- Status
barnbwt
member
- Joined
- Aug 14, 2011
- Messages
- 7,340
"Field stripping does become far more of an issue in a battle rifle context, which is why some of us have pointed out its unsuitability for such use."
FNAR's way too heavy to be a battle-anything, and way-er too large, also. Apart from obviating the need for comparisons to rifles like the G3 or FAL, it should also moot most concerns about outright abuse (unlikely to be humping a 12-14lb rig, even a 1500$ one, ergo unlikely it will be dropped in a stream or backed over by the four-wheeler unless the owner is a spendthrift idiot). The many closely interlocking surfaces of the design's interrupted screw breech lock are more concerning to me as far as reliability (sand) than any service or cleaning worries (I'd assume the same issues the Ross bolt rifle had with grit in the action)
"A dedicated hunter buddy of mine has had a Browning BAR as his main rifle for decades.
Twenty years ago he noticed it was slowing down in cycling, after using it annually for several seasons. I asked him how long it'd been since he cleaned it thoroughly. Said "never", didn't know how to get it apart, had just been swabbing the bore & squirting a couple drops of oil in the action where he could get at it.
Got him a set of breakdown instructions, he (a mechanic) didn't much like the effort it took, but got it thoroughly de-gunked & oiled up, and commented on how much faster it was running.
The guns are not so finicky that they have to be meticulously maintained, but they do have to be maintained, and the severe conditions of the battlefield require an easier design to do that with."
Not sure how that story supports the narrative this rifle (or others similarly reliable) need to be easily field-strippable. Gun ran fine in the face of lacking maintenance, and possible detrimental maintenance (gummy lube); not sure what else there is to demand of the machine. I concede that a 1/4 turn dingus or something should have been used to secure the forearm rather than a screw, which would more readily grant access to the piston, and eliminate the chief worry about service for the machine. The things just plain run clean; keep them unburied from sand pits and unsoaked by Froglube/Remoil/Fireclean (and other gumming lubricants), and just shoot the things as you would any quality item you don't feel like abusing for about a thousand rounds or so before even worrying about scheduling a cleaning. I wish our teeth were so reliable
TCB
FNAR's way too heavy to be a battle-anything, and way-er too large, also. Apart from obviating the need for comparisons to rifles like the G3 or FAL, it should also moot most concerns about outright abuse (unlikely to be humping a 12-14lb rig, even a 1500$ one, ergo unlikely it will be dropped in a stream or backed over by the four-wheeler unless the owner is a spendthrift idiot). The many closely interlocking surfaces of the design's interrupted screw breech lock are more concerning to me as far as reliability (sand) than any service or cleaning worries (I'd assume the same issues the Ross bolt rifle had with grit in the action)
"A dedicated hunter buddy of mine has had a Browning BAR as his main rifle for decades.
Twenty years ago he noticed it was slowing down in cycling, after using it annually for several seasons. I asked him how long it'd been since he cleaned it thoroughly. Said "never", didn't know how to get it apart, had just been swabbing the bore & squirting a couple drops of oil in the action where he could get at it.
Got him a set of breakdown instructions, he (a mechanic) didn't much like the effort it took, but got it thoroughly de-gunked & oiled up, and commented on how much faster it was running.
The guns are not so finicky that they have to be meticulously maintained, but they do have to be maintained, and the severe conditions of the battlefield require an easier design to do that with."
Not sure how that story supports the narrative this rifle (or others similarly reliable) need to be easily field-strippable. Gun ran fine in the face of lacking maintenance, and possible detrimental maintenance (gummy lube); not sure what else there is to demand of the machine. I concede that a 1/4 turn dingus or something should have been used to secure the forearm rather than a screw, which would more readily grant access to the piston, and eliminate the chief worry about service for the machine. The things just plain run clean; keep them unburied from sand pits and unsoaked by Froglube/Remoil/Fireclean (and other gumming lubricants), and just shoot the things as you would any quality item you don't feel like abusing for about a thousand rounds or so before even worrying about scheduling a cleaning. I wish our teeth were so reliable
TCB
My point with the hunting parable was that the rifle's action CAN be used for quite a while under normal conditions without a complete field strip breakdown, that it does not have to be completely broken down after each use, that it is not so tightly fitted & so hard to get apart that it'll gum up after 20 rounds & you'll have to pay a gunsmith to pry it apart for cleaning, but that it WILL need a breakdown at some point & when it does it's nowhere near as simple as a true military design that's easily field maintainable.
