Heavy=FAL, no can=Fal, no .22 unit=fal, no
1 - 17 of 17 Posts
No decent scope mount, see thru, QD, return to zero=Fal. Poor trigger pull, no way to fix it = Fal.
Joined
·
10,277 Posts
Sorry but the FAL is a takedown, has a decent scope mount available, has a .22 subcaliber unit, has a suppressor and is an excellent rifle for someone who isn't a whimp. My FN had a very nice 6 lb trigger pull. Obviously this gentleman has minimal knowledge of firearms!
Oh, I dont know...
One of those 11" mouseguns seems like it would make a fine firearm for very close work...like inside the house. Especially with one of those polygonally rifled barrels that John in AR mentioned in another thread that boost bullet velocity.
One thing that a lot of people do is use comparative statements without really defining the yardstick. We don't live in a world of Platonic solids, and therefore there are no ideal forms. As suich, when we say that something is "the best" or "the worst", we should be careful to mention what we're measuring against.
One of those 11" mouseguns seems like it would make a fine firearm for very close work...like inside the house. Especially with one of those polygonally rifled barrels that John in AR mentioned in another thread that boost bullet velocity.
One thing that a lot of people do is use comparative statements without really defining the yardstick. We don't live in a world of Platonic solids, and therefore there are no ideal forms. As suich, when we say that something is "the best" or "the worst", we should be careful to mention what we're measuring against.
Joined
·
4,648 Posts
definately, the 11" would be a very good cqb weapon, something for room clearing. It would not, however, make a good general purpose weapon. (though if you are mindful of the limitations and kept its use within it's effective envelope, it would do in a pinch...)
But the argument was always framed around the shorty being useful at longer ranges, lige 200m+ where it definately does not shine.
:devil:
But the argument was always framed around the shorty being useful at longer ranges, lige 200m+ where it definately does not shine.
:devil:
Nope, it definitely doesnt shine there.
However, those polygonal barrels appear to be very promising for wringing impressive performance out of short barrel lengths. Even that 11" model should be kicking out velocities similar to that of the 16". I'm definitely going to look into them.
However, those polygonal barrels appear to be very promising for wringing impressive performance out of short barrel lengths. Even that 11" model should be kicking out velocities similar to that of the 16". I'm definitely going to look into them.
So that means that "real girls" can handle a FAL, whereas fake internet girls can't? :dgrin:Raider said:
Seriously though, I don't think the FAL is THAT heavy, and with the adjustable gas system and the weight is does have, the 7.62x51mm has very little kick to it out of that weapon. The rifle is as ugly as a mud fence, but beauty is in the eye of the soldier who's rifle goes "BANG" everytime.
Wylycoyte, the 11" CAR gets the 55gr FMJ barely around 2600 fps, below the threshold of framentation. This is why in Vietnam they found the CAR would not stop a engraged chipmonk. I have posted here about the velocity losses from the 5.56 from 24 inch down to 10 inch barrels (there is a site where they chronoed that.) It shows how pithetic the 5.56 is when you cut the barrel down short. Even the 14" barrel M4 has shown to have stopping power problems.
This is why the 11" CAR is worthless. Since it has a overlylong flash hider, then there is no reason the 16" AR or better cannot be used.
This is why the 11" CAR is worthless. Since it has a overlylong flash hider, then there is no reason the 16" AR or better cannot be used.
1 - 17 of 17 Posts
Join the discussion
Join now to ask and comment!