Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!bonnie.concordia.ca!clyde.concordia.ca!nstn.ns.ca!news.cs.indiana.edu!att!cbnews!cbnews!military
From: rats@ihlpm.att.com (David Woo)
Newsgroups: sci.military
Subject: Re: Using the rifle suited to the previous war?
Message-ID: <1991Feb6.030642.19625@cbnews.att.com>
Date: 6 Feb 91 03:06:42 GMT
Sender: military@cbnews.att.com (William B. Thacker)
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories
Lines: 23
Approved: military@att.att.com



From: rats@ihlpm.att.com (David Woo)


|From:    SMPOD@VENUS.LERC.NASA.GOV
|	In article rats@ihlpm.att.com (David Woo) writes...
|	/(2) The "FN-FALs" the British adopted are different from the metric
|	/pattern FALs used elsewhere. Among the differences are a series of
| /grooves along the bolt to trap grit. Does this help it work better
|	/than standard FALs in grit? Experienced users reply!
	
|	What are the differences of the Indian FN's.
	
Just for clarifications sake, by "bolt" I really meant the "bolt carrier,"
the part thats visible from the ejection port.

The British (English dimensioned) FN-FAL (Designated L1A1) and the
Indian 'FN-FAL' are both identical, both being English dimensioned
weapons.

The only visible machining difference on the Ishapore units seems to be 
the lightening cuts made in the lower receiver.