This could be nickel & dimed indefinitely.
It ain't a military rifle.
If you're not looking for a military rifle, then that's not important.
If you ARE looking for a military-type rifle for End Of World/Zombie Repellent scenarios, you may want to look elsewhere.
Pretty simple & doesn't need to carry on indefinitely.
Denis
This could be nickel & dimed indefinitely.
It ain't a military rifle.
If you're not looking for a military rifle, then that's not important.
If you ARE looking for a military-type rifle for End Of World/Zombie Repellent scenarios, you may want to look elsewhere.
Pretty simple & doesn't need to carry on indefinitely.
Denis
If this thread started with the question, "how is the FNAR as a battle rifle?" Then I could understand some of these replies. But there was no mention of it anywhere, so I think they're totally irrelevent.
I can appreciate and I like the idea of individuals having a "battle rifle". I think it's a great deal less important which rifle you have, and greatly more important to get training. Having a rifle, a case of ammo and a box of SlimJims doesn't prepare you for anything.
As for the trigger work, go to http://shortactioncustoms.com. From door to door it was five days. There is not an enormous difference, but it is a refinement.
I do not see it on their website now, but worth an email if you're interested. It was around 60 bucks total.
I can appreciate and I like the idea of individuals having a "battle rifle". I think it's a great deal less important which rifle you have, and greatly more important to get training. Having a rifle, a case of ammo and a box of SlimJims doesn't prepare you for anything.
As for the trigger work, go to http://shortactioncustoms.com. From door to door it was five days. There is not an enormous difference, but it is a refinement.
I do not see it on their website now, but worth an email if you're interested. It was around 60 bucks total.
What? "Way too heavy for a battle rifle"??
It's a damn sight lighter than any standard infantry rifle arm our troops fielded prior to the introduction of the M16.
M1892 Krag-Jorgensen: 9 lb 5 oz empty
1903 springfield: 8 lbs 11.2 oz empty
M1 Garand: 9 lbs 8 oz empty
M14: 9 lbs 3 oz empty
---
FNAR: 8 lbs 2 oz. empty.
---
M16-A1: 7 lbs 8 oz empty
M4: 6 lbs 6 oz empty
It's also a lot (35%) lighter than the M24A3 rifle
M24A3 (no scope, unloaded): 12 lb 5 oz
As far as length goes, the FNAR is 37.5" long. My SCAR 17S is 38" extended (which is .5" longer than the FNAR.)
So it's definitely not "too damn long" either!
The vast majority of guns cited above for the "field strip litmus test" either
A) Crap where they eat (AR-15, H&K anything, etc)
or
B) Have gigantic gaping open holes for contaminates to get in the receiver (Kalashnikovs, etc),
or
C) were historically shot exclusively with corrosive ammo.
... and *had* to get cleaned every time they were used.
The guns which do not qualify for the above (such as the SCAR, FNAR, etc) really doesn't need anything other than bore cleaned in normal use, excepting every several hundred or one thousand rounds might need to scrub the piston a bit. I put over 1,000 rounds of malaysian surplus through my SCAR before I cleaned it. There wasn't enough carbon on the bolt face to smudge my finger. I put about the same through the FNAR (although, not surplus, but Varget charged hand loads) - same thing. There was literally nothing to clean when I dismantled it; and the action doesn't have much in the way of entry points for getting in from outside.
I am careful when cleaning the bore, obviously, to avoid excess fluid and residue draining in to the receiver, as a preventative measure. Not difficult to do with the magazine out, stuff a rag up under the chamber to soak anything up that happens to gets out.
Then as mentioned above, pop the guard and get the piston clean and make sure there's no buildup.
Anyway, on the the occasions I've had my FNAR (or SCAR) apart, there has been zero need to clean anything inside. Those are both clean shooting guns. Only thing I've needed to do is drop a couple drops of oil in from time to time to keep the little parts moving smooth.
If you are lazy about cleaning the bore, and let solvent or oil or contaminates drain in to the receiver, then yeah, you'll eventually have problems with carbon and other gummy components making things not work so well.
But too heavy?
Too long?
