FN-FAL

>>35145785
>Best assault rifle in the world
The FAL isn't an assault rifle

>>35145785
I'd say the 20 round magazine is its weak point. But 7.62mm magazines are heavy, carrying around extended mags adds a lot of weight.

>>35145785
It's heavy compared to other rifles, however you can get shorter versions that have polymer panelling instead of wood, but thats not as fun.

>>35145800
Ah, thats right, we no longer classify them as assault rifles. They are called "Battle Rifles" now, correct?

It's not accurate enough for marksman's work.

>>35145785
I've never heard anyone complain about its reliability, accuracy, or recoil. I still have my doubts about full auto, but if you are using a battle rifle chances are you aren't going to be going full retard anyway.

>>35145807
When was the FN FAL ever classified as an assault rifle?

>>35145812
Of course not, its for field engagements. Its meant to fire semi-auto. What I mean by marksmanship is that a experienced user will perform better with it than a traditional assault rifle such as the M-16 or AK-47.

>>35145852
They'd perform the same. :l

>>35145785
in terms of accuracy, it falls RIGHT in the sweet spot... for what it does. If you DIDN't get an ancient parts gun, it'll still print okay groups, particularly if you have an optic for it. Not accurate enough for the work of a sniper, but plenty accurate for the average infantryman. The sights are standard aperture sights, and the trigger is heavy, as far as reliability, it will work... except in mud. But then again. how are you going to drop your rifle so,hard that the receiver becomes submerged in mud.

>>35145834
Battle Rifle is a relatively new classification, its only been around for a decade or two.

>>35145852

By what metric? Explain to me why the FAL is inherently better for marksmanship than an M16.

>>35145855
Perhaps. But the FAL lets operatives engage at a greater distance. Out to 150-200 meters, most shots from an M-16 or AK-47 are going to be chaff or flak, they aren't going to hit shit.

>>35145785
It's faults are that the tilting bolt action does not have as tight/consistent lock up as rotating bolts. Having the front and rear sights on two, separately moving parts is also a pretty big design flaw. It's also fairly difficult to free float the barrel.

Overall, it's an outdated gun but it'll still kill people just the same as any other. I love mine though and it's a joy to shoot.

File: 1495067123132.jpg (49KB, 480x480px) Image search: [Google]

49KB, 480x480px

>>35145785
>assault rifle

>>35145871
Obviously, a FAL can't replace a carbine, it works best when paired with one. I think it would give infantry an edge over sloppy mid-range firefights where the bullets tend to go everywhere.

>>35145933
Is there a better, more modern rifle that does what the FAL does?

>>35145953
correct me if I'm wrong, but its also louder, isn't it?

>>35145966
What are you under the impression that the FAL can do that other rifles can't?

>>35145981
>fire semi auto
>engage at longer distances with more accuracy
>provide suppressive fire
>larger 7.62 mm NATO round

>>35145981
Are there other battle rifles that are comparable?

>>35146019
SCAR or AR10 (and related variants). What you listed isn't exactly an exclusive set of features.

>>35146032
I mean, the G3 dude.

>>35146019
>>fire semi auto
What standard issue rifle cant?
>>engage at longer distances with more accuracy
Which is rarely needed and is not inherently more accurate
>>provide suppressive fire
What standard issue rifle cant?
>>larger 7.62 mm NATO round
This has as many disadvantages as it does advantages

>>35146032
Absolutely. Hell, the G3 and M14 are perfectly comparable. There's been stuff that have surpassed the FAL for quite a while now.

>>35146019

so literally every other box fed 7.62 rifle?

>>35145785
>FAL
>assault rifle
underage b& detected

File: wait...what.jpg (75KB, 627x480px) Image search: [Google]

75KB, 627x480px

>>35145920
>Out to 150-200 meters, most shots from an M-16 or AK-47 are going to be chaff or flak, they aren't going to hit shit.

>>35145801
a 30 round mag of 7.62 BigDumbCartridge also makes it difficult to go prone effectively.

>>35146034
Hmm.. the SCAR does seem to be a fairly well designed kit. Any reason why they decided to remove the long barrel variant?

Sounds like there is some sort of problem with using the heavier caliber. (must be those SEALs flabby little arms, can't handle the recoil..)

