quote Reply

jofredes RE:FN FAL vs H&K G3A3 1/3/2004 1:37:15 AM

I vote for the G3 because it is lighter, cheaper and probably sturdier. The only reason why the FAL has sold in higher numbers than the G3 is because the FAL came before the G3, the countries who bought automatic rifles in the 60ies rather than in the 50ies seem to have prefered the G3.

Quote Reply

ChdNorm RE:FN FAL vs H&K G3A3 1/3/2004 12:59:27 PM

I agree with most of your points, but I thought the FAL was the lighter of the two? It seems like it to me, could be a matter of balance though. Also, and maybe one of our German friends can help clarify this, I was under the impression that the Germans preffered the FAL (as the G1) but went on to adopt the G-3 because of an issue of manufactoring rights or licensing from FN.

Quote Reply

Nasty German Idiot RE:FN FAL vs H&K G3A3 1/4/2004 11:09:53 AM

Hmm ... hmm hmm hmm ... G3 has a very long history, a prototype was created by Mauser in 1945 which already had the basics of the weapon. After WW2, the main Developer went to Spain and worked there on the Weapon. After some prototype versions with 7,92 x 33 , it was after all an 7,62 x 51 developed. The version Porduced after 1956 were called "version A". 1958 was the year that the license rights came to Germany through a dutch company. The Bundeswehr was just searching for a new weapon as a replacement for the FN-FAL (G1).

Quote Reply

Worcester RE:FN FAL vs H&K G3A3-from the infantry board 1/8/2004 3:26:10 PM

Would posters please indicate whether they have used the FAL and/or G-3 before replying to this. If you're interested in the FAL/G-3 heritage and why the Belgians wouldn't allow the Germans to manufacture the FAL forcing them to go with the CETME-derived G-3, please go to:- link The FAL dominance was because it is a superb rifle; the later G-3 tended to be introduced in contires with Spanish/Portuguese/German connections or patronage. And excuse my caustic tone in this old piece since I was trying to get around the flag wavers. As a user of both in action I found little difference but I agree with ChdNorm about the balance. The FAL just "felt" better; but the G3 perhaps because it always "felt" barrel-heavy, is also more stable in full auto with 2-3 round bursts. The alledged "sand problems" with the FAL were extremely minor and the story grew out of the Brit army 1958/9 tests in Libya which has sand like talcum powder which they poured liberally into the working parts. The Brit FAL which became the Self Loading Rifle (SLR which I've also used) had notches in a VVVVVVV pattern cut into the vertical sides of the receiver and a sand trap fitted above the pistol grip which cured this; the Brit SLR also had 6 RH turns in the barrel against the 4 for the FAL and G-3 which gave a very flat trajectory and lower deceleration out to 250m - very accurate and penetrative. In the Gulf in the 1980's (and given a free choice) a lot of guys picked up G-3's and a lot picked up the FAL/SLR. Some because the SLR was better in a sandstorm, others because the G-3 felt better in auto. What I can confirm is no-one picked up an M-16! 5.56mm is too light for the ranges.

Quote Reply

JROTCKid RE:FN FAL vs H&K G3A3-from the infantry board 1/8/2004 8:16:46 PM

Ive firedthe FAL I believe the Export SLR 888 version? The kit model. I shot about 50 some rounds and I was only impressed by its feel and not the Bolt on the wrong side of the rifle . (Is that a european thing to put all things to the left?)Im a die Hard M1 M1A fan because I love the Rotating bolt idea and I like the garand Loading system as long as I have the clips pre loaded. Doesnt the FAl Load from the top with a 20 rd stripper ?

Quote Reply

JROTCKid RE:FN FAL vs H&K G3A3-from the infantry board 1/8/2004 8:17:36 PM

PS the one I shot had the Mag Welded in BATF regs because it was post ban

Quote Reply

ChdNorm RE:FN FAL vs H&K G3A3-from the infantry board 1/8/2004 10:32:16 PM

Worcester ... Good post, I hadnt realized that there was that the CZ connection between the two. Your point about the balance of the G-3 and it relating to select fire controlability is interesting, I've never fired a G-3 on full auto so I guess that elluded me. JROTC ... That must have been one of the kitchen table built "Franken-FALs" floating around. FALs take a 20rd detachable mag even in the standard post-ban configuration. There are additional restrictions in California which do away with the detachable magazine altogether in order to meet other criteria, but the FAL is not restricted to a non-detachable magazine anywhere else (maybe New Jersey?) in the US. Most kit built FALs/L1A1s available today are rebuilt using a specific number (I think its 7) of domestictly produced parts in order to be BATF compliant. This allows the use of of detachable mags on semi autos in conjuction with other such evil features as pistol grips. If you look at a FAL as currently produced by someone like DSA, and a pre-ban FN side by side ... you'll find very little difference. As far as the 20rd stripper clips ... all I've ever seen are 5 rounders that are used in conjunction with a guide for charging mags. I know the T-48 versions had charger guides built into the top cover, I'm not sure the standard FAL does though.

Quote Reply

Sniper Bait RE:FN FAL vs H&K G3A3 1/9/2004 1:58:36 PM

I have personaly shot and ownded the G3 (horrid clones and HK91s) and L1a1 and FALs and M1As. Under casual shooting conditions, IE no "bad men" chasing little ole' me, any are all fun to shoot. Peronsal feel and "cool appeal" are prob biggest factors in choosing for people. The G3 is like working a one armed bandit all day. The charging handle looks cool sliding home like on a bad SWAT or Delta Force type movie, but I found them to be way too noisy and akward to use and I am 6'1" 195lbs. The mag release is small out of reach and too stiff in my opinion. The safety and trigger are horrid, unless you buy a PSG1 trigger unit ($500 plus). The barrel on the G3 over heats too quickly even for us looser semi auto owners. You can't reload 9/10s of the brass since most of it ends up looking like "brass bananas". I once watched a HK rep try to take apart a HK91 bolt on a HK91 a person had purchased and could not disassemble. He gave up after 30min. I can take them apart in anywhere from 10seconds to 10min depending upon the particular gun I am disassembling. Militarily the G3 is a great bang for the buck, like a AK-47. Cheap sheet metal with a very hard to replace barrel setup. Only problem with sheet metal guns is to remember not to drop them onto to sharp or hard of an object. One good dent and that heavy bolt carrier will stick. (NO known reports of this personally known to me thou) I have had feed problems with personal guns. This was related to particular ammuntion not likeing the HK German mags feed lips and no feed ramp. The bullet must literally jump from mag to chamber. ALso, I have had other "NATO spec" ammo that the G3 hated, but mostly was south american black burning garbage. Actual good things to say. German made. Need I say more. It is fun to shoot and its simple mechanisms are very reliable. Parts easily available. I do not however see it as having much of a future in that it is very difficult to make a SOPMOD for it. Expandibility of design without a better scope system than the claw type is needed. Basically it is the a ak-47 without the reliable ak-47 long piston stroke rotary bolt system. The FAL/L1a1 has great ergonomics, second only to a ("gasp!") AR/M-16 type rifle. Bolt release, safety, Op rod, and mag release can be worked intuitively If you happen to own a later model Belgium FAL the mag well dimensions allow any good magazine to easily drop free. Add the Israeli style larger mag release and you truely can just push and have the mag drop away. (Unlike any Galil which leaves me feeling like I am driving my finger bone through the skin after only a couple of mag changes.) This is not true for converted BREN L4a1 mags which tend to stick in place. My franken-Fal STG58 made by DSA is a well made receiver but no mag has yet to fall out of its tight match dimension mag well. (Don't know is original FAL STG58 or TYPE I or TYPE II have this quirk too) THe L1a1 I owned was from some middle eastern country I forget so it had the sand cuts and wood furniture. The FAL's adjustable gas system, good ergonomics, super cheaps parts and mags, and ability to configure 6 ways to Sunday make it for me the best all around military "Main Battle Rifle" It ability to digest the myriad of supposedly "NATO spec 7.62mm" could have been a real life saver if WWIII went hot. The trigger can be made aceptable, but the FAL will never come close to a good match M14 or PSG1 for the designated marksmen/ spotter role. NOTE: The reason the handle is on the left side is not a "European Thing" in so much that FN bought from Browning a license to build the BAR and many other of his designs. Like many other later FN designs, it borrows on design principles of earlier Browning designs. The BAR has a left side "op rod". Even today many consider the right side operated M1/M14 as being on the "wrong side". I think it is mostly preference. Also, the Mag 58 (M240) action is the a modified BAR action flipped upside down. Most all designs are ripped off from earlier inovaters. Like the AR-18 in my AUGs, in G36, in SA80, etc. The M14 is a great rifle. It has been much loved and hated. My father trained on it in the Navy before he went to the Brown Water Navy in Vietnam 66-68. All he could remember was that it was too heavy for the humid environment of Vietnam. Later he carried a M2/3? full auto carbine. Then he got his Mattel Special. He was very glad that he never had to fire it because he was the front turret gunner on one of those "Apocolypse Now" type fiber glass jet boats. I digress. Of the 5 commercial M1a's I have owned all fire well, rarely jammed, cleaned easily, and never gave me too much problems. I once had a out of milspec GI gas piston ruin a good TRW op rod, but that wasn't the gun designs fault, rather it was a bad run of contract gas pistons. With a GI barrel and a fiberglass stock the M14 "feels" pounds lighter the G3 or FAL. I like the inline stock to handle the 7.62mm recoil. The only prob with this design is the AK style mag release. With variances from GI mag builders and from the guns themselves some of the mags could get really stuck in there. If VC were overrunning my position I would hate to have to fight a sticking mag. I think the Italy fixed that problem witht the mag release on their BM62s if I recall correctly. The M14 is most "old school" of the 3 designs. It is forged and has real walnut. Its forged recievers will long outlast the G3's or the FALs. by several hundred thousand rounds. (M14 lifespan is around 4 to 450 thousand according to army match shooters and their gunsmiths.) The m14 is the ultimate rifle for WWI or San Juan Hill. The problem is now their a real M14 without a rewelded receiver is boo koo bucks. The commercial ones run from good to "god help us" The debate over investment cast v billet forged or real forged is stupid. No company makes them to the quality of the original receivers of TRW quality. Holding all commercial M14 variants you know that they are only distant cousins to the real ones, and more closely related the crap Century Arms has been making in their old converted train repair garage with a dirt floor for years. It doesn't feel or look quite right. Real GI forged parts are scarce and getting scarcer. All remaining inventories of M14 mags are owned by the Navy for their SEAL and shipboard needs. For what is available new commercial to private owners I would go with a DSA or like franken fal as long as you trust the receiver and the builder. Mags and parts are cheap. M1a/M14s are a design meant for forging and I have seen too many cast parts peter out long before the GI ones do. So I avoid them, even thou I love the romance of out last "real" Amercian rifle. Mags and GI parts are too expensive. The G3's commercially available now may be better. I owned some of the first generation clones and they were horrid. I won't even mention the Aluminum wonder receivers. Mags and parts are cheap and easy to run across. If I could own a real mil issue gun I would go with a SOPMOD M14 16' with the reworked gas system picatinny rails and collapsable bar stock stock, or a standard rack m14 with a fiberglass stock and an acog scope. I say the m14 only because it is the lightest. ALso maintence is minimal and if it fails to feed the ability to quickly clear the action or (not usually recommended) slam the bolt in battery in a pinch can be done. The trigger on the m14 can be made the most beautiful. My personal "tricked" out FN-FAL weighs in at 12 pounds loaded, without any scope and a light 21" barrel. I do not mention ar-10/sr-25s because I think that system will always be a great sniper system and crap for actual combat. Too finicky, but great barrel harmonics.

Quote Reply

Sniper Bait RE:FN FAL vs H&K G3A3- P.S. 1/9/2004 2:10:00 PM

Hope last post wasn't too disjointed. I have was recalling a myriad of personal memories, opinions, and information that was passed onto me. In case you haven't seen it yet the SOPMOD m14 can be seen at link I think Troy offers to convert commercial m14 copies too.

Quote Reply

Worcester RE:FN FAL vs H&K G3A3: JROTC/ChdNorm/Sniper 1/13/2004 3:44:17 PM

Very interesting posts. Just five adds:- (1) Some of the early FAL's (and SLR trials models) had a mag/clip charger built into the top of the dust cover. You could use the bolt hold-back device (just above the mag release) and charge the mag with 5-round clips through the top while the mag was on the weapon; think it was meant to copy the M-14 but never saw any issued with this facility. Only used the charger which you slip on top of the mag for 5-round clips. (2) The 30-rd mag for the L4A1 7.62mm "LMG" (bren conversion from .303) I have used successfully on the SLR but with due care...the instructions state it should be used in emergencies only since the mag springs are designed to feed top down (bren style) and may not be strong enough to feed bottom up. Worked for me! (3) The mag release on the FAL/SLR I found a lot easier than the M-16 - guess it depends on your hand size. Part of the reason for the strength may have been our habit of carrying the FAL "hands free" across the lower body with the pistol grip and mag wedged behind the right front ammo pouch and the but under the right arm pit; effectively it was resting on the trigger guard and potentially the mag release. Again though, I never had a problem. (4) Left handed ing - if you've just switched to a fresh mag with you left hand, much quicker to with the left hand also. I know some people just found the left-hand pull a little tough, but I loved it and especially those chunky working parts slamming back - very reassuring! (5) You can re- the FAL/SLR very quietly - you just have to judge the springs right. During battle prep we always followed a 1 (handle out), 2 (pull back), 3 (release) routine for arming the whole patrol together so the bad guys can't count your rifles.

Quote Reply

winter soldat RE:FN FAL vs H&K G3A3: 1/14/2004 10:41:07 AM

i served in norwegian army special unit(viking innsatsgruppe 2) my main weapon was an g3a23(ag3-2 called in norway) the thing i have to say g3 vs fn was that fn was practily useless in 35 grader celsius below( british commando on joint nato exersise with us have to borrow our g3s becase fn jammed for hrd weapon oil

Quote Reply

Worcester RE:FN FAL vs H&K G3A3:winter soldat 1/14/2004 12:42:43 PM

Pure auto anti-freeze freezes at -40. I only ever got down to -20 in using the M-16, FN and G3; we assumed that below -35 you just survive! Below -20 the FN instructions say you should use graphite oil. Were these FN probs with or without graphite oil? Was it the gas piston or the working parts?

Quote Reply

	News As History - November 8, 2009
	Home News How to Make War Wars Around the World Austin Bay's On Point Dirty Little Secrets Features Al Nofi's CIC Prediction Market Wargames Measure of Respect On War and Warfare Videos Photos Jokes Community Military Discussion Boards Military Jokes Military Photos Military Book Reviews Military Movie Reviews Military Links Wargame Store StrategyPage Subscribe Login Feedback About Us Search Account Manager Advertise With Us