FN FAL Rear sight

[grummin]

Shot my first Appleseed this last weekend and after taking the rifle to the KD range im unhappy with my rear sight. I am currently using DSA's rear Tactical Para sight http://www.dsarms.com/Tactical-Para-Steel-Rear-Sight-US-Made----110DSA/productinfo/110DSA/. I went this route for the adjustable windage but lost the elevation that the factory sight http://www.dsarms.com/Short-Belgian-Rear-Sight-Assembly-US-Made-US-Made---110F/productinfo/110F/. Is there anyone with any suggestions for a rear sight that has both adjustable windage and elevation?

[funfaler]

The factory sights are about the best out there for the FAL.

Here are some suggestions on how to improve them.

1)  There is a "wobble" in the rear sight itself.   This can be reduced by the following steps:
--  Take your rear sight off if it's elevation ramp.   Then, very, very carefully tap the lower portion of the sight closed more (you can use a vise to squeeze it, but go VERY SLOWLY!), where it straddles the ramp, to tighten the clearance between the sight and ramp.   This will reduce the amount of wobble in the sight itself.    Just be very careful, go slowly, and try the sight on the ramp very often to ensure you are not over doing it.   
--You can swap out the spring in the button which is used to lock the sight to the slide, and to release the lock to slide the sight.   Again, this is a fine line, as you can get too strong of a spring and make it very difficult to slide the sight.

2)  You can work on the "wobble" between the upper and lower receivers.   This will reduce the amount of inaccuracy in the factory sights.   This wobble can be reduced by changing the bolt assembly which holds the lower to the upper, and/or use some very thin shims to tighten up that point.     

--you can also look at the locking mechanism which locks the lower to the upper.   If this can be tightened up, that will reduce the wobble even more.

I can assure you that the FAL is a very suitable Rifleman's tool and VERY capable out to 500 yards, with factory iron sights.  I have shot clay pigeons at 500 yards (@ 1 moa at that distance), with iron sights, consistently, groups easily inside of 2 moa, South African surplus ammo.

One further suggestion, take your front sight post out and chuck it in a drill press (ensuring to protect the threads) and use a fine file and/or perhaps even a honing stone, to turn the width of the front sight to .050", which will reduce the front sight down from 11.5 MOA to 8 MOA, a more precise and useable Rifleman's front sight.   

I had long searched for a "more perfect" FAL rear sight.   Given the inherent design of the upper/lower mating and the difficulty of getting a secure and functional attachment of the rear sight, my opinion is that there is really is no better system than the factory sights (or maybe getting an M1a  )   Some of the DSA "solutions" only address part of the problem with the design, and do so at a high cost.   

Good news, if you put optics on your FAL, you bypass the wobble in both the sight and upper/lower connection.   

PM if you would like more details.

[grummin]

I am going to reinstall the factory sight this evening and see if can tighten it up some. I have DSA's scope mount on the rifle I just pulled the scope for my first appleseed. Since I have that rail on top it makes me wonder if there is a rear sight that i could mount to it. Have you heard of anyone doing something like that, if so what worked? Just from looking around it seems that most of the rear sights that go on a picatinny rail would be to tall. Thanks for all the info I really appreciate it.

[funfaler]

Have you heard of anyone doing something like that, if so what worked? Just from looking around it seems that most of the rear sights that go on a picatinny rail would be to tall. Thanks for all the info I really appreciate it.

Any effort to use the DSA scope mount and some sort of flat top gas block, with a front sight mounted there really raises the sight line, and thus eliminates any practical cheek weld, unless you want to dabble in cheek rests and/or different (and expensive) stocks.   

Again, my milage has been that of all the possible improvements which are commercially available for the FAL sights, they only partially address the whole of the design short falls, and usually at a rather high cost.   Given that the factory sights can be tuned some, and are quite practical for 500 yard shooting, any level of improvement by the commercial products loses their appeal...at least for me.

Once zeroed, the factor sights are very accurate for bullet drop, to 500 yards, for mil-surp ammo or factory ammo, to include match 168 grain. 

I drive a M1a now, but would not have likely made the switch if I had not stumbled across an M1a at a really ridiculous "must buy" price.   

BTW, PM me if you want some thoughts on improving the trigger on your FAL.

[Nickle]

Good to hear good info from a fellow "ex-FAL driver". I parted ways with my L1A1 (Inch FAL) because I wasn't using it, and a good friend would.

FWIW, there are significant differences between Inch and Metric FAL's, especially in the sights. IIRC, the Inch FAL has a more narrow blade than the Metric (Stacy, correct me if I'm wrong here).