>>35146038
H&K is dead to me.
The G-11 broke my heart.

Do not reply to trolls.
Do not bump troll threads.
Sage, Report, Ignore.

>>35146070
I think he means feet.

>>35146050
M-14 needs usually needs an extra shot at range to make sure they stay down.

To clarify some retardation in this thread.

FAL isn't an assault rifle. It never was because it never fired an intermediate caliber. It's an automatic rifle/battle rifle.

It was a pretty darn good one in it's time. Worked generally well. Accuracy at long range was always limited due to the tilting bolt and reliability in dust/mud suffered, but roughly the same as other rifles of the time.

There are other rifles in this category too. The M14 and G3 are comparable contemporaries. M14 tends to have slightly better achievable accuracy, G3 is cheap to make and pretty rugged but has lousy ergonomics.

More modern rifles include the FN SCAR and various AR10 variations such as the LMT and SR-25. By using a 7 lug rotating bolt that engages a barrel extension they have non load bearing receivers which are lighter, cheaper to manufacture and far better suited for accuracy. These rifles are also much easier to mount optics on.

Now a FAL, G3 and M14 can do the same things but it takes some wonky tweaks and adaptations to modernize them. More mern AR10 and AR18 based systems are far more adaptable right off the shelf.

>>35146105
It's the same bullet as the FAL m8.

>>35146050
>M14
has a shorter barrel
>G3
bolt and breech are stiff as a board

I love the fal as much as anyone senpai but you needa actually learn about firearms and marksmanship

You're just not making sense

>>35146173
Actually, the standard M14 has a 22in barrel which is one more inch than the standard FAL. As someone who owns both a G3 clone and an FAL, the G3 is a bit harder to rack but not that much worse.

Did IQs sharply drop in this thread? I haven't seen such a collectively retarded thread in a long time.

>>35146105
Are you basing everything you know off COD?

They fire the same bullets at the same speed. They hit with the same exact power. If anything, the M14 would have a slightly better velocity due to the longer barrel.

Understand that in video games guns are balanced for gameplay reasons, often with wildly varying power, accuracy and recoil characteristics that don't accuracy represent their real life counterparts. That's because they wanted to include a variety of guns but having them perform within 2-3% identically wouldn't be interesting.

>>35146203
I was thinking of the modern variant
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mk_14_Enhanced_Battle_Rifle
>The weapon takes the standard M14 action and replaces the standard 22.0-inch (560 mm) barrel with an 18.0-inch (460 mm) barrel.

>>35145785
It wasn't made for accuracy. The FN version gets like 3-4 MOA, the crap we're able to get gets like 4-5.

If you want an accurate battle rifle, the AR10 and SCAR are some choices. The MDR is looking good so far too. Those options can also pull DMR work, and that's essentially all a DMR is is an accurate battle rifle.

>>35146129
The M14 is not a battle rifle. It's a dumpster fire.

>>35146233
Ok, so what? They're still perfectly comparable rifles.

I've been told they're no good for accuracy

>>35146210
Hmm. Maybe i was thinking of some sort of 5.56 carbine. I don't have much experience with the American guns.

>>35146272
Well, yes, i suppose there have been some improvements. I just worry about the fragility of modern firing mechanisms.

>>35146305
>I just worry about the fragility of modern firing mechanisms.
then you're retarded

>>35146305
We all thought the G-11 was going to be amazing. But the firing mechanism was like swiss clockwork, fun to watch, but very fragile.

>>35146319
You know what my father told me?
The first thing he did with a new rifle was bang the stock against something heavy, like concrete or metal. Then he would take a ball peen hammer to it. He would throw it on the ground repeatedly, then see if it would still fire.

Seems like everyone who used it, or a derivative always took off the carry handle.

>>35145953

Elaborate please, I have no idea what relevance this bears to my question.

>>35146344
yeah and modern rifles will do that just fine you stupid Fudd

why don't you take your boomer ass back to the field and stream forums or whereever it is Fudds hang out these days

>>35146233
The 18" barrel is enough to get 7.62x51mm up to roughly 90% of it's peak velocity depending on ammunition used. Even assuming it's being compared to a 21" FAL the difference in ballistic performance would be negligible. That cartridge is no joke.
>>35146246
No it is a battle rifle. It served just fine, although it had teething problems like anything else and was withdrawn because the DOD under McNamara cleaned house and finally realized that intermediate cartridges like 5.56 are ultimately the way to go. Principally because power and long range accuracy aren't what wins fights most of the time. Fire and maneuver is.

