FNC in 6.8mm: shades of 1950s .280 Brit FAL?

[MatthewVanitas]

Greetings. Please forgive any technical errors I may commit, as I am far from home and lacking my usual reference books (Catridges of the World, Misfire, etc.)

I read with interest the recent review of the 6.8mm SOCOM and its platforms in the recent SOF (the only gun-related rag sold at the expeditionary PX). Among other things, they had a spread of other 5.56mm rifles that could be easily reworked to 6.8mm, including Fabrique Nationale's FNC 5.56 rifle. As I understand it, the FNC is a revamped scaled-down FAL/STG58/L1A1 of sorts.

This got me thinking: weren't the Brits pushing a smaller version of the FAL chambered in .280 British back in the 1950s? I believe they were encouraged by the US to chamber the FAL for the new 7.62 NATO cartridge, resulting in a bulkier and more powerful rifle than they originally wanted.

So, wouldn't a 6.8mm SOCOM FNC basically be a .27 caliber mini-FAL? Would it be fair to say that such a device is a half-century late in coming?

(I do understand the FN isn't necessarily planning a 6.8 FNC, just that SOF is stating it could be easily done. But engaging nonetheless).

Just a random musing. -MV

 

[Iain]

A member on this site called Tony Williams is your man. Read an article on his website discussing the various calibres competing at the times that NATO adopted the 7.62NATO and then the 5.56NATO.

Search for some of his posts, he has a link to his website in his sig. I'd do it for you, but I am also far from home and using a rather ill computer.

 

[Tony Williams]

Thanks for the mention

The British actually wanted to adopt the bullpup EM-2 in .280 calibre; the Belgians wanted the same cartridge in their conventional FN (there was an earlier British proposal for a .270 but it was dropped in favour of the larger round). The USA insisted on the 7.62x51, which killed off the EM-2 as it wasn't well suited to it, so the Brits switched to the FN.

You'll find a brief history of assault rifles on my website. A more detailed one is coming out in book form in a few months, with Max Popenker of the guns.ru site as co-author.

Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website and discussion
forum

 

[Badger Arms]

As I understand it, the FNC is a revamped scaled-down FAL/STG58/L1A1 of sorts.

This is ironic on several levels. The FAL was a SCALED UP gun from one that fired 7.92x33 StG44 ammunition.

 

[AZ Jeff]

Tony Williams does a oood job of explaining the history of the FAL, the EM-2, etc.

A sidebar comment on your statement about the FNC: The FNC is NOT a derivative of the FAL. It shares almost nothing in common with that rifle, other than both being designed by the FN. It really is more like the marriage of the AK's bolt/gas system with fire control system of the AR-15 series.

The FN rifle that was the 5.56mm offspring of the FAL was the short-lived CAL, which never went anywhere commercially, and was eventually overshadowed by the FNC.

 

[cookie]

They're very different designs. I think the FNC is great, and built like a tank - but the ergonomics of an AR are nicer.

 

[hksw]

Are the FNC and SIG 540/550 related in any way?

 

[Langenator]

Are the FNC and SIG 540/550 related in any way?

Um...they both fire 5.56mm NATO ammunition...I think that's about it.

Oh, and if I had the $$$, i'd buy both of them.

 

[CleverNickname]

As I understand it, the FNC is a revamped scaled-down FAL/STG58/L1A1 of sorts.

As the owner of both a DSA STG58A and an FNC, one's not a scaled-down version of the other. The firing mechanisms are all different, the mag well on the FAL is on the upper receiver, while the mag well on the FNC is in the lower. The gas systems are all different too.

 

[shoobe01]

In answer to Langenator, the FNC, SAR-80, SR-88, AR-70/90, SIG 540, Sig 550 and probably some others are not at all related, as in derived from each other. They are related in that they all came from a particular era, of guide rods, bolt carriers, stampings to reduce cost and weight and so on.

The CAL was a tipping block gun, like the FAL. Lots of things made it not quite work out. The FNC is a ground-up design, using a rotating bolt. An interesting note about the FNC is that the few imported to the US are not the final version issued to pretty much anyone. The FNC-90 has, for example, a bolt-hold-open. I've seen lots of people use the FNC and HK rifles to conclude that "europeans hate last round bolt hold open," but everyone who adopted the FNC insisted on one after all.

 

[Mike Hull]

Quote"This got me thinking: weren't the Brits pushing a smaller version of the FAL chambered in .280 British back in the 1950s?"


Mathew, it was the 280/30. I have one of those rounds and it's quite interesting.
I think we would have been way ahead to adopt it.

 

[hksw]

I ask as I've heard both as being loosely based on the AK as to the gas/piston system and both being rotating bolt. Both also being side folder (recoil spring located in front of the butt stock) and relative similar fire control locations.

 

[shoobe01]

Oh, sorry. /Hksw/, the Sig 540 and FNC do seem somewhat similar, now that I compare them. Long stroke pistons and all that. But, it would seem hard to conclude that one was derived from the other with the development times involved. More likely to me that while others (L.85, SAR-80...) went with the AR-18 style of short piston and many lugs, they went with the AK-style of long-piston and 2 lugs. Oh, and lemme check...yup the Berettas are also of that AK-style. And come to think of it, the [much later] Daewoo, which uses the M16 many-lugged bolt, however.

Of course, we'll never know without asking the designers (who might not admit it anyway). Too many changes come up during design to be sure. Significant changes even happened between the early tested FNC-76 and the final FNC-90. Hey, since some are in the firing pin area, I wonder if that's one of those parts that does not break in actual service. You know, FNCs here in the US are known for firing pin breakage. Hmm...