Give me a break, Barnes. Or do some pushups.
barnbwt
member
- Joined
- Aug 14, 2011
- Messages
- 7,340
"What? "Way too heavy for a battle rifle"??
It's a damn sight lighter than any standard infantry rifle arm our troops fielded prior to the introduction of the M16."
And since the M16, we basically haven't even glanced back at the old battle rifles. My point was more that any 308 semi is too big/heavy to be particularly practical (let alone one with a marksman scope) as a service-type/daily-utility/battle rifle, than the FNAR being notably portly; it's aluminum receiver resolves most of that issue. The size comment, well I stand by that.
I've got a pretty low bar for a gun to not be considered "big." It simply needs to be dwarfed by the STGW57 in either length, weight, or grip size. The FNAR hangs with it in all three (12.7lbs as shown compared with 13.1lb Ubermensch, same length action/barrel sans flash hider, and comparably long six-finger pistol grip) but also has this giant tubular dingus up top. Even if a less comically operator-size scope is used, the requisite optic ensures the profile is a good bit fatter. The thing won't even fit in its own FNH case with an EoTech on top!
Contrast it with the BM59 (which, if fueled by enough burning money, can be just as accurate), which is shorter & lighter in almost every way but the ridiculously large/loud/effective muzzle device which is removable & the same size as the FNAR barrel. Take off the brake and fold the stock, and it almost feels M1 Carbine-like, rather than the Garand it was born of. More normal sized grip, and the weight is 11.1 lbs, despite a lot of needless steel bolt-ons.
I like the FNAR (a lot), I just think a couple things would help a lot in its marketability;
-At least the provisions for a folding/collapsible stock (there is an aftermarket option of some sort that is sometimes available)
-Shorter forearm (would allow for gas system service, and a small pic-rail/stud on the fore end tip would give bipod options) & ditch the side rails, for reduced weight
-Threaded muzzle (lose some more weight, and also allow for brakes/cans)
-Aluminum or polymer mags, since even the BM59's bricks are lighter
-Stock design with less blocky rubber in it, and overall lighter build (seriously; it rivals the STGW which was built for an LMG role)
And that's essentially it. Well, a non-cross-bolt safety would be nice, too, but whatever. Basically a lightweight chassis for the thing*, even as an option, would greatly expand their market. But since they clearly sell every one they produce, there is no need to broaden their appeal. If the goal is truly a DMR/Sniper type rifle (it's way more accurate than a mere DMR needs to be, but has more capacity than needed for a sniper, so more of a target or high-volume hog-hunting deal, IMO) I wish they'd put more into ergonomics that are expected of those platforms, like a dynamically configurable stock, rear monopod & built in bipod, and one of those PSG1 grip-flare thingies.
*A Short-trac BAR type package with the FNAR mags/receiver & a modern stock arrangement would probably cut into SCAR17 sales
TCB
It's a damn sight lighter than any standard infantry rifle arm our troops fielded prior to the introduction of the M16."
And since the M16, we basically haven't even glanced back at the old battle rifles. My point was more that any 308 semi is too big/heavy to be particularly practical (let alone one with a marksman scope) as a service-type/daily-utility/battle rifle, than the FNAR being notably portly; it's aluminum receiver resolves most of that issue. The size comment, well I stand by that.
I've got a pretty low bar for a gun to not be considered "big." It simply needs to be dwarfed by the STGW57 in either length, weight, or grip size. The FNAR hangs with it in all three (12.7lbs as shown compared with 13.1lb Ubermensch, same length action/barrel sans flash hider, and comparably long six-finger pistol grip) but also has this giant tubular dingus up top. Even if a less comically operator-size scope is used, the requisite optic ensures the profile is a good bit fatter. The thing won't even fit in its own FNH case with an EoTech on top!
Contrast it with the BM59 (which, if fueled by enough burning money, can be just as accurate), which is shorter & lighter in almost every way but the ridiculously large/loud/effective muzzle device which is removable & the same size as the FNAR barrel. Take off the brake and fold the stock, and it almost feels M1 Carbine-like, rather than the Garand it was born of. More normal sized grip, and the weight is 11.1 lbs, despite a lot of needless steel bolt-ons.
I like the FNAR (a lot), I just think a couple things would help a lot in its marketability;
-At least the provisions for a folding/collapsible stock (there is an aftermarket option of some sort that is sometimes available)
-Shorter forearm (would allow for gas system service, and a small pic-rail/stud on the fore end tip would give bipod options) & ditch the side rails, for reduced weight
-Threaded muzzle (lose some more weight, and also allow for brakes/cans)
-Aluminum or polymer mags, since even the BM59's bricks are lighter
-Stock design with less blocky rubber in it, and overall lighter build (seriously; it rivals the STGW which was built for an LMG role)
And that's essentially it. Well, a non-cross-bolt safety would be nice, too, but whatever. Basically a lightweight chassis for the thing*, even as an option, would greatly expand their market. But since they clearly sell every one they produce, there is no need to broaden their appeal. If the goal is truly a DMR/Sniper type rifle (it's way more accurate than a mere DMR needs to be, but has more capacity than needed for a sniper, so more of a target or high-volume hog-hunting deal, IMO) I wish they'd put more into ergonomics that are expected of those platforms, like a dynamically configurable stock, rear monopod & built in bipod, and one of those PSG1 grip-flare thingies.
*A Short-trac BAR type package with the FNAR mags/receiver & a modern stock arrangement would probably cut into SCAR17 sales
TCB
Attachments
browningguy
Member
By the way CDNN has the 16" light on sale right now for $899.
Dry weight on an STGW57 is what, north of 12 and a half POUNDS?
My FNAR dry weight is 8.2 lbs. What in the hell kind of optic are you throwing off the top that weighs over *4 pounds*? Hell even that goofy Bushnell integrated laser rangefinder scope doesn't weight THAT much (only 24 ounce), and that's by far the heaviest optic I own.
The side rails simply unbolt; I don't use them on my rifle. (This is different than the SCAR where the side rails are an integral part of the receiver locking mechanism, and cannot be removed.)
MOST of those features are due to restrictions on import at the time the rifles were being designed and built (which are only getting worse as time goes on and presidents ban more crap). FNH doesn't build these domestically. (Or at least didn't as of 2014, I don't know about current production) Back at 2014 shot show FNH announced an end to FNAR imports due to new restrictions.
I don't know if they have started producing them domestically. If they do, it's possible we might see new, and more 'tacticool' configurations.
For me, simple is better. I don't care about, or need, any fancy bolt-ons or more features. Just give me a proper '03 sling and a decent optic and I'm good to go.
barnbwt
member
- Joined
- Aug 14, 2011
- Messages
- 7,340
"Dry weight on an STGW57 is what, north of 12 and a half POUNDS?"
13.7, as stated (less than its size would make you think, but still piggish). FWIW, I think I have the longer, heavier barrel profile on my rifle (the 16" version may be more realistic as a carried rifle), and the mass increase is almost certainly due primarily to the Harris Bipod. It's just so dang convenient, though. Optic is a cheap-ish (O)Konus Pro M-something scope that has served me quite well despite its chi-com origins, and beefy rings are aluminum, together maybe 1.5 lbs.
"The side rails simply unbolt; I don't use them on my rifle."
If they didn't come with the rifle, I wouldn't worry about losing them. Seriously, when I took the gun down the last time, I was surprised how dense even the plastic stock itself was; I think a short forearm would shed some weight, but also some bulk, and have an overall geometric effect on how handy the gun feels.
As far as import configurability, I vaguely remember hearing something similar. Surely they're being made here, now, since I think we've got more of FNH's production lines than Belgium at this point
and they'd be fools to keep messing around with arbitrary/capricious import nonsense.
"For me, simple is better. I don't care about, or need, any fancy bolt-ons or more features. Just give me a proper '03 sling and a decent optic and I'm good to go"
To be honest, I remain slightly confused by what its purpose is supposed to be, if there is one. It's something of a sports-car with all-weather tires as it stands. As you have found, it is highly accurate and worthy of quality sights & slings like any bolt rifle, and yet it has this huge magazine and pistol grip which suggest more dynamic uses were in mind during design. There may be some truth to the grip & large mags being unneeded (and even hindrances) for any practical task the gun would be used for, but those features are also things I'd rather have than not have. Closest 'use' for the gun I have imagined is not dissimilar to the PSG's purpose, which is blasting a sizeable group of targets in ambush from a good distance away before they figure out what's happening. For the PSG it was Islamic terrorists, for the fat American gun owner, it is wild hogs (irony).