The "M14 is the shittest rifle ever LMAO" meme is just edgy know it alls trying to 1-up fuddlore like it means they actually know something. It certainty had problems and it's practically outdated nowadays, but so is the FAL and they both killed plenty of commies in their time.
>>35146286
Possibly the Ruger Mini-14. It's like an M14 scaled down to 5.56

>>35146395
>Ruger Mini-14.
I know this rifle, but I have never seen it in polymer.

>>35146436
They commonly make them with polymer stocks. There are aftermarket chassis systems as well.

>>35146395
>Principally because power and long range accuracy aren't what wins fights most of the time. Fire and maneuver is.

This is kind of my point.

More experienced marksmen are less prone to "buck fever", or retreating under cover during suppressive fire, especially at longer ranges or when dealing with "spray and pray" type situations. Most suppressive fire is just loud noise and meant for area denial, more experienced veterans are more likely to use selective fire to line up a kill shot.

>>35145953
>a carbine
He said M16 not M4

>>35146395
>It served just fine,
No it didn't. It was very vulnerable to dirt, mud and other debris. The fudd stock made it impossible to control under full auto, something even the paint-eaters in the Soviet Union had discovered in the '30s which is why they replace the AVS-36 with the SVT-40 which was semi-auto. Which you may say is irrelevant, but remember, it was supposed to replace the M1, the BAR and the M3, so full auto fire was very much part of the requirements.
>was withdrawn because the DOD under McNamara cleaned house and finally realized that intermediate cartridges like 5.56 are ultimately the way to go
And also because it sucked compared even to other battle rifles. The US should have adopted the FAL like we told Churchill we would in return for forcing 7.62 Fudd down their throats.
>The "M14 is the shittest rifle ever LMAO" meme is just edgy know it alls trying to 1-up fuddlore like it means they actually know something
t. butthurt fanboy
>it's practically outdated nowadays
It was practically outdated the day it was introduced.

>>35146461
Veterans are also more apt at minimizing their profile, moving under cover, and developing situational awareness. They are less likely to panic or route, and tend to use non-verbal signals and respond better to body langauge due to hearing loss.

Battle Rifles take skill to use.

>>35146461
You have no idea what you're talking about. You're just repeating the same tired, disproven fuddlore myths that battle rifle apologists always repeat.

>>35146500
Do you know the average ratio of how many rounds are fired in standard engagements compared to how many actually hit?

500:1

That's a bit ridiculous, isn't it?

>>35146500
I agree, battle rifles are not for most soldiers. But I think experienced veterans would respond to them.

>>35146359
This was SOP in Rhodesia, allegedly after one troopie had his eye put out by a cartridge case that bounced off a partially extended carry handle, but I don't know of any other countries that did it.

>>35146529
Not if you know how infantry combat actually works.

Real combat is not like a square range where you have nice big targets out in the open. Real soldiers in real combat spend a lot of time shooting at things they can't directly see, but that they know are there. They also spend a lot of time shooting cover or maneuvering fire, or shooting at small, fast-moving targets where they don't have time to carefully aim.

It's also been proven that even for a skilled marksman, it's quicker to walk your bullets onto the target than to take deliberate, precision shots.

>>35146541
You're thinking of a DMR then, not a battle rifle. I actually quite like the Soviet system, where you give the guy who's the best shot in the squad an SVD and everyone else gets AKs. It's a shame the US hasn't adopted this strategy, as the AR-10 and AR-15 are a perfect pair for this application.

>>35146592
>at mid-long range its easier to walk your fire using rapid semi-auto
>7.62 is better at shooting through cover

a squad using 2-4 battle rifles can put a bit more distance between them and their enemies.

>>35146490
Yeah bull fucking shit.
It recoiled like a mule because of the catridge. The M15 was an attempt to control it with a pistol grip but it made little difference. If you run a FAL or G3 full auto they won't be much better. Just the nature of .308, doesn't go well with full auto in a shoulder rifle.

