How the U.S. got shafted out of the FN FAL 

Trust me, I think if you asked our soldiers and anybody who had to use these weapons... they would’ve chosen the fal. It was Adler.

@@mattmann8006 I used a SLR. We had a few M16s. Then we replaced the SLR with a Austeyr. FN FaL/SLR 7.62 NATO great weapon. Anything in 5.56 phht. I think the 280 woulda been a good midway solution. But the worst result is not covered here. EM2. Here itd be 1951 EM2 adopted. 70 yrs of bullpup opportunity to develop and we'd probably have had better cheaper pressed weapons

@@ozdavemcgee2079 Sadly the ordnance dept are FINALLY after 60 years are getting their heads out of their asses and are looking at a 6.5 mm-6.8 MM Caliber Range. If we had adopted the 276. Pederson in the M-1 in the 1930's We would have been set. We would have had to just update the rifle

“How ordinance corps swindled the Army”

I'd say the .280 British was still too big for what should have been the NATO intermediate cartridge. But that's because US requested they make it stronger than what they were initially going for. The original .280/30 was just about right. I'd still prefer her lighter sister the .270 which is similar to 7.62x39 (it's 7.2x43). Preferably modified for even smaller diameter in .243~.260 range (6.2~6.7). But such cartridge didn't exist. So, .270 it is. Had an intermediate cartridge been selected then, we might have put as much development in it as we do the 5.56. By now they would have many different kinds of cartridge like 5.56 has their M855A1, Mk318, Mk262.

FAL ♥

And you are spelling Rhodesians wrong......ly.

@@Zacharia503 not me, zimbabwe did it 😌

Yes, weight is an issue, but I toted the M1 Garand, 9.5 lbs for four years, and some times you have to go with what you've got.

Later FALs/G3s were produced with shorter barrels and stocks + switched wood for polymer.

Mazer Rackham thanks for the feedback, sir!

Mazer Rackham the sas would get their armourer to shorten and make a full auto version of the SLR for the scout to use. The yanks would try and get one of them.

wingcommander03 Known as SLRRRR...

One of the smallest countries invented the best battle rifle in history that rifle has killed more people than the black plaque and has lasted about as long respects to your country from another American

We all love the fal

You joking as a Texan I will take a German/ Belgium made gun any day over some of the stuff made here in the US.

Your small shitty country, after all, Belgium doesn't have many things you could possibly be proud of lol.

@@charlesferdinand422 Lol. Fal, Browning. Minimi and minima etc

@GUNS OF THE PATRIOTS I don’t see how that has anything to do with what Courtland Miller is saying

The M14 is a target rifle, the FAL is a shooting people in the face rifle.

@@realtalk4real243 Yes Just like the Metric which is widely used just cause its better unit of measurements. FN FAL is widely used cause it was better than most Rifle at that time.

@@realtalk4real243 Yes. And there's a very good reason it was widely used and the M14 wasn't. It's because the FAL is a much better rifle.

Did Stutler have anything to do with screwing up the M16 program?

@Scott Logan Absolutely!!!! Soldiers respect it, the enemy fear it.😁

Respect breddah. My dad was Quartermaster 1JR in the 60’s.

Terrorists, insurgents, rebels and communists backed AK wielding armies hated troops carrying FN FAL. Shame they didn't leave it in 280 though.

L1A1

I used the SLR in my time in the British Army... was a great piece of kit indeed.

I remember using it in the Reserves. Great weapon, but jammed frequently when using blank rounds.

"I distinctly remember our instructor telling us to "enjoy this weapon" Yeahhhhhh!

Carried it a few years, C7 seemed like a toy compared to it. 🙄

Brits has very similar modifications of FAL just like yours (L1A1) my dad used it when he was in 10 PARA. Thanks for your service btw

My favorite J M Browning designed gun is the Remington Model 8 in .35 Rem.

Although in the end, FN's (aka Belgium's) SS109 5.56 round did become the NATO standard, so all is well. The 5.56×45mm NATO (official NATO nomenclature 5.56 NATO) is a rimless bottlenecked intermediate cartridge family developed in the late 1970s in Belgium by FN Herstal. Source: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/5.56%C3%9745mm_NATO

@GUNS OF THE PATRIOTS AR is a newer system and was widely adopted by the US for many years by the military as the M4/M16. While agree with you your comparing a stock 70s mustang vs. a Tesla sport in going 0-60.

Do you think the PKM should have been chambered in 7.62x39? ^^ That's why the US wanted 7.62x51 There's more to war than your personal rifle. That's also why the US _never_ adopted an _"Intermediate"_ cartridge, and why the 7.62x39 is gone. The 5.56 _did_ replace the .30 carbine... because it's essentially a .30 carbine in energy/recoil/etc with much more range.

Which is actually .223 cal smaller than .280 British

@@-John-Doe- you say that, but the whole reason they are switching to 6.8 SPC is more lethal power and more range with a negligible increase in recoil. If your unaware of the upcoming change next trial is supposedly happening in feb 2022.

It aint no CQB gun, but it sure would rock the battle field in the open....

After modernizing mine and putting a scope on it, its coming to 11 pounds. After feeling how heavy it is, it makes sense why we went with 5.56.

@@FalovkaVista If you Yanks hadn't been so pig headed the M16 wouldn't have been needed...an FAL in 280 would have been far superior and more reliable.

@@charlesharper2357 I still think the M16 would've replaced the FAL in .280. But I don't disagree the .280 was more practical and better performing than the .308.

@@FalovkaVista Then why is the US military looking at moving up to a larger caliber?

Both sides.

Did you serve during the Falklands War?

@@sartainja me? No, were you there?

Pretty sure he was talking to the original commenter.

The Brits used the semi-auto version while the Argentinians used the full auto version, if I remember correctly. The interresting with that was that the Argentinians would blow through ammo like nobody's business and the Brits would be forced to make their shots count, but kept their ammo reserves for much longer. Using semi-auto ended up being a massive benefit for the Brits.

I can also still feel the weight, texture and feel in my hands, the recoil, the smell, the power. It would be as natural today in my 60s to hold that rifle as when I was 19.

I never understood why it wasn't kept for extra flexibility in forces

@@yallaimshi8091 Me too! Served in the Royal Anglian Regt and RCT.

It wasn't actually that heavy compared to the SA80. The main thing was you could spread the weight across the forearms on a battle march (plus the weight acted as a counter-weight if you did a speed march). Also, the recoil was cancelled out at rapid fire. All in all, the SLR was a very good rifle...but it was way too long to fit into a PIG!

Yes, a great rifle! We had it as well in Australia.

Military Arms Channel thanks man. Love your videos on the FAL. And the knowledge you have of them.

Actually your mag release isn't what FN put on them at all. That is a modification the Israelis made, and is my preferred mag release for the thumb "grippiness" you mention, but rounded to prevent it from catching on things. However, the Brits had an even easier one that can be activated with a finger or thumb from outside the trigger guard . FN's was a flat piece, about 3/16" wide, cut on an angle with similar grooves. It works, but for most it is the least preferred from a ergo standpoint. As for reasons we didn't get the FAL... I'd add we have differing priorities from other countries, be it good or bad. AKs and FALs aren't known for their extreme accuracy by any measure. If you get your hands on a 2moa FAL you have a rare jewel. The lockup just doesn't lend itself to accuracy. We Americans seem to lean to accuracy as a priority. The M-14 is FAR more capable, from that standpoint, than the FAL. I would call the FAL a little more durable, but not by much. The trend continued into the next gen, the M-16. Again, highly accurate, not as diehard as an AK. Also, don't forget the Germans used the FAL for a while. You are correct in that they got pissy when Belgium told them to GFY when Germany wanted to build their own, for the reasons you mention, but they Used the G1 before moving to the Cetme/G3/HK91.

Military Arms Channel agreed kinda lol

Phil Meup have you ever had either?

you are forgetting the ar-10

Or 6mm SAW

I agree. Just wondering how easy it is to scope.

@@johnschneider6183 british version you changed the top cover to one that took mounts for S.U.I.T scope but rattled

Yes, Thankyou. I saw how that was do watching Jerry Miculek shoot the FN FAL. But thanks for the reply. @@FGYT1

A short 6.5 mm similar to a short .260 rem would be really nice too.

same here basic with a r1 then to an r3 then to an R4

It was blood-sweat with that thing back in '84. Very reliable though. You get the enemy behind the tree....

I'm 1.60m tall & when I served in the Mexican Army I weighted barely above 60Kg. I barely made it for satisfactory height, & had to have outstanding qualifications in order to make it through boot camp. The FN FAL wasn't heavy in my hands, it was above that. But if you ask me what rifle would I choose... :)

I had a similar experience with the M16. The A-1's by the time I joined the U.S. Army in 1987 were all really showing their age. I actually fired an M16A2 in 87 for 2 weeks of basic rifle marksmanship and they were taken away from us once we qualified. We finished the Infantry School with old rattling M16A1's. I really loved the M16A2...........it could shoot accurately out to 500 meters and was robust. Carried the M16A2 in Panama, Desert Storm and in to the late 90's. I used the M4 from 99 until I retired in 2008.

John Jones I was 17 years old when I was first introduced to the FNin Canada I spent six years with her and she’s a formidable weapon especially the fact that you can shoot up to 600 yards there’s many different versions of her with different characteristics and she was easy to field strip and clean it’s always been my favourite

Rhodesians never die!

The most effective Rifle in the Vietnam War. South Korean, Australian, Thai, and South Vietnamese Units attached to them LOVED the FAL/SLR.

Old school. 1 RAR

Ex British army , loved it too , never jammed and mine was very accurate

Ex British Army too. Marksman. Had 2 issued: the plastic butt and stock, and the walnut version. Loved them both, but especially the walnut version, and never experienced any problems with either. Accurate and always achieved good groupings on the range, no matter what the weather conditions were.

Have they fixed the SA. What would you change?

In the first Gulf war the orginal SA80 failed miserably. The magazine catch was unreliable so the mag could actually drop out (not good when you are under fire). The bolt was shit, the gas plug was shit, the mags were frail and shit and the whole thing was mistrusted. Then in 2000 Heckler and Koch (owned by BAE Systems) took hold of the thing, redesigned all of the above faults and worked on it's internals and made what is now a very accurate and reliable weapon. The only problem (for me) is the 5.56 calibre. I would go for the heavier hitting 7.62 any day.

Interesting. If memory serves, the British experiments with the .19 cal lead to the faster twist ARs we use here today. A major improvement to the 5.56. Took 50 yrs to make an AR what it is today. I guess Americans and Brits will eventually fix their shit. But, don't hold your breath.

I don't know why people are so hung up on 308. Have you ever tried carrying a combat load of 30 caliber? It sucks. One reason I really don't like the AK even though it is reliable and effective. 5.56 on the other hand is a pleasure to shoot. Not only is it super light weight, but because you can carry a lot of it you don't feel bad for using seeking/suppressible fire methods when you need to use it. The stopping power of a cartridge really doesn't matter as much as ease of application. Most rounds aside from home defense, LE, or very well planned offensive roles are not going to be hitting the target because it takes rounds to get into a position where you can hit the target.

skyfix The sa80 is now fixed but it cost millions.

My liefie wat saam met my geslaap het! Wens ek kan een in die hande kry wat nie steelbaar is deur die politieke booswigte nie..

@@Kingsfrie It's been over 40 years since I handed in my Rhodesian FN. Still sometimes when I wake up in the morning I think for a minute that it's stored in my wardrobe, and it's a cosy, comfortable feeling.

I used a G3 for 6 months in Rhodesia and found it was a very good rifle, which I became very proficient with. Then I had a month break and when I returned they issued me an FN. At first I found it long and cumbersome with an awkward foregrip. But after 5 or 6 weeks of intensive practice it was like a bionic implant, a natural extension of my arm. Just like you don't need to aim down your arm and finger to point at something, I only had to glance at a figure 50 yards away and I would hit it in the same instant without conscious thought. At 100 yards I needed an extra quarter of a second to focus in order to hit it first time. In the next 15 years I carried an M-16, AK-47, Galil and R4 but I believe they were all inferior to a G3 and not even in the same league as my beautiful FN.

It is a superior Rifle. Adjustable Gas, Super Reliable, super fast and simple to field strip. A more advanced rifle in all ways. Just a thought.. I wonder if the USA had gone with the FAL if the M16 / AR15 would have ever been a U.S. Service Rifle? Presuming they liked the FAL then they my have selected their next rifle from FN as well such as the FNC. (Another very good rifle.)

And to further prove your point sir, the Rhodesian Army used it to great effect in a somewhat similar combat environment. Its not far fetched to think that U.S. troops on the ground woudlve modified it and get that powerful automatic firepower often needed in the jungle

​​@@F4Insight-uq6ntThey might've had a different design, but I imagine a gun similar to the Armalite would eventually replace the FAL. Don't get me wrong, the FAL is one of my favorite guns, but not everyone can handle her weight and recoil. Plus there's the problem of making it modular, which is the AR's biggest strength nowadays.

mine too .... brit here... was taught if the enemy hid behind anything just shoot through it!

Mine too, I'm Mexican. A sweetheart hard to forget.

Yes, I can believe that. You gun nutters probably sit at home at night beating off to your rifles. Sick people. Sad.

@@Hume2012 You regressive idiots have at least one more thing in common: You have no sense of humor.

@@Hume2012 That was a vile comment, my friend. It's not that we love these rifles, we adore them. If You'd ever been in combat, You'd understand. Can save your life. I'm not saying that we're better than the rest, it's just the way it is. Personally, AK-47.

NZAnimeManga the mk1 SA80 was bollocks. The U.K. had to buy HK and get them to sort it out. The newer version is a good rifle.

EvilLabrador1 It's still far to heavy

I was serving when the SA 80 came in, my very first thought was "Bollocks". It was so badly made.

EvilLabrador1 Enfield owned HK at the time so it’s not as daft as it sounds!

No, not Enfield Arms, but Royal Ordenance, quite a difference I believe - although the former was 'liquidated' or finally closed before the other was, which just so happened to occur during the final design and production of the horrible SA-80-A1 its relative A1'd LSW. The A2's/A3's are comparatively excellent to the old ones, albeit righthanders only still.

My uncle was in the Australian Commandoes when he went to Vietnam, it was so early in the War he was using SMLEs when he arrived and was one of the first to be issued the L1A1 in theatre. absolutely loved it!

@@adriaandeleeuw8339 the SLR was first issued in the Australian Army in 1957. Australian Advisers first deployed to Vietnam and none took SMLEs, They mostly were armed with US Army weapons. In 1965 when the first Regular Australian troops deployed to Vietnam they were mostly armed with SLRs (the Australian version of the FAL). No Australian troops were armed with SMLEs during the Vietnam conflict. The Commandoes at that time were an Army Reserve Unit. They did not deploy. Squadrons of the Special Air Service did deploy and one of their favourite weapons was the L2A1(the fully automatic version of the L1A1 SLR).

I used one in the late 80s that was made in 1956, I then moved to GPMG but I still have fond memories of that wooden stocked rifle

Back in the late 1980s when I served, we used the SLR when training although our personal weapon was a Sterling SMG. Despite the weight, it is a heavy beast to lug around for days, it proved so very, very reliable.

@@adriaandeleeuw8339 think you’re mistaken. The Aussies never deployed commandos to Vietnam. Also the SMLE was phased out of service in the 1950s - well before Vietnam.

As 'Bloke on the Range' said, Enfield did quite a lot of things very well when they "improved" the FN FAL..

John Capezza I still carried one in the Australian Army in 1990. My rifles was made in 65 I was made in 67. Most reliable weapon I ever carried

Wayne Daly the Aussie army is badass , they where really impressive in all wars they’ve ever been in.

Yup , as did the SAS contingents from Aus and NZ . Long history in both countries with the FN and Lithgow L1A1

John Capezza do did the kiwis

The South African Army really kicked Ass with the FN in the Angolan War .

Yes bro, what a time it was. Rhodies never die and neither do our Southern brothers.

I was in I think the last bunch to do basic training in the SADF with the R1. Was issued an IMI Galil before being shipped to the Border (Medics got the Galil or South African made R5 and not the R4 which was issued to the infantry). Locally made 5.56mm round was terrible, on fully auto the firing cap would come adrift from the round and jam the weapon. Never got to fire more than 3 rounds in a burst - it might also be due to the fact that there was a shortage of rounds for the infantry so we were issued tracer rounds - used to borrow a 9mm pistol or R1 whenever I needed to be armed, would never trust the ammo for the Galil.

Jackal's Outdoor Channel thanks! Good info

C1A1

I have one of the Century rebuilds I got before I knew Centurys reputation.I researched it and it is all Australian,no metric mismatches.Ive never had any trouble with it at all in 16 years.I guess it would even be rare nowdays,century or not.

British Designation was SLR (Self Loading Rifle) L1A1 had wooden furniture. L1A2 had plastic. Both had a non reciprocating handle. Some A2's had the carry handle removed. The gas system was a plus as with the cheap ammo the mod supplied us with you often had to open it up because of under powered rounds or the powder threw such crap in the works after a few rounds you had misfeeds. Also the extractor would rip the heads off cases with soft brass! It was the ammo not the weapon. Speaking to friends who served with both they hated the SA80. I just missed that toygun! The only addition I would have liked was the folding bipod off the FAL fully automatic! It was long and heavy after a while! Especially if held on handed, by the muzzle, at full extension due to some infraction the instructor did not like! Ouch! Although supposedly assigned a Sterling SMG I managed to keep the SLR on my docket and carry it whenever possible. My favourite rifle. Used it for the first time as a cadet at 14, then through 6 years RAF service.(18 - 24) Could remove half its parts and as long as you had the bolt you could still fire! Simple to strip not like (apparently) the SA80 with lots of little parts! A video bringing back memories!

Jackal's Outdoor Channel the Dutch version had some differences with the other models out there . Here is some eyecandy . fnforum.net/forums/fn-fal/72255-dutch-fal-s.html I loved mine but , i understand why the Israëli’s got rid of theirs . It is great to have a rifle that can take down targets half a mile away but , it must function first . I too have had my share of malfunctions in dusty environments . The other weapon i loved was the FN MAG which you call the GPMG . Lugging it around and. Cleaning that beast wasn’t that much fun either . But making it bark made up for that part . Still , to be fair out of 22 months i was equipped with the easiest one of all , the UZI .

I have a Paratrooper model imported by gun south in 1990-91 Just shot a group last week 1/2 inch high and 1 1/2 wide at 100 yards With A SUIT

What works is worth the effort.

He's your Australian I'm Shure your a great guy and all but why has your government been being an asshole it's fucked up to take away anyone's ability to defend themselves and resist a tyrannical government can you give me your input

Benjamin Webster Stop trying to get political with us, dickhead.

Gazza Rover so true

Benjamin Webster where are you from? So I can give you my input.

@Parmanand Motiramani परमानन्द मोतीरामानी no

@Parmanand Motiramani परमानन्द मोतीरामानी We were told it could take a leg off at 1 mile. (not necessarily accurately though)

I think Lithgow (Australia) also made them as well. Well used in Vietnam.

Parmanand Motiramani परमानन्द मोतीरामानी A trained shooter can certainly drop a man-sized target at 900 metres. With the 7.62 NATO cartridge your target doesn’t really stand a chance. Beautiful, reliable and accurate battle rifle. Not to be used on full auto. That’s why the British SLR was semi-auto only.

@@namor357 the SLR with iron sights, or otherwise, is not accurate to 900m

james miller but there is also something to be said about having improved sustained fire ability and being able to carry more ammo into combat with a smaller caliber. The larger the round, the more of a strong Marksman you need to be to use it effectively, and it seems that intermediate rounds are suitable for most people.

British and Belgian SAS use the FAL. I had 2 in the army , but in 7,62-54. Not the 308.

GuyBodart the FAL is designed for 7.62 NATO. Running 308 in it can damage the action thanks to the longer case length of the .308, or so I read

@@engineerskalinera I know about the 7,62-51. But my sniper one used the 7,62-54. I am a former Belgian SAS, we used the ones made in the FN-Herstal-Liege-Belgium.

GuyBodart I can't say I've ever heard of a FAL in 7.62x64mmR. Care to elaborate?

