Close, the FAL was to use the 7.92x33mm the Germans used in the War. Canada was the first to adopt the 7.62mm NATO round.
Dimitri
Did Canadian forces ever use M14s?
- Thread starter evolture
- Start date
Close, the FAL was to use the 7.92x33mm the Germans used in the War. Canada was the first to adopt the 7.62mm NATO round.
Dimitri
The very first prototypes were chambered for 7.92x33mm, with later ones in .280/30 (7x44mm).
FN sold some FALs to Venezuela chambered for the 7x49mm Second Optimum cartridge, which was also known as the 7mm Liviano. These rifles were the same as a 7.62x51mm FAL with the exception of the barrel.
Canadian Garands
I have some old DCRA books from the 1950s where they discuss the adoption of the Garand by the Canadian Military, and the DCRA testing of the Garands that were given to them for testing and shooting for matches.
,
I have some old DCRA books from the 1950s where they discuss the adoption of the Garand by the Canadian Military, and the DCRA testing of the Garands that were given to them for testing and shooting for matches.
,
Not at all. Just repeating something said by Chuck Taylor. As a lover of the FN he was surprised that the Israelis didn't like it and asked some of them why. One of them responded that they did not clean them enough and wanted AKs because they required little or no cleaning.
As I said in my post, the Israeli model was based on the early trials rifles "FAL Canada" and had several of the original features that were later re-designed. For example, the extractor is retained by the old (obsolete) "hairpin" or "paperclip" spring which was redesigned and replaced on both Inch and metric rifles. The forward assist was designed and built by the brits for some of the trials rifles to please the Americans who like them.
The brits found that early FNs did badly in sand, which was unacceptable to them, given their involvement in Egypt, Yemen Oman etc, and developed the sand cuts. Incidentally, Metric FN rifles were availble from the FN factory with the British sand cuts on request.
The Brits used the FN in Yemen and Oman without complaint and northern Australia is pretty sandy and the Aussies loved their FNs.
What's interesting is that the Cdn Forces actually got to use our FNs in sand quite a lot over the yrs. Our "desert training areas" come readily to mind- Camp Borden, Petawawa, Shilo, and Wainwright. I've recreated in all of them and never heard too much commentary on the problem. One of the nice things about the FN was that you could strip it so quickly and get rid of the crud pretty fast. It's all in the rear view mirror now, but I think the sand issue may have been a bit more theoretical than real. Besides, weapons maintenance in the field, like foot care, is a function of training and command surveillance.
I carried the FN in the 80s, and shot it in several military competitions at the time. Even with standard fmj, many rack-grade FNs would shoot extremely well. The rear adjustable iron sight was much better than many FAL variants.
If I remember correctly, in a SSF competition in 84 or 85 , the last shoot of the day was, 5 shots, iron sights (of course), sandbag prone, 800 yds. Lots of hits during that last string, up and down the line.
Great rifle.....but heavy.
If I remember correctly, in a SSF competition in 84 or 85 , the last shoot of the day was, 5 shots, iron sights (of course), sandbag prone, 800 yds. Lots of hits during that last string, up and down the line.
Great rifle.....but heavy.
Brutus
CGN Ultra frequent flyer
I once read a Jeff Cooper article of one of his visits to Israel.
One sunny day, he was watching Israeli reservists unloading thier APC after an alert exercise from his table at an outdoor restraunt.
It was appalling, the way they threw all thier equipment around like if it was chopped wood. Even the rifles too!
He was amazed at this lack of care for thier own army issue weapons. Different culture indeed.
I spent 31/2 yrs in the Middle east and had a fair amount of exposure to the IDF and their various Arab adversaries. The Israelis are not super-soldiers by our standards, but they do come off very well in relation to the opposition.
The Israelis enjoy several built -in advantages:
1. They are highly motivated to perform. They have to be. Every war could be their last one.
2. Their troops are well educated and are much more oriented to technology and machinery than are the Arabs. This means that their learning/training curve is less and they can maintain and use their equipment to it's full advantage. With the Arabs you can discount 50 percent of their equipment due to unservicability and poor maintenance before it reaches the battlefield. The one shining exception here are the Jordanians.
3. They are a free society where freedom of thought and initiative are valued and rewarded. This makes them much more adept in key areas like passage of information, command and control, execution of mission type orders, management of time and space factors in mechanized operations, all-arms co-ordination, identifying and exploiting changing situations and tactical opportunities, and most critically, the ability to exercise tactical initiative in the absence of higher orders/direction. If this has a familiar ring to it,these were some of our advantages when we were lined up against the Warsaw Pact-altho the sheer mass of the opposition would have compensated for their lack of tactical finesse.
4. Their officer selection, training, and development is very good. This gives them a tremendous edge in leadership vs the opposition who are most often selected for other reasons like political reliability or tribal loyalty. The old saying still applies; there are no poor soldiers, only poor officers.
The Israelis enjoy several built -in advantages:
1. They are highly motivated to perform. They have to be. Every war could be their last one.
2. Their troops are well educated and are much more oriented to technology and machinery than are the Arabs. This means that their learning/training curve is less and they can maintain and use their equipment to it's full advantage. With the Arabs you can discount 50 percent of their equipment due to unservicability and poor maintenance before it reaches the battlefield. The one shining exception here are the Jordanians.
3. They are a free society where freedom of thought and initiative are valued and rewarded. This makes them much more adept in key areas like passage of information, command and control, execution of mission type orders, management of time and space factors in mechanized operations, all-arms co-ordination, identifying and exploiting changing situations and tactical opportunities, and most critically, the ability to exercise tactical initiative in the absence of higher orders/direction. If this has a familiar ring to it,these were some of our advantages when we were lined up against the Warsaw Pact-altho the sheer mass of the opposition would have compensated for their lack of tactical finesse.
4. Their officer selection, training, and development is very good. This gives them a tremendous edge in leadership vs the opposition who are most often selected for other reasons like political reliability or tribal loyalty. The old saying still applies; there are no poor soldiers, only poor officers.
