FN FAL- metric or standard and why?

[Wolfwolfee]

Spent my share of time behind the FN's and actually prefer the metric. I have used the Canadian standard version but kind of the economy model. Still the best gas system out there and the first black rifle "the big dog"

 

[BattleRife]

I've never shot a Metric FAL (which is the standard, by the way), but in handling them I didn't like the way the charging knob and rear sight are permanently jutting way out into space. I think the folding rear sight of the Inch pattern is somewhat of an improvement and the folding charging handle a major step forward.

Apart from that I haven't noticed much difference, though again I've only fired inch pattern guns.

 

[albayo]

I have had both but I prefer the metric one. But not all the metric and inch models are the same.
I have had around 40 in the past 35 years, different stocks, sights, and barrel lengths meaning (with and without muzzle breaks).
Canadian C1s have a variety of wood stock lengths, some of the British L1A1s have wood stocks and some have synthetic stocks with different length butt pads. I haven't encountered metric models with different butt lengths. The differences in the metric guns tend to be the fore stocks, some are synthetic, others are metal like the G1, and some are a wood and metal combination like the Israeli FALs. Some of the FALs have flash hiders and some don't, the inch patterns all seem to have a flash hider.

 

[MapleSugar]

I've never fired a metric FAL, but I have fired an Australian L1A1 side by side with an M1 Garand that had been converted to 7.62x51mm.

I much preferred the recoil of the L1A1, but I'm left-handed and the Garand's sights and changing handle worked better for me.

One big difference between the metric and inch pattern rifles is that the magazines are more robust on the inch pattern guns.

I like the sand cuts on the L1A1 bolt too.