Printable View
I stumbled across a Red Rock Arms ATR1 today. It is a 5.56 NATO version of the FN-FAL built on an aluminium receiver and it uses M-16 magazines!!! Ticket price was just under USD 1300.
Now if I could only work out how to convince my wife that we REALLY NEED this rifle I'd be home and hosed.
Yeah, Buckley's Mate!!!
Paul;
I'm not formilar with the weapon in question but I've heard and seen pictures
of some aluminum receivers blowing apart. If you want a nice shooting safe FAL you could put one together using either a DSA or Imbel receiver. There are some really nice parts kits still available, I talked to DSA last week and there is only a back log of about 6 week on their receivers, not bad considering what is going on these days in the gun market.
Jeff
There should be no problem with an Aluminum Fal type receiver if it is properly engineered. The AR 15 is all Aluminum alloy and it has never had any problems. The reveivers you are talking about were the 308 version.
Bob
you are right I was thinking of the 308 aluminum receivers that are out there. I don't know of any 223 FN varaiants, but would like to see some pictures of one.
I apologize I take it that we are talking about a FNC sorry
No Mate. The ATR1 is a short barrel - looked like 16" - aluminium receiver similar 5.56mm NATO version of a standard FAL - not an FNC that takes standard M16 mags. The Argies made a version back in the 1980s as memory serves.
As for DSA, I believe they make an 7.62mm NATO aluminium receiver as well.
I'm not in the market for a FAL as I have one FAL and two SLRs (one a Lithgow bitser [ex-Kiwi] on an Imbel receiver and the other an Enfield made) already.
Paul
Nice! I don't know what an ATR1 is. I'll have to look it up. If you pick one up post a picture.
Jeff
DSA has a warning on their site regarding aluminum FAL receivers. There was a company making aluminum .308 FAL recievers, and there were some that failed in service. See here:
http://www.dsarms.com/safety_warning.asp
The M16/AR15 works with an aluminum receiver because the bolt locks into a steel extension on the rear of the barrel. The upper reciever bears little load.
Aluminum is a material very different from steels. With steels, if your repetitive load is below some level, referred to as the load limit, repetitive loads will not cause failure. With aluminum, repetitive loading will eventually cause failure, and if one is to use the material one must regularly inspect for crack progression that typifies "fatigue failure".
There are few other materials that show the load limit phenomena. The only one I can remember is Titanium.
If this is a true Aluminum FAL upper receiver, don't put your face behind it.
CDD
I'm not an engineer so I am only speculating here, but I suspect there is a significant difference between the recoil dynamics of a 5.56mm NATO and a 6.62mm NATO.
"...don't know of any 223 FN variants..." The FNC is a .223/5.56.
A real AR-10 was made of Al. Al isn't bad stuff. Depends on the alloy used. M113's used Al armour. Some engine blocks are Al as well.
Hi Sunray
I'm not trying to be a wise *** but it is funny that you mentioned M113's being made of aluminum. I was a gunner in an M60A1 tank. We use to shoot at some 113's that were positioned in various spots on the moving firing range. The .50 cal bullet (not even armor piercing) would go in through the one side and bounce around the inside, obviously turning anything inside to hamburger. I always said I never want to be in one of those things unless I was getting MED/VACed. Anyway I still have my doubts about an aluminium receicer on a FAL design. Hey at least we have a good thread going here.
I'm not an engineer and i didnt even spend last night in a Holiday Inn but I can tell you that any highpower rifle that locks up with any part of the breach bearing on aluminum is an insane design. As the man said-M16/AR15 rifles lock steel to steel.
Hey Paul; Did you ever pick up that ATR1 you was writing about?
No Mate. All I can do at the moment is drool and dream. It's just not in this year's budget. Not with a trip home for the No. 1 granddaugter's wedding in the not too distant future. That will be a month to two month stay with the usual weeklong pilgrammage to Canberra (wife's family) and the AWM.
I haven't seen an ATR1, if it uses the same toggle bolt system, the energy from the bolt is transfered to the receiver through the locking shoulder.
5.56mm isn't 7.62 but the energy is cycling still is on the locking shoulder which is set in aluminum, after repeated usage, wouldn't the headspace change?
The FAL is a different kind of beast, The idea of a locking shoulder is uniqe, easy to change head space after a barrel change.
Comparison to any other type of action that uses a rotating bolt that uses lugs to lock into battery, is apples to oranges.
Just my humble opinion.
Having had a FAL alloy receiver, I can tell you they are bombs waiting to explode.
A .223 cartridge FAL will eventually crack the receiver at the locking shoulder and fail. The locking shoulder is the weakest point among many on an alloy FAL receiver.
The only 'successful' uses were pistol caliber, like .45 ACP and I have not heard of any of those after long term use surviving.
I checked them out on the internet, they are a cool looking rifle but I wouldn't shoot one, I value my face too much.
Well, yes, M113's used aluminum armour. Worked great as long as nobody fired an RPG at it, or for that matter, a 12.7mm mg
If they had made the upper receiver out of good quality steel, then maybe it would be OK, but with aluminum receiver with a locking shoulder pressed into it, I will pass.
The AR10/15 design is completely different and does not use the receiver to contain the chamber pressure.