Scott sa80 looked like some water gun you could get out of toysrus

The Labour party was a creation of the Soviet polit bureau. It was probably adopted as a means of undermining British military strength.

Exactly the same response that we Americans had back in the 60s with the m16. Joked that Mattel was making them.

Brian Stewart it was under a Conservative government that the SA80 was introduced.

@@SkooterxD Then they shut the fuck up when they got handed twice the ammo and a functional shoulder.

We once did until the late 80's when they banned them here. I had a G1 with metal handguards and bipod.

An excellent home defence weapon for farmers in remote areas.

you can own this weapon albeit with the semi auto function deactivated making it a straight pull rifle

Yes I concur Im an EX Bootneck and the SLR was totally reliable , simple , tough , and immense power only down side a little heavy and dated. We should have updated the SLR into a new version and binned the terrible SA 80 , thank god I only used It for a few months before I left the Corps.

@@MrJazzflute I took the dreaded SA 80 with me to the first gulf war , and my L42. 1990/91. I left the Corps 1994. 25 years service.

@@MJMgreen0303 I was in the mob 83 to 90 left got fed up being pinged for chef, signaller , clerk just loved graving it, was going SC 3 at one stage done my knee in playing football so that was it. Loved the old SLR bang stick , Per Mare Per Terram brother.

I was a D2 Cpl, an LC 2 Cpl, Attached to 5 SBS Comacchio Company, parachute accident back in 1974 came back to haunt me, so ended my days as a SA 1 Sgt. Still enjoyed life and had fun...... Once a Royal Marine always A Royal Marine........ 28th October 1664....... Stay safe Brother

RikoAzusa - it's ironic. He could shaft the U.S. out of the FN FAL, but couldn't stop the U.S. from using guns made by FN.

@@FreedomInc oh....thanks for the heads up,may i get a peek of your claims...

Freedom Inc. FN made the M16A4s.

@@FreedomInc No,I cannot provide any, it's a rumor i heard,that's why i'm asking for an evidence that can break my theory

@@FreedomInc Cheers sir

Piere Vojzola awesome feedback! Thank you very much, sir. And thank you for your allied service. Respect.

Lol, memories, the 'mouse' - except here in South Africa we called it the 'rot' (rat).

In Canada it was called a rat as well!

Do Paras not wax their arses? ;-)

Piere Vojzola I had a chance to use a FAP FUSIL AUTOMATICO PESADO (heavy barelled fully automatic FAL)with a bipod.....in the South Atlantic and can assure you i had no problems with it functioning in very cold and miserable weather,in fact if it were not for its functionality I probably would not be writing these lines today.........kept many heads down , and did its job without any fault,would use it again in a heart beat..in fact when the conflict was over, I noticed many British chaps with the Argentine issued FAL with the full auto selector ....seems they were well regarded by them as well..............I for one would never use an enemy firearm unless it was superior to my own......just my humble experience......

And the M249 and M240

@@ButtersTheGreat1 you mean the mag and minimi?

@@professionalschizo noo, I just call them ak's, like any civil person ... But those are without a doubt just a diferent designation for the minimi and the mag. I can't however, call any "ar" pattern m4's or m16's despite them having an equal plentifull number of models and variants.

@@ButtersTheGreat1 FN usa civile , FN Herstal ne fait pas de antiquités

You're comparing apples from different trees. Still apples though. As I held an FN FAL in my due year in the Mexican Army, I will always be biased to it. Can't help it, but I'm totally sure you know what I mean. BUT, if you ask me, an M-14 is no lesser option. I actually like it better, all steel and walnut (I love walnut), and both kick like angry mules in full auto. Man, they can be as old platforms as can possibly be, but in a world where everybody wishes for small bores and big magazines, a 7.62 hit is but a solid hit, you only need one. Come to think, you ever met anybody saying he survived a 7.62N hit? :D

@H AL I would not like to be shot with either platform to be honest. Admittedly, the M14 is a slightly more refined weapon, However the FAL FN has very good accuracy for a system that is over 60 years old. Just meat and potatoes :)

was issued an M14 in basic training 1965 US Army Ft Dix and also in Germany were I served for 19 months. LOVED my M14 but did not see combat. Of course I had to grab a SA M1A 10 years ago to shoot NRA / SA high power.

rgee bee iron sights baby. 100p

Same same, they both have the same issues...

If I was told to help clean up the favelas by fighting the drug dealers, I would not take a H&K MP5 or Colt M16. I will ask for a FAL. They are easy to operate and reliable. And if you hit the bad guy, he will definitely will NOT be getting up!

@@largol33t1 a hit from a fal its probally 90% hou have a great big hole in your body sometimes. The funeral? Well..... if not headshot of course could be a normal funeral i guess

Likewise... The L1A1 looked the goods and was hard to break. I hardly used the Steyr as I was getting out as it was being introduced. I kinda compare the L1A1 to the old Bren gun in terms of performance, reliability and fitness for combat. Used both and loved them. We should be allowed to own either.

The F88 is dead accurate, but I miss the L1A1

Australian FAL/SLR/L1A1's are highly regarded in the US, I wish they still made them :(

Fellow Australian and also a former owner of the Mini-14/180. I hated that rifle, but you can chalk that up to it being a 1974 production with its problematic ejector. During my service, I loved the F88. The SLR was a decent rifle and a pleasure to use, but the F88 is a superior platform for modern combat purposes. The SLR was a product for its time, and it was the right product for its time, but to call it superior to the F88 as warfare advanced is a huge disservice to the F88 which has becomes the right rifle for Australia's evolving needs. Though to be fair, I'd be happy with either if offered to me.

@@dylanwight5764 we now have the ef88 by Lithgow which is an upgrade over the f88, even nicer.

DragonU.S.M.C/0311 appreciate you!

Yeah. One of those old diesel bastards from the 80's that just don't die.

They are really built to last a few lifetimes. My dad had a full-auto FN Fal. I once place a target on a banana tree. Kept shooting this wooden plank target, next thing you know, I cut the tree in half. I was just shooting one shot at a time.

pretty much so ....

Jack Ridge that's a g3

The FN Fal was the devil's rifle

Yes, there was a big resistance moving away from the .30 carbine and the brass tried to tie it up any way they could.

The Ordnance Corps behaved shamefully during the selection process for the new U.S. service rifle in the 1950s, but the majority of the blame for the M-16 fiasco rests with then-Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara and his band of "whiz kids," as they were called - who thought they knew how to run the military better than men who had made the profession of arms their life's work.

Richard Webb thank you!

The R1 is the same in all but name to the Belgian made FAL & the same weight. The R2 was about a pound lighter, due to having a hinduminium alloy lower & the folding butt - basically an SA manufactured 50.64

@@GARDENER42 R4 is Israelis Galil. R4 is produced under licence of Galil

So, is there an IMPROVED version of the FN FAL?? :O

@@GARDENER42 All the Belgian FN"s I saw during my time in the SADF had wooden stocks, South African R1"s had plastic stocks. That's probably where the weight difference came in.

Ryan Scott thanks Ryan. Appreciate your feedback!

Exophis Thank you sir! Appreciate you

REED POND ya. Now, the aussies are using aug's.

The FN-FAL is better used as an Assault Rifle and for Breaching and Close Quaters to Medium Range Combat. The M14 is better if it's used as a DMR & Sniper Rifle. Like the M14ERB, M21 & M25.

+ Matt Moon Bullshit the FN-FAL is Israeli. It's BELGIAN! The video even says so! And no the M14 is not any better for sniper and DMR usage either.

The Aussies built their own seni auto version under license and had them in Nam. Strong enough to bash a door down. The 280 would have been better as a combat rifle though the 308 is a great hunting round.

The FN-FAL used to be the Standard Assault Rifle for the IDF - Israel Defence Force before the M16 and MTAR 21 Tavor that isn't Bullshit proven fact. The FN-FAL was originally made in Belgium and the G3 was made in Germany over 60 Countries have used the FN-FAL. And yes the M21 and M25 are allot better than the FN-FAL for sniping that's a proven fact . You wouldn't snipe out to 1000 meters with a AK-47 you sure as hell wouldn't do it with the FN-FAL. If you can hit something that far out you deserve one huge ass trophy. Hitting a target that far out with a M25 shouldn't be a problem. You can bash the M14 all you want to with the FN-FAL. But Chuck Mawwhiney & Carlos HathCock kicked some NVA ass with a M14.

CETME was invented by the Spanish and sold to H&K to create the G3.

Jason C That is partially correct. It was developed from German designs by German designers FOR the Spanish and then sold to the Germans who adopted it as the G3.

Jason C Germans designed it

Believe it or not, I've heard guys say that captured Germans that worked on the STG also worked for Kalashnikov at his workshop as prisoners in Russia. Similarly to OP Paperclip. I've heard that that's why the STG and AK platform are so much alike. Now this is hearsay at this point, I have not verified this information. Regardless, it's extremely interesting.

The Soviets had their own OP going on, that's how the USSR and US ended up with similar fighter planes in Korea and how the Soviets started their space programme.

Chase

FAL's were used in Vietnam war and they did kick ass.. Like battle of long tan and battle of coral.... M16 were shit guns, every body wanted FAL's which were called FAL SLR made in Australia by Lithgow arms..Which make the new atrax F90.....

They were shit guns until they actually issued cleaning kits, chrome lined the bores and chambers, and used a much less dirty powder.

leftcoaster67 the US shafted itself

Yeah I was Australian Army in the 70's. People at ranges go on about how you just lean into it bla bla. They are not combat vets. You lean into F... All except enemy in coming fire standing there like Arnold Schwarzenegger . It is absolutely impractical to fire a 7.62 Nato on full auto without a barrel heavy weapon like a medium Mg. And then you really need to get the bipod grounded to do more than intimidate and suppress. We liked our SLR ( FN-FAL) but really an AK was really much more suitable for a semi auto/ full auto battle rifle in CCB. I think the 7mm /280 British would have been a great cartridge.

MrKurtzlich and that’s why we used The sterling alongside the l1a1 which was an excellent smg

Somewhat off-topic but I believe the small professional army maintained by Britain was at an advantage when facing the Argentinians, whose army was largely conscripts (draftees). I believe it's the old quality vs. quantity argument. Just my two cents......

Great sniper rifle.

Indeed. Politics rather than good design, it's incredibly frustrating!

Barend Oberholzer Hey boet, howzit! Me too. Served 8 Batt. Upington. Initially issued the R1 and re-issued R4 ahead of Ops in Angola. Loved the R1 and agree with everything you said. If maintained and cleaned it was very reliable - I personally never had a stoppage and weight was never an issue. Extremely accurate rifle though full Auto was a problem for most except a few seasoned "paraat" instructors. I think that's why the military brains trust decided on replacing the R1. The R1 is a great weapon for a conventional war somewhere in Europe that doesn't have the extremes we have here in Africa. Most contact situe's were within 300m +/- It is always an advantage to have sustained maximum firepower when storming a dug in enemy in a defensive position and fire on the move full auto with an R4 is a whole lot easier than an R1. Besides you have the covering firepower of the LMG's shooting 7.62mm. So all things considered I think the transition from the R1 to R4 / R5 / R6 was the logical decision IE. Simplicity of design, ease of use, maintenance friendly, reliable, sustained and accurate full auto fire. Be well boet.

Carlo Parisi thanks for the info!

You mean reequipped with the M16, the Aussie SAS also would cut down alot of their SLRs, convert them to fully automatic, and implement makeshift 30 round magazines, and even occasionally fit XM148 grenade launchers under the barrel

I mean what I said, but I cannot say too much, because I'm saying what I was told and I don't want to go in details about who told it when.

7mm is too much bullet for infantry use. What you're describing is practically identical to a 7.62x39mm in velocity and bullet weight (actually, just a little greater in both), and would be too severe recoiling to be controllable (but not fast enough to defeat armor). A 6mm cartridge using a 6.8 SPC casing necked down to fire a 6mm bullet (basically, 6x43 or 6x45), using an extremely long 105-107 grain projectile is a pretty ideal modern infantry bullet. It would be ballistically superior to even 7.62x51mm (because the bullet would be greatly more aerodynamic), making it accurate to well over 1000 meters. Additionally, this would be light enough bullet weight to still propel at 2900-3100 fps without undue recoil, meaning it would be flat-shooting (simplifying aiming and obviating the need for sight adjustments at any sane combat range- which is a huge advantage), and would be high-velocity, which is optimal for armor penetration. With the modern emergence of ceramic personal body armor, you want something high velocity, with a small frontal area, and a high weight-to-frontal-area ratio. This means you really want proportionally long, thin bullets fired at high velocity. Going above 100 grains bullet weight means that you have to either sacrifice velocity or accept that the recoil is too severe to be controllable for automatic or rapid semiautomatic fire. If you go much above 6mm, you either lose the long-but-thin shape, or the bullets become greater than 100 grains... and force you to reduce velocities to maintain control. Recoil increases proportionally with mass or velocity, but energy downrange increases linearly with mass- and squares with velocity. If you want to make a bullet more powerful without increasing recoil, look to increase velocity, not mass. A 100 grain bullet at 3200 feet per second generates 2.42 lb-sec recoil acceleration, but the bullet has 2283 ft-lb energy at the muzzle. A 150 grain bullet at 2500 feet per second generates 2.66 lb-sec recoil acceleration, but the bullet only carries 2019 ft-lb energy at the muzzle (this is all assuming they're fired from an 8-pound rifle). And the lighter, faster bullet has the additional advantage of being more aerodynamic and having higher sectional density, so even if they DID have the same muzzle velocity, the long, thin bullet it will retain that energy farther. And when it hits, it will penetrate better, even if they hit at the same velocity. Only, they wouldn't, because the longer, thinner 6mm bullet I propose would come out faster, retain energy better, will have vastly superior penetration, and will STILL recoil less.

We learned our lessons about the 7mm caliber in Cuba in the 1890's. Why do we have to keep re-inventing the mouse trap when its ultimate goal is killing a human. Human killing science is nothing new and all the data is there for all to see. To me at least, the 7mm caliber is a good "middle ground" of velocity, bullet weight, penetration, and bullet drop. Why keep re-inventing something when the solution was known in 1898?

John Browning Well, we have to. To fit a 7mm round into a rifle without changing the rifle (Too expensive) increase velocity to be usable against modern body armor, etc. I don't think a 7mm Lebel round would fit into a 7mm .280 rifle, at least not very well.

JSOC (U.S. Joint Special Operations Command) has just announced that the 6.5 Creedmoor is to be adopted as the new precision rifle round for their use, replacing the 7.62x51 NATO (.308) and 5.56 NATO in some roles.

El rifle mexicano es una pieza de arte, vi varias reviews a todos les parece sorprendente.

Falklands islands forever! God save the Queen 👑 🇬🇧

Bill Bo Haggins The EM2 was a dramatic change of direction in small arms, made by a Nation that is not always known for its innovation. Given more development, the EM2 in .280 might have turned into a decent service rifle. But yeah, i have yet to hear a good thing said about the L85. Bullpup type rifles are an iffy thing. I've read the grunts of the Australian Army were never really happy with the Styr AUG.

EM2 was a prototype gun the brititsh were building from scratch while the m14 was a m1 with a few modifications here and there the usa was like "the British .280 isnt powerfull enough" and the brits were like "the 7.62 is useless in full auto" and even though the british reasearch said the US was being retards the US was like "fuck all the money your dumping into gun research 7.62 is now standard".... vietnam war the US were like "7.62 is useless at fullauto and good fullauto rifles are fun" meanwhile Belgium were making the 5.56 and the british were making 4.85 and a rifle to use it to replace the L1A1 Self-Loading Rifle (a british made FN FAL) this was the SA80 (the L85, L86, L22 and the L98).... NATO picked the 5.56 ammo over the 4.85 (bye bye more time and money) so the SA80 was adapted to use 5.56 ammo the gun was shit due to this aswell as other fuck ups it was so shit I've heard soldiers would throw the rifle away after putting 200 round through it. fast forward to the year 2000 UK: "hey Heckler & Koch! money!! fix our rifle" and they did the gun now can put out at least 10,000 rounds through it before parts will fail (at which point it will be refurbished anyhow) also the reports of the A2 version still being bad turned out to be due to soldier error such as not cleaning the gun and the like goat boy I think saying the british aren't good inervators is the wrong way to think of it we are we were probibly better at making things we observed to be the best at that time and rolling with it rather than good at thinking ahead it's probibly the reason why we built the churchill tank even though it was a outdated way to think of tanks it wasn't as if they were bad tanks same with guns "oh this STG44 is a good weapon how shall we make it better for ourselves"

im not gonna say the 4.8 and the .280 are better ammo either the point is the weapons suffered due to stupidity with the changing of the ammo types but saying the EM-2 is bad is like saying the jackhammer was bad cause it used screws to hold it together. we were making intresting stuff and were told no (even if it was shit at the time) to my knowlage the US pulled the same type of shit with the M4 without warning changing the ammo to a M4 specific ammo when they were going trial other guns to "replace" them when they found out the M4 was gonna lose they changed the rules had the 5.56 somehow been standardised insted of 7.62 then probibly all we would be talking about is whether or not bullpup is better than standard because the L85 probably would have had its shit together sooner id like you to explain Modularity in the case of the L85A2. Having held a decommissioned one, the stock i could see being a problem if it's unajustable (i thought the gun was small and cant remember) or the ejection being imposible for left handed usage... But thats about it it had a laser light combo and a hybrid red dot and whatever the name is scope as well and a grip bipod combo and still had room

I'm British, i've shot the L85A2 and it was a lovely rifle to shoot. Granted i've never had to put my life on the line with it but all the soldiers i talked to who had lived and been to war with it never had so much as a jam. The EM2 also wasn't shit, it was in fact very good... Bill, i feel like you have something against British rifles

The Brits preferred the full auto Argie version.

IrishBoer bullshit.

*SLR=PUBG*

argentina used it also in falklands

We used them here in south Africa and called it the R1 and replaced in with the R4 which is a modified galil

When hit you will lie down..... They were fantastic weapons and you could use it to hammer in nails of beat the shit out of someone if the mood took you.

Randall Trueblood thanks man. Appreciate that.

Gary Lytle I think it’s mine too

Not if you had to carry it and 3 mags with a 77 set , Radio on your back for 2.5 years its not . Sure , heavy hitting round , but a big rifle.

Jack Jones that's your opinion and ours is that it's possibly our favorite. Who are you again to tell us what our opinion should be?

That was my service weapon for 3 years . You carry that around in the field for three years come talk to me then .Half an hour out of the boot of your car on the range is not a gun test .

Jack Jones Oh I'm sorry i didn't realize you'd pull a straw man, and bring up something that had nothing to do with the fact you were trying to tell others how to think. If i had known how much of a tool you are, i wouldn't have attempted to stand up for free thought which you apparently don't believe in. Again, my apologies.

I have read that the Viet Cong did not like to encounter Australian troops during the Vietnam war due to the Aussies' use of this weapon. They didn't like being on the receiving end of that .308 round. Also the Australian soldiers had received more jungle warfare training than their American counterparts.

@@kenanmorg4677 Yes , I have also read reports the USA troops wanting to swap their M16"s for SLR L1A1 givin the opportunity as the the 7.62 didnt deflect through brush like the 5.56

Neanderthal Outdoors Hell yeah! 🖒🖒

I hate the 5.56 x 45 round as well. Recently I got to shoot a 7.62 x 35 (.300 AAC Blackout) rifle. This round is great and beats the 5.56 x 45 out to about 250 meters. An even better round for the AR-15 is the 6.5 x 39 Grendel. The Grendel round is very effective to beyond 450 meters and definitely beats the 5.56 x 45 in power. 6.5 x 39 Grendel magazines also have about 26 rounds in capacity.

@xXxMartin96xXx Zulu wars also

@xXxMartin96xXx There are documented accounts of British bayonet charges in the Falklands, Iraq and Afghanistan. Sometimes you just have to get up close and personal.

Was the fooking punks in the rear with all the gear, anyone with their a$$ in the grass, wanted to stay with 7.62, you ever find that person, please slap them silly, thanks in advance Limey.

Canada: Saw FN's as little kids, with the long magazines, "Wow...look at those MACHINE GUNS!" Duh!!!

@@RFXCasey Because a trigger guard is a cheap and simple thing to change...why risk frostbite?