I dream of eventually getting a night vision scope up top, illuminator on the side, swivel mount on the bottom, coffee mug holder on the other side, and a large suppressor attached, for the most theoretically effective night-hogging setup tactically imaginable
TCB
13.7, as stated (less than its size would make you think, but still piggish). FWIW, I think I have the longer, heavier barrel profile on my rifle (the 16" version may be more realistic as a carried rifle), and the mass increase is almost certainly due primarily to the Harris Bipod. It's just so dang convenient, though
. Optic is a cheap-ish (O)Konus Pro M-something scope that has served me quite well despite its chi-com origins, and beefy rings are aluminum, together maybe 1.5 lbs."The side rails simply unbolt; I don't use them on my rifle."
If they didn't come with the rifle, I wouldn't worry about losing them
. Seriously, when I took the gun down the last time, I was surprised how dense even the plastic stock itself was; I think a short forearm would shed some weight, but also some bulk, and have an overall geometric effect on how handy the gun feels.As far as import configurability, I vaguely remember hearing something similar. Surely they're being made here, now, since I think we've got more of FNH's production lines than Belgium at this point
and they'd be fools to keep messing around with arbitrary/capricious import nonsense."For me, simple is better. I don't care about, or need, any fancy bolt-ons or more features. Just give me a proper '03 sling and a decent optic and I'm good to go"
To be honest, I remain slightly confused by what its purpose is supposed to be, if there is one. It's something of a sports-car with all-weather tires as it stands. As you have found, it is highly accurate and worthy of quality sights & slings like any bolt rifle, and yet it has this huge magazine and pistol grip which suggest more dynamic uses were in mind during design. There may be some truth to the grip & large mags being unneeded (and even hindrances) for any practical task the gun would be used for, but those features are also things I'd rather have than not have. Closest 'use' for the gun I have imagined is not dissimilar to the PSG's purpose, which is blasting a sizeable group of targets in ambush from a good distance away before they figure out what's happening. For the PSG it was Islamic terrorists, for the fat American gun owner, it is wild hogs (irony
).I dream of eventually getting a night vision scope up top, illuminator on the side, swivel mount on the bottom, coffee mug holder on the other side, and a large suppressor attached, for the most theoretically effective night-hogging setup tactically imaginable
TCB
There was mention of aftermarket stocks, so here's a photo of one of the ACE adapters with an AR15 style stock. Lots of people use the PRS stock, but I'm not real fond of it.
I sometimes think I should have gone with the side folding option. I still may do that. I removed the side rails on mine too, no need for them.
I sometimes think I should have gone with the side folding option. I still may do that. I removed the side rails on mine too, no need for them.
barnbwt
member
- Joined
- Aug 14, 2011
- Messages
- 7,340
GAH! It burns us! Looks like one of the 'marksman conversions' of the PE57s they do over in Switzerland (Bubba is apparently alive and well over there), with all sorts of weird proportions. Is that a Mossberg 500 pistol grip?
You know, that would be an excellent demonstration photo when describing how Assault Weapons are identical to Fudd Guns;
"I'm telling you; it's the same gun, just with a cheaper finish" :banghead:
Speaking of gun weights...
Months back while test-firing my Yugo M76 build at the range (it actually works now, but was a single shot at the time), a British visitor came up to me to chat about it (he'd apparently seen one, or a similar PSL/etc in the service) and revealed that there is apparently some law over there about your trigger pull weight needing to be heavier than the gun!
Needless to say, he was floored by how heavy the big 8mm AK was, and how light its trigger. The factory-trigger M4gery he'd rented actually still met the criteria he was used to!
TCB
You know, that would be an excellent demonstration photo when describing how Assault Weapons are identical to Fudd Guns;
"I'm telling you; it's the same gun, just with a cheaper finish" :banghead:
Speaking of gun weights...
Months back while test-firing my Yugo M76 build at the range (it actually works now, but was a single shot at the time), a British visitor came up to me to chat about it (he'd apparently seen one, or a similar PSL/etc in the service) and revealed that there is apparently some law over there about your trigger pull weight needing to be heavier than the gun!
Needless to say, he was floored by how heavy the big 8mm AK was, and how light its trigger. The factory-trigger M4gery he'd rented actually still met the criteria he was used to! TCB
- Status