If shooting a FAL, do bear in mind it is an Infantryman's Rifle, while the Americans always opted for using a Marksman's Rifle for Infantry use (at least until the mid 1960's). Trust me, as a professional soldier, I sure wouldn't want to be facing an enemy armed with FAL's. They work, they're more than accurate for 500 yards and they don't break.

I'll also tell you a FAL makes an AR-10 look like a piece of trash in practice. The AR-10 may be a little more accurate, but the FAL is far more reliable. A heck of a lot cheaper, too. Just make sure to avoid certain builds (basically anything on a Coonan, DCI or Hesse receiver is usually trouble, anything on an Imbel or DSA is usually good).

[Patent guy]

I believe that someone showed an FAL with an A2 style rear sight assembly at last month's NRA convention.

Perhaps Techres can expand on this topic...Techres?

[grummin]

I just found this http://www.dsarms.com/Stripped-SA58-FAL-A2-Hampton-Lower----061USA2HP/productinfo/061USA2HP/ I wonder if anyone has an experience with this.

[techres]

I believe that someone showed an FAL with an A2 style rear sight assembly at last month's NRA convention.

Perhaps Techres can expand on this topic...Techres?

This is what I saw there and it was very interesting.  Not sure if the distance elevation is at all gauged for .308 or not, but still it was very interesting:

[grummin]

Was that on a DSA FAL. looks like what i found a link to on there site. I am gonna need to do some looking around and see how well it works.

[techres]

Yes, it was at the DSA booth.  More FAL's than I have seen in one place, well, except for at my first Appleseed at Funfahler's place! 

[posterboy]

That's the Hampton lower with the A2 sight......

I gave up my FAL too ..my neck and cheek weld were not right for that rifle. Fine rifle..not for me however.


pb

[GoldFish]

This is what I saw there and it was very interesting.  Not sure if the distance elevation is at all gauged for .308 or not, but still it was very interesting:

If my memory serves me correctly, then those sights were standard AR A2 sight assemblies, calibrated for the .223, not the .308.

[jmdavis]

If you count your clicks from bottom, it doesn't matter how the sights are calibrated. All you care about is how many clicks from bottom it is to each range.

Mike

[techres]

If you count your clicks from bottom, it doesn't matter how the sights are calibrated. All you care about is how many clicks from bottom it is to each range.

Mike

You beat me to it Mike.  If I had one I would just go, shoot it, and see what I got as a result.  The record the results for future use.

Same as what we teach our students.  My point was mostly a curiosity as to the level of work they did in porting the sights over from the A2 platform.

[Old Dog]

I'd never take the "this many clicks for this distance" info as gospel for my rifle/ammo without trying it out.  Different lots of ammo can/will sometimes shoot to a different point of impact.  I've seen/experienced that in the Army with M14's and seen it afterwards while trying to find a reload that shot decent groups in my M1A.

The "clicks" info is a good starting point but you need to go to the range and make sure your rifle "agrees".  Besides, its a real good excuse to go shooting, something most of us don't do enough of.

[Nickle]

I'd never take the "this many clicks for this distance" info as gospel for my rifle/ammo without trying it out.  Different lots of ammo can/will sometimes shoot to a different point of impact.  I've seen/experienced that in the Army with M14's and seen it afterwards while trying to find a reload that shot decent groups in my M1A.

The "clicks" info is a good starting point but you need to go to the range and make sure your rifle "agrees".  Besides, its a real good excuse to go shooting, something most of us don't do enough of.

Folks, you need to read and heed this. The published click info is nothing more than a start, and will get you close. Sometimes more than close enough, but, not always. Matter of fact, you should be constantly tweaking your baseline zero, because you may well find it needs a tiny tweak or two. At Appleseeds, I see this frequently, and I make my recommendations with the shooter by looking at and evaluating his AQT targets. You'll see a recurring trend on a few of the targets, and it usually entails just a click or two to fix it.

[grummin]

I will definitely be taking all that into consideration. I am also thinking about biting the bullet and buying one of those Hampton lowers. I have my factory sight back on now and will put a few pounds downrange after work today and get it to battle sight zero.

[voortrekker]

I'd never take the "this many clicks for this distance" info as gospel for my rifle/ammo without trying it out.  Different lots of ammo can/will sometimes shoot to a different point of impact.  I've seen/experienced that in the Army with M14's and seen it afterwards while trying to find a reload that shot decent groups in my M1A.

The "clicks" info is a good starting point but you need to go to the range and make sure your rifle "agrees".  Besides, its a real good excuse to go shooting, something most of us don't do enough of.

