FN2000 in action

daedra83 said:
My question is: Where do you put a flashlight and an IR unit on that thing?
Click to expand...

Well with a optional rail handguard...... this is the new one:

FNM0156mb.png


And here's the old version, which looks really grotesque f:P:2: cp: :

F2000_FN_Herstal_France_Milipol_2003_01.jpg
 
daedra83 said:
My question is: Where do you put a flashlight and an IR unit on that thing?
Click to expand...

The answer is - when FN was designing the FN2000, they did not think of it!!! How many European armies actually issued lights to their troops - back in the late 90's?

The FN 2000 was designed without a requirement from anyone, it is sort of a product that FN thought it can squeeze in between the OCIW type of weapons and existing weapons. The main selling point is the GL and the super computer that can do range finding and elevation adjustment.

Of course, no one can afford the super computer. The thing is overly integrated with its original vision and it cannot be flexible.

It is the same for tavor, there isn't any rail space becasuse they envision that only ITL and Mepro will be making optics for it. Why need rail space when the ITL Mars comes with IR - but it is a weak IR. If they can make things more proprietary or in an arrangement such that only the original manufacturers have the solution ready, the manufacture can then provide an integrated solution and make the most money out of a contract. You can see the 3 o'clock rail is an after thought - so are all the little rails on FN2000, which are "oh ####" solutions.

Unfortunately for these guys......that works for some military/governments but it doesn't work for the US and the civilian market.
 
greentips said:
The answer is - when FN was designing the FN2000, they did not think of it!!! How many European armies actually issued lights to their troops - back in the late 90's?

The FN 2000 was designed without a requirement from anyone, it is sort of a product that FN thought it can squeeze in between the OCIW type of weapons and existing weapons. The main selling point is the GL and the super computer that can do range finding and elevation adjustment.

Of course, no one can afford the super computer. The thing is overly integrated with its original vision and it cannot be flexible.

It is the same for tavor, there isn't any rail space becasuse they envision that only ITL and Mepro will be making optics for it. Why need rail space when the ITL Mars comes with IR - but it is a weak IR. If they can make things more proprietary or in an arrangement such that only the original manufacturers have the solution ready, the manufacture can then provide an integrated solution and make the most money out of a contract. You can see the 3 o'clock rail is an after thought - so are all the little rails on FN2000, which are "oh s**t" solutions.

Unfortunately for these guys......that works for some military/governments but it doesn't work for the US and the civilian market.
Click to expand...

I call BS on your argument.

Every platform is a product of its time. Its like people actually believe that the AR came out of Stoner's lab with a monolithic railed upper, forward assist, hooked charging handle, birdcage flash hider and functioned with a carbine length barrel. Some of those upgrades took decades to work out and some almost half a century after the first AR was birthed. If we were to subscribe to that school of arms development we'd be replacing engineers with gypsies and crystal balls. There was a time when mounting an optic on the M16 was a junk solution at best, now thanks to the development of accessories etc its a no-brainer.

15 years ago when FN was first laying out the concept things were quite a bit different. Most US infantry were exclusively using irons on carry handle uppers and fixed stocks, having an optic integrated into the rifle was pretty forward thinking... in fact cutting edge. The Tavor is selling like crazy with close to a million units either fielded or on order. For some countries its exactly what they want, right now.

There is as much, maybe more potential in the F2000, Tavor, SCAR etc given time and government investment. Heck a flat top solution now exists for the Tavor that didn't only a couple months ago :D.
 
I can't see how a high rate of fire would do much good. Sure it may help in some situations, however repetition in more commonly used for better accuracy and to preserve rounds.

And I could agree with the M4 being a political move. The design of the original m16 is half a decade old, and although there have been improvements, and has a relatively cheap price tag compared to other carbines, it is still a POS IMO.

That being said, the FN2000 doesn't seem like a bad weapon. You just often see too many larger military forces sticking with the same old crap for whatever reason
 
It was also the most predominant and generic rifle for the "slayers" ie death row prisoners in the movie Gamer. :D. Strangely enough I really enjoyed this movie. The protagonist mostly uses an HK G36.

2009_gamer_013.jpg
 
furfaro said:
And I could agree with the M4 being a political move. The design of the original m16 is half a decade old....
Click to expand...

I think you mean century.;)

The engineering behind the F2000 is sound, and I think the majority of complaints revolve around the shape and dimensions. Despite it's girth, it still points, balances and handles well. I can see FN capitalizing on their investment with this rifle in either making changes in a mk II version, or incorporating the engineering into another platform. Whichever way they go, they are at least advancing design and engineering as opposed to churning out the same stuff over and over.
 
Agreed!;)
Rauch Tactical said:
I call BS on your argument.

Every platform is a product of its time. Its like people actually believe that the AR came out of Stoner's lab with a monolithic railed upper, forward assist, hooked charging handle, birdcage flash hider and functioned with a carbine length barrel. Some of those upgrades took decades to work out and some almost half a century after the first AR was birthed. If we were to subscribe to that school of arms development we'd be replacing engineers with gypsies and crystal balls. There was a time when mounting an optic on the M16 was a junk solution at best, now thanks to the development of accessories etc its a no-brainer.

15 years ago when FN was first laying out the concept things were quite a bit different. Most US infantry were exclusively using irons on carry handle uppers and fixed stocks, having an optic integrated into the rifle was pretty forward thinking... in fact cutting edge. The Tavor is selling like crazy with close to a million units either fielded or on order. For some countries its exactly what they want, right now.

There is as much, maybe more potential in the F2000, Tavor, SCAR etc given time and government investment. Heck a flat top solution now exists for the Tavor that didn't only a couple months ago :D.
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom