-
FREE MEMBER
NO Posting or PM's Allowed
Pete; The handguards pictured in the heading of this forum are the ones that I am in search of.
-
04-09-2009 07:13 PM
# ADS
Friends and Sponsors
-
FREE MEMBER
NO Posting or PM's Allowed
-
-
Advisory Panel
When I was a young 16 year old militiaman, myself and another tried a variation of the old match trick. We used a small wad of tin foil each on the bottom of our trigger housings to get that cool full auto effect out of our C1A1 rifles. We had to play with the thickness of the tinfoil to get it to fire properly and controllably. When the enemy came through the defile, we let them have it (blanks only of course). The other guy ran into a bit of a problem when his gun ran away and jammed with the bolt in the rearward position. After the excersize was over he had to turn the rifle in uncleaned and with the piece of tinfoil still in place, since the rifle could not be opened. Fortunately for him, by the time the rifle made it to the weapons techs a week later, any record of who had been issued the rifle were long forgotten.
I got to fire a full auto FN C2A1 a number of years back before I deactivated it. It certainly liked to jump about. Seems like the front end was just too llight for real accuracy.
-
-
FREE MEMBER
NO Posting or PM's Allowed
Hmmm - What do you call "real accuracy?" Can you put a 3 rd burst in a 6" circle = heart shot - NO! Can the 3 rds be kept on the top ½ of a man sized target at 100 yds, or 150 - YES!
This "ain't No match competition" rifle, it's a Combat rifle and the accuracy requirements are a good bit different. I can consistantly put a 2 rd and most of the time a 3 rd burst into the flat side of a GI 5 gal gas can at 100 yds. NO one would walk away from that!
A friend and I were out shooting Stens, AK & my FN/FAL today. At about 80yds I was putting both rds on a steel plate about the size of a mans chest - off hand, I rarely do bench shooting!
Sarge
-
I think that you're generalising a bit Sarge. It'd be a little bit over the top to say that anyone who can't shoot a FN accurately in the auto fire role can't shoot the rifle. I've fired many, many thousands of them, mostly L1A1's but hundreds of L2's and many many L1A1's doctored to fire auto .... all in the interest of Armourers 'education' you understand....., on Armourers test ranges. And I can confirm that when an L1A1 and L2A1 are set to single shot fire, from the Armourers Enfield rest, the accuracy diagrams are totally different and the L1A1 IS more accurate.
Another fact, proven, time after time, is that an L1A1 firing R is more accurate than an L2A1 firing at R or A
Fantastic rifle, yes. Hard hitting, yes. Do I love them, yes. But the auto rifle is just that, an auto rifle. There is only room for one machine gun in a rifle section, and that isn't a heavy rifle, it's a Bren gun. Or a GPMG!
Going off the subject, when Mr Kalashnikov was at Warminster, he was asked about the RPK and he commented that putting a different butt on a rifle didn't make it a machine gun. And putting a longer magazine onto a rifle didn't make it a machine gun either. And putting a heavy barrel on a rifle just made it a heavy rifle. And as for putting a bipod on a barrel.................
That's JUST what we did with the LSW, although we didn't mount the bipod directly onto the barrel. Heavy rife, yes but machine gun, NO
-
-
FREE MEMBER
NO Posting or PM's Allowed
There is only one reason that troops are issued selective fire (full auto) rifles, and I have read test & reports time & time again. And it has been proven that an individual that has a rifle that has full auto capability is willing to fire first in a combat situation. It is all psychologically!!!, accuracy has nothing to do with it, although accuracy definitly counts when it comes to body counts.
and when you have a weapon that can keep the muzzle on target the better the results.
-
FREE MEMBER
NO Posting or PM's Allowed
-
FREE MEMBER
NO Posting or PM's Allowed
Well I'm not being critical, but I think the Brit's choose the semi auto version
of the FN because they knew that sustained fire was less accurate than full auto when it comes to a rifle. Some statisical, mathamatical, genius, figured out during the Vietnam war that one Vietnamese was killed per One thousand round fired. I don.t know haow they figured that one out. But if had to pick a rifle to go to combat with it would be the M1 Garand, and that includes the M16, AK47, or any othe selective fire rifle that is out there, Only my opinion
-
FREE MEMBER
NO Posting or PM's Allowed
In my VERY limited experience with the FAL (T48) I found it more controllable in FA fire than the M14, but IMHO that is not saying much. Good trigger control can keep two or maybe three shots in a reasonable size target, but that does not make the rifle truly controllable; it involves shutting the rifle off before it becomes uncontrollable. Sort of like saying a car is a great racing machine as long as it isn't driven over 35mph.
The army basically agreed that neither the M14 nor the FAL was worth much in FA fire and that was the reason for ultimate adoption of the M16, which is considerably better in that use.
The main use of a machinegun is not to "mow 'em down" as in the movies, but to put several bullets in the same area to increase the hit probability. In fact, a machinegun can be too accurate. The BAR bipod was moved from the foreend to the muzzle specifically to spoil the accuracy; no one saw any point in putting 20 rounds through one enemy soldier's third jacket button.
Jim
-
EXTREMELY valid point Jim. It's a fact, as I said, that an auto rifle L1A1 is not as accurate as a semi. If it were, why are the Armourers test range accuracy diagrams so different?
And you got it in one. Machine guns don't need to be super accurate. They've just got to be zeroable and reliable. I know that's simplifying things a lot but...................
-