Right on Old Dog...........this is very good advice.


----------------------------


And regarding the DSA Hampton lower, I own one.

I never put it to use because the sight was so wobbly when I would adjust for elevation, I just would not trust this equipment for the accuracy I would like to achieve.

For collectibility, not towards riflelry, (because I would not use it on a FAL, I'd keep the original rear sights that are not worn and wobbly) :

If any Red Hat wants to buy it at half the present price = $100.00, it is yours........PM me for further details.

Not a Red Hat?  It's yours for $150.00............PM me.



Brett

[grummin]

So the Hampton lower is not solid feeling? Is it were the sight attaches to the lower or the wobble from the upper to the lower hinge point? It sure looks like it could be a solution to the FAL sight problem but more wobble cant be good.

[voortrekker]

So the Hampton lower is not solid feeling? Is it were the sight attaches to the lower or the wobble from the upper to the lower hinge point? It sure looks like it could be a solution to the FAL sight problem but more wobble cant be good.

It is the A2 sight itself that becomes wobbly when adjusting elevation.  The entire A2 sight frame (that holds the peep sight) becomes more and more wobbly as the sight goes up.

Granted, I never actually used the Hampton lower w A2 sights on a built rifle. 

This should be considered.

I made a decision not to use it because just tinkering with the sight on the lower itself indicated to me that this equipment will very likely not suit my personal needs, mainly accuracy, due to A2 sight housing becomes pretty wobbly has it goes up when adjusting elevation.

The lower receiver itself appears pretty solid.

[student]

You could give this a try.  I ordered one of the M-14 receiver stubs and cut it down. Then I had a machinist (my brother) make a dovetail and weld it to the old receiver.  Then installed the sight parts.

It works but I don't recommend it.  The lower portion of the sight just brushes the bridge of my nose when in recoil.  And that is after grinding a bit more of it away.  I may take some more of it off but likely not.  I'll likely just put the old one back on at some point.

Never know till you try.

[ksuguy]

That's an interesting idea.  Have you considered putting a small spacer between the buttstock and receiver?  Of course that might make the recoil buffer tube too short.

[TomM1Thumb]

student
I really like that M-14 sight Idea. Would You give Us a Range report after You have taken it to the Range, Please!

Thanks in advance

Tom

[student]

student
I really like that M-14 sight Idea. Would You give Us a Range report after You have taken it to the Range, Please!

Thanks in advance

Tom

Oh I've shot it lots. I even shot it at Ramseur in '06 or '07 it shoots fine.  It's as acurate and reliable as you would expect. It just doesn't like the shape of my face. The bridge of my nose in particular. No blood or bruising but I've been kissed several times. I can't remember how much difference there is in the adjustments.

Aaron

[funfaler]

It's as acurate and reliable as you would expect. It just doesn't like the shape of my face. The bridge of my nose in particular. No blood or bruising but I've been kissed several times.

Of course, this is the case with the standard FAL rear sight as well.   Very few American shooters can shoot the FAL in the prone position without being uncomfortably close to the rear sight.   It has scarred an eye glass lens, or two, of mine.   Thus the need to put a dollop of silicon sealer in the end of the sight (there is a little hole there which is perfect for this), or a piece of pencil eraser, to act as a "bumper".

A butt stock pad extension helps many shooters as well. 

[zonkertx]

Yep, I can attest to the dinged-up shooting glasses.  I have neat little groups of ticks on several pairs too.  This could probably be remedied by replacing the buttstock with one of the longer South African variants. 

One of these days, I'm going to do another FAL build that's a real working mutt-gun, optimized for me and my abnormally long body geometry.  I don't really want to mess with my current matching-numbers early STG kit build by installing a bunch of random parts on it.  Brit selector and wide mag/bolt releases, SA buttstock, but a generic metric gun otherwise.

That is, of course, if I don't fall prey to the urge to build with one of those shiny new Argy parts kits that Sarco has.  Or perhaps the Para I've always wanted. 

Decisions, decisions...   

[alonso1]

As a very new Fal owner and shooter, I first shot the Rifle with my eye as close to the rear sight as possible (like I do with my AR).  Needless to say, I won't do that again

It's a fun Rifle to shoot however I wish the the rear aperture was smaller, the Garand set up looks nice but way beyond my skill level. 

[Nickle]

A butt stock pad extension helps many shooters as well.

For those of you that have "Inch" FAL's (L1A1), the butt stock comes in 3 different lengths. That gives you some adjustment, if you can find a longer issue stock.