Question?

[SoldierBoi69]

One of my friends has just joined the army, and went through basic last summer. His dad has collected 4 FN-FAL's from before the 80's. My friend said he would rather work with and use an FN-C1 or FN-FAL in battle then the C7 that he trained on. I was wondering why would someone think this, with the C7 being less then half the weight and being a more updated model then the FN's? Is there a problem with the C7, does the FN work better, or is it just personal preference?

                                                              Thanks ahead,
                                                                          Pte. M. Legare

 

[SoldierBoi69]

friend

 

[Grunt]

Having fired an FN-FAL a few years back, it is a good balanced weapon.  C7 is not less then half the weight of an FNC1, the C7 is around 9 pounds with the Elcan, and the FNC1 is around 10 pounds. 

Both are excellent rifles, but there is a reason why most nations have moved away from 7.62x51mm Battle Rifles.  The C7 in 5.56mm Nato has less recoil, less weight (rifle and ammo), more ergonomic controls, and numerous rail mounting systems for lights, lasers, optics and foregrips.

The FAL's ammunition is heavy, so you cant carry as many rounds, and you get somewhat slower follow up shots with the heavier recoil.

 

[NavyShooter]

I don't carry a rifle for a living.  I'm a sailor.  It's not my trade to do so.  That said, I do own a couple of FN's, and have a fair bit of experience with C-7 type rifles.

I had a couple of buddies over to get some furniture on Friday afternoon (new guy on the ship, new apartment, living in Milk Crates...I felt sorry for him!)

Anyhow, they got a quick tour of my gunroom, and got to see my FN's and compare them side-by-each with my AR's. 

They said they would not have wanted to carry the FN, and loved the AR (especially the shorty 10.5" one)

When it comes down to it, the FN was a good battle rifle, and in the original .280 round might have made an excellent (if slightly large) assault rifle. 

If you want to see what could have come to the FN, have a look at DSA Arms or Entreprise arms in the US and see what they have done to the old FN.  The rail mounts, the shortys, etc.  Kinda neat.

Anyhow, I'm happy with the C-7, and it's capabilities.  I think that an infantryman has a better chance of successfully engaging a target with a C-7 than with an FN.  I can't really back that up beyond my experience, but it's how I feel about it.

NS

 

[SoldierBoi69]

Ron (friend) says its because of the round the 7.62 round drops targets better and has more power.

 

[Rory]

7.62 is a heavier round so that is a given, question is would you rather have farther range to dispatch people still using 7.62 rifles? Or more power with a lack of range compared. I am no expert but I am just assuming the range of an ak is slightly similar to a weapon using the same calibre for the same purpose (assault rifle).

 

[Thompson_JM]

7.62 is a heavier round so that is a given, question is would you rather have farther range to dispatch people still using 7.62 rifles? Or more power with a lack of range compared. I am no expert but I am just assuming the range of an ak is slightly similar to a weapon using the same calibre for the same purpose (assault rifle).

Steady Rory, youre getting out of your Arcs with this one...

AK 47 and FN Fal use different rounds.
FN fires the 7.62x51mm
AK Fires the 7.62x39mm

Specs from Wikipedia:

AK-47
Country Soviet Union, Russia
Type Assault rifle
Inventor Mikhail Kalashnikov
Date of design 1947
Service duration 1951–present
Cartridge 7.62 × 39 mm
Action Gas-operated, rotating bolt
Rate of fire 600 round/min
Muzzle velocity 710 m/s (~2,330 ft/s)
Effective range 300 m
Weight (Unloaded) 4.3 kg
Length 870 mm
Barrel 415 mm
Feed System 30-round detachable box; compatible w/ RPK 40-round box and 75-round drum magazine
Sights Adjustable iron sights, optional mount required for optical sights
Variants AK-47, AKS, AKM 6P1, AKMS, AK-74, AK-101, AK-102, AK-103, AK-104, AK-105, AK-107, AK-108
Number built Over 100 million

FN FAL Specs (also from wikipedia)

Type Assault rifle
Caliber 7.62 mm (.308 in)
Barrel length 533 mm (21 in)
Ammunition 7.62 × 51 mm NATO
Feed System 20-round detachable box
Action Gas-operated, tilting breechblock
Length 1,090 mm (43 in)
Weight 4.45 kg (9.81 lb)
Rate of fire 650 round/min
Muzzle velocity 823 m/s (2,700 ft/s)
Effective range 600 m (656 yd)

and just for S&G's heres the M-16

Type Selective fire rifle
Caliber 5.56 mm (.223 in)
Barrel length 508 mm (20 in)
Ammunition 5.56 x 45 mm NATO, .223 Remington
Feed System 20 or 30-round detachable box (see Design)
Action Gas-operated, rotating bolt
Length 1,006 mm (39.5 in)
Weight See Design
Rate of fire 750 to 900 round/min, cyclic
Muzzle velocity 975 m/s (3,200 ft/s), 884 m/s (2,900 ft/s) (see Variants)
Effective range 550 m (600 yd)


what does all this mean?  AK and FN are nothing alike. other then they are both rifles.

the FN is a Good rifle, the C-7/M-16 is a good rifle, and the AK is a good rifle. but all for different reasons...
nowadays, IMHO the FN is just too damned big to be effective in A-Stan or Iraq... but thats simply my opinion...

cheers

 

[KevinB]

I started soldiering with the FN C1A1, since that day I've carried the C7,C8,C8SFW,C7CT, as well as M4 variants etc.

In Kevin's perfect world all Cbt Arms troops would be issued a C8SFW - with a Mk11 7.62mm Designated Marksman rifle at section level for the Inf - and Platoon level for the Engineers (sorry Arty and Armoured  ;D)

I would give CSS troops the C8CQB (10" bbl)

Reason this as follows: quite simply inside 200m the C77 5.56mm round does more damage to tissue (16" SFW barrel) than the M80 (I forgot the Cdn designation for 7.62mm ball) Ball - yet a 7.62mm round at section level give better intermediate barrier penetration and better wind bucking ability to 600m.


The FN is fine for some operations in fact "rumours" have a few being used down in the Kandahar AOR -but they are tricked out with rails, sights and other stuff -- the guys doing this are using them in mountainous terrain where longer range shots are the norm - for urban areas they stick to the C8 family.
However it is NOT an ideal Infantry weapon for current operations - the LOP is far to long while operating in body armour, it is in need of several other upgrades to bring it to the 21st Century as well.

Short Answer going into to cbt I would FAR prefer the C8/C7 series to the FN.

 

[Synthos]

be careful if you start to like a weapon "so much" more than the one you're using. One of my EX-course mates kept blathering on about the finnish RK95: how it was just as accurate, and you barely have to clean it, and it never jammed, and how the CF should be changing to the RK. All this without ever shooting the C7.

There is a good reason the uses the C7: it works and we already got em.

 

[William Webb Ellis]

As I recall, and it is a murky memory, the FN was very good at reaching out and touching someone from a long distance.  There was a feeling the "new" battlefield was going to shorten and the C7 was a better choice.  Also, isn't more damage from the C7 round (at shorter distances) due to it's tumbling?

As an aside, anyone else remeber firing the old SMG.................."look I'm a StormTrooper"

 

[Franko]

Yes....the SMG was great for Armour crews, but it was less than accurate.

The running joke of the day back then was " If you were being over run by the Reds...throw out yer SMG after cocking it, it'll take care of anyone close"

Mind you if the SMG came back...I would love to have one. Smaller than the C8...pours rounds down range in a hurry...very rugged as well.

Perhapse it may be used for CQB? I don't know much about that stuff...just a sneeker and peeker by trade 

Regards

 

[William Webb Ellis]

Yeah, same thing for room clearing, just chuck it in...

 

[KevinB]

Frankly I am much more accurate with a C8SFW than I was with the FN C1A1 - but I had an optic on the C8.

The bullet does NOT tumble - it yaws in tissue and due to the forces excerted on the jacket body it can fragement depending upon impact velocity and structures hit.

SMG - glad its gone - fun to carry but not really a practical system - the C8 had a higher ROF (not that you need it) and 5.56mm over 9mm ANY day.

The toss in a room was a carry over from the old Sten - the C1/Sterling L2A3 would not do that (providing in working order)

 

[Garry]

I too  grew up with the C1/SMG, and trusted them both.

When the C7 came in, we were pretty leery. Lots of jamming stories from SE Asia, made by Mattel, etc By the time the reports came back in from the Recce competition overseas that they had shattered several stocks, we were all set to hate the dang thing.

Then we went to the range. We didn't have an awful lot of really great shots with the C1. I think a lot of it was due to recoil and muzzle blast. When the C7 came in, the marksmanship scores soared...and I "think" it was the lack of recoil.

There were a few reliability issues when the C8 arrived (poorly designed firing pin springs iirc) but that was rapidly solved. To this date, I have fired an awful lot of 5.56 out of both Military c7/c8, and my own AR's, and NEVER had a stoppage that wasn't ammo related...much the same as my experience with the C1 (and the C6 and L7A3 for that matter).

About the only area that I'm not sure on is the physical duarability- I could have butt stroked an elephant with the C1 and it would have survived...not sure about the C7 family...anyone know??

C1 and C7 both plain don't miss out to 300 yards...and I've never shot either farther...never had the need.

Terminal ballistics- being shot by either will, I believe, make a bad guy find something else to do.

I Loved the C1, still do...but am glad we made the change to the C7/C8.

 

[William Webb Ellis]

I agree, I was p*ss poor with the C1, but found I could actually be a respectible shot with a C7.  I remember even older fella's telling me about FN's being run over by a MLVW and not breaking, probably an urban myth..

 

[Franko]

I was a fair shot with the C1...shot up to 600m on a regular basis, mind you my shoulder used to kill me after a full weekend of shooting   

Pretty accurate...and guaranteed to stop anyone at that range.

When we got a hold of the C7 we had the same reservations....then as time went on we got comfortable with it, the regular shooters were improved greatly.

As for the rest of us that were shooting good with the C1...well, we did extremely well...and didn't have to ice our shoulders afterwards    ;D

Regards

 

[Rory]

Thank you Cpl Thompson. I had a feeling I was taking a leap to big into the dark with that one.

 

[Craig B]

Kevin , Canadian 7.62 NATO was Ball, C21 , though I have an old bandolier marked Ball, C21A1 .

I shot ok with the C1 but I shoot much better with the C7.

The old SMG was a handy little weapon but I'm a lefty so I was never real good with one. Someone mentioned how tough it was, I'll have to disagree, I have personally seen 2 with dented receivers that would not allow you to cock the weapon, the C1 was a much tougher weapon from what I saw back in the day.

Craig

 

[Franko]

Someone mentioned how tough it was, I'll have to disagree, I have personally seen 2 with dented receivers that would not allow you to **** the weapon, the C1 was a much tougher weapon from what I saw back in the day.

That was me   

They were tough...unless it was about to fall apart or it was abused.

Never inferred that it was indestructible.

Regards

 

[Craig B]

Never inferred that it was indestructible.

Roger that 

Craig