Polymer FAL Para Stock

RDIH-FAL-Stock

drawingsThe Belgian company RDIH was present at SHOT Show with a lightweight polymer stock for the paratrooper variants of the FAL and LAR’s.

While a rifle with the stock installed was not available – we were able to handle the stock itself. The construction appears solid and well constructed. I believe a tube-stock cheek pad would mount securely on this stock, such as the one from ITC.

The folding mechanism lacked the locking tab present on the Para FN LAR variants. I don’t mind it either way, but some may be used to one and not the other.

RDIH has drawings available as a PDF on their site

RDIH-FAL-Stock-promo-image

From their website

Like most upgrades, cost adjusts my interest considerably. I’ve contacted one of the USA distributors for pricing and availability. Distributors are listed in Canada, most European countries, as well as an assortment of other countries on their website.

. www.RDIF.be

IMG_0097

Related

Ethan M

A telecom engineer for an international company; Ethan didn’t finish his biology studies in college. After a year, his book club started meeting at the range as the Aftermath Gun Club. Ethan’s firearm interests are mostly with Cold War era small arms.


Advertisement

  • William Campbell Wommack

    ugly

    • gunslinger

      someone had fun in shop class…

  • Steve Truffer

    does it cut weight compared to the original?

    • http://aftermathgunclub.com/ Aftermath Gun Club

      I’d pay to have weight scales installed in my arms. It is lighter, I didn’t have the two side by side but I handled a standard metal para stock before writing this and it seems heavier than the polymer above by quite a bit.

      • Steve Truffer

        What are we talking, half pound, pound, pound & a half?

  • Doopington

    I understand the goal is to reduce weight…but on a battle rifle behemoth like the FAL, wouldn’t removing it from the buttstock make the weight feel worse by redistributing it further forwards?

    And…it just looks…bad. Cheap bad. Like, it screams Tapco when it was actually made in Europe.

    • http://www.thefirearmblog.com/ Phil W “Senior Writer TFB”

      It would indeed—

  • Anton Gray Basson

    Doesnt look any worse than the polymer FAL stocks, but could I beat somebody senseless with it and not break it?

  • dan citizen

    “While a rifle with the stock installed was not available” zero credibility in my book,,. If they had a booth at SHOT SHOW 14 without a demonstrator weapon they do not have the business sense to compete in this market,

  • John Sjöström

    Heavy? At least you could shove the original para stock into someones chest or face (even use it as a hammer) without it getting damaged.

  • DiverEngrSL17K

    While I’m reasonably sure this polymer stock is lightweight, strong and functional, and I respect the manufacturer’s attempt at weight reduction, I have to agree with most of the other TFB contributors — I would still prefer the standard metal Para stock. It might be heavier, but then again serious FAL users already know the FAL a solid, rugged, heavy weapon by design and are used to working in the field with that additional weight, so it may be less of an issue than one might think. And Doopington’s point about weight distribution makes perfect sense — weight reduction in itself isn’t enough, it’s how that reduction is carried out relative to balance that matters.

  • santi

    I am in need of a new Fal stock but man, it’s just not attractive and I can not adjust the length of pull. I refuse to put an ar stock adapter on it. looks silly. I appreciate the effort in this design. I think someone will love it though.

  • big daddy

    I truly believe in trying to keep a weapon as light as possible without it affecting recoil. But even more important is balancing the weapon. An off-balanced weapon is worse than a heavy weapon IMO. Not that I am an expert, it’s a personal opinion based on some military service and my own guns. I love the FAL and really want one, hopefully eventually I will get one. If I do this would be the last thing I would put on it. Now if I had to hump the thing 20 miles or so into combat maybe I would use it. Maybe the FAL would be the last rifle I would want to carry that distance along with it’s ammo and magazines. Since I will not have to do that, ever, I would not want this anywhere near my FAL, if I had one.