"New" Fn Fal being tested by the Argentine Army

[Ermac]

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.

[Rockwolf66]

Originally Posted by Ermac

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.

[Nyles]

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.

[Markost]

Originally Posted by Nyles

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.

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.

[Gunmaster45]

Originally Posted by Nyles

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.

Fighting in Built Up Areas is a great acronym and all, but FISH and CHIPS totally take the winning vote for me. (Fighting In Someone's House and Causing Havoc In People's Streets)

[Manny]

The thing people need to remember about south american countries is that if there is a war, it will most likely be with a neighbor. And that's why they want higher stopping power, since unlike the afghans and other impoverished nations the u.s constantly get's into wars with, south american's will face blood thirsty south americans in CQB combat almost instantly. They are very good fighters which is the main reason noone save other south american nations have been dumb enough to go to war with them. The Argentineans admittedly are the 'pansiest' south american country, (courtesy of their strong european heritage) but maybe being a failed state for ten years has toughened them up.

If you wound a south american they will become suicidal not suddenly retreat from combat. So you need to make sure you kill them outright. The stakes are higher in battle against equals.

[Manny]

More likely they are just too poor.

[Markost]

Well Manny, we keep the 7,62x51 because :

1- There´s no money for buying new rifles or new ammo (or tanks, planes;

2- The guys in the army (not the navy or the air force) hates the 5,56x45.

And about the war hypotesis, our country only has problems with the U.K. and Chile, the only one that dreams with fighting the U.S. is Chavez.

[Ermac]

double post.

[Ermac]

Originally Posted by Rockwolf66

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.

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.

Originally Posted by Nyles

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.

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.