FAMAE SG 542-1 review.

beltfed said:
A slightly tuned Norinco M-305 can easily keep up with the Famae for a fraction of the cost of the rifle, parts and mags.

As such, I think they have been priced out of the market. Too bad really - I bet they would deservedly fair well with aftermarket support if they were in way more shooters hands. I think to do that though, they'd need to be a least half the cost of their current pricing structure.
Click to expand...

yeah.... uh huh... my experience with them says otherwise. SO many (not all) have massive issue(s) that require a lot of money to sort out to make them go shooters. my last one I was in over $2000 in parts and $500 in gunsmithing to get sorted out (the new barrel had to be cut and rearmed to fit properly)

That famea is a good shooter with the right ammo, the trick is finding the load. I have posted a video of it hitting the 4 inch ringer on my gongs at 200m and 300m with iron sites...
I would be interested in finding out what the Chilean army is shooting for ammo.

And the famea doesn't require tweaking and gunsmithing out of the box AKA: continual use of head space gauges to insure its still in spec and not going to blow up in your face... or new parts... or peening to make sure it stays together and doesn't rattle...
Even with the issues ive had... its never had a stoppage or failure to extract.
 
beltfed said:
A slightly tuned Norinco M-305 can easily keep up with the Famae for a fraction of the cost of the rifle, parts and mags.
Click to expand...

If that's been your experience then that's great.

I have admittedly attempted to avoid debating this rifle vs others in this thread and am trying to keep it about the 542 review. What I will address is that if you want a rifle that has the look and feel of the original Manurhin 542 or SAN SAPR without breaking the piggy bank then at the current moment this is the way to go. The Manurhin civilian 54X rifles command prices of $10K-$20K depending on condition (and other collector factors of course) and the SAPR currently sits +/- $5K. Really if you want the look and feel of the 54X rifle then this is the only current option on the market, both in terms of legality and affordability.

Some people want one type of rifle, while others want as close as they can get to the original 540 - 542 design as they can get. To each their own and really I'm not trying to debate X vs Y here so much as give the review and my findings of the 542.
 
You can't post in a forum that is essentially dedicated to m14s and not expect a bit of flack haha.

Like always, make the decisions that best suit you and your shooting interests!
 
driller212 said:
You can't post in a forum that is essentially dedicated to m14s and not expect a bit of flack haha.
Click to expand...

Hehe, agreed. Of course people with hands on experience with the rifles can feel free to post their findings here. For my part I will stay on the 542 in this thread.

Wasn't trying to limit the topic or stop debate, just limiting my own posts to the 542. Apologies if it came off as anything else.
 
All things told, I'd say the 542 still comes out on top regardless of m14 price or shooting capacity once tuned and hotrodded. The 542 meets all the design specifications that were set out for it - operates in a wide variety of hostile conditions from freezing rain and sleet to mud and moisture to dust and grit. It's modernized, bare bones and functional. Is it a sub-moa gun? No, and that's not actually all that big a deal when it'll consistently group at POA. It's several pounds lighter than the stock m14 and I'd argue that the cost reflects it being a new design that isn't made in china, doesn't have a history of routinely needing tuning or issues in workmanship, is engineered by the swiss, has a small market base and is in my opinion, better built, designed and capable of handling tough conditions. It's not an F-Class gun, maybe people will tune some to be tack drivers, but comparing a stock out of box 542 with very little community understanding of tuning it to a hotrodded m14 with $1000 to $2500 in mods on a $400 gun doesn't make much sense. Both are great guns, but the 542 seems to fulfill its role better, possibly because the role of the m14 has changed since it was introduced in the 1960's. The 542 is a pretty simple design, which is great in regards to function, but I suspect also hurts it in that it doesn't do much to catch the eye - it doesn't look fancy, it doesn't look space age, it doesn't look aggressive, it looks like a tool, which actually kind-of appeals to me.

The large defining factor in all these guns is their pricing. Most black guns are in the $2-$3.5k range, which sucks because end of the day I'm not trusting my life to them, so I end up hunting with a $300 30-30 instead of one of these. That said, choosing to dedicate to one of these guns is probably a good long-term choice as I suspect they'll last forever and be far more reliable and versatile than my 30-30 (which hates grit, humidity, rain, pine needles and being generally used as a woods gun... I hate having to disassemble it into a million pieces each time I come inside to dry it out), so with that in mind, I'll probably have to bite the bullet and get one :p .
 
I wonder how hard it would be to put an adjustable valve on it to tune the amount of gas used to cycle the action? It would be nice to be able to adjust the gas to try and save the brass from being pummeled by the gun.

Edit, just noted their are some numbers on the end of the gas tube area.... looks like 1 and 2.
 
Last edited:
Can-down said:
I wonder how hard it would be to put an adjustable valve on it to tune the amount of gas used to cycle the action? It would be nice to be able to adjust the gas to try and save the brass from being pummeled by the gun.

Edit, just noted their are some numbers on the end of the gas tube area.... looks like 1 and 2.
Click to expand...

Looks like that information didn't make it into the vid, even though I know I filmed it. When I get some time I'll add it to the annotations, thanks for the heads up.

Yes the 1 & 2 is the gas system, 1 is for normal function and 2 is for fouled.
 
Can-down said:
I wonder how hard it would be to put an adjustable valve on it to tune the amount of gas used to cycle the action? It would be nice to be able to adjust the gas to try and save the brass from being pummeled by the gun.

Edit, just noted their are some numbers on the end of the gas tube area.... looks like 1 and 2.
Click to expand...

Anything's possible - there's what looks to be either a very small grub screw or a roll pin in the plug at the end... if the gun doesn't have variable gas settings I bet you could machine a plug that would allow you to have that. Seems like the gun vents gas out the left and right just below the sight ears as... can't hear the audio description but short answer is that without actually holding the gun, looks like a variable plug of some sort is already in there (might just be off/on or off/low/hi). If that's not tune-able enough a plug with more settings should be doable I'd guess.

Edit - looks like HTS answered before I did. It'll be interesting to see if anyone makes a fine tune adjustable plug to see if that alters anything at all.
 
When mounting the scope mount rail, are there recommendations on how much force to use when tightening? (I have a tendency to overtighten/strip screws).

I wish the safety lever was longer--just.. out.. of...reach.
 
zupermann said:
When mounting the scope mount rail, are there recommendations on how much force to use when tightening? (I have a tendency to overtighten/strip screws).
Click to expand...

How's the saying go, hand tight + two fingers ;)? I tightened it to the point of being firmly attached and then used a 10lb torque wrench which went off immediately, hand tight was tighter than 10lbs of torque.

Basically so it's firmy mounted and not rattling does the job. The mount is aluminum so firmly attached with no rattle is the way to go. Keep in mind that there are two screws in the mount so to use med locktite (non permanent). Before the locktite jokes start, I use it on threaded parts when it comes to rifles as a matter of principle.
 
Last edited:
I hate it when people call the F.A.L. "FAL" like it's all one word. Do you call AK's "Ack" too? Good video though.
 
L42A1 said:
I hate it when people call the F.A.L. "FAL" like it's all one word. Do you call AK's "Ack" too? Good video though.
Click to expand...

And some people dislike it when a person pronounces every letter (actually you'll find more videos that pronounce "FAL" all in one word). You can't please everyone in making videos and sometimes you just gotta make a decision and go with it, even if it's incorrect.

Thank you for your critique and I'm glad you enjoyed the video overall.
 
He's just trying to say that your effort to make everything clear and easily understood is..... appreciated.
:)
You can work work on relaxing your presentation style as you gain experience making more videos. It's not as easy as it looks eh!

Here's another one from the peanut gallery... :)
Do you always wear thick gloves when working on your guns? Sometimes I slip into some nitrile's to keep my hands clean but those mechanics style gloves look clumsy and bound to get oily?
I know guys like Nutnfancy like to wear gloves during their reviews but I think it's the first time I've seen someone cleaning their gun with mechanics gloves.
 
Can-down said:
He's just trying to say that your effort to make everything clear and easily understood is..... appreciated.
:)

Do you always wear thick gloves when working on your guns? Sometimes I slip into some nitrile's to keep my hands clean but those mechanics style gloves look clumsy and bound to get oily?
I know guys like Nutnfancy like to wear gloves during their reviews but I think it's the first time I've seen someone cleaning their gun with mechanics gloves.
Click to expand...

Well there's a nice way of turning something to the positive :d.

Re Gloves; Off camera the gloves aren't so thick, but I do always wear gloves while cleaning due to a previous work related injury.

On camera they are selected to fit the purpose of covering my hands while being able to operate a touch screen as I'm usually the one operating the camera. They're not Mechanics but Slide 'Em touch screen gloves.

Thanks for the critique. The way of life is you only learn through experience and hopefully get better by it :).
 
Exactly. You need a thick skin to put yourself out there...
I've heard of the touch screen gloves but never tried them.... good for working in the cold with phones!

One more question Hoplite....
What's that "move" you are doing at 4 seconds in on the intro...... :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom