"New" Fn Fal being tested by the Argentine Army
 

Since the 80´s, Argentina is looking for a replacement for the old but reliable Fn Fal, in 50.00 and Para versions. Despite the fact that the old 50.41 is being replaced by the Fn Minimi, there´s no intention to replace the 7,62x51 with the 5,56x45. So, the replacement for this weapon will be another Fal, based on the DSA rifles.

These are the basic modifications:
* A shorter barrel and handguards;
* The carry handle has been removed;
* New Scope mount with picatinny rail;

Here´s a pic of one of the prototypes being tested two or one month ago:

http://i44.tinypic.com/2mrw16q.jpg

In higher resolution: http://img514.imageshack.us/img514/7048/sdc10666.jpg

PD: I want to see this baby shooting in full auto :D

Uh, wow. That's cool (I like FALs), but that is, in my opinion, WAY too short to be an infantry rifle. Be handy for guys like me but I wouldn't want to be carrying it as No.4 rifleman.

Yes, it´s very short. They´re testing wich is the best size for the barrel, but I don´t have much info, maybe a bit longer would be better. The goal is making it the lighter as possible, because it´s too heavy and long to use in the jungle. I think the first who will test the rifle will be the Cazadores de Monte unit ("jungle hunters"):

http://www.brmte12.ejercito.mil.ar/F.../CazMte-48.jpg
(here using the 50.00 during an exercise)

Also, there´s another prototype, in this case, for a designated marksman rifle:

http://www.segurancaedefesa.com/FAL_Sniper.jpg

I'm surprised they don't just re-tool their factories to make 5.56x45mm FALs that accept the STANAG (which is basically what the Brazilians did).

FM (the factory that produced them) made a Fal prototype in 5,56 in the 80´s, but it wasn´t produced. Anyway, there´s a few M4 , M16, Fara 83 and Steyr Aug in service, but they think this cardtrige is "too weak".

And about the brazilian Fal´s, check their new project (MD97 A2 in 5,56):

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v6...Untitled-1.jpg

Hmmmm, I'm a little surprised then. But I mean, they do appreciate that the logic behind 5.56x45 is mostly wounding, not killing, right?

Yeah, I saw that one. Dunno if Brazil's ever gonna have the money to standardize it, though. Even with the enormous modernization program which they began last year (for all branches of their armed forces), I think small arms are still going to be a low priority. They're basically trying to do the whole thing on a shoestring budget (by our standards).

My recollection is that a lot of the defense budget is going towards the new fighter program, as well as the new submarines. Both of which are extremely important if Brazil ever wants to be able to compete with Venezuela for regional military hegemony.

Brazil is like China: a big country with a big industry. Their fighter program ("FX-2") is, basically, choosing between the Rafale( Lula´s favourite), Grippen and F-18 and produce them under licence. That´s the difference between Brazil and Venezuela. Brazil produces tanks, armored vehicles, helicopters, planes and light weapons, meanwhile Venezuela buy their weapons to the russians.

Mmm no, our forces´ doctrine is "one shot, one kill".

Like my section commander in basic said - if you kill a guy, you just pissed off his buddies on either side of him. If you wound him, they have to give him first aid, carry him back, and then he's a burden on his unit and economy for anything from a few days to life.

I have to say, if you're really wedded to the 7.62mm (after 6 months in Afghanistan I will not question the effectiveness of the 5.56mm round), frankly just slapping some rails and maybe ambi controls on the old FN Para FAL would do it for me.

It just looks like one of DS Arms SA58 carbines :confused:

Looks kinda like ACRs.

Yep, it´s based on the DSA models.

Venezuela does have the ability to make small arms, though (including the AK factory the Russians are helping them build). That means they can flood Brazil, or Colombia (or any other country that hates Chavez) with lots of automatic weapons and ammo, which will go straight to narco-insurgents like FARC or the drug gangs. We know they're already doing this to some degree. That could be pretty painful for those targeted countries if it ties up their security forces with internal concerns.

Makes sense for designated marksmen, but anyone else, hmmm...

Exactly. Though that does make the assumption that the guy's buddies (and his COs) don't associate a concept like "first aid" with the bourgeois. Or the evil infidels.

But all things being considered, I think 5.56x45 does the job just fine.

Actually, the Taliban are huge on getting thier wounded evacuated and to medical attention. I can't really go into detail, but they do not abandon their wounded.

Venezuela make the "new" Aks and, maybe, some other russian weapons, and yes, they can flood other countries (remember the AT4´s incident some months ago), that´s why there´s a new arms race: Brasil (FX-2 program and submarines, buying refurbished Leopards 1, producing the COIN Super Tucano), Ecuador, Peru, Colombia and Chile (buying Leopards 2 and planes). Chavez, drugs and the natural resources are the main problems in this region.

Honestly, the army (not the navy) hates the 5,56. Why? Because they have been using the same cartridge type for a century without problems, first the 7,65x54 and then the 7,62x51, this last one since the 50´s with the introduction of the Fal. This refurbished rifle is a temporary patch, FN Herstal has offered the FN2000 some years ago, but they want to keep the fire power. Personally, I´d choose the Fn Scar in both calibers, or the Bushmaster ACR.

