7.62 NATO in the DSA FAL

[BruceB]

This is a preliminary sort of thing, as I'm VERY early in my machinations with this rifle. Some loads will be fired in both the FAL and my beloved M1A from the earlier thread....which thread will also be seeing some expansion and new loads as time goes on.

This FAL is brand-new, or was upon arrival, at least. Its furniture is all very nice walnut, and it now has the DSA "extreme-duty" scope mount. At the last Big Reno Show, I bought a Bushnell Elite 3200 1.5-4.5X sight, and mounted it last weekend. A reasonable zero was obtained at that time.

All my FAL experience (until this one) has been with inch-pattern rifles. I was issued several of the very earliest Canadian C1 rifles, and have personally owned a number of L1A1 rifles of British and Australian manufacture. The DSA is a metric rifle, and there are some differences.

The DSA, as delivered new, is VERY stiff. Where the C1/L1 rifles operated comfortably at a gas setting of 4 or 5, this rifle required the absolute maximum gas setting to function properly. I stoned most of the parkerizing off the rails and other surfaces where I thought it would help. In the course of firing about 400 jacketed rounds, all handloaded, I altered the loads and gas settings freely, looking for a combo that would work reliably.

I did succeed in finding a few loads that operated the rifle...but at maximum gas settings. All loads used 150-grain jacketed bullets, over a variety of powders. This weekend, after due consideration, I opened-up the gasport by a few thousandths. It helped, and now the rifle runs pretty well on a setting a couple numbers under the max setting.

Taking previous experience with the M1A into account, I loaded the first cast-bullet loads this weekend as well. My choice fell on the Lyman 311672, about 167 grains as-cast, and the powder charge was 37.0 IMR4831. My first shot with this combo, single-loaded, hit the 4" steel gong at 100 yards and locked the action open. As expected, the primer (CCI #34) showed low pressure just as it did in the M1A. The IMR4831 load carries the pressure "pulse" a bit further down the barrel than quicker powders, and the M1A and FAL gasports are located in roughly the same relationship to the chamber.

After ten rounds or so of single-loading (I had 20 rounds) I tried loading one in the chamber and one in the magazine. Utter failure. 311672 has a rather big flat meplat, and the rifle doesn't come even close to feeding them. After firing the remainder in single-shot mode, I came home and considered my available designs.

311413 is a spire-point design for which I have a four-cavity mould. It gave me a couple of VERY nice results in the M1A at higher speeds than are usually considered do-able for this bullet (1700-plus). So, I made up a dozen dummy rounds with the 413, stuffed them into an FAL magazine, and discovered that they feed perfectly. Sometime in the next day or so, I'll be loading a few live rounds and trying them out.

Stand by for another odyssey. I'm VERY hard to shut up when I get the bit in my teeth (to mix a metaphor).

[NuJudge]

About half the FAL-type rifles bend the rim of the case back on extraction, in my opinion wrecking them for reloading purposes. If the jacketed bullet loads do bend rims, I'm interested in whether the cast bullet loads bend the rims also.

CDD

[BruceB]

The case rims look fine, so far.

I do watch for this condition, but haven't seen it in any of the four or five inch-pattern rifles I've owned and for which I've handloaded. Thanks for the cautionary note.

[StarMetal]

Bruce,

Very interesting on your FAL. I'll say you do know your gas systems and how they work.

Curiosity..Bruce have you ever tried a MAS 49/56? I'm beginning to see more and more writers talk about this rifle. I have one that's been rechambered to 308 and think it's one heck of a rifle. I just read the editor of G&A saying it's the toughest rifle he's ever owned. Far as I'm concerned it's the direct gas impingement that Eugene Stoner should have used......keeping the gas out of the receiver.

Joe

[dogbert41]

Look up in www.falfiles.com how to drill out your gas port. My DSA needed that as well to use lower gas settings reliably. I didn't have to open it up much at all, and it works.

Someday I'll get another just for shooting cast. I sure wish I was able to keep it.

[BruceB]

"This weekend, after due consideration, I opened-up the gasport by a few thousandths. It helped, and now the rifle runs pretty well on a setting a couple numbers under the max setting."

dogbert, as you can see in this quote from my original post, I have ALREADY opened up the gasport on the FAL.

[BruceB]

Yesterday I took the FAL out with forty rounds of 311466/37.0 IMR4831, and fifty rounds of 311413 with the same powder charge.

Results were much as I expected.

The Loverin-design 311466, at 152 grains, is just a bit too light for this powder and charge weight. With the gas regulator set at maximum, the cases were ejected fairly reliably but the action never locked open on an empty mag. Some short-strokes were encountered where the empty failed to completely clear the action, and a lot of unburned powder was evident in the action area. I'm now going to load the 311467, 466's bigger brother at 180 grains, over the same charge, and expect it will function perfectly.

311413, the 170-grain Squibb spire-point, worked 100% with 37.0 IMR4831. I do believe that its accuracy might be inferior to the 467 in this application, given that the velocity is likely above its "comfort zone".

To date, I've not bothered to fire any cast bullets at paper or over the chrono screens. Previous work with the M1A, same chambering and barrel length, have given me a good idea of what ballpark I'm playing in. My main concern so far has been FUNCTIONING. I must say that accuracy has been good enough to allow considerable fun in plinking at the 400-yard gongs on our range.

However, it's about time to get serious with this rifle. I expect to have some paper-target and chrono data generated in the next day or two. After firing so many rounds with the M1A and its iron sights, this is going to be a very different proposition with the Bushnell 3200 scope on the FAL. It's only 4.5X at the top end, but still quite different from the irons. The rifle desperately needs some trigger work, though.

[richbug]

I have been using the 200 grain Lee with 37-40 grains of H4831 in my FAL's. 40 grains makes more "smoke" than I would like. 38.5 grains is giving me 2MOA or so at the moment, and cycles at the same gas setting as M80 ball ammo(3-5 depending on the rifle).


DSA's receivers are nice but they park things that really don't need parking, like feedramps, and rails.

[9.3X62AL]

The rifle desperately needs some trigger work, though.

Bruce, old friend--it's a battle rifle. I'm sure it can be refined a bit, but let's remember its purpose--to whack Soviet conscripts on foot trying to keep pace with T-72s through the Fulda Gap, a thing they could do effectively at twice the range an AK-47 can reasonably reach. With most of my war toys, I sorta 'dance with who brought me', trigger-wise.

[BruceB]

OH, yeah...it's a battle rifle, alright!

Trouble is, this trigger is FAR worse than, for instance, the Canadian-issue C1 (FAL) rifles that I used back in the early '60s. My then-18-year-old trigger-finger found the new C1 to be reasonably comparable to the #4 Mk 1/2, which the C1 replaced and which I'd used extensively.

My ancient RCBS spring-type trigger gauge shows EIGHT POUNDS before the trigger starts to move....on an UN-cocked rifle. This means that just the trigger-return spring is contributing eight pounds to the pull. The actual weight of pull for let-off is more like fifteen pounds, and draggy, creepy, two-miles-of-hard-road GRINCH to make it fire.

Anyway, there are a couple of folks who reduce the pull (and improve quality of pull) for a very reasonable fee, like under forty dollars. I'm thinking about it. I could also give it a go myself, but for the money involved...?

Took the rifle out today with thirty rounds of the Loverin 311467/37.0 IMR4831. Functioning was perfect. From fifty yards, the best group of ten showed eight rounds in just over an inch, with the remaining two rounds increasing the spread to 1.5". Velocity averaged 1845 for THIRTY rounds, extreme spread 128, standard deviation 28.

I may increase the gasport diameter by a few more thousandths, just to gain a bit of a cushion in using the gas regulator. Today's load used the max setting for gas, and worked fine. Ideally, the "standard" load with cast and the "standard" load with jacketed, will both work well on the same gas setting. Possible? Maybe, maybe not. Time will tell.

