Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!samsung!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!pacific.mps.ohio-state.edu!linac!att!cbnews!cbnews!military From: bxr307@csc.anu.edu.au Newsgroups: sci.military Subject: Re: Using the rifle suited to the previous war? Message-ID: <1991Jan19.041929.5345@cbnews.att.com> Date: 19 Jan 91 04:19:29 GMT References: <1991Jan17.054212.29838@cbnews.att.com> Sender: military@cbnews.att.com (William B. Thacker) Organization: Computer Services, Australian National University Lines: 76 Approved: military@att.att.com From: bxr307@csc.anu.edu.au In article <1991Jan17.054212.29838@cbnews.att.com>, wmartin@STL-06SIMA.ARMY.MIL (Will Martin) writes: > > [I wrote] >>[...] I wondered as I watched it how many of those >>>soldiers would be interested in trading their newfangled weapons in for >>>some old reliable FN FALs like the British army used before they adopted >>>the L85s... > From: davecb@nexus.yorku.ca (David Collier-Brown) >> Huh? The FN used to fail to chamber the round if it got grit in the >>ejection port. > > If I was wrong in characterizing the FN FAL as "reliable" in this desert > warfare scenario, I apologize. I was under the impression that the FN > FAL was one of the best battle rifles ever, in any climate, and that its > main failing was a gradual deterioration of accuracy as it aged and was > repeatedly stripped for cleaning and became worn, because the rear sight > was on the back end of the receiver and thus on the wrong side of the > hinge from the front sight, so that play developed between the two. > > I would really like to read more about the FAL; there's a series of > very-high-priced books on the various models of the rifle which I never > have seen, sad to say. If people on the list have any experience with this > rifle in its various incarnations, as it sounds like David has, please post > comments, anecdotes, or discussions about this weapon. I have used the L1a1, Rifle, Self-loading (SLR), the Australian and British version of the rifle rather extensively during service in the Australian Army. It was my preferred weapon if it was possible to get it. While heavier and slightly more cumbersome than the M16a1 which was also available (in limited quantities as it was used as an SMG replacement in infantry units) it was a much more reliable weapon. I also had a choice sometimes of using the F1 SMG which is an Oz designed and produced weapon (has the unusual feature of a magazine over the the top of the reciever, rather than under it which is the norm in SMG's). The F1 was a particularly reliable and robust weapon, however its lack of range (100m Max effective range aimed from the shoulder and only 25m from the hip) and lack of hitting power (only 9mm Parabellum) usually meant that I wasn't too keen on carrying it. Also experience in Vietnam had shown that the size and shape of the weapon had tended to mark the user as being a "specialist" in his function to snipers (the F1 is usually carried by people like Signallers, drivers and officers) whereas its harder to identify you if have a longarm. The L1a1 if kept properly clean was a particularly reliable weapon in my experience. The key was that it had to be kept properly clean, particularly the gas system and the bolt carrier ("slide" as it is known). However that is a common problem with all automatic weapons. Having used it extensively in an arid environment here in Oz I can state that the weapon was not particularly vulnerable to stoppages if it ingested small quantities of sand (in otherwords it could not survive having sand being poured into the ejection port, but wind blown or kicked up sand wasn't a major problem). Sand is also not a problem if decreased quantities of lubricant (oil) or a dry lubricant is used instead. The problem is when sand adhers to the oil and forms a gritty paste which will rapidly wear working parts. So when moving into an arid region the order usually is given to clean your weapons and remove excessive oil. What occurs then is that the biggest problem is preventing your weapon rusting at night when what little moisture there is in the desert air precipitates as heavy dews. What you have to find is the right balance then of enough lubricant to ensure the weapon functions, is stopped from rusting (which happens all too easily in my experience), and doesn't get coated in a heavy layer of abrasive dust. The M16a1 on the other hand is very vulnerable to dust as machined tolerances are much closer in that weapon. While the ejection port cover prevents the injestion of excessive quantities of dust, what does get in has a much greater affect, particularly as the weapon has to have a heavier coating of oil on its working parts than does the L1a1. Another problem I encountered with the M16a1 was that of the Lungemann direct gas return system which doesn't make use of normal gas piston. This sort of system if maintained properly works well, however it is difficult in the field to keep the weapon that clean. Perhaps the powder we were using in the rounds that I fired through the weapon lead to excessive fouling but quite often the weapon would suffer a stoppage every few rounds fired. Brian Ross