FNAC (FN Advanced Carbine)

fnac_fn_advanced_carbine-tm-tfb1

FNH USA’s entry into the Army Individual Carbine competition is the FNAC (Advanced Carbine). The most notable difference between the FN SCAR and the FNAC is that the FNAC has a non-reciprocating charging handle and that the FNAC is 0.3 lbs lighter then a similarly configured FN SCAR Mk. 16.

The barrel is 14″ long and feature a M9 Bayonet compatible lug. Like the FN SCAR PDW and FN Mk. 20 SSR , the FNAC’s gas block is not topped with a folding front sight, and like the FN SCAR HAMR, the upper receiver lacks the cuts-outs above the barrel.

It looks like FNH USA has merged the best features of the SCAR family into one rifle, and added a few new features of their own, to make one neat package. It will be interesting to see if FN Herstal (Belgium) adopts any of these features for the next iteration of the FN SCAR carbines.


Steve Johnson

Founder and Dictator-In-Chief of TFB. A passionate gun owner, a shooting enthusiast and totally tacti-uncool. Favorite first date location: any gun range. Steve can be contacted here.


Advertisement

  • calool

    i dont think this has a good chance of being adopted by the US army, the problem with the whole SCAR range of guns is that they dont offer a huge enough improvement to warrant the mass switch. It seems like FN is going to keep going until they nail it on the head, on the day they make it a 100% improvement over the AR15, i’ll be watching

    • JMD

      There’s only so much improvement that can be made while still being required to feed the same old cartridge out of the same old magazine design.

    • Esh325

      Why would they be holding a competition if they thought NOTHING could improve upon the current issue M4/M4A1?

      • Some guy

        Dog and pony show. How many times have we tried to replace the M16 family of weapons now?

      • JMD

        Let me clarify here….

        A new design may be lighter, more ergonomic, easier to train people on, easier to use under stress, less expensive, etc., All kinds of design improvements can be made.

        However…

        The military’s requirements include sticking with 5.56x45mm, and for now and a while into the future that primarily means M855a1 in particular. No matter how many ways you improve the above-mentioned aspects, continuing to use the same cartridge is going to continue to provide identical ballistic performance. Then that cartridge design still has to feed out of standard M16 magazines- not even the cartridge overall length (COAL) can change.

        If they really want the drastic performance increase that would be required to justify adopting a whole new weapon system, it’s going to require a different cartridge and a new magazine to go with it. Is that required? I don’t know. I’m not commenting on that. I’ll leave that to someone else for now.

        Meanwhile, the M16, M4 and variants thereof are really pretty good. A lot of improvements have been made, and the latest versions are amazingly reliable, accurate, and also easy to use and maintain.

        Are there better things, and can better things be invented? Probably. Will “other things” that use the same old cartridge and magazine provide the drastic increase in performance that’s being requested, and provide a level of performance that justifies the exorbitant cost of such changes at a time when military spending is being slashed? It didn’t happen when more money was available, and I doubt it’ll happen now.

        For now, the best course of action is to continue to make minor improvements to the standard direct impingement M4/M16 designs.

        It’s a lot less expensive to change parts than whole rifles.

    • W

      JMD is right, the idea that not adopting a rifle because it is not a drastic improvement over the M4 is ridiculous. If you hold a rifle within similar parameters (with same caliber and magazines), then don’t expect anything to be a vast improvement unless you change magazines and the cartridge.

      Common sense dictates if “nothing had a measurable improvement over the M4″, then why would the army have a carbine competition? i don’t buy into the “dog and pony show” contention, which shares commonality with skeptics that love making up conspiracy theories.

      If there is any “conspiracy”, it lies in the US military’s outright refusal to adopt a new cartridge and stick to AR15 magazines (which are the two primary weaknesses of the AR15 design!). This wouldn’t be the first time the US military would act outright stupid when it comes to cartridges.

      I dont agree with FN changing the SCAR with a non-reciprocating charging handle. There is a compelling reason for the reciprocating design and I can only assume that it can also serve as a forward assist (though without seeing the rifle itself, i can hope that FN will do this).

      Besides reducing dirt and debris, i do not understand why they eliminated the cutouts. Especially in short stroke gas piston designs, most of the heat accumulates around the gas block. I am curious as to how this will affect the SCAR’s cooling of its gas system.

      • cobrey92

        It may actually act as a heat sink, sort of like JP enterprises heat sink they offer for the AR. I’d be interested to see barrel temps under both configurations.

      • lex

        @cobrey92
        a heatsink needs surface area more than it need mass, removing the cutouts doesn’t improve things

      • W

        Im sure this is a question that can be shot to FN. Seeing this feature made me face palm, though perhaps it is for a reason (not seeing a FNAC, my reluctance to accept the new feature is derived from ignorance rather than fact).

        This was one of the complaints I had with the HK 416. The rail system essentially, in my opinion, impedes the cooling of the gas block (and subsequently accumulates heat quickly). With piston guns, cooling around the gas block is extremely important.

      • Other Steve

        Thing is, if FN did not place the cut outs in – there was a reason. It’s extra weight (albeit so little). It could have been costs, corrosion, heat, etc, but there was a reason.

        I think more interesting will be if the holes are in or not in the next civilian variant.

      • W

        optimistically, however, most of the SCAR’s gas block is outside of the rail. This was wise from a engineering standpoint. Perhaps they felt the cut outs were a unnecessary expenditure.

    • DW

      Even the ACR project (the one with H&K, Steyr, Colt competing) did not offer 100% improvement over AR15 family of weapons, and remember their offerings isn’t even required to use 5.56X45, instead some very exotic cartrige designs.

      • Aurelien

        Well you need to factor in the fact that the soviet union fell in the middle of the ACR competition. The need for a whole new weapon system got kind of blurred by the whole “no big enemy anymore” deal.
        Plus, most of the designs were way out there. Pretty difficult to explain developping a whole new generation of ammo (flechette or caseless), with all the expenses that would ensue, with no people to shoot at.

        The old rifles became “good enough” and all of Europe stopped working on new ammo tech.

        Also fun fact : FNAC is the name of a big chain of tech stores in Europe. But they don’t sell any guns, so you wont be able to buy a FNAC through FNAC.

      • Avery

        @Aurelien
        That makes some sense. I remember that the G11 was built around the whole “Fulda Gap defense”, where it’s 2000rpm bursts and planned deviation would be useful against the target-rich environment filled with dismounted Russian mechanized infantry.

      • Aurelien

        Well, the whole point of the ACR program was to create weapons that were to be used in german cities to fight off soviet troops protected by bordy armor. So due to the soviet/communist strategy of volume charge, they thought it would be waves after waves of russians.

        When it became clear that it would not happen, the ACR program didnt make sense anymore, and was scrapped.

        Other programs built around the “fulda gap defense” were the OICW/SABR and the PAPOP (in France), that did not go anywhere either.

        The only “Fulda Gap Defense” weapons that made it were the PDWs like the P90 and the MP7.

      • W

        Keeping the same cartridge and same magazine…how in the f–k is a weapon supposed to have any “measurable improvement” over the M4? That is illogical. If I were to employ a phaser that is pinpoint accurate at 800 meters and stops a enemy soldier with one shot, then that is measurable difference, considering you are venturing outside the 5.56 realm. Staying with the 5.56 and magazine while expecting insane quantities of differences between the two competing weapon systems is utterly stupid.

        Say you have a weapon that can fire 400-500 rounds in quick succession before the gas tube bursts or the bolt seizes (the M4), if you can field one that can fire 1,200 without failing then, to me, that is a measurable advantage.

  • Draxanoth

    I still don’t like the space boot. Only thing that really keeps me from being a SCAR fan.

    • Distant Voice

      Understandable from both an aesthetic and functional standpoint, but I’m wondering if it does do better in the drop test than the M4 buttstocks.

      I don’t think that this blog would appreciate me linking directly to another blog, but Military Time’s Gearscout has done a drop test across a wide swath of adjustable M4 buttstocks and posted the results on Feb 1st. I e-mailed them and suggested they try a SCAR stock later but I think we’d probably have to donate a spare one.

      • Avery

        Although most of it is second-hand, I’ve heard of bad things about the integrity of the “space-boot” stock. To me, it’s the only drawback to the SCAR. On the other hand, it looks more ergonomic.

  • Regula Guy 7

    I think to get a better battle rifle those producing and those purchasing need to start fresh.

    • JMD

      I think they ought to eventually use the M4/M16 system as a conceptual starting point, and keep all the good points of that system. To make a really serious developmental leap however, they’re going to have to go with a “medium intermediate” cartridge like 7x46mm or something in that general dimension range (between “intermediate” cartridges like 5.56x45mm and “short action” cartridges like 7,62x51mm), and a new magazine well and magazine both designed from the outset for a continuous curve, and no requirement for a straight section at the top that complicates feeding.

      A new magazine and magazine retention design would need to be implemented in a way that doesn’t rely on such a small notch and catch to hold it in the right place. A lot of malfunctions are caused by people running the rifle while holding the front of the magazine well with the support hand. Merely touching the magazine needs to be eliminated as a potential cause of feeding problems, and that will require a total redesign of the feeding system. AKs rarely have that problem, but their magazines also have to be rocked in and back out, which is a major downside to the design.

      Direct impingement is a design feature that should be retained, for a whole variety of reasons that I won’t go into here.

      The bolt catch and magazine release both need to be ambidextrous. A number of commercial manufacturers have already done that.

      The current charging handle system is fine, in my opinion. It’s extremely simple, and simple is good.

      I picture the end result as looking like a “too long AR15″ or “too short AR-308″, but with a curved magazine well.

      Until the military is willing to adopt a new cartridge and magazine at the same time, not even one of these things is plausible, let alone all of them.

      /rant/

      • Jay

        Adopting something like the SCAR instead of an AR15 version, would give the army a lot better chances to go to different cartridge, different magazine or both. The lower on the SCAR is polymer and is dirt cheap. It can be made in any kind of configuration you want with minimal cost.

        But this carbine competition is a bloody joke. This rifles are not competing against M4 to see the real advantages. Some general with the pockets filled by Colt will say the same thing all over again. “It doesn’t do enough to justify the change”.

  • Ben

    I’ve only seen one civilian shooting this rifle at a range; it looks interesting but I’m not paying $2-3000 dollars to own one. I think I can get the same performance & accuracy out of an AR.

    • W

      I see SCAR 16S’ for about 2100-2300 new. It incorporates a extremely reliable gas piston system, free floating barrel, modular rail system, and ambidextrous lower. To me, a AR15 with those features is not that much cheaper (and to match the accuracy of the SCAR, a equivalent AR15 would be similar in price).

      • jdun1911

        SCAR doesn’t bring anything new to the table. It used Sullivan actions (Miller/Stoner) which the US military has a long history of rejecting.

      • W

        Countries have adopted platforms borrowing from the AR18 design, most notably the SA80, the Steyr AUG, and the G36. The AR18 was not adopted because of stupidity plain and simple. The US military rejected them because of their reluctance to move away from the AR15 platform, thus, no company could ever hope to “bring something new to the table” because of the US military’s love affair with the M4/M16. The fact that the SCAR is gaining ground in popularity (especially its “H” variant as a battle rifle) means it does indeed bring something new to the table.

  • charles222

    I’d actually wager that this has the best chance out of any of the rifles in the IC competition. 1) FN has a proven track record at winning Army competitions 2) no R&D costs, as the design is matured and 3) it’s already been adopted, albeit for a subset of the total Army. #3 very definitely reminds me of the original adoption of the M16, which went initially to Special Forces and units in Vietnam.

  • spc fish

    they do have pretty good chance especially because the SCAR 16 and 17 have been adopted and are currently in use by the Army’s specialforces teams

  • presidentpaul

    The un-matching tan colors look bad, as in ugly. Maybe they were a bit rushed?

    • fw226

      They’re made from different substances, so I get it, but it bugs me, too.

  • SpudGun

    Even if the IC competition is a complete charade and Big Army has no intention of replacing the M4, just competing and doing well in the competition will be great advertising for FNH.

    With SOCOM dropping the Mk 16, it took a hit in reputation, so this is a big chance to get the official ‘rubber stamp’ from the whole of the US military.

    If handled correctly, it should result in a lot of contracts with government agencies, PDs and the military – both domestically and abroad.

    • lex

      SOCOM didn’t exactly drop the SCAR. They’re apparently still buying the MK17 and then will modify the ones they buy to fire 5.56.

      • SpudGun

        Hi Lex,

        Sorry if I wasn’t clear in my post, I only mentioned SOCOM dropping the Mk 16 not the Mk 17. However you want to spin it – phased out, streamlined, etc. – the reputation of the SCAR Mk 16 took a hit with this decision.

        Personally, I think it was unfair that the SCAR was so maligned and suspect it was the kneejerk reactions of a certain crowd of shooters with a preference for a particular platform.

        I wish FNH every success with making the Mk 16 ‘legit’.

      • W

        its an amazing thing, after people read a internet article (without being dubious about where the sources came from) that says SOCOM will not be acquiring any more Mk 16’s (never mind the individual branches at acquire the mk 16, like the Navy), they completely assume that the SCAR L must be so terrible. Sometimes, I honestly don’t know where people learn logic from…

        Another ironic mix to the whole situation, which, i digress, is a irony so thick you can cut it with a knife, is that SCAR critics repudiate the design because “the butt stock latch can sometimes break”. Interestingly enough, most of the SCAR critics are AR15 boys; everybody knows the AR15 had more than just a issue with the butt stock when it was first introduced. Naturally the design matured when given a chance, though they are quick to dismiss any design that is not AR15 in nature. Ironic.

        Now the SCAR H is in a league of its own. A pretty hard weapon system to best right now.

      • 18D

        @W- I couldn’t have said it better myself!

  • William C.

    Why did they remove the cut outs above the barrel?

  • Nater

    Why didn’t FN just do this the first time? I’m sure most of the end user reports mentioned the reciprocating charging handle has a downside. I still don’t have a whole lot of interest in the 5.56mm SCAR variants…the H/17S, on the other hand, is the best battle rifle you can buy.

    • Avery

      IIRC, the reciprocating charger was a SOCOM requirement. The SCAR needed it in order to be accepted by them.

    • Jay

      It was what SOCOM wanted. They also wanted teh plastic stock instead of the original stock, with metal inserts proposed by FN.

    • W

      I honestly dont know what the BFD is with the reciprocating charging handle. The AK47/M/74/whatever has one, the Sig 550 has one, OMFG the M1 and M14 have one! reciprocating charging handles everywhere!

      On a serious note, there is a reason why SOCOM wanted it. It adds to the reliability of the platform. Stuck casings or bolt seizures (after extreme prolonged firing) can be easily remedied, though with a design like the AR15, this becomes a problem large enough to require disassembling.

      Of course, the ACR sold on the feature of non reciprocating charging handle. If FN can incorporate a design that allows it to be used as a forward assist, and its rugged and reliable, then I suppose it can be warranted.

      • jdun1911

        Reciprocating handle are not goodshooting in very close space.

        The reason why it has a reciprocating handle is to clear piston/op-rod malfunctions. The ACR has the ability to clear piston/op-rod jams. DI AR15 does not have these type of malfunctions because it doesn’t used a physical op-rod. I don’t know if it possible to clear piston/op-rod malfunctions on the FNAC.

      • W

        “Reciprocating handle are not goodshooting in very close space.”

        I think this flaw is blown way out of proportion. Consider that most shooting stances in a combat environment are conducted while kneeling. The only people that seem to whine about the SCAR’s charging handle are mag well grippers (which is outright wrong anyways). Even in prone and/or angled shooting with support or primary side, my SCAR has never caused me any issues. Its fascinating that nobody gripes about the reciprocating charging handle on every other weapon out there.

        “The reason why it has a reciprocating handle is to clear piston/op-rod malfunctions. The ACR has the ability to clear piston/op-rod jams. DI AR15 does not have these type of malfunctions because it doesn’t used a physical op-rod.”

        But AR15s DO have a propensity for seized bolts (after hard, prolonged firing i admit). The design itself would benefit admirably from a reciprocating charging handle (there are a few out there). For gas piston AR15’s the problem of a seized piston/op rod requires disassembling the weapon system, which is tactically unfeasible. There is a reason why it was a requirement for SOCOM.

      • http://mcthag.blogspot.com/ McThag

        And here I thought that FN was just sick of taking grief over the FAL’s lack of a reciprocating charging handle and any means of doing a forward assist.

        Except Israel’s version.

      • charles222

        W posted: On a serious note, there is a reason why SOCOM wanted it. It adds to the reliability of the platform. Stuck casings or bolt seizures (after extreme prolonged firing) can be easily remedied, though with a design like the AR15, this becomes a problem large enough to require disassembling.

        Eh…not really. I’ve seen (and cleared) stuck casings and bolt seizures on an M4 with a length of operating rod. Sure, it’s not perfect, but those types of serious issues are so rare that (IMO after 4 deployments/9 years in the infantry) it’s really not that huge a deal.

      • charles222

        argh. Meant to say cleaning rod.

      • W

        “Eh…not really. I’ve seen (and cleared) stuck casings and bolt seizures on an M4 with a length of operating rod. Sure, it’s not perfect, but those types of serious issues are so rare that (IMO after 4 deployments/9 years in the infantry) it’s really not that huge a deal.”

        Exactly. Its not perfect. Since SOCOM utilizes their weapons more than anybody else I could think of, there is a reason why they decided to incorporate the reciprocating charging handle.

        Clearing stuck casings can be cleared a majority of the time by pulling down on the charging handle and slamming the buttstock on the ground in a swift motion.

        With a SCAR, you can easily yank the charging handle back. I understand why they incorporate it, especially with the utilization of sound suppressors.

  • Axel Nordberg

    Is there a forward assist on that that I can’t see?

    Instinctively I feel that the reciprocating charging handle was a good thing, but I’m not a carbine expert and I’m not a defense contractor, so I’m staying out of that one.

  • magpul fan

    To me there only three contender.

    the lwrc m6 ic,robinson xcr and the remington acr.

    so far if i could choose one of those (and since i’m a magpul fan) i would take the masada acr.

    simply because of it’s modularity,flexibility,reliability and the fact that it bring something new and also that is a 100% american design.

    with the exeption of the lwrc, i think that the ar-15 platform is pretty much old, too much overused and has many limitation that it can’t do.

    one exemples the fact that we can’t have an cheek riser because of the charging handle and an folding stock because of the buffer.

    keep this in mind, the ar-15 is pretty much old and it’s times to get something new, and the ACR is definitly the NEXT generation for that…

    • Jon

      The ACR, unfortunately, is junk. Until they fix the laundry list of issues it has they’ll never select it, unless for some political reasons (i.e. being 100% American). The ACR has terrible reliability, poor accuracy, very poor barrel life, a mushy selector switch, and finicky trigger. Just about every “ACR vs SCAR” comparison by a reputable vet who has fired both systems almost always chooses the SCAR platform. Although they also usually note they still prefer the AR over both (as do I).

      I’m no fan of piston driven ARs, so LWRC isn’t my favorite choice either, especially since the DEA had major issues with pistons breaking when using them in the Stan.

      You should also know that FN maintains a factory and part of their business (FN USA) here in America. All of the recent M16A2 orders are made by FN (buddy of mine in BCT had an FN M16A2) in addition to the M249 and M240. Despite not being a 100% American company, the FN has a chance.

      However, in conclusion with all of the changes to the Improved Carbine Competition resulting in many gun makers including Colt to back out, budgets tightening, and SOCOM ditching the MK16 in favor of upgraded M4A1s, the Army’s “M4A2″ is most likely going to “win.” I think the ICC began as a legit program, but is being slowly reworked to ensure the cheapest solution that still works.

      • Jay

        I think it was reworked in such a way, to ensure nothing has a chance to replace the M4. There’s a good reason General Cassey got that good executive job at Colt. He made sure nothing can replace, or even compete directly against M4.

    • JB

      I sincerely despise the notion that because the AR-15 has been around for a long time it shouldn’t be in use any longer. Perhaps its been around for so long because it’s a damn good rifle? I think the statistic was that 94% of soldiers surveyed in A-stan are perfectly fine with the weapon. Does it have shortcomings? Yes of course it does. Can they be addressed? Of course they can. The AR-15, as others on this site have mentioned has become an open source design with near infinite potential and hundreds of companies that make parts for it. If the army was smart it would award series of smaller contracts to buy the most impressive and innovative parts in the industry in order to field M4’s outfitted for the mission at hand.

      @Magpulfan: Your two “exemples” (examples*) which focused on the stock and charging handle are silly and easily mitigated. A cheek riser is not a big deal in the first place, more of an add on feature that isn’t necessary, and there are still risers made by the industry that work with AR-15’s. I’m guessing that the real problem is the rear charging handle, but the industry has shown alternatives to this. JP Enterprise’s makes AR’s with side mounted charging handles, and ADCOR’s Bear features a forward charging handle. Oh, and the folding stock isn’t even on the ACR anymore, they scrapped it because of weight.

      As was previously mentioned, there isn’t going to be any generational leap in improvement as long as the 5.56 fed from a STANAG sticks around. But at least with the AR-15 you can add .300BLK to the arsenal.

      Long story short:

      The M4 is proven. The amount of companies that makes parts/upgrades for the weapon is MASSIVE. With modification the M4 can do anything the toned down ACR can do while being more familiar and battle ready. Unleash the design gurus who’ve been engineering AR-15’s for decades. Allow the improvements made to the system by companies like JP to filter into military use. Introduce the .300BLK as a complementary calibre to the M855A1 5.56. Make 7.62×51 a greater option. Put greater emphasis into M4’s with piston operation for reliability and cleaning. But keep DGI for its weight benefits.

    • mike knox

      Magpul’s basically just the Apple (company) of the firearms industry. Their biggest asset is their popularity. They’re only good at getting attention. The best they can do are firearms accessories.

      But when they try to build and sell firearms, they hardly get anywhere and are barely original. The Masada’s just a mashup of ideas from the AR-18, HK G36, FN SCAR, and the AR-15. It basically just looks like a US rip-off on the HK G36. Their PDR, just a FN P90 that feeds of a STANAG Magazine. The FMG9, another rip-off on Eugene Stoner’s Ares FMG. And their Massoud that plainly never got off the prototype stage..

      • magpul fan

        yeah ? and fn scar is what to you ?

        it’s basicaly a modernized fnc with a ar-15 lower and an ar-18 bolt carrier, also the fnc itself is a algamation of an fal and an ak.

        the g36 is basicaly an GLOCKED ar-18 with the feature of the sig sg550 series and the fn fal also with among of other rifle type feature.

        for the pdr the only thing common with the p90 is the integrated grip of the C version.

        also i would like to say that magpul as has studied many weapons concept between 2006 and now (just like the fighter jet) and i tell you that there an host of others weapons concept that was never publicly released,

        richard fiztpatrick said it himself on an ar15.com topic on the “magpul forum”, and guess what i have the chance to see those concept and believe me most of them are really unconventional ;).

      • John Doe

        Couldn’t have said it better myself. I like Magpul, I buy their grips and magazines over any other brand, but would I buy a rifle from them? No. They should stick to accessories.

    • Jay

      Magpul fan I like magpul. It’s a very dynamic inovative company that makes great acessories. They even designed a cool inovative rifle, the Masada. Not many US companies even tried that. Most just clone AR15’s.

      But no matter what, They are not even a dot on the radar compared to what FN is in the military firearms world.
      It’s one thing to come up with a cool assault rifle concept, and another thing to make it work in the real world. FN has a huge history of designing, testing and producing very succesful military firearms. Small companies, with little experience and resources, like Magpul, don’t really have the means to finalize such big projects.
      Look how long it took Remington and Bushmaster to make the ACR good enough to bring to the market and even now there are lots of problems.
      FN is simply more experienced when it comes to automatic weapons. Their firearms will have less issues when they get to the market or on the battlefield.

    • mike knox

      The FN SCAR is juat an FN work over on the FAL made to fit on an AR-15 lower to suit US needs. It’s bolt carrier alone is reminiscent of an FAL’s crossed over with an IMI Uzi’s. The HK G36 was developed from intended upgrades for the MP5 and G3 and construction techniques from the G11. The only AR part of it is it’s bolt assembly.

      The PDR is very much like a P90 rip off, just break it open and thelower receiver closely resembles a P90 frame. Even it’s mag well looks like the P90 ejection port.

      Magpul concepts don’t show their Abstract theories. They don’t show where their ideas stemmed from, just what they want to sell..

      • W

        i don’t agree with the pessimistic and negative attitude about where new firearms’ mechanisms are derived from. Technically, the lauded SIG 550 is a AK47 copy. The G36, SA80, and SCAR are “direct” copies of the AR18.

        Of course, there is so much you can do when developing a weapon that fires bullets. It is wise of FN and other companies to employ tried and true internal mechanisms that work rather than reinventing the wheel.

      • http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk/ Tony Williams

        Most of the operating principles of modern army rifles and MGs were invented over a century ago, and no new ideas have proved successful for at least half a century. So all “new” rifle designs are based on at least one, and sometimes several, older ones.

        What makes the difference in their effectiveness (apart from the cartridge, of course) is how well the old ideas are implemented: how reliable the gun is in adverse conditions, how soldier-proof, how easy to use and maintain, how accurate, how adaptable and able to accept accessories etc. I would also add how compact, but that’s a straight choice between traditional and bullpup layout!

      • mike knox

        @W
        Really? The AR-18? Get your head over that assumption.

        The HK G36 came from the HK36 and MP5 PIP. The Gas piston design is more reminiscent of a Russian SKS. If it was from the AR-18 the gas piston layout would be backwards.

        The SA80 came from the EM-2 which was an idea from WW2. It’s only relation with the AR-18 is that the EM-2 design allowed the designers to build an AR-18 bullpup which showed them how to build the SA80.

        The FN SCAR is derived from the FAL through the FNC.

        And the SIG 550 design rooted from the SIG SG 510 which was more of an FG-42. The only relation to it with an AK is a rotating bolt..

      • Colin

        Mike Knox wrote “The SA80 came from the EM-2 which was an idea from WW2. It’s only relation with the AR-18 is that the EM-2 design allowed the designers to build an AR-18 bullpup which showed them how to build the SA80.”
        The EM-2 has more in common with the unrelated HK G3 as they are both delayed blow-back (just because they are both Enfield bullpups doesn’t mean they are the same.

        The SA-80 is a direct rip-off of the AR-18 (at that time built by Sterling Arms) this is well known. Just look at photo’s of the two rifles bolt carrier groups together for example.

      • mike knox

        @Colin
        Look again, If it were so, the entire upper receiver would be a lot bigger..

      • W

        “Really? The AR-18? Get your head over that assumption.”

        “The HK G36 came from the HK36 and MP5 PIP. The Gas piston design is more reminiscent of a Russian SKS. If it was from the AR-18 the gas piston layout would be backwards.”

        Dude, the MP5 PIP was a blowback operated weapon; the only commonality with the G36 is its charging handle. The HK 36 was only a prototype that apparently had a similar carrying handle (I had to do a HK pro search).

        Without sounding like a prick, here’s some advice: find a AR18 (or copy or picture even) and G36. Look at the bolt carrier groups and short stroke gas piston systems then get back to me.

        The SKS is a unique short stroke design that incorporates a tilting bolt. It is a outstanding design that is extremely reliable and more rugged than western short stroke pistons. Those weapons i mentioned are heavily influenced by the AR18, plain and simple.

        “The SA80 came from the EM-2 which was an idea from WW2. It’s only relation with the AR-18 is that the EM-2 design allowed the designers to build an AR-18 bullpup which showed them how to build the SA80.”

        To fortify Colin’s comments, the EM2 and SA80 have only commonality in appearance. Mechanically, they were vastly different (just like the EM1 was vastly different mechanically than the EM2). The EM2 was, by accounts, a excellent rifle, and probably would have done a better job than the L1A1 and SA80.

        The SA80 is a derivative of the AR18, which was licensed for limited manufacture by Sterling. Its gas piston system is similar, as is its bolt carrier group.

        “The FN SCAR is derived from the FAL through the FNC.”

        From my analysis of the my SCAR, its gas system is similar to the M1 carbine (short stroke, gas tappet), the bolt is similar to the AR18, and the trigger group was obviously influenced by the FNC, which was patterned after the M1 garand.

        The FNC was not derived from the FAL, but the unsuccessful FN CAL, which resembled a FAL, was chambered for 5.56, but utilized a rotating bolt design rather than the FAL’s tilting bolt design.

        “And the SIG 550 design rooted from the SIG SG 510 which was more of an FG-42. The only relation to it with an AK is a rotating bolt.”

        respectfully, that is incorrect. The SIG 510 was a roller-delayed blowback weapon. I digress, I inherited a civilianized import from my dad and could write a book about it; the 510 is one amazing rifle! going back on subject, the SIG 550 is a long stroke, rotating bolt weapon that is shockingly similar to the AKM action.

        And the FG42 was a gas operated, rotating bolt weapon. roller-delayed, blowback wouldnt be popularized until after the end of the war. It was a derivative of the Lewis gun. References: “The German Assault Rifle” by Peter Senich.

      • mike knox

        @W To sum it up, their only relations are the AR Bolt, nothing else.

        The G36 design follows the HK design philosophy of a rear capped envelope with fore end operating gap and pin swiveled control modules independent of the magazine well. The mention of the PIP is it’s dsign and construction was combined into the HK36 which resulted into the HK50 redesignated into the G36 by the Heer. The only reason for the AR bolt is the 5.56x45mm adoption.
        The AR-18 on the other hand is the same as the AR-10 of an upper barrel-bolt assembly and a lower control and feed assembly.

        The SKS obviously came before the AR-18. The former is more akin to the Russian adoption on catured German autoloading rifles.

        The SA80 starts from the FN FAL where a gas tappet operation cycles the Action then later integrated into the EM-2 which worked into the IW model. The only point where the AR-18 reflects is when the 5.56x45mm was standardised which means they had to adopt a simillar interface for the new cartidge.

        The only reason the FN SCAR’s system resembles the AR-18’s is that it adopts the AR-15’s components, primarily because it’s intended demographic is the US Army. But overall, It’s just an FNC rendered for the Current selection criteria and demand.

        That last paragraph was an error in summary. I was to point out that the Gas operation was derived from the FG-42 laid out on top as in the SIG 530. The only AK resseblance was the rotating bolt to accomodate the weaker 5.56x45mm for the SIG 540-550 operation mechanics.

        So overall, if it weren’t for the hastily stringent adoption of the NATO Intermediate Cartidge, all of the above rifles would have more obvious resemblances to their original designs.

        What you may have were deductions on what you’ve owned and found on the internet. Just because you’ve found it there doesn’t mean it’s the actual fact. What I’ve learned are from my studies in Industrial Design & Marketing and History on Applied Sciences and Mechanics (College overload), along with interests in firearms of course..

      • Colin

        @mike
        Your above post seems to suggest that you are ignoring (for the most part) the rifles operating system (the most important part of the rifle) and going purely on the looks.
        Am I right or misunderstanding your argument?

      • W

        “W To sum it up, their only relations are the AR Bolt, nothing else.”

        No, this would be incorrect. Read my post again. I am focusing on operating systems and their relationships with eachother. i.e. just because a FNC and FAL are made by FN, doesnt mean they are necessarily related mechanically. They definitely are not. The FNC utilizes a long stroke gas piston with locking bolt, the FN utilizes a short stroke with a tilting bolt. Two entirely different beasts (but one not necessarily better than the other…;) they are both outstanding weapons).

        Like what I said before, the HK G36 and SA80 have more in common with the AR18 than the HK PIP/HK36 and the EM2. You seem to be focused on insigificant design modifications (fore end operating gas, pin swivele modules) and looks rather than the internal mechanics.

        “The G36 design follows the HK design philosophy of a rear capped envelope with fore end operating gap and pin swiveled control modules independent of the magazine well. The mention of the PIP is it’s dsign and construction was combined into the HK36 which resulted into the HK50 redesignated into the G36 by the Heer. The only reason for the AR bolt is the 5.56x45mm adoption.”

        It indeed does. The G36 was a amalgamation of proven concepts, case in example being the AR18 style bolt carrier group, locking bolt, and buffer spring, rather than conceptual ones, which could not be persued following the end of the Cold War. HK sought a more conventional approach, and they succeeded.

        “The AR-18 on the other hand is the same as the AR-10 of an upper barrel-bolt assembly and a lower control and feed assembly.”

        ? I strongly disagree. the AR18 was a new design, derived from the differnent AR16, incorporating a stamped sheet metal receiver, short storke gas piston system, and block shaped bolt carrier group. The AR10 was direct impingement, constructed of machined forgings, and had the AR-style bolt. Two entirely different beasts.

        “The SKS obviously came before the AR-18. The former is more akin to the Russian adoption on catured German autoloading rifles.”

        no, the SKS is a shortened, 7.62x39mm version of Siminov’s AVS36. Siminov designed the action in the 1930’s, effectively superceding the German G41 and G43 rifles.
        Read: the SKS Carbine (4th edition) by Steve Kehana
        and Mikhail Kalashnikov’s book.

        The troublesome G41 was replaced by the G43 by Walther, which utilized a similar gas system as a SVT40 (BTW, the SVT 40 is a very accurate and reliable brush rifle, my father swears by them). If anything, the Germans fielded semi-automatic rifles because the Soviets had them first. Indeed, I was excited to read in a Joseph Stalin biography that he favored semi-automatic rifles; Hitler was more apprehensive of anything other than the K98.

        “The SA80 starts from the FN FAL where a gas tappet operation cycles the Action then later integrated into the EM-2 which worked into the IW model. The only point where the AR-18 reflects is when the 5.56x45mm was standardised which means they had to adopt a simillar interface for the new cartidge.”

        You are correct in saying the “gas tappet” (I use short stroke piston, as gas tappet is a antiquated term) system is what the SA80 and FAL use, though that is where the two’s similarity ends. Having some experience with the SA80 (from a friendly group of British Paras), the derivation of the design from the AR18 is obvious. What makes this even more obvious is that Britain was licensed to produce the AR18, meaning the MOD had experience with the platform before producing the SA80. The SA80 has more in common with the AR18 than the FAL or M1. The bolt carrier group and gas piston system has a obvious resemblence.

        here’s a EM2 http://world.guns.ru/userfiles/images/assault/as59/em2strip.jpg

        “The only reason the FN SCAR’s system resembles the AR-18′s is that it adopts the AR-15′s components, primarily because it’s intended demographic is the US Army. But overall, It’s just an FNC rendered for the Current selection criteria and demand.”

        The FN SCAR has nothing in common with the AR15’s components other than being able to accept the AR15 magazines and having AR15 similar ergonomics. Its trigger assembly also is different. As I have said before, the FNC is long stroke gas piston, the FN is short stroke; huge difference between the two. The comments that the SCAR is a “updated FNC” are incorrect to say the least (unless you attribute this “commonality” with the trigger group, which is similar). Ill go so far to say that the SCAR has more in common with the AR18 and M1 carbine than the FNC.

        “That last paragraph was an error in summary. I was to point out that the Gas operation was derived from the FG-42 laid out on top as in the SIG 530. The only AK resseblance was the rotating bolt to accomodate the weaker 5.56x45mm for the SIG 540-550 operation mechanics.”

        The only AK resemblance? How about the long stroke piston? http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/6e/Caroline-demontee-p1000529.jpg

        “So overall, if it weren’t for the hastily stringent adoption of the NATO Intermediate Cartidge, all of the above rifles would have more obvious resemblances to their original designs.”

        My point is that just because they are made by the same company and replaced a rifle manufactured by the same company, doesn’t necessarily mean they are derived mechanically from one another.

        “What you may have were deductions on what you’ve owned and found on the internet. Just because you’ve found it there doesn’t mean it’s the actual fact. What I’ve learned are from my studies in Industrial Design & Marketing and History on Applied Sciences and Mechanics (College overload), along with interests in firearms of course..”

        Im not interested in posting my resume online, but I make my assertions as a gunsmith with 20 plus years in the United States Army associated with a group of people that are very credible sources of information when it comes to small arms.

  • Colin

    I like the non-reciprocating charging handle (although maybe it should be optional?), look forward to more pictures/details – from what I can see the bolt looks the same…
    Is the barrel less changeable (cant thing of a better way of putting it, sorry). I noticed that the FNAC doesn’t have the black plastic part in front of the ejection port that the SCAR barrel bolts go into, they go directly into the upper.

  • mike knox

    Getting to like FNH better. They just made the lightest assault rifle I know lighter..

  • John Doe

    You can only make so many improvements to a 5.56 carbine. The next logical step is a new caliber, since the bullet is really the limiting factor here.

    • mike knox

      As if replacing a caliber is that easy. If they have to do that, they have to replace (at least) billions of rounds of ammunition, recamber every firearm of the previous caliber, reorient every serviceman on it’s specified performance, and not to mention go through another process of NATO Restandardisation since the 5.56x45mm is a NATO Standard (you’ll have to get everyone else who uses that round to accept the new replacement). If you have to go through the last one I’m sure other countries have better offers..

      • http://mcthag.blogspot.com/ McThag

        If the Army dumps 5.56 WE SHOOTERS WILL BUY IT FROM THEM!

      • http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk/ Tony Williams

        Introducing a new cartridge is very expensive, but not as difficult as you suggest provided that it’s phased in over a period of time. The ammo gets used up, and the guns wear out and need replacing anyway (especially when used in extended combat in tough areas like Afghanistan).

        As far as getting NATO approval is concerned – you have to be kidding. The US adopted the 5.56mm cartridge 16 years before NATO did. The new M855A1 EPR and MK318 SOST 5.56mm loadings adopted by the US Army and USMC respectively are not NATO approved (and are never likely to be, as they’re not FMJ). There are advantages in being the 800 lb gorilla in the room – the USA does what it wants, and doesn’t much care whether or not NATO eventually falls into line.

      • Jay

        +1 on what Tony said. US shoved two really bad cartridges down NATO’s throat in 20 years. Everyone else bought the bullet and adopted them. They all wanted something else. Do you think the other NATO members would not want a more capable cartridge? They all want it.

      • Riceball

        @Tony Gradually phasing in a new rifle with a new caliber of ammo would be a logistical nightmare unless done on a very large scale. Imagine how much trouble a division or even a brigade would have to go through to resupply its units when they have to add another caliber of ammo to their list of ammo types. A regular grunt platoon is easy to resupply, just 1 caliber (5.56) to worry about. But when you get up to the company level then you add 2 more round types (7.62 & .50) so you have to worry 3 different calibers to supply as it is and the gradual phasing in of a new caliber means that some units will also have to get the new rifle caliber in addition to everything else they normally would get.

        For a phase in to work it would have to be fielded to units that are rotating in to combat/deployment first with units returning or currently state side and not scheduled to leave any time soon getting theirs later. This would still require pretty large numbers of the new rifles and their ammo to avoid logistical issues in the field. It would also require a lot of re-training to get everybody up and running on the new rifle.

      • W

        the idea of replacing 5.56 is something that should have been done in peacetime. Contracted ammunition companies (like Lake City) are unable to keep up with ammunition demands due to the US military’s combat operations worldwide. These companies cant even update obsolete manufacturing methods because demand for ammunition is too high. The switch to a new caliber would disrupt supplies to units needing ammunition.

        Or the US could expand its ammunition industry…just a thought. Develop new plants to churn out the new caliber while the old ones continue manufacturing 5.56. Just a thought :D

        The US missed the true intermediate caliber boat when it shelved the .276 pederson. We certainly have the technology and infrastructure to develop a cartridge to replace both the 5.56 ad 7.62, we just wont. To put it bluntly, its stupid and it pisses me off.

      • Rangefinder

        Any value to going back to a 7.62x63mm in semi-auto only ( maybe burst)? You still have LMG and DMR.

      • http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk/ Tony Williams

        @Riceball

        The logical way to introduce a new weapon and calibre is to issue it to an entire combat unit after they have returned from a deployment. They will then have plenty of time at home to train up on the use and maintenance of the new weapon and become entirely familiar with it before their next deployment. When they are deployed again, it would only be with the new weapon so there would be no resupply confusion over ammo. In fact, if the new ammo was replacing both 5.56mm and 7.62mm (and frankly I don’t see any point in introducing a new cartridge unless it could) then resupply would be simplified.

      • John Doe

        There are plenty of rounds that can use the .223 casing and have capability with current rifles. I’m absolutely smitten with .300 AAC. The range capabilities are fine, and it has more knockdown power.

        Sell the 5.56×45 to us, or keep them to training purposes. The M249 works just fine with the smaller round.

      • Jim

        Getting tired off this whole idea of replacing calibers(ie. a one size fits all solution). Granted I’m not military but, I am a craftsman of sorts; and what is a soldier other than a craftsman of killing. At least should be. I dont expect to find a single hammer that will adequately complete any task. I own a framing, finish, sheetmetal, welding, stone, ball ping and a few other hammers for those tasks that have arisen. Bottom line, know what needs to be done and take the right tools to the job; or, to put it in a military aspect, as some old chinese guy wrote, know your enemy, environment and goal. Come on, no one expects a hunter to have one gun with one round. It seems to me the answer isn’t fewer options it is more options; which seems to be coming with many new weapons having the ability to change calibers. For instance, if I was fighting deep in some jungle, I might want a 5.56 to carry as many rounds as I could to lay down alot of suppressive fire. (cont.)

      • Jim

        (cont.) If I was in an urban environment I would want a short barrelled 6.8 weapon. In the mountains and deserts, of say, Afganistan, I would want a 6.5 Grendel or 7.62 NATO. Make no mistake and lets be clear(my Obama impersonation) war is an art and the best artist wins. I think that previously mentioned chinese guy wrote a whole book about something like that. And to the point of logistic nightmare, please, the whole thing is a nightmare (not just logistics) so I refer you back to the part about bringing the right tools for the job and such. In closing, I want to reiterate the point that the idea should always be to increase capabilities, not decrease, and our troops should train not to just be proficient, but true artists of war. Wow the view is great on this soap box. I guess now is the point where I take time to thank all the little people who made this rant possible but, I won’t.

    • Vincent

      The best solution would be a souped up 5.56 with the exact same external dimensions. Sure the barrels would wear down faster, but they’re far less expensive to replace than the entire rifle. Something like a .22-250 Remington…

  • michael

    I can’t believe anyone believes we adopt this rifle with the current state of the budget. M4 is fine

    • Jay

      I agree with the first part of your post. :)

    • W

      what state of the budget is that?

  • i hate germany

    please army, don’t buy any more hk product, they’re nazie piece of junk.

    no wonder why the oicw and the xm8 including fk caws where never taken.

    and remember kid,

    buy american if you’re not you’re not a real american, just saying.

    • Rangefinder

      Um uh… the War is over. The existing bases are not there in case of a Nazi counter attack. Hope this helps.

      • W

        just ignore the troll. dont give it any more attention that it doesn’t deserve.

    • Riceball

      You do realize that FN is a Belgian company and not German, don’t you?

    • FARCRY666

      look i dont like ur name i hate germany but i will say that hk is overated and really doesnt make good guns like the mp7 4.6 really?

  • Walker

    For most nato countries a caliber switch wouldn’t be that big of a problem since
    A: they don’t stockpile millions of rounds of ammunition
    B: most military forces really aren’t that big (ie Canada’s entire military, airforce navy and army is about the size of the USMC)
    And C: every nation has a lessons learned program from operations in Iraq and Afghanistan and there is no doubt in my mind that the performance of the 556 is well stated in them.

    • Alex-mac

      I doubt the U.S will change their calibre without also replacing their rifle, which means it’s very likely other nations will need to replace their rifle too.

      Requiring billion dollar rifle replacement programs for every foreign nation which will take years.

  • charles222

    W said: Clearing stuck casings can be cleared a majority of the time by pulling down on the charging handle and slamming the buttstock on the ground in a swift motion.

    Do you mean the M4 or the SCAR here? FWIW, if the charging handle is meant solely for clearing jams on the SCAR, then it’d seem to me that having it further forward and closer to the support hand than it currently is would be a sensical move, unless, of course, you’re gripping the magwell. ;) It’s not really any more handy than the charging handle on the M1 or M14 is.

    I agree with you that the SCAR (especially the Mark 17) is an excellent rifle; I just don’t think that stuck casings or bolts is enough of an issue that it’s the only reason the reciprocating handle is on there.

    • W

      that would be with the M4.

      Yeah the charging handle on the SCAR is very easy to operate, though is not that different in effectiveness in over the M1. I admire simple designs, that is all.

  • Mike Knox

    @W

    Get it through your head, just because it uses a bolt like the AR-18 doesen’t mean it’s copied off that rifle. There’s barely an original aspect of the AR-18, bolt from an AR-15, It’s gas tappet is like the SKS’s or more of an FAL, it’s buffer assebly is just double that of a G3, side folding stock like most stowed automatics, Piston over barrel just like the Stg-44, Stamped steel receiver just like the shmeisser MP-38/40. What next it’s use of polymer from the Nylon 66?

    Though the G36 may have an identical bolt that doesen’t directly mean it’s from the same designs. The AR-18 and G3 may have the same buffer philosophy but the latter came ahead. The design comparison about the HK and AR is about Design Element Heirarchy which ovelyingly dictates operational design and mechanics not aesthetics. You would know that if you studied Design in college.

    It’s like the G3 and the SIG550 both having diopter drum sights, the AR-15 and the Giat FAMAS feeding off the same magazine, or just any other autoloading rifle having hammer ignition mechanisms. The concepts, functions or mechanics may be the same but they’re not copied from each other.

    The point is that the AR bolt is the most widely used bolt design because most feeds it functions with is a magazine designed for the AR and a cartidge used by the AR. Almost as synonmous as rubber tires are best for tarmac roads.

    The SIG 550’s bolt carrier is connected to the carrier by assembly not built into it as a single peice like an AK’s, a complete would separete the piston from the carrier, it’s as clear as that, it’s even shown in your likned image. The supposed relation is just by shorthanded observation like popsicles invented after the idea of lollypops instead of a spoon frozen into a glass of orange juice..

    • W

      “Get it through your head, just because it uses a bolt like the AR-18 doesen’t mean it’s copied off that rifle.”

      This statement is ironic, considering i have responded to a series of contentions of yours that has been blown out of the water.

      You first said the SCAR is a “work over” on the FAL. IT IS NOT!

      You said its bolt carrier is reminiscent of the FALs. IT IS NOT! it is derived from the AR18.

      Then you go on a entire rant about how the Enfeld L85 is nothing remotely similar to the AR18, which is FALSE. Here’s one of the many reasons why:

      “The AR-18, however, has proven to be another seminal weapon from ArmaLite. A number of later rifles, including the problem-plagued L85 (UK), the more reputable SA-80 (Singapore) and the new G-36 (Germany) were derived from the AR-18.” Page 6, http://www.armalite.com/images/Library/History.pdf

      There’s barely an original aspect of the AR-18, bolt from an AR-15, It’s gas tappet is like the SKS’s or more of an FAL, it’s buffer assebly is just double that of a G3, side folding stock like most stowed automatics, Piston over barrel just like the Stg-44, Stamped steel receiver just like the shmeisser MP-38/40. What next it’s use of polymer from the Nylon 66″

      Now you are being utterly rediculous and not telling anybody anything i havent already said. Read the link I have posted.

      “Though the G36 may have an identical bolt that doesen’t directly mean it’s from the same designs.”

      I never said it was “from the same design”, I said it is similar or a derivative of…

      “The AR-18 and G3 may have the same buffer philosophy but the latter came ahead. The design comparison about the HK and AR is about Design Element Heirarchy which ovelyingly dictates operational design and mechanics not aesthetics. You would know that if you studied Design in college.”

      And this is what i have been saying all along! You disagree with my points with nothing other than the basis that just because they’re the same company then the successor is of “similar” design. This is not necessarily true, as I have demonstrated with the FAL and FNC, which you were completely ignorant about. In your own words, you said the L85 had more in common with the EM2, which I demonstrated was false. Keep grasping at straws “Industrial Design & Marketing and History on Applied Sciences and Mechanics” and flaunting your education. My education was earned at Fort Benning and Fort Bragg (FYI i have my bachelors in economics with a dual major in business).

      “It’s like the G3 and the SIG550 both having diopter drum sights, the AR-15 and the Giat FAMAS feeding off the same magazine, or just any other autoloading rifle having hammer ignition mechanisms. The concepts, functions or mechanics may be the same but they’re not copied from each other.”

      now you are arguing over semantics and use of words. You are missing my entire point just to go on a rant about “BUT THEIR NOT COPIED!”. You also missed my facitious use of “copy”. Note my use of the words “derivative” and “commonality”.

      “The SIG 550′s bolt carrier is connected to the carrier by assembly not built into it as a single peice like an AK’s, a complete would separete the piston from the carrier, it’s as clear as that, it’s even shown in your likned image. The supposed relation is just by shorthanded observation like popsicles invented after the idea of lollypops instead of a spoon frozen into a glass of orange juice..”

      Are you kidding me? the long stroke on a AK remains attached to the bolt carrier as the weapon operates; the SIG 550’s bolt remains attached to the bolt carrier as the weapon operates, with the additional ability to remove (though it cannot function without the bolt being attached!). Its a long stroke gas piston. A short stroke piston does not have the piston directly connected to the bolt carrier; it utilizes force to cycle the weapon.

      Im not even sure why Im having this discussion. All of this information can be easily accessed anyways.

      • Mike Knox

        @W

        Well that’s just trying too hard. You don’t get primary and secondary education in army posts.

        It’s just plain old simple. If it uses a bolt like the AR-18’s, it’s bolt carrier would look like the AR-18’s but it’s just a block with a cylindrical recess and cam ramp cuts. You’re just looking at one small piece, in a component, in a module, not the unit Item parallel to the FAL.

        Just ask RSAF, they’ll say that the AR-18 bolt was just a stopgap to accommodate the 5.56x45mm round in the Individual Weapon system. That’s why they had reliability issues with the SA80.

        “Are you kidding me?”, lost a marble? Remember why I mentioned the FG-42? That’s where the long stroke gas piston was taken for the SIG 530 but laid out over barrel. Sweden has better industrial development ties with Germany than with Russia. Most people in the US would say that the M60’s and FN MAG (your M240) copies it’s long stroke piston from the AK’s but the Swiss would say it’s from the FG-24. They know better, they made it, D’uh.

        You have the internet, I’ve been to the museums, how’s that?..

      • W

        “Well that’s just trying too hard. You don’t get primary and secondary education in army posts.”

        haha, you don’t either. it is a high price to pay for a nylon tab to wear on a uniform.

        “It’s just plain old simple. If it uses a bolt like the AR-18′s, it’s bolt carrier would look like the AR-18′s but it’s just a block with a cylindrical recess and cam ramp cuts. You’re just looking at one small piece, in a component, in a module, not the unit Item parallel to the FAL.”

        I am looking at the action, which is the most important part of the gun. My posts mention this at least five times. My point is just because it (the gun) looks like a predicessor, doesn’t necessarily mean it is designed from it. It could incorporate different technology from other designs to facilitate a different cartridge.

        “Just ask RSAF, they’ll say that the AR-18 bolt was just a stopgap to accommodate the 5.56x45mm round in the Individual Weapon system. That’s why they had reliability issues with the SA80.”

        The SA80’s issues have been mostly solved by H&K with the A2 variant, though the initial one had significant quality control issues with materials rather than the design itself. Of course, as indicated in the armalite link I posted, Royal Ordinance largely ignored lessons learned from the MOD’s evaluation of the Sterling AR18. I guess when a country guts its civilian private firearms market, they lose their edge to countries like the united states (rightfully so).

        ““Are you kidding me?”, lost a marble? Remember why I mentioned the FG-42? That’s where the long stroke gas piston was taken for the SIG 530 but laid out over barrel.”

        Yeah the reason why I “lost a marble” is because you are trying to argue against the fact that the SIG 550 is long stroke gas piston. Ill give it to you about the mistake with the SIG 510.

        “Sweden has better industrial development ties with Germany than with Russia. Most people in the US would say that the M60′s and FN MAG (your M240) copies it’s long stroke piston from the AK’s but the Swiss would say it’s from the FG-24. They know better, they made it, D’uh.”

        You mean Switzerland? SIG (then swiss arms) was a largely Swiss company before being acquired by German investors. Factually speaking, the M60 was a attempt to merge the FG42 with the MG42 with a few innovations. The FN MAG utilizes design features (like locking bolt carrier group) from the Browning Automatic Rifle and trigger group design from the MG42. Those are commonly known facts.

        “You have the internet, I’ve been to the museums, how’s that?..”

        Thats great, but I admit, my experience stretches further than the internet.

      • Mike Knox

        Just throw in the towel, the farthest you can get is that the bolts all look like the AR-18, that’s why you think they’re AR-18 copies.

        The only edge the US has over most countries is it’s industry and market, not at innovation, just look at Magpul’s guns.

        So far, your point for point argument tactic shows only your internet debating skills, not informed knowledge and abilities.

        Getting beyond the internet and sopping at “radio shack” rumours isn’t that impressive.

        Go ahead try and say how the AR-18 bolt carrier was copied into the G36, SA-80, FN SCAR or Steyr AUG. I’ll just read from a paper I wrote on applied mechanics in high school. I dare ya, Gumbo..

      • W

        yeah indicating by what has been posted for the past couple of days, it is obvious that I have unintentionally forgot more about the technical features of military rifles than you ever knew. I didn’t know they taught foreign weapons, armorer’s course, and modern military TTPs in college…LOL

        You continually jab me for forming internet arguments and obtaining information from the internet (which is dead wrong), which is a desperate attempt to draw attention away from the fact that you know jack $&#@ about military rifles and have been continually corrected on incorrect information you have posted. Then you have the audacity to brag about your college credentials while admitting that you have a “interest in firearms”, from a f–king museum, which tells me you are devoid of professional expertise on the subject, choosing to argue with a former 18B on the subject of small arms. Absolutely hilarious.

        Stick to what you know mike; “military rifles” is not your subject. Ciao.

      • Mike Knox

        @W

        18B? good one. I wonder how long it took you to google that one up. especially when you’ve picked the Wrong MOS. 18B is for Weapons implementation or useage, if that’s too complicated for you. If you were any factual, you would have been an 92Y.

        Besides, I just looked up AR-18 on wikipedia last night and comared it to everything you’ve said. Sounds more like you’re just some “wiki warrior” after all. 18B my arse. Since whe do Army NCOs rely on wikipedia for their own professions? That’s just limp.

        Shame I can’t use an excerpt off my peper on Mechanical Tends.

        Nice try Gummo..

      • Rhinestone Cowboy

        There’s a problem with somebody’s credibility, and its not W’s.

        Thanks for your posts W, its nice to see something posted other than BS over teh internets. Thank you for your service.

        Serious? a college educated person that has access to museums versus a former Special Operations Weapons Sergeant? are you flipping serious? LMFAO!!! Epic fail bro. These posts have been so awesome i saved them on a notepad. (facepalm, laughs, shakes head)

        And you are dissing somebody’s post because it has similar information to a article off wikipedia? that is asshattery. Mike, have you checked the references used for the AR article? where are your facts? You are arguing over nothing without a foot to stand on. I want to see this alleged paper you seem so eager to share.

      • Mike Knox

        @W

        Ever learned to back-track?

    • Colin

      @W

      I think you’ll have to give up on this one. In his own words he has “college overload” and appears not to be able to learn any more.

      • W

        yeah im throwing in the towel. Ive come to the conclusion that im wasting my time.

    • Mike Knox

      @Rhinestone Cowboy

      Rhinestone? Cowboy? Says something doesen’t it? Either you morons think alike or W’s using his gay sockpuppet..

      • W

        cowboy, I appreciate it, but don’t antagonize mike. He’s already foaming at the mouth, desperate to convince people the AR18 had nothing to do with the development of the SA80/L85.

        And what is with the homophobic bullshit mike? nobody cares who swings which way; gun owners should be unified in their love of putting lead downrange, not arguing over “morality”.

      • Mike Knox

        @W

        So you’re talking to yourself now. That or you’re just sockpuppeting as a gay cowboy. Something you’re moonlighting as?

        Wikipedia doesen’t tell you everything, doesen’t it?

      • W

        again mike, thank you for portraying gun enthusiasts as intolerant assholes.

        despite your continuous personal attacks, to include a childish, irrelevant rant bashing gays (based off assumptions created from another person’s name LOL) that has nothing to do with this subject, you have yet to shed light on one example of my comments being incorrect. if i am putting out bad information, then show me…other wise, have a cup of STFU.

        Im still waiting for you to refute anything. anything at all…

      • Mike Knox

        @W

        You spelled wiki warrior wrong. Besides, I’ve been shooting down your assumptions for a while now, you’re just denying it ever happened to take another swing at where you’ve failed. That’s quite the keyboard commando thing you’re doing and you’re quite good at it. All internet blabber but nothing factual or based on experience.

        Just keep talking to yourself, you’re making yourself look good..

      • W

        *still waiting for you to answer my question…

      • Rhinestone Cowboy

        Mike have you even touched a G36 L85 orAR18? The G36 is not sold to civilians so you either have to be in a law enforcement or military unit. Very few Americans other than ones in certain units, have even seen or touched the L85 let alone taken one apart. Universities know jack about foreign miltary guns, plain and simple.

        I have never served in the military or police so my information is fished from the internets so what? as long as you verify your sources you’re good. we moved away from newspapers magazines and books from primary sources in information because they are outdated once they are printed. Idk what your gruge against the web is based on.

      • Mike Knox

        @W

        Keeping the sock-puppet on now?

        @cowboy

        As a matter of fact I have handled a G36, L85 and an AR-18. And I have observed their feild stripping and maintenance in person, I just didn’t do it myself. I don’t need to own one, I just know the owners.

        Just stick to the internet and you’ll find yourself out of pace with the real world..

      • W

        sock puppet, nice :D you still haven’t addressed my point mike. Where have I put out incorrect information?

    • Mike Knox

      @W

      I’ve already shot down your assumptions dumbass..

      • W

        again, where mike?

  • Joseph

    I want one.

  • Mike Knox

    If this rifle enters the Individual Carbine competition/contract, I’m rooting for it..

  • ShurpaDurpa

    Proprietary Mag’s? No thanks. I won’t offer my money to a system that abandons a standardize magazine industry for unavailable/overpriced proprietary mag’s.

    • TexShot

      FN USA’s website indicates it uses standard STANAG magazines

    • Rijoenpial

      On the FNH site, on the FNAC entry, it says in the MAGAZINE section, that it accepts standard M16/M4 STANAG mags, and probably Pmags Gen4 as well…

  • Rijoenpial

    I think the non-reciprocating mechanism is so easy and smart as well… Probably, a two-part mechanism where the handle portion pulls the bolt receiver back and when it cycles, the handle portion remains immovable, while the second portion, the bolt one, cycles normally… Not a formidable concept at that… cheers

  • Rick

    Now I’m interested in the SCAR Type Rifles.