Dust/dirt problems exist but are massively overblown. Ian and Karl's mud tests aren't representative. Garand had the same exposed action and it did it's job just fine in Iwo Jima. Is a modern sealed action better? Sure! Is anything without it completely useless? Not by a longshot.

Yes we should have gone with the FAL for standardization reasons and .280 British would have been a much better compromise.That's the real brundlefuck behind everything.

As for what the M14 is actually capable of, It's roughly on par with the FAL. Shoots a little better in my experience. Both are equally outclassed by modern AR based designs, but still plenty capable in the right hands.

You're just hating it irrationally because Ian and Karl say that and agreeing with them makes you cool.

>>35146855
also, we are mostly used to fighting in urban areas. In the countryside, or from an elevated position, the extra range can be put to an advantage.

>>35146909
Battle Rifles can also provide cover down range, and pick off targets of opportunity who would otherwise not be exposed at shorter distances. They will have a more objective view of the battlefield, and can provide for better situational awareness.

>>35146855
>>35146909
Again. You are running your mouth with no idea what you're talking about.

Infantry engagements almost never happen past 300 meters because past 300 meters if somebody doesn't want to be seen, you're not going to see him. Without magnified optics and some degree of element of surprise, you're not going to be able to engage targets beyond that distance in a combat environment. There are exceptions, but they're incredibly rare outside of some desert environments. It's not about the rifle, it's about the realities of infantry combat. This is what the Germans and the Soviets realized in WWII, and which took the US another 20 years to figure out.

>>35145785
So Long Barrel scar is pretty good eh?
It can take a beatings?

>>35147025
He was correct, I meant feet, not meters.

>>35147025
past 150 feet, or 50 meters, most fire will not hit a person behind cover, moving, or has a lowered profile. A battle rifle can engage at that distance.

>>35146858
>If you run a FAL or G3 full auto they won't be much better.
Better is still better if there's no reason for it to be worse.

>Ian and Karl's mud tests aren't representative.
You brought them up, not me

>Is a modern sealed action better? Sure!
This is gonna be real boring if you just keep telling me I'm right.

>Is anything without it completely useless?
I'm not saying it's "completely useless". Obviously any rifle is better than no rifle, and a semi-auto is better than a bolt gun. I'm saying it's objectively inferior to the other options and never should have been adopted.

>As for what the M14 is actually capable of, It's roughly on par with the FAL
Even leaving combat effectiveness alone, it's inferior from a manufacturing and maintenance standpoint.

>Both are equally outclassed by modern AR based designs
This is true

>Yes we should have gone with the FAL for standardization reasons and .280 British would have been a much better compromise.That's the real brundlefuck behind everything.
I agree that the M14 is merely a symptom of the retardation in US Ordnance post-WWII, and that 7.62 NATO is the core of the problem, but that doesn't mean it's a good rifle. Stop making excuses for an inferior design.

>You're just hating it irrationally because Ian and Karl say that and agreeing with them makes you cool.
You keep bringing them up. I was hating on the M14 before I even found out about Forgotten Weapons. I think you're just mad because they don't like your pet rifle.

>>35147097
suppressive fire, especially, at that distance, is mostly ineffective. But the proximity is enough to scare new (green?) infantry. The bullets hit all around you, but not on you.

We switched to 3 round bursts because of this. We switched to carbines because of this.

>>35145860
His point is that FAL's have never been classified as an assault rifle, and rightly so.

>>35147128
>We switched to 3 round bursts because of this
No.

We switched to 3 round bursts because the early M16s with pencil barrels would start getting serious point of impact shift if you dumped a whole magazine, and just to discourage mag dumping in green troops in general.

With modern manufacturing, that's not a problem, and it turned out to not be that effective anyway. Which is why the M4A1 doesn't have it.

>>35147173
>Which is why the M4A1 doesn't have it.
The M4A1 is a carbine.

>>35147184
And that's relevant how?

>>35147131
This is ridiculous.
Show me the documentation regarding the classification "battle rifle".
They were not called battle rifles at their inception. Nobody even started using that term until after the turn of this century.