Me too, but tell that to our Minister of Defence, who don´t want to make the 5,56 ammo here. That old lady is really annoying...

Hmmm, interesting, though it makes sense when I think about it. The Taliban have never quite as big into martyrdom as the rest of the Islamic world (they were latecomers to the suicide bombing trend, considering how long they've been around).

Yeah, the AT4 incident is what I had in mind. Though even before that, everyone knew that Chavez was providing aid to FARC. As his regime becomes less stable, though, there's a good chance he'll be willing to do a lot more of that stuff. Actually, I think that supporting proxy forces would be far more effective than any attempt to fight a conventional war with his neighbors.

Well, there is a path dependency argument to keep in mind. There are a lot of countries that never want to change weapons/calibers just because there's too little benefit to justify the costs. I had this same discussion once with a Hungarian about why his country's forces never gave up their 7.62x39mm AKMs (which they call AK-63s) in favor of a 5.45x39mm or 5.56x45mm rifle. Even after they joined NATO.

I can only imagine. :D

Seen in another forum:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iS_BScbL2nQ

The recoil looks suprisingly controlable on full auto

While some self proclaimed "experts" will tell you that a 7.62X51mm NATO weapon is "uncontrolable" on full auto. Years of having friends with both training and experiance in shooting such weapons tells me something else. The fact of the matter is that with 7.62mm firearms they take a higher level of training that a 5.56mm weapon. Observation of people using such weapons tells me that when shooting at 100m(in which distance 80% of combat takes place) a 7.62mm weapon is just as accurate as a 5.56mm weapon when fired in controled bursts. The real problem is that proper firearms training takes time and a very large budget. Take the SAS pistol techniques for example, they take two weeks of constant training and 2,500 live rounds of ammo. To train a member of the now disbanded 14th Intelligence company they used up 25,000 rounds per person to qualify them on the G3KA4,the HK53, the MP5K, the browning High Power and the Walther PPK. Trust me when I say that that is expensive no matter how you look at it.

Those DSA employees demonstraighting the weapons are the sorts of guys who make their living shooting such weapons and as such know the weapons like the backs of their hands and they probably shoot more ammo in a week than most people shoot all month.

Rockwolf, for shooting a Fal in full auto you must check the gas regulator and adjust it. Anyway, it´s just for CQ combat.

For my friends the Battlerifles of choice are usually the G3A3 or the M14E2. Neither of them have gas regulators. My personal observation is that it's not the weapon but the user that's important.

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.

As Nyles said, the 308 is a good cartridge, but it´s heavy and you can´t carry much ammo. Anyway, our army won´t change this cardtrige because there´s no money for buying new rifles or ammo machines for make the 5,56.

But seriously, before changing caliber I´d change the WWII M1 helmets and other old stuff that is still in use.

Ppl still use those somewhere in the world?

Hell, the US used them into the 80s, we had them into the 90s. Is it really that surprising it'd still be in use elsewhere?

The M1 is still the predominant. But recently, some units are using the Rabintex RBX:

http://www.saorbats.com.ar/gallery2/...2/DSC_5313.jpg

(601 Air Assault Regiment during exercises, september 2009)

I think modern technology could negate most of the issues with the 7.62x51 cartridge. Mind you that almost all the loadings of the 7.62x51 haven't changed since the 1950's. It was never looked into to improve the cartridge. The 7.62x51 is a much more versatile cartridge then the 5.56x45 is. The
5.56x45 will fail in every area when it tries to be like a 7.62x51. I'm not saying the 7.62x51 is the ideal combat cartridge, but changes can be made to it to make it more applicable to modern combat.

The only areas the 7.62mm beats the 5.56mm is range (but not by much - that little bullet goes pretty far at those velocities, that's why it tends to be the round of choice for varmint hunters), punching through brush and penetration of hard surfaces. I will caveat that by saying the 5.56mm is far more effective at chewing through sandbags, and that not even a .50 cal can penetrate the walls in Kandahar. We literally have to use the APFSDS rounds from the 25mm.

Are there potentially better combat rounds than the 5.56mm? Definately. I'd be very curious to get some real-world experience with the 6.8mm SPC for example. Is it the 7.62mm NATO? No. It's a good machine gun cartridge, I don't see anything better on the horizon. As a combat round in an automatic rifle? It was a compromise in 1954, when even then there were better rounds in development. I'd like to see a man in every section with a 7.62mm DMR, but it is long obsolete in a select-fire infantryman's rifle.

Ohhhhh be careful. The .308/45acp Mafia will hunt you down for such blasphemy.

Well, as long as we're on that note, I'd just like to state publically that my first choice for a military handgun round is 7.62 x 25mm Tokarev.

The little 5.56x45 will get blown around by the wind more then the 7.62x51 will, which is one reason why it's not used by snipers. Against barriers, the 7.62x51 will tear through trees and concrete better. Not to mention the 5.56x45 will be deflected more easily. To be fair, the 5.56x45 was given more chance to mature then the 7.62x51.


That I will agree with you on.

That's a neat little load. Makes me thing of Bolshevik agents sneaking around Instanbul in the 1930's. Don't know why that particular city is in my imagination. :confused: