The FN-FAL is definitely a battle rifle - it weighs about the same as an M-14, uses the same ammo and may even use the same 20-round mags.
While the Pickatinny rail on top may be metal, the lower part is probably plastic. I’ve never actually seen one of these American-model MAGs before in person, but I’m positive that the part we’re talking about, the bit they added to the barrel, is supposed to serve as a grip and as an optics mount, not as a cooling system.
I’m ashamed to admit it, but I’m having trouble naming many machine guns, barring the Minimi (M249) and M240…
I’m not talking about the pickatinny area (which, by the way, is way better than that standard plastic mounting crap rail the euro’s use :p).
I’m talking about the area circled in red, that surrounds the exposed area of the barrel.
ETA: The Rail is back, behind the chamber. This is in front of the chamber, in front of the handle, behind the bi-pod mount.
It appears to be (lightly) rusted and made of metal, even if it’s not, I’ve seen many-a-barrel shroud made of plastic. It fits the description of shroud, at least so far as I can tell. Covers the exposed barrel, ventilated… shroudy… 
“Wait, shouldn’t he already be in a pit?”
The FN FAL isn’t a machinegun, though it is select-fire full-auto capable.
Been covered;
However, no – they don’t use the same mags. Last I checked, that is.
FAL’s use “Standard” and metric FAL mags (standard ones were produced for a short line of american made guns, IIRC, which were later replaced and sold demil’d on the civilian market).
Missed the (re)edit window.
The M14’s use M14 mags.
Although they are both 20 round/10 rounds magazines, I think.
Cool. I’ve never actually seen an FN-FAL, although my dad was issued one back in the day. He says he was very, very happy when he was upgraded to a Galil.
Yeah, but you can say the same thing about the M-16’s foregrips.
I was thinking the same thing. Or the wood block on the gas tube of an AK is there so one doesn’t burn their hand as well. Remembering the time that this bill was introduced and pop culture of the era, the TEC-9 was the be all/end of people eaters per the idiot author of the AW ban (anyone remember that simpleton’s name?) The TEC had a true barrel shroud.
Joe Biden has claimed to be that simpleton, but I think Diane Feinstein has a greater claim on. Not to imply Joe *isn’t *an amazing simpleton, however.
Yeah, the FN FAL is a pretty unwieldy gun
But the M16 foregrip does fit the definition of Barrel Shroud…
I thought most designs integrated the barrel shroud’s function into the foregrip back in the late 80s? (I.e., enchance use of transport and avoid having to touch a hot barrel, as well as giving leverage/grip for when you’re changing the barrel.)
Trying to dig up a cite for this, might be a while, am at work.
Some of you people may not have ever been party to the classic “Battle Rifle Debate” - which is: FAL vs M14 vs G3. Sometimes people drag the AR-10 into it, too, but that rifle doesn’t really have a combat pedigree, so it’s usually just FAL vs M14 vs G3. Here’s the cliff’s notes.
Benefits of the FAL: Comfortable ergonomics, high reliability, easy to take apart, proven record of service by the highest number of countries all over the world. Generally the least expensive of the Big Three battle-rifles (can be had for just over a grand, from DS Arms.) Was called “the right arm of the free world.”
Benefits of the M14: It’s American (whoooooo!), it has the distinguished parentage of the venerable M1 Garand, it has the best sights and the best accuracy, and is typically considered to be classier looking (with a nice wood stock, though other configurations are also common.)
Benefits of the G3: REALLY simple design, ridiculously easy to disassemble and reassemble, has the same rock-solid durability as the AK-47, has excellent aperture sights. Roller-delayed blowback operation, which means no gas system to worry about fouling. Modular design (parts are very easy to swap out.) Can be converted to a long range rifle, with the addition of a scope and a PSG-1 trigger and grip. (Same is basically true of the M14.)
Downsides of the FAL: Confusing inch/metric pattern compatibility issues, thought to have the worst sights of the 3 battle rifles, is heavy.
Downsides of M14: Is slightly more confusing to assemble/disassemble than the other two (remember Full Metal Jacket - “the bolt. The bolt goes in the receiver. Operating rod handle. Operating rod guide.”) The magazines cost more than those for the other 2 rifles. Is heavy.
Downsides of G3: Has weird charging handle that requires a lot of force to operate; flings ejected shells a tremendous distance (this can be mitigated with a small accessory called an ejection port buffer); is VERY heavy.
So there you have it. They are all eevil rifles, all of them have evil detachable magazines and evil flash hiders and other evil features, they all fire the .308 round, and they are all very badass. Whichever you want, is basically down to your personal preference.
Oh yeah and the people who wrote the AWB are swine.
This came out of left field.
You dirty bastard (it’s the pit, I had to throw in something).
If this were a different message board, I would so be pitting you (or the equivalent thereof) for that. I loved my old one.
Yeah maybe, but it’s still a foregrip. The part was designed to be a foregrip. This is a barrel shroud, note that the Uzi also has a foregrip.
This, based on the words of Senator McCarthy, made me laugh.
raises hand
Yep. I thought ‘YogSothoth’? Gruad needs a pitting much more.
But if anyone pits Nyrathotep, I’d have his back…
Oh, they’re fun to shoot. But they’re still unwieldy in urban environments. That’s why the IDF got rid of them, IIRC.
One can function as both, can it not?
Just as the rear ghost ring apparatus on the AR/M design is a carry handle, it is also a sight.
Hehe, made me laugh too.
I think it was mainly ammo weight, actually. You can carry twice as much 5.56 as 7.62, and you can fit more in a magazine.
It’s also 43 inches, over penetrate (.308…), weighs 8-10 pounds (unloaded) and it’s does only have 20 shots before puttering out.
Not to correct you on your own history (and mine, to an extent, I suppose…), but;
Israeli forces were primarily mechanized in nature; the long, heavy FAL slowed deployment drills, and proved exceedingly difficult to maneuver within the confines of a vehicle.
Which isn’t to say you’re incorrect about ammo weight being a serious consideration, however I doubt that if Ammo Weight were factored out of the equation that the solution would’ve changed all that much.