>>35147198
>>35147128
>We switched to 3 round bursts because of this. We switched to carbines because of this.
>we switch to carbines because of this

The point is you are using floppy donkey dick guns. You need big hard german dick guns. You must brace your arms and gird your loins when you fire. You must put the bullets where they need to go.

You can not allow your rifles to bow you over because they are 'too big'.

>>35147237
the ak-47 is nigger cock. Is big, but is limp nodel. Must be 'hard', and 'strong'. You must push the gun down and brace it so it does not cleave side to side. You must make your gun and you body hard like diamonds.

>>35147269
You must have hard on for war, hard on for kill. You must believe what you are doing is right. You must believe that these people deserve to die, that they have offended you in some way, that they have committed atrocity or are like animals.

You can not fire to kill when you believe that your enemy is deserving of life.

There ae people like that in this world. People without honor who kill without remorse. They are not soldiers or warriors.

>>35147295
Entering into a mall or arcade and laying waste to innocent civilians, killing women and children, these people, they are like a plague.

Men kill and sometimes do savage things, but we do not put villages to the sword or demand the blood of the lamb.

There has to be a difference between us and them, men and not-men. We have to be better. Which means we have to be stronger.

So sometimes, maybe you have to be big and dumb, to scare the enemy. Sometimes you have to carry bigger guns and bash their heads in. Sometimes, one bullet is not enough.

>>35147203
It wasn't called a battle rifle or an assault rifle you fucking inbred

Assault rifles use intermediate cartridges, Big NATO is not an intermediate cartridge.

>>35145920
You do know that the US military trains stupid fucking privates to shoot out to 300 meters with an M16 right? If they can do that shit with iron sights, anyone can. I think max effective range for the M16 for a point target is 500 meters, or I might be thinking for an area target at 550 meters. Either way, it's got some range.

>>35147361
>you fucking inbred
nice bantz

>>35145801
Its a weakpoint the scar 17 and sr25 share as well dumbass, what are you getting at? At least there are drums for it the size of a regular mag.

>>35145871
You're a Fucking idiot you could make that claim based off of the cartridge they fire alone. Heavier bullet able to go further ooga ooga

>>35147956
I think he's getting at it being a weak point, as you said yourself. OP asked what faults it might have and being designed for a round that topically sticks to 20 round mags can be a downside depending on who you're asking. What about that is confusing?

>>35146359
>>35146547
They did shit like that just to make sure troops kept the rifle in their hands at the ready. Also notice a lack of slings in fotos.

>>35146490
Wrong. Also the fal was designed for a different cartridge you imbecile blame the recoil on that and shut the fuck up.

File: capacity.jpg (62KB, 640x563px) Image search: [Google]

62KB, 640x563px

>>35145785

HK91's are better.
>More accurate
>More reliabeh

0/10 gtfo OP and eat a floppy's dick

pic unrelated

>>35147123
The fal is not an inferior design though, its the only rifle that has the ability to be modernized unlike the g3 or m1anythings. It handles better than any it's only real fault is the accuracy which is not a big deal since its more than accurate enough for the role it was made for.

>>35148150
If that is the case then a 20 round mag is not a fault dipshit it is the norm, the standard. The standard across several countries across different rifles chosen for efficiency and effectiveness.

>>35148383
Reliable meme. Nato countries don't shoot steel cased ammo, just poorfags like you with your ptr.

>>35145807

5.56-assault rifle
7.62-battle rifle

It's retarded, I know

>>35147203
You're retarded

>>35145920

Nobody listen to this retard

File: 1505171585471.jpg (109KB, 402x248px) Image search: [Google]

109KB, 402x248px

>>35145785
DON'T FUCKING BUY ONE OP

It's an outdated memegun, and your only real option is buying a DSA clone, but apparently their quality isn't all it's cracked up to be. If you have $3k to buy a real FN FAL off Gunbroker, you might as well buy a SCAR.

>>35145785
I'd argue that the SCAR is a better battle rifle and even that isn't the best.

>>35148699
I'll take your word for it.
SCAR it is then.

>>35145785
not freefloated, tilting bolt, bad harmonics, etc. i'd choose an AR10

>>35145785
>faults?

FAL is a sand magnet, so it's useless against kebabs on their dunes

israel learned this hence their galil's were ak-based