Indians For Guns

Interesting things about FN FAL from American rifleman site
http://www.americanrifleman.org/article ... he-fn-fal/

Image: Factory blueprints with cut-away instructional FAL rifle.

1. FAL Pronunciation and Grammar: Soon after the introduction of the rifle, Fabrique Nationale (FN) offered an abbreviation for the English speaking world: L.A.R (Light Automatic Rifle). However, this abbreviation never caught on, and instead we commonly pronounce the model by its French language abbreviation F-A-L. In countries where the rifle was adopted, the letters FAL quickly became an acronym and is pronounced in one word instead of an abbreviation. The heavy barrel version was named FALO, it is a blended word between FAL and Lourd (heavy), and the letter ‘L’ was not duplicated. It too is pronounced in many countries as one word, while in the U.S. we usually hear FAL-O.



Grammar of the French spelling has always caused some confusion: The rifle is properly spelled Fusil Automatique Léger (no letter “e” at the end of Léger). While the CAL, the FAL’s younger cousin in 5.56 mm, is spelled Carabine Automatique Légère (Light Automatic Carbine, Légère with an “e”). The reason is that the French language assigns genders to nouns. Fusil is a masculine and Carabine is a feminine word, feminine words often get an extra “e” in spelling and are pronounced differently.

2. The FN FAL and the G3: Germany adopted the FN FAL in 1956 and gave it the nomenclature Deutsche Bundeswehr Gewehr 1 (German Armed Forces Rifle 1 or G1). FN was happy to accommodate the German special features but drew the line at selling Germany a manufacturing license. FN did not have problems with selling manufacturing licenses and did so with many nations. Yet it did not trust the Germans only 11 years after the end of the Second World War. The Germans were adamant at producing the rifle domestically and pursued adapting the Spanish CETME to fit their needs. The CETME design evolved to become the German G3. The Germans did not abandon the FAL for performance or technical reasons but rather for logistics and politics. If FN had sold Germany the manufacturing rights to the FAL we may never have seen a G3 (or HK91). It would certainly have had a major impact on the development of the H&K company.

3. Belgian Steel: Long before the AISI/SAE steel grades were established, FN used a proprietary steel alloy and heat treatment process for Mauser rifles and other guns. This steel was ordered from world- renowned steel suppliers like Cockerill and remained FN’s standard for decades. Many people confuse the modern grading system with quality and believe that modern steels are better than what was available a century ago. The grading system is a guideline that can certify the composition of an alloy, and does not indicate quality but helps manufacturers obtain alloys with certain specifications without having to necessarily test the steel. FAL production was licensed to several countries and it was also copied extensively. No matter where it was made, each FAL receiver has its own steel signature in hardness. There is no harder and longer wearing steel than what is found on a FN. Hardness tests quickly reveal the massive differences in quality between FN and American (commercial variants), Argentine, Australian, Austrian, Brazilian, British, Canadian, Indian and South-African production.

4. Not Every FAL is an FN: American enthusiasts have often been shortchanged by rifles that look like FALs but are far from the quality of a true FN. Many outfits and individuals have gotten involved at marrying used (some worn) parts kits from surplus sources with newly made receivers of various qualities. The reality is that most of what is on the U.S. market may look like a FAL but does not function like a true FN FAL. Certainly parts are interchangeable, but building a FAL from new parts or used parts requires expertise. FN used more than 10 different locking shoulder dimensions to achieve the right fit and headspace, most assemblers here use a fraction of that. It is not an easy rifle to assemble: FN’s were built by craftsmen who had numerous parts at their disposal. Much was done by subjective feel, like a custom rifle. If one part did not feel right, it was substituted. In contrast, many of the rifles on the commercial market are a compromise of worn parts, new and used parts, and barrels, many which are worn or of dubious quality. Unless you have fired and owned an FN FAL or a quality made version as made by DSA, you have not truly experienced the classic FAL.

5. 7.62x51 mm NATO is Not .308 Winchester: Although similar in appearance and dimensions, the two cartridges have different characteristics. Commercially imported FN FAL rifles that are .308 marked will handle both .308 and 7.62x51 mm rounds, but the thinner .308 case can affect extraction. U.S.-assembled parts guns can experience myriad problems. I have witnessed rifles that will cycle .308 and not 7.62 and vice versa. Such problems stem from the lack of expertise by the assembler. It is not just headspace that is critical, chamber diameter and other factors play an equal role. These problems have often frustrated shooters as the solutions are not always obvious. A well-built FAL rifle will handle just about any (quality) ammo. That said, many FAL owners buy NATO spec ammo, designated by the cross in a circle marking found on casings. Many would assume that this ammunition is uniformly the same among countries and manufacturers, but it is not. Almost each country uses different cartridge and bullet lengths and weights as well as propellants. While the ammo is interoperable and totally functional, you can expect significant ballistic variances from one country manufacturer to another (see more).

I am often asked what the best gas plug setting is for the FAL, and the answer is that there is not one; it all depends on the individual rifle more than the ammo. FN recommends shooting one round and opening the port one click and repeat the operation until the rifle stops cycling. At that point close the port back two clicks. This old method is still the best and most often ensures reliable operation with most types of ammunition.

Great info on FAL also known as right arm of the free world.

I have very fond memories of shooting it growing up. My dad swears by it and is not impressed with INSAS and 556 crap.

Sent from my SM-G925V using Tapatalk

Saint
I agree old FAL till is a knock out gun as you mentioned its used by so many armies through out the world..INSAS is a debacle.
The best compliment I got from Pakistani Gun Enthusiast who had army background and mentioned his uncle preferred firing Indian FAL compared to their G3 while hunting around Narowal Sialkot Border.
Cheers

In fact all of old school British soldiers also love as they carried it during their service.

Dad says that whenever his boys shot the enemy, only one shot was enough to neutralize the threat and that was it. This is from his experience during 71 war in poonch sector Kashmir and 2 years IPKF Jaffna, Sri Lanka.

I was about 10 when I shot it the first time and of course could not hold it standing so had to shoot prone. I was not expecting it but the first shot knocked the snot out of me. Since then I have never held a firearm lightly even if it is a 22 ... lol.

Sent from my SM-G925V using Tapatalk

Great to know so much about the sturdy and accurate FN FAL, which we always called 7.62 mm SLR. I first fired it at the RajRif centre range during NCC days and got the chance again in Dehradun. We were actually shocked to fire INSAS initially but then got used to it. I feel INSAS is only good for firing competitions and drill. Rest,I just wish we could get the SLR/FAL back. The rifle is still used by many infantry units for ceremonial purposes and Guard procedures. Its power and accuracy is superb and can beat the crap out of any assault rifle still.

alameinite wrote:Great to know so much about the sturdy and accurate FN FAL, which we always called 7.62 mm SLR.

I believe the IOF reverse engineered the British 1A1s to come up with its 'SLR' much like the case is with Denel's NTW vis a vis 'Vidhwansak'.. Though the Indian ones like most British & commonwealth FALs were semi-auto, the Canadian & Australian ones were capable of full-auto fire but not used for squad fire support due to the superiority of the Holy Bren!

The British FALs were called 'inch FALs' while the others were known as 'metric FALs' after the measurement dimensions used. During the Falkland's war the Brits used captured Argentinian FALs for their full-auto CQB advantages.

If one is fighting an insurgency, a knife is the best weapon, followed by the biggest round! If only the recoil was manageable in full-auto, we might still be shooting these instead of the INSAS...

You're correct main13. IIRC there was a discussion on this forum many years ago, during the course of which it came out that India "reverse engineered"/ shamelessly copied the design and was promptly sued by FN.

The case was decided in favour of FN and India ended up paying a license fee for every single FAL/ SLR ever made in India!

So despite the fact that they didn't even get the benefit of a single drawing from FN, let alone any tech support/ expertise, India had to pay for the pleasure of using the FAL/ SLR.

That my friends is the nature of our holy of holies - the Indian Ordnance Factory Board and the boffins that work there.

Cheers!
Abhijeet

I don't condone reversing stuff for nation's security as such. Everything is fair in love & war they said! Problem occurs when they do it stupidly.. The Chinese & the Russians have been copying whole bombers & fighters from the Americans & each other too for decades now but nobody can so much as scratch them for it!

The IOF morons copied the NTW-20 which Denel submitted for competitive testing of an AMR for the army... They basically copied the gun as is & added some accessories & machined another barrel for 14.5mm rds which the NTW didn't support at the time.. That's fine by me if you ask.. But the bloody fools made it a 25kg monster! (Not that the NTW is any lighter at 33+kgs...)

Now even Arnold Schwarzenegger would get crushed under its weight.. Forget about it ever being carried by a 2-man sniper team, you need a whole goddamned section just to carry the gun & its ammo! If a section was what we wanted to send to put a big round at the right spot in the first place, we might've sent a tank rolling down the hill.. Bigger bang for the buck!

Contrast that with the likes of DSR, Barrett, Robar, KSVK, OSV.. Which are all under 15kgs fully accessorized & loaded & can be carried between 2 men with sufficient weight reserved for other necessary equipment...

From: Cashner, Bob (2013). The FN FAL Battle Rifle. Oxford, UK: Osprey Publishing. ISBN 978-1-78096-903-9.

There's a copy online (text only, no photos) at https://archive.bookfrom.net/bob-cashne ... rifle.html

India

Another strange FAL twist too often overlooked by Western historians involved the newly independent state of India, whose armed forces were still equipped with the .303in No. 1 Mk III* Lee-Enfield into the mid-1950s. In 1958 the American 7.62×51mm AR-10 and 5.56×45mm AR-15 rifles were tested to the satisfaction of the Indian military, but politics and old ties to Britain led to the adoption of the 7.62×51mm NATO cartridge and the FN FAL in 1963.


The Indian Armament Research & Development Establishment (ARDE) ordered several Metric-pattern FALs from FN, as well as multiple examples of both British and Australian Inch-pattern L1A1s. These rifles were minutely dissected and tested, and the Indian Army was brought on board with the new FAL.


Seeking to manufacture their own version of the FAL domestically, the Indian military was soon butting heads with FN. The Belgian firm insisted that the Indians purchase Belgian FN machinery to manufacture the rifles and hire Belgian FN technicians to run the show. These requirements seemed a little insulting to the Indians, as the Ishapore Rifle Factory had been in the the business of gun-making for a century; the Indians also felt that FN was demanding far too much money in the way of licensing payments and royalties for each rifle produced. India was not a wealthy nation and had version of the FAL since 1960, and an infantry-heavy army, the sixth largest in the world at that time, which of course required a great many rifles, involving a correspondingly large expenditure of money.

So, ARDE’s Small Arms Design Group began drawing up plans for their own weapon, incorporating what suited their military needs best by using their existing FALs and L1A1s as patterns. Thus, the resultant 1A was a mixture of Inch- and Metric-pattern components. As a consequence, most Indian parts are not interchangeable with either Metric-pattern FALs or Commonwealth Inch-pattern SLRs. Manufacture of the 1A began at the Ishapore Rifle Factory in 1960.

This move, of course, did not sit well with FN; in the Belgians’ opinion, the 1A was merely an unlicensed copy of their FAL. An international row ensued. The Indian prime minister, Jawaharlal Nehru (1889–1964), apparently hadn’t been aware of the dealings either, and successfully satisfied FN’s complaints by purchasing additional standard FALs, FALOs and 60.20 GPMGs manufactured by FN in Belgium.

The Ishapore Rifle Factory initially produced the 1A at a rate of 750 rifles per week, with gradual increases, until it was replaced in Indian service from 1998 by the locally designed 5.56×45mm INSAS (Indian Small Arms System). The 1A still remains in limited production for the export market, however.

The 1A offers semi-automatic fire only, like the British L1A1. A select-fire version, the 1C, was made primarily to be a port-firing weapon in the Sarath infantry fighting vehicle (IFV), an Indian-manufactured version of the Soviet BMP-2. Despite the purchase of some heavy-barrelled FALs from Belgium, the Indian Army’s SAW of choice remained the L4 version of the Bren gun in 7.62×51mm calibre, some of which are still in service with various units.