|Join our Discord!|
|If you have been locked out of your account you can request a password reset here.|
Is this gun any good?
I am considering buying a Galil after I get an FAL and would like to know the pro's and con's before buying-S&Wshooter 03:09, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
- You got some deep pockets don't you. --AdAstra2009 19:54, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
Buy a galil? From what ive heard there is usually cheap crappy parts kits and never actucal Galils.
I used an R-4 for awhile; seemed odd having a weapon in 5.56mm built like, but weighing more than an AKM firing the smaller rounds. That explained why all the photos I've seen of Isrealis using M-16 variantsFoofbun 06:03, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
- I read it was a combination of the weight issue and the fact that we gave them a sweetheart deal on M16s. --funkychinaman 16:12, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
Magazine well groove
Does anyone know what variants of the Galil have the indent/groove above the magazine like the milled AK-47s? I assumed it was on ARMs and had something to do with the receiver being strengthened, but just noticed that the polymer handguard ARM doesn't have it. Do newer versions not have the groove? Are the ungrooved versions based on sporter rifles like converted WASRs? Why do all South African guns have the groove while the Israeli ones seem not to any more? --commando552 19:30, 31 January 2012 (CST)
Galil in AKU-94 kit?
Would it be possible to convert a Galil ARM or AR into an AKU-94? I can't see any reason why, but since I'm asking, I know there probably is. Jeddostotle7 (talk) 00:41, 1 November 2012 (EDT)
- It may be possible but would be very difficult. The main problem I see is that the front trunion of the Galil is a different shape to on a regular AK due to the fact that the front of the receiver is narrower. The main way that the trigger group part of the AKU-94 kit attaches to the donor rifle is with a tab at the bottom which goes into the bottom slot of the front trunion, and in the case of a Galil this tab would be hanging in the air. Also as the rear sight would have to be removed else they would jam into your cheek, and as there is no front trunion mounted sight base on the Galil there would be nowhere to put the AKU-94 rear sight. Also as the Galil front sight is mounted on the gas tube this would get in the way of the handguard part which normally shrouds the AK gas tube, and even if it fitted in there you would have no place to mount the extended AKU-94 sight post. It is probably possible to do, but you would probably have to first convert the Galil to more of an AK (like they do to R4s in South African filmed productions) first and jury rig a few parts. --commando552 (talk) 05:54, 1 November 2012 (EDT)
- Hm. Thanks for the info. Jeddostotle7 (talk) 10:23, 1 November 2012 (EDT)
I'm not sure the Ace should be considered to be part of the Galil family. The main website for IWI seems to classify it as its own family of assult rifle, merely based upon its older cousin in design. Anybody agree or wanna add a comment?
Generally, manufacturer classifications aren't something we go by. If we did, the SIG-Sauer P228 would be classified in the same vague "PDW" category that the MP7, P90, and even some short-barreled ARs are often attributed to by their manufacturers. And I see no reason to break the ACE since it is still directly derived from the Galil and it's not as if the page is unwieldy or anything. Spartan198 (talk) 23:10, 20 November 2019 (EST)
Well, they call it a Galil, spelled the same and technically the original productions use the original magazines for the, then 2, calibers. The ACE is still an AK patterned derivative Excalibur01 (talk) 00:48, 21 November 2019 (EST)
I recently moved a couple images here to the talk page, as well as reverted an edit that removed the notation stating A 7.62mm Galil of any variant should be placed under the "Galil 7.62 ARM" section. The edit removed that note and placed 7.62 variant images in other sections. That said, I have to ask, should the 7.62 variants be in the various sections (with the 5.56 versions) and the 7.62 section itself be removed, or should all 7.62 variants be kept in their own section(s)? I ask since the page seems to be a bit contradictory here - It says IDs are to be done by barrel length and caliber, but there's a separate listings for 5.56 and 7.62mm ARM variants; the other images were just placed together in the 5.56 sections so it seemed a bit confusing in terms of listing/categorizing, which is why I changed it. As for how to go about it further, well, that's why I'm making this inquiry. StanTheMan (talk) 23:27, 30 June 2014 (EDT)
- Personally, due to the fact that there are not many 7.62 Galils that have appeared I do not think there is any harm in lumping them all into one section. However, I would not call it the "Galil 7.62 ARM" as this precludes the inclusing of ARs or SARs, and would instead just call it "Galil 7.62". On to the topic of those pictures, they have really confused me as the barrel lengths look really odd being longer than normal 7.62 variants. They are also missing bayonet lugs, have the lightening cut which is generally not seen on 7.62mm Galils, and are fitted with the early M14 type mag. I am guessing that these might be prototypes or maybe very early versions, but i don't know much about Galils and can't find any other images of variants that have the same barrel lengths as these ones. --commando552 (talk) 07:35, 1 July 2014 (EDT)
- Wish I could help you on the images. Otherwise, consolidating them into one section is fine by me, thanks for the response - I'll modify the section and the notation at the top of the page (I'll also make sure to see if any redirects need modifying as well), but I'll keep those other images here for now until that is addressed. StanTheMan (talk) 13:29, 1 July 2014 (EDT)
- Evening.I originally wrote the summary at the top of the page. This was back years ago when IMFDB was still fairly new, and the page was fairly basic with only a few links. The "Galil 7.62 ARM" section was already there prior to my first altering the page. At the time, there was only one link under that section, so I chose to let it be. A couple days ago I checked it again and decided that because half of the links listed under the "Galil 7.62 ARM" section were actually of Galil ARs that I would get started putting the 7.62 models in the proper AR/ARM/SAR sections and noting them as being 7.62, hence the addition of the photos. The photos themselves are of early variations from the early-80's, and were the best I had in my huge Galil folder that showed the weapons.To answer your questions: Lightening cuts appear on SOME select-fire Galil variants; the one's you are referring to without them are the pre-ban US imports that exclusively did not have the lightening cuts, so this is acceptable. Second, the barrel-lengths vary greatly throughout Galil production. The AR pictured had an uncommon 21-inch barrel as opposed to the common 20-inch or 18-inch, but again, I used it because it is easy to distinguish from the SAR and it is a good picture. The SAR is however a normal barrel-length of 16-inches, but appears longer because the gas-tube is shortened.That said, my proposal is to go with the original idea I had of removing the "Galil 7.62 ARM" section and putting the links in the proper model sub-classes. My revision was incomplete when StanTheMan changed it back, hence why that section was still there. I was planning on finishing it this week and didn't think anyone would notice. Mr.Folgers (talk) 01:47, 4 July 2014 (EDT)
- Either way's fine with me but personally I'm with commando at this point on keeping the 7.62 variants grouped in their own section. Frankly it seems the better option at least for now - It's simpler, and as said, there aren't that many 7.62 variants that have appeared anyway. Lumping them together with the 5.56 variants might make things confusing, not to mention all those sections and listings would have to be moved/modified, as well as the listings on the corresponding media pages (including links/redirects as well). I already renamed the section 'Galil 7.62' in order to correspond to just caliber and not to a particular variant, and have already changed the existing redirect for that section and the presently linked pages (or well, most of them anyway). I'm not saying your idea is bad but it will mean more work, and, in this case, may not be absolutely necessary. Just my thoughts however, it's up to commando and/or the other admins. Good of you to give us the extra info on the images, though. StanTheMan (talk) 14:25, 4 July 2014 (EDT)
- I understand. One thing I would like to do though is add the 7.62 AR and SAR pics I uploaded to the "Galil 7.62" section. Might as well use them for better info, and to show the early M14 magazines that were used. If this is agreeable, I will post the pictures underneath the 7.62 ARM photo. Mr.Folgers (talk) 16:28, 4 July 2014 (EDT)
- Back to the barrel lengths and lightening cuts of the SAR and AR variants, the only pictures I can find of the AR and SAR in 7.62 being used by actual soldiers (here and here) both have lightening cuts on the receiver. The SAR barrel is probably the same length (not sure due to the slightly different gas block designs and the presence of the bayonet lug which makes this one look shorter, this is what threw me of when looking at the pic you posted), but the AR barrel is definitely different. It seems that the pics you posted are not typical of a standard AR and SAR as if for nothing else they are missing the bayonet lug, and the matter of lightening cuts and the barrel lengths is also questionable. This is largely irrelevant though as our policy is to generally only upload images of gun variants that have actually appeared in media, and in particular they have no need to be included on the main gun page. There are some exceptions to this rule, but in general we do not include variants that haven't appeared. You may think that there is no harm to this on one page, but if we did this for every gun half of the database would be taken up by pictures of obscure variant that don't have a hope in hell of actually appearing in any media. --commando552 (talk) 18:54, 4 July 2014 (EDT)
- Look at the photos you linked again; there are no lightening cuts on either receiver. The SAR barrel length is correct and I have many photographs of them in service in Colombia and Honduras, as well as with the militant-group FARC (with no lightening cuts). The AR barrel length is 1" longer than the photograph you linked of the AR; it WAS a production variant, but to find one in current service would be rare (I also have multiple photographs of it) because it is so old. Despite this, it is still a legitimate variant as much as the Type-1 AK47 is, even though it appears in few films. Again, I used this photo because it is from an original catalog and was the best I had. The Galil itself is a rare sight in ANY film, and by your logic if we posted a link to a film with a 7.62 AR with 18" barrel when we only have a basic section-photo of a 20" 7.62 AR, then we would have to provide a section photo for each barrel-length to comply with the policy of not being 'obscure' or providing a lack of information. However, I will try to find a better photo with a common barrel length to meet these concerns. Mr.Folgers (talk) 03:01, 5 July 2014 (EDT)
- As I said before, we only allow images of variants that have appeared in media (see here in the rules), and as you yourself have said these particular variants are very unlikely to ever appear in anything because they are so old and rare. We have pictured of the type-1 AK BECAUSE it has appeared in stuff, in fact much more than you would expect because game designers and animators sometimes use a type 1 stock image rather than a more likely version. As for the lightening cuts, we may be talking about a different thing as these look completely different on the two variants. I can't really tell on you image as the folding stock is in the way, but I assumed the lightening cuts were the same as on the 5.56mm version, or are they not and just have the front portion of the cut? There is possibly a vague dent ahead of the magazine well on the ones I linked to, but this looks very different from the clean and distinct cut that is on yours (most notably the total absence of a horizontal ridge under the charging handle). --commando552 (talk) 04:59, 5 July 2014 (EDT)
- The lightening cuts are in the same position as milled AK rifles. Neither of the photos you posted have them, so I have no idea what you are talking about there. The images I posted both have lightening cuts. Pre-Ban Galils regardless of caliber do NOT have lightening cuts and are left flat. Select-fire 5.56 Galils all have lightening cuts. Select-fire 7.62 Galils do not have lightening cuts save for some early versions. In regards to the rules/policies of the website, I'm not looking to argue with them. With the section being renamed from "7.62 ARM" to just "7.62", I think it would be appropriate to post pictures of the AR and SAR variant. That's all I am saying. Mr.Folgers (talk) 10:55, 5 July 2014 (EDT)
GALIL ACE actually Colombian?
To quote Wikipedia and INDUMIL: "The ACE is result of the Israeli techonology applied by INDUMIL during the Colombian conflict. From 2006, INDUMIL acquired license to be the sole Galil AR producer and provider in the world, even selling it to Israel. In 2010, INDUMIL presented to the world the Galil ACE family, produced in Colombia, with Colombian techonlogy under Israeli supervision, being it an improvement under license.
Initially INDUMIL, with IWI supervision and technology sharing, modified 43 out of 96 parts of the Galil AR in order to get what we know as Galil ACE. Of those 43 modified parts, 12 steel parts were replaced by plastic ones, taking out 1.0 Kg, and redesigned other 31 parts to improve precision."
Should we include this (of better a part of it) in the Galil Ace description? And should we consider this gun Israeli or Colombian?--Dannyguns (talk) 05:00, 7 November 2018 (EST)