# Question?



## SoldierBoi69 (23 Mar 2006)

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 (24 Mar 2006)

friend


----------



## Grunt (25 Mar 2006)

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 (26 Mar 2006)

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 (26 Mar 2006)

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


----------



## Rory (27 Mar 2006)

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 (27 Mar 2006)

Rory said:
			
		

> 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 (27 Mar 2006)

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 (27 Mar 2006)

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 (27 Mar 2006)

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 (27 Mar 2006)

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 (27 Mar 2006)

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


----------



## KevinB (27 Mar 2006)

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 (27 Mar 2006)

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 (27 Mar 2006)

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 (27 Mar 2006)

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 (27 Mar 2006)

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


----------



## Craig B (27 Mar 2006)

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 (27 Mar 2006)

Craig B said:
			
		

> 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 (28 Mar 2006)

Franko said:
			
		

> Never inferred that it was indestructible.



Roger that  

Craig


----------



## Thompson_JM (28 Mar 2006)

Rory said:
			
		

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


No problem...

Hell Im pretty in the dark with most of this stuff too... I just know the basics.... like, "this end towards enemy" and "Point and Click, repeat until desired outcome is achieved"

Cheers


----------



## KevinB (29 Mar 2006)

The C8's major issue intially is it had a 5.56mm M16 chamber - it was redone to a larger carbine chamber to allow for the sharper recoil impulse


----------



## FormerHorseGuard (29 Mar 2006)

as some who used both weapons on the range.  The FN C1A1 was a nice piece of kit, it had the range for long distance shots, it looked like a rifle , the wood and metal parts all oiled it look very nice on parade. it was a better weapon to drill with. nothing wrong with it that way.
C7 family came into service after my second year in the forces, and I was not at all impressed with till i got the chance to fire it. It did seem to feel lighter in training and field use. I shot just as well with it as i did with the FN family.

but the whole thing comes to down the age of the weapons in questions. my FN was made in the 1950s, I am thinking 1953, it was almost 40 years old when i got it. how much longer of a life would the weapon system have.  with the use and abuse svc weapons get how long do they last without serious upgrades, replacement parts.  Costs and the fact that 5.56 was the NATO ammo standard for small arms. 

Ask any old soldier the first weapon he shot or was trained on was the best.
For todays combat and requirements I would take the C7 family over the C1 because I could carry more ammo, have better sights,  have more fire power within the section. most of all the resupply of ammo is far easier since most countries in the operational areas use 5.56 , hate to run short and have to wait for it come in from Canada.
just my thoughts, donning flame proof shorts now


----------



## Franko (29 Mar 2006)

FormerHorseGuard said:
			
		

> Ask any old soldier the first weapon he shot or was trained on was the best.



I really don't think the Lee Enfield No 4 counts....from my cadet days    

Regards


----------



## Bartok5 (30 Mar 2006)

Hmmm, 

I was trained as a Pte (R) on the FNC1 and C1 SMG back in 1979.  And then I was trained all over again (from scratch) as an OCdt on the C7.  Now let me tell you about a nifty compromise that I have recently stumbled across in my personal firearms world - my shiny new Armalite AR-10 16" carbine.  Can you say "best of both worlds?" I knew you could....

The overall dimensions and the controls are sufficiently similar to the C7/C8 that there is zero operator transition.  The felt recoil is slightly (and I mean SLIGHTLY) more than that of the C8.  Nothing remotely close to the FNC1, M-14 or G3.  It truly recoils like a C7+....slightly plus.  During my first range session I was able to engage a Fig 11 at 50 metres with controlled pairs from the "Gunfighter" position every bit as quickly and accurately (if not moreso with the EOTech) than I can with my crap-tastic issued C7A2.  The difference being that every time I pulled the trigger with the AR-10, whatever I hit was going to drop decisively thanks to a 157 grain 7.62mm pill perforating the target.

The only down-side is that the manageable soldier's load is approximately 50% due to weight and bulk.  But if the majority of rounds counts (and decisively)?  I'd argue that the trade-off is well worth it.  At least for selected riflemen.  

We can debate the age-old opinion-piece of 7.62x51mm NATO versus 5.56x45mm all day long.  The discussion has been done before, and is exceedingly redundant old hat.  Excepting the fact that most past arguments were based on the 1950's "Battle Rifle" designs, versus a modern AR variant with a straight-line design,  advanced manufacturing, and current recoil management technology.  As a reasonably experienced infantry soldier with 25 years of experience, my recent personal revelation suggests that it may just be time to revisit the 7.62 NATO AR-10 Carbine (or variant) as the new "go to rifle" for at least some of our elements.

I'd ask that you personally fire a 16" AR-10 carbine before you deem to chime in on this particular subject.  I suspect that if your previous experience is confined to the FN FAL, M-14 or G3, you will be VERY pleasantly surprised WRT recoil and manoeuvreability of the latest AR-10 carbine offering.  

FWIW....


----------



## KevinB (1 Apr 2006)

I agree with MarkC's comments - at least in respect to selected riflemen.

I have fired KAC's SR-25 BattleRifle in both 16 and 14.5" barrels suppressed and unsuppressed in both semi and automatic - they are virtually identical to the Armalite (except KAC has better functioning mags).  I also have a 16" Armalite Carbine...
  I beleive that every section should have a 16" AR10C - along with every other rifleman having a C8FTHB/SFW.  At the ranges we wish to engage the 7.62mm Carbine would add an extreme amount of vesatility and barrier penetration in a precision format - not to mention better wind bucking.

 However by and large the CF should embrace the 5.56mm Mk262 Mo1 77gr SMK loading from BlackHills (or a Canadian made version thereof)  I know that recent the CF JAG system has spazzed on CF troops in Kandahar using that round (for some extremely bullshit reasons).  It gives both increased range, accuracy and terminal effects on the target.  It is issued for other systems in the CF - not not general issue...


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (1 Apr 2006)

Kev what about the FN SCAR family?
http://world.guns.ru/assault/as70-e.htm


----------



## KevinB (1 Apr 2006)

Vapourware still...

I know a few who have played with some -- opinions are mixed. 

IF it goes anywhere, there are still bugs to work out before it becomes production.


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (1 Apr 2006)

Seen.


----------



## KevinB (4 Apr 2006)

Mark -- in search of a shorter and shorter weapon






I found last time the C8SFW I was issued was too large in the small worthless vehicles we have -- the 10" upper is about ideal for the close in stuff -- I can do a pretty good job out to 400m with the S&B and Mk262 (in fact I'd put money on me beating the typical CF soldier with C7A2 and ELCAN...   )
Of course I am no longer a rifleman...


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (4 Apr 2006)

Well that's not fair.  You get more range time.


----------



## Big Red (4 Apr 2006)

KevinB said:
			
		

> However by and large the CF should embrace the 5.56mm Mk262 Mo1 77gr SMK loading from BlackHills (or a Canadian made version thereof)  I know that recent the CF JAG system has spazzed on CF troops in Kandahar using that round (for some extremely bullshit reasons).  It gives both increased range, accuracy and terminal effects on the target.  It is issued for other systems in the CF - not not general issue...



+1.  Canada needs to phone up Black Hills and strike up a deal to manufacture mk 262 mod 1 or just buy the stuff off the shelf.  I'm sure there will be hysteria from JAG claiming its a hollowpoint design.  I even know some SF guys who aren't allowed to use it because their chain flinched...

I phased out greentips a while ago except for a tracer mag.

BTW nice concussion...be careful, they fall apart if you get them wet  :'(

Oh yeah Kev, stop posting pictures. I can barely go a week without being tormented with pics of a Short Dot I'm still trying to convince myself I don't need.


----------

