In post-patch the FAL has A LOT more recoil than the SMR, which you can wall test in both horizontal and vertical dxn's. The SMR is only ~50 RPM slower shooting than the FAL but has greater range. To those that have thousands of kills with both weapons, or are just dedicated users of the FAL and the SMR with the select fire attachment, why would you ever consider using the FAL over the SMR in post-patch era?
Pre-patch the FAL had 1000 benefits over the SMR. Faster reload, large mag size, more reserve ammo, faster reload, faster ADS in, Faster drop time, faster partial add time, tighter hipfire reticle, etc.
I heard the hipfire was nerfed but the FAL still has all of those other benefits over the SMR. Sights are a little cleaner too.
That 50 RPM difference is actaully pretty noticeable. WIth the FAL, you pretty much outgun everything in medium range. In long range, if you tap/burst to abuse the FAL's good recenter speed, you'll be outgunning all but the snipers. The recoil is definitely noticeably more for the FAL but it's nothing you can't manage. If you have thousands of kills with the FAL, then you should be able to get used to it in a day or so. SMR's TTK isn't as good as the FAL's and the difference is quite noticeable in practice. FAL hits that sweet spot where its slow ROF in select fire is barely covered by its 2-shot and 3-shot kill capability, while the SMR's is a tad bit lacking in that department when going against SMGs and what not in close range-medium range.
Is it just me or is the SMR's TTK in close to medium range slower than that of the FAL's? I have 4k+kills on both and that's what I feel like when using those guns.
I feel the same way. I always try it again and again thinking it's very similar to how the FAL was and is. And man...this thing doesn't kill as nearly as fast as the FAL. And I'm not sure if that 50ish rpm difference is that big.