by Bob Cashner
In 2001, a group of American gun writers gave a DSA-manufactured SA58 standard FAL a torture test that involved firing 10,000 rounds of ammunition over a period of nine hours. When the rifle became too hot to hold, it was cooled off in a snowbank. When a pin sheared on the forearm, it was fixed with a bent nail. When a Steyr gas plug failed, it was replaced in three minutes with a DSA-made part. And they kept firing. The barrel was of course completely shot out by the end of the ordeal, but headspace had increased only 0.025mm (0.001in) and the gun was still firing and still able to put its shots into a man-sized silhouette at a range of 91m (100yd). This torture test ended not when the SA58 FAL gave up, but when the testers ran out of ammunition! (Fortier 2002: 36–42) COMPARISONS
It is instructive to compare the FAL to its main rivals in the realm of battle rifles, namely the M14 and the G3.
M14
Although used by only a tiny handful of nations compared to the other battle rifles, the M14 was certainly a fine battle rifle. Just like the FAL and the G3, however, the 7.62×51mm cartridge keeps it from being controllable in full-automatic fire. In fact, the full-automatic feature was disabled on the vast majority of M14s. A gas-operated weapon with a 20-round detachable magazine, the M14 can be seen as an improved and modernized version of the M1 Garand of World War II fame – which, while not a bad thing, still begins with late 1930s technology.
The M14 is the lightest of the three battle rifles by roughly 0.45kg (1lb), lightness always being appreciated by the infantryman. The main combat service of the M14 was during the early phases of American involvement in the Vietnam War. The M14 is nearly always more accurate than the FAL, due to both design and its excellent sights. In fact, the M14 saw much longer service as the M21 sniper rifle version than it did as a battle rifle.
Upgraded M14s are still in service with US forces around the world.
G3
The Heckler & Koch G3 traced an interesting path. It was originally based on a prototype Mauser design at the end of World War II, which was further developed in post-war Spain as the Model 58 series of CETME
rifles. After the disagreement over FN allowing Germany to manufacture FALs, the Germans took another look at the CETME design and eventually Heckler & Koch was to hone the design in 7.62×51mm NATO as the G3
72
( Gewehr 3).
© Osprey Publishing • www.ospreypublishing.com
The G3 is the heaviest of the three battle rifles, although weighing only After the FN FAL, the Heckler slightly more than the FAL. It utilizes a unique roller locking system, and & Koch G3 is the second most all in all, the G3 may well be the most rugged modern military rifle ever popular battle rifle of the post-war era. With a roller-delayed
made. The G3 suffers from two major flaws from the standpoint of the blowback action, it is perhaps user, however.
even more rugged than the
First, the trigger is almost universally atrocious; I have found this to be FAL, though let down by its the case with G3s, HK91s and CETMEs. A bad trigger is perhaps the poor trigger. This Marine was photographed testing a G3
greatest obstacle to good marksmanship. Second, the G3 lacks a mechanism in Manda Bay, Kenya, 2003.
to lock the bolt to the rear after the last round in the magazine has been (US Marine Corps) fired. Many a soldier has pulled the trigger on an empty chamber with this system. Inherently, the G3 is capable of great accuracy. Practically, its poor trigger and sights provide less field accuracy than the other battle rifles. As with the others, calibre also keeps it from being a true assault rifle.
Comparative specifications – FN FAL, H&K G3, M14
FN FAL
H&K G3
M14
Calibre
7.62×51mm NATO
7.62×51mm NATO
7.62×51mm NATO
Weight
4.31kg (9lb 8oz)
4.4kg (9lb 11oz)
3.88kg (8lb 9oz)
Length
1,053mm (41.5in)
1,025mm (40.4in)
1,117mm (44in)
Barrel length
533mm (21in)
450mm (17.7in)
558mm (22in)
Magazine
20-round detachable box
20-round detachable box
20-round detachable box
Cyclic rate of fire
650–700rds/min
500–600rds/min
750rds/min
Muzzle velocity
853m/sec (2,800ft/sec)
780–800m/sec (2,560–2,625ft/sec) 853m/sec (2,800ft/sec)
73
© Osprey Publishing • www.ospreypublishing.com
THE FAL’S WEAKNESSES
Weight
The FAL certainly had its weaknesses, mainly weight and length. British and Australian rifle manuals even included special strengthening exercises for those who would wield the SLR. Weight does not endear any weapon to the infantryman. In addition to the weight of the weapon, the soldier has to carry the ammunition for it. Here was the greatest argument in favour of the 5.56×45mm NATO cartridge when it replaced the
7.62×51mm round. With lighter ammunition, the soldier could carry more of it. In an age when the concept of volume of fire and suppressive fire was taking over military thinking, a soldier carrying more cartridges was a major selling point.
A single round of 7.62mm ammunition (M80) weighs 25.40g (392
grains), while a single 5.45×45mm SS109 cartridge weighs only 12.31g (190 grains) – a weight reduction of approximately half. To the cartridge A comparison of Cold War rifles.
From top to bottom: the American
weight must be added the weight of the magazine; a seemingly insignificant 7.62mm M14; German 7.62mm
difference, but not when multiplied by six or eight of them in the H&K G3; American 5.56mm AR-15
infantryman’s magazine pouches. A full 20-round (steel) magazine of (which became the M16); French
7.62×51mm ball ammunition weighs 730g (1lb 12oz) compared to 459g 7.5mm MAS 49/56; 7.62mm FN
FAL. (Neil Grant)
(1lb) for a 30-round aluminium magazine of 5.56mm ball.
Length
Length
Length was another major
Length w
Achilles
heel of the F
heel of th
AL, especially with the
SLR’s 1,143mm (45in) length being
SLR’s 1,14
slightly longer than the .303in Lee-Enfield
slightly longer
No. 4 rifle it replaced!
No. 4 rifle it rep
In urban fighting,
In urban
such length cost
the soldier valuable time and
the soldi
manoeuvrability in the tight spaces
manoeuvra
characteristic of house-to-house street
characterist
fighting,
fighting and it was less than ideal
in thick jungle growth.
in th
A
paratrooper exiting an aircraft or
paratr
an air
a
-assault infantryman leaping
n air-
from a helicopter does not appreciate
from a he
excess weapon length,
either. It should go
without saying that
mechanized/armoured
infantry exiting hatches on
i
APCs or IFVs find a shorter rifle desirable as well.
APCs or IFVs find a shorter rifle desira
In fact, a former
British soldier serving with the British
British soldier serving with the British Army of the Rhine,
A
whom I
met in Germany during the Cold W
met in Germany during the Cold ar
W ,
ar was less
impressed with his
, w
L1A1 than I was; riding in the low-profile FV432
L1A1 h
I
idi
i h l
fil FV
APC, he claimed ‘SLR’
74
actually stood for ‘Stupidly Long Rifle’.
© Osprey Publishing • www.ospreypublishing.com
The FAL’s length was not inevitable, but once more we are playing the
‘what if?’ game regarding the .280in intermediate calibre. An early FAL
prototype, the FN No. 2 ‘short’ carbine, was a bullpup design intended to compete with the EM-2; despite having a 585mm (23in) barrel, it was only 860mm (33.9in) long. Other early FN FAL prototypes, both light-and heavy-barrelled models, had 482mm (19in) barrels rather than the 533mm (21in) barrels that became military standard.
The FAL eventually evolved by increments to combat the problems of length and weight, incorporating shorter barrels, lightweight aluminium lower receivers and folding stocks. For the SLR, a 457mm (18in) or 482mm (19in) barrel and a shorter muzzle device, such as the Belgian-pattern short flash hider, could have saved the infantryman 152mm (6in) or so of length.
Today, the latest rage among commercially produced FALs is the carbine with 412.75mm (16.25in) barrel, which in the standard fixed-stock version is 952.5mm (37.5in) long overall and weighs 3.78kg (8lb 5oz) empty and without accessories (sling, magazine, etc.). An SA58 FAL
‘Para’ with the same barrel length folds down to 724mm (28.5in) and weighs a manageable 3.8kg (8lb 6oz).
Still, as we all know, no matter the rifle or the modifications, the
‘perfect’ rifle does not and will no doubt never exist. The best that can be hoped for is a rifle that does most things well. The argument over the
‘best’ rifle is one that will probably never end.
The great debate: firepower versus accuracy
Advocates of the larger-calibre main battle rifles almost universally argue that steel on target – i.e. accuracy – is what constitutes real firepower. On the other hand, real select-fire assault rifles and modern military doctrine call for firepower via volume of fire. This disagreement still rages on between the various adherents and will no doubt go on for decades to come.
As renowned military historian the late John Keegan saw it, ‘“Wasting ammunition”, for decades the cardinal military sin, has in consequence become a military virtue; “hitting the target”, for centuries the principal military skill, is henceforth to be left to the law of averages’. (Keegan 1978: 262). American military historian Brigadier General S.L.A. Marshall’s observations that during the Korean War small-arms engagements were conducted at short ranges (within 229m/250yd) added weight to the World War II statistics the Germans used to determine the need for an assault rifle effective only to 300m (328yd). These observations served to amplify the demand for full-automatic assault rifles in the hands of every infantryman. Often overlooked, though, is the fact that Marshall argued repeatedly that full-automatic assault rifles were not a good idea: ‘Suffice to say now that any trend toward eliminating the semi-automatic, hand-carried weapons in favor of full-automatic weapons in the hands of all infantrymen should be vigorously combated’ (Marshall 1958).
During the night-long attacks made by Chinese forces against US infantry positions in Korea, Marshall noted that on more than one occasion all of the American automatic weapons (LMG, BAR, M2 carbine, submachine gun) had run completely dry while the riflemen armed with the semi-automatic M1 Garand always had ammunition left – enough to settle the issue during the last desperate hours or even minutes of combat when both sides were on their last legs.
75
© Osprey Publishing • www.ospreypublishing.com
CONCLUSION
The FAL still appears in military and law-enforcement use, most recently showing up in the Libyan Civil War. In a few countries, FALs remain in active-duty service, while other nations retain FALs for use by reserve forces or as basic trainee weapons. Civilian contractors in the world’s war zones, able to choose their own weapons, sometimes pick the FAL. UN
peacekeepers are sometimes still armed with versions of the FAL.
In South America in particular, the FAL stubbornly hangs on in military service. Argentina and Brazil have held onto most of their FALs.
Argentina is, in fact, currently rebuilding some 100,000 of its old FALs, and experimenting with new and improved versions. At one end of the spectrum, units which engage in jungle and urban fighting have short-barrelled FAL carbines; at the other end, FALs have been fine-tuned into long-range precision sniper rifles. Argentina has plans to retool one of the DGFM arms plants to resume production of various versions of the FAL.
Neither do the Argentines have plans to change over to the 5.56×45mm round. Keeping in mind some of the serious performance issues of that calibre, as seen in recent and ongoing conflicts, perhaps this is not a bad idea. Argentina will also be building ‘accurized’ Match-grade models of the FAL for use as scoped semi-automatic sniper rifles, known as the Rifle, Semiautomatic, Precision.
The 7.62×51mm NATO round’s combination of range and stopping
power has led the Indian Army to fit scopes to versions of their 1A1 for use as a DMR. Although regular Indian Army units now have the
5.56×45mm INSAS or Israeli 5.56×45mm Tavor TAR-21 rifles, those reserve and paramilitary units tasked with patrolling the vast mountain wilderness along India’s borders with China and Pakistan retain the 1A1, as do many police forces.
Today’s civilian shooters – especially in the United States – have a real 76
affinity with the FAL, which keeps commercial manufacture and sales going
© Osprey Publishing • www.ospreypublishing.com
A modern folding-stock FN
A modern folding
FAL. The rifle incorporates the
FAL. The rifle inco
‘modular’ approach to rifle design,
‘modular’ approa
with mounting rails fitted around
with mounting ra
the handguard and top of the
the handguard an
receiver for taking a variety of
receiver for takin
accessories and fittings, including
accessories and f
the front hand grip seen here. (PD)
the front hand gr
strong. DSA Inc. of Illinois is the leading manufacturer of American FALs and continues to produce all-new weapons. In addition to the standard rifle, carbine and ‘Para’ models, one interesting weapon intended for use by military and police is the SA58 OSW (Objective Sniper Weapon), available in semi-automatic-only or select-fire versions. The OSW has barrels as short as 330mm (13in) or even 279mm (11in); the latter version is only 590.5mm (23.25in) overall long with the stock folded. At the other end of the DSA spectrum is the SA58 SPR, a rugged sniper rifle comparable to the Argentine precision semi-automatic rifle. The spate of urban battlefields this century has led to requests for larger-capacity semi-automatic rather than bolt-action sniper rifles, and the SPR was actually submitted to the US Army for its SASS Rifle Trials. Examples have also been spotted in the hands of New Zealand and Australian SAS troopers deployed to Afghanistan.
In between these two, a wide variety of semi-automatic choices for the civilian shooter is available, from the standard fixed-stock FAL to a ‘Para’
folding-stock model with a 413mm (16.26in) barrel. For hunters, some of the rifles are also chambered for .243 Winchester and .260 Remington hunting cartridges. Despite all the different outward appearances, they are all FALs at heart.
As much as some would like it, the FN FAL is not going to be brought back as a service rifle in the West. One always has to wonder what would have happened had the .280in British round been adopted instead of the 7.62×51mm round. Perhaps, like the venerable Soviet 7.62×39mm round, it would still be in use as a standard calibre. With the .2
80in round, the FAL, with various improvements over the years, no doubt would have also enjoyed a much longer service life, as have the various Kalashnikovs.
Hypothetical questions aside, historically the FAL/SLR did indeed serve long and well with more than 90 countries and has more than earned its moniker of ‘the Right Arm of the Free World’.
77
© Osprey Publishing • www.ospreypublishing.com
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Secondary sources
Arnold, Dave (1987). ‘Fabrique Nationale’s World-Class Battle Rifles’, Assault Firearms ( Guns & Ammo), Vol. 5, No. 1: 66.
Arthur, Max (1987). Above All, Courage. London: Sphere Books.
Cozad, Andrea (1988). Light Infantry in Action. Newsletter 1-88. Fort Leavenworth, KS: Center for Army Lessons Learned.
Dewar, Michael (1984). Brush Fire Wars: Minor Campaigns of the British Army since 1945. London: Robert Hale.
Dodd, Colonel Norman L. (1976). ‘The Corporal’s War: Internal Security Operations in Northern Ireland’, Military Review, July 1976, 58.
Fortier, David (2001). ‘Austria’s FAL; The StG58’, Shotgun News, 20 January 2001, 23.
Fortier, David M. (2002). ‘Nine-hour 10,000-round DSA Torture Test’, Guns Magazine, August 2002, 36–42
Geraghty, Tony (1982). Inside the SAS. New York, NY: Ballantine.
Hall, Bob & Ross, Andrew (2009). ‘Bang on Target? Infantry Marksmanship and Combat Effectiveness in Vietnam’, Australian Army Journal, Volume VI, Number 1, Autumn 2009, 139–53.
Haran, Peter & Kearney, Robert (2001). Crossfire: An Australian Reconnaissance Unit in Vietnam. Sydney: New Holland.
Hoare, Major Michael (2008). The Road To Kalamata: A Congo Mercenary's Personal Memoir. Boulder, CO: Paladin Press.
Keegan, John (1978). The Face of Battle. New York, NY: Penguin Books.
Luttwak, Edward & Horowitz, Dan (1975). The Israeli Army. New York, NY: Harper & Row.
Marshall, Brigadier General S.L.A. (1958). Sinai Victory: Command Decisions in History’s Shortest War, Israel’s 100-Hour Conquest of Egypt East of Suez. Nashville, TN: Battery Press.