[StarMetal]

OH, yeah...it's a battle rifle, alright!

Trouble is, this trigger is FAR worse than, for instance, the Canadian-issue C1 (FAL) rifles that I used back in the early '60s. My then-18-year-old trigger-finger found the new C1 to be reasonably comparable to the #4 Mk 1/2, which the C1 replaced and which I'd used extensively.

My ancient RCBS spring-type trigger gauge shows EIGHT POUNDS before the trigger starts to move....on an UN-cocked rifle. This means that just the trigger-return spring is contributing eight pounds to the pull. The actual weight of pull for let-off is more like fifteen pounds, and draggy, creepy, two-miles-of-hard-road GRINCH to make it fire.

Anyway, there are a couple of folks who reduce the pull (and improve quality of pull) for a very reasonable fee, like under forty dollars. I'm thinking about it. I could also give it a go myself, but for the money involved...?

Took the rifle out today with thirty rounds of the Loverin 311467/37.0 IMR4831. Functioning was perfect. From fifty yards, the best group of ten showed eight rounds in just over an inch, with the remaining two rounds increasing the spread to 1.5". Velocity averaged 1845 for THIRTY rounds, extreme spread 128, standard deviation 28.

I may increase the gasport diameter by a few more thousandths, just to gain a bit of a cushion in using the gas regulator. Today's load used the max setting for gas, and worked fine. Ideally, the "standard" load with cast and the "standard" load with jacketed, will both work well on the same gas setting. Possible? Maybe, maybe not. Time will tell.

Bruce,

The standard jacketed load and the cast load probably will work on the same setting, but don't count on the jacketed load not unnecessarily beating the action to death. If it works on cast at the max I'd leave it there. Just my two cents

Joe

[richbug]

OH, yeah...it's a battle rifle, alright!

Trouble is, this trigger is FAR worse than, for instance, the Canadian-issue C1 (FAL) rifles that I used back in the early '60s. My then-18-year-old trigger-finger found the new C1 to be reasonably comparable to the #4 Mk 1/2, which the C1 replaced and which I'd used extensively.

My ancient RCBS spring-type trigger gauge shows EIGHT POUNDS before the trigger starts to move....on an UN-cocked rifle. This means that just the trigger-return spring is contributing eight pounds to the pull. The actual weight of pull for let-off is more like fifteen pounds, and draggy, creepy, two-miles-of-hard-road GRINCH to make it fire.

Anyway, there are a couple of folks who reduce the pull (and improve quality of pull) for a very reasonable fee, like under forty dollars. I'm thinking about it. I could also give it a go myself, but for the money involved...?

Took the rifle out today with thirty rounds of the Loverin 311467/37.0 IMR4831. Functioning was perfect. From fifty yards, the best group of ten showed eight rounds in just over an inch, with the remaining two rounds increasing the spread to 1.5". Velocity averaged 1845 for THIRTY rounds, extreme spread 128, standard deviation 28.

I may increase the gasport diameter by a few more thousandths, just to gain a bit of a cushion in using the gas regulator. Today's load used the max setting for gas, and worked fine. Ideally, the "standard" load with cast and the "standard" load with jacketed, will both work well on the same gas setting. Possible? Maybe, maybe not. Time will tell.


The easy trigger job on an FAL costs about $2. First off remove the parkerizing from the sear, trigger and hammer's contact surfaces with a fine stone. Next replace the trigger spring with a sear spring(this will get you in the 5#. range). Lubricate thoroughly.

DSA's springs are stronger than the factory FN, Imbel and Austrian ones I have had in my possession, this may be for reliability purposes, to over come their rough rails(particularly their recoil springs).

On a 21" rifle don't take the port over .110" unless it is to be a dedicated cast shooter. In my experience, as she breaks in she will smooth out and run on less gas.