Old Small Arms Revived...... With Some Tweaks

[rickshaw]

Pfft, nothing. If i get conscripted into the Danish army i'll have the joy of learning to fire the M-1 Garand, the main weapon of conscripts in the Danish army...

How about bringing back the old FN-FAL, but with armour piercing ammo....

Nah, just bring back the FAL as it was back then. It was just perfect. Had stopping power, something modern rifles are lacking when a terrorist is charging a car full of explosives towards a building...

As someone else noted, that is what a LAW is for.  A FAL will not stop an explosives laden car, once its started moving at velocity towards its target.  You may kill the driver but then 5.56mm will do the same job.

I carried a L1a1 SLR for nearly 10 years in the Australian Army.  If given a choice between it and the F88 Steyr, I'll take the F88 everytime.   Its as, if not more accurate, handier and easier to carry.

[rickshaw]

Actually the FAL was initially chambered in 7.92mm but thats another story and as far as stopping a terrorist with a car full of explosives thats what a LAW's is for

The EM-2 was a good weapon with the optimum calibre cartridge for bullet weight to range for an infantryman the steel pressings for the main body of the rifle was a little thin to keep the weight down and could be dented and stop the rifle from working, the real problem with bullpups is the difficulty of firing the weapon from the left shoulder without getting a empty case in the mouth.

Most soldiers aren't trained to fire "off-handed" so the point of firing it from the opposite shoulder on whim is wasted for the most part with most soldiers.  If they are left-handed firers, then sure, have the weapon converted over to left-handed fire - most bullpups can be changed from left to right-handed firing with little difficulty.  The L85 is one of the few that can't.   If you really are concerned about firing from the opposite shoulder then I'd suggest you use an FN2000, which has forward ejection, which allows it to be used from either shoulder.

[rickshaw]

What I had in mind when starting this thread is actually to take weapons that are placed in reserves and give them some upgrades and modifications to serve as (preferably economically-viable) alternatives to brand-spanking-new weapons, so......

FAL is relatively modern and, yup I agree, perfect enough...... maybe a new barrel threaded for a suppressor, some picatinny rails for accessories...... and of course a good scope for designated-marksmen/snipers.

I wanted to say that I like the idea of a paint job, but there is no one-pattern-fits-all camo......

Why on earth would most soldiers need a suppressor on their longarm?  Anyway, unless you use subsonic ammunition - which of course severely shortens the range and alters the accuracy - most suppressors are pretty pointless.

[rickshaw]

The M1 Carbine would be a good weapon to revamp, fit scope rail, an aimpoint and a moderator to cut the noise down a bit 
The FAL was tried in Korea by the British army and it was chambered in 7.92x33mm Kurz which a friend of my father used over there.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/7.92x33mm_Kurz

An interesting claim about the trials of the FN-FAL in Korea.  You have some evidence to back it?

[Aircav]

Just what my fathers friend said and he knows what he's talking about and doesn't lie, a REME Armourer with the Durham Light Infantry at the time.

[Weaver]

The M1 Carbine would be a good weapon to revamp, fit scope rail, an aimpoint and a moderator to cut the noise down a bit 
The FAL was tried in Korea by the British army and it was chambered in 7.92x33mm Kurz which a friend of my father used over there.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/7.92x33mm_Kurz

That's interesting - cheers! 

[rickshaw]

Just what my fathers friend said and he knows what he's talking about and doesn't lie, a REME Armourer with the Durham Light Infantry at the time.

Whoa!  I wasn't suggesting he was lying.  I'm just rather surprised to hear of its being trialled in Korea, when the EM-2 wasn't (and they are contemporaries and the EM-2 was the official choice for the .303in's replacement).  I have heard of them being trialled in Malaya, but that was in the mid-1950s, rather than the early 1950s.   Interestingly, they used to use one of the trials weapons in early episodes of Dr. Who - it was rather distinctive with its reciprocating cocking handle. 

[dy031101]

Why on earth would most soldiers need a suppressor on their longarm?

No they don't; I mentioned the suppressor for scenarioes where the restoration and upgrade is for the special forces type of folks (as in the case for the Philippine's refurbishing the M3 SMG).

[Aircav]

Just what my fathers friend said and he knows what he's talking about and doesn't lie, a REME Armourer with the Durham Light Infantry at the time.

Whoa!  I wasn't suggesting he was lying.  I'm just rather surprised to hear of its being trialled in Korea, when the EM-2 wasn't (and they are contemporaries and the EM-2 was the official choice for the .303in's replacement).  I have heard of them being trialled in Malaya, but that was in the mid-1950s, rather than the early 1950s.   Interestingly, they used to use one of the trials weapons in early episodes of Dr. Who - it was rather distinctive with its reciprocating cocking handle.  

I know you wern't suggesting that, there was a lot of politics involved with the EM-2/FAL rifle, the EM-2 was adopted during the Labour Goverment as the service No9 Rifle but then Churchill got back in power it was scrapped in favour of the Imperial FAL, the L1A1 SLR and it had a lot to do with the ammunition the 7.62x51mm NATO round, short 30-06.

Soldiers need suppressors so they don't damage their hearing, Health & Saftey and also it helps to confuse the enemy, they don't stop the noise, you can't with a supersonic bullet but at first your not always sure where the shots are coming from  

[Wyrmshadow]

So we're talking something like take a PPSh-41, rechamber it for a slightly more kinetic round, give it a forward mounted assault grip, a stock and pistol grip, and keep the drum concept?

something like this?

[dy031101]

something like this?

Not sure about Sauragnmon, but it is just the thing I had in mind when starting this thread.

[Aircav]

Looks like the stock has been shortened too.

[Sauragnmon]

Yeah, that was pretty much what I had in mind, actually, Wyrm.  Though I'd mod the stock so it was more like an MP-5 with the rifle stock and pistol grip.

Rick, not sure you've noticed, but 5.56 actually has problems with some windshields, it tends to lose a lot of its energy going through the windshield - heavier rounds like the 6.8mm SPC and 7.62 don't.  As to a LAW vs a Carbomb... I'm not sure I'd like to be nearby when That happens, as quite easily if you're not smart, you trigger the Bomb.

M-1 Garand wouldn't be too bad... if you fitted it for a real magazine feed instead of the stripper clips - additionally it would lose that silly "PING" when you finish your eight rounds.

[dy031101]

M-1 Garand wouldn't be too bad... if you fitted it for a real magazine feed instead of the stripper clips - additionally it would lose that silly "PING" when you finish your eight rounds.

On the positive side, the "PING" could potentially alert the shooter him/herself that he/she needs to reload...... by the time the internal magazine is emptied the shooter would be either staying regardless of the noise or looking for a new cover regardless of the noise......

[rickshaw]

I know you wern't suggesting that, there was a lot of politics involved with the EM-2/FAL rifle, the EM-2 was adopted during the Labour Goverment as the service No9 Rifle but then Churchill got back in power it was scrapped in favour of the Imperial FAL, the L1A1 SLR and it had a lot to do with the ammunition the 7.62x51mm NATO round, short 30-06.

Still doesn't explain why they would trial a weapon in an unusual calibre when the calibre had already, by that time well and truly chosen.  The timeline doesn't support them conducting field trials of the FN-FAL in the 7.92x33mm round in Korea, I'm sorry.

Soldiers need suppressors so they don't damage their hearing, Health & Saftey and also it helps to confuse the enemy, they don't stop the noise, you can't with a supersonic bullet but at first your not always sure where the shots are coming from  

Err, thats what hearing protection is for.  Why make your soldiers train with a suppressed weapon when they aren't going to use one in action?