That barrel is way too short. I imagine they shoot cartridges with reduced powder charges because shooting a full powered 7.62x51 in that would have a defening blast and recoil. I think a rifle shouldin't have a barrel shorter then 15 or 16 inches. As for the controlobility of such weapons in full auto comes down to the rate of fire. Most battle rifles and assault rifles have very high ROFs which makes them hard to control in full auto, it also chews up ammo faster and heats up the weapon faster by having a high ROF.

Not for it's intended purpose. I know of units that standard issue the 12.5" barreled G3KA4 because of where they will be fighting. The rounds they fire are full power 7.62X51mm NATO. Frankly the rate of fire doesn't matter as much as some people think. Those aformentioned M14E2s fire at about 700~800 rounds a minute and they are used in Full Auto competitions.

As far as the FAL in the origional post it's one ment for jungle and urban fighting so it needs a shorter barrel.

People talk alot about controllability of various assault rifles, but the reality is the only time a shoulder-fired rifle caliber weapon should be fired automatically is trench clearing and in FIBUA.

The level 3 marksmanship test we do is called the run-up. Start at 300M, shoot from the prone, sprint to 200M, fire prone and kneeling, sprint to 100M, prone and kneeling, sprint to 75M, standing, sprint to 50M, standing, sprint to 25M, only then do you fire full auto. Shooting a rifle-caliber weapon full auto much further than that is not necessary.

I do think the 5.56mm is a better military round, but the reason is not full-auto fire. You can carry more ammo for less weight, the weapon itself is lighter, and most importantly it's alot easier to use in semi-auto. Remember, most soldiers in this day and age go to basic training never having shot a rifle before. And even infanteers don't get to go to the range and practice nearly as much as they should, because there are so many other skills required of a modern soldier that need to be learned and refreshed. We don't have the time or the budget, and neither does almost any other army.

That´s right Nyles. Remember the South Atlantic Conflict, both sides used the Fal in semiauto. The argentinian versions were selective, but they just used them in full auto during close combat, like Darwin.

double post.

I guess its okay as long as they aren't completely replacing the long barreled FAL. What happens in a competition dosen't pertain to a battlefield. There is a reason why you don't see M14E2's anymore because they were ineffective weapons as machine guns.

It's not entirely better otherwise we wouldin't be supplementing 5.56x45 weapons with 7.62x51 weapons. You could argue that with a 5.56x45 you carry more bullets, but with less effect compared to a .308. In Afghanstan, soldiers have to use more bullets to kill the enemy because of the 5.56x45's poor lethality.

Uh, yeah, I'm posting this from Kandahar and I haven't seen anything to suggest the 5.56mm is lacking in lethality, and we use the same ammo the US does. You'd be surprised what one of those little bullets will do at those velocities.

The 7.62mm is great in machine guns and DM rifles, but I don't feel it's suited to use in an infantryman's rifle, and our new .338 sniper rifles (C-14 Timberwolf) shoot circles around the old 7.62mm C3A1s. Our guys have been taking shots at some pretty impressive ranges with them.

We have the most combat experince with the 5.56x45, more then any other country.
http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc...c=GetTRDoc.pdf
http://www.thebutter-cutter.com/Last...Of_VNhtml.html

We've been using the 5.56mm for 25 years now, these days the only guys who remember the FN either used it in training or are reservists who didn't get C7s until the 90s. The US doesn't exactly have a monopoly on it.

Even in uniform, you'll always get somebody pushing for their favorite pet piece of kit, whether or not it's actually necessary. That's why were told to bring tanks to Afghanistan. They sat in a FOB for 3 years as quick reaction force, only being brought out to demolish the occastional compound before somebody finally figured out something useful for them to do a few months back.

The 5.56mm issue always gets play with civilian gun enthusiats, because yes, the 7.62mm does have more range and knockdown power, so to civilians (and that includes myself before I actually joined the military) who don't realise all the other factors at play, it seems like the better choice.

Most civilians have never done a 15 kilometer forced march carrying 60lbs without their weapon. Most civilians don't realise that quite frankly, most soldiers don't actually know all that much about guns. Most serious civilian shooters, no BS, have fired more rounds than most infantry Privates (not counting machine guns, which are a completely different proposition).

Is the 7.62mm a better deer round? You bet. In the right hands can it do things that a 5.56mm simply can't? For sure. Is it a better overall combat round than the 5.56mm? No, it's not. Quite simply it's easier carry more of, makes for a lighter and easier to handle weapon, and most important, it's easier to learn shoot accurately with.

You'll always get a few soldiers complaining vocally that we should be using the 7.62mm / 6.8mm / flavour of the month. Most of them just wish the army had more carbines and could make the damned machine guns lighter.

I can defenetly understand the weight thing. Weight was the biggest reason why the M14 got replaced. I suppose the recoil advantage of the 5.56x45 might be negated if those recoil reducing designs like Para Ordanence rifle become more popular.