enichols
Member
Hi all,
I've been reading several recent threads about the FN49 and a few posters seem to be of the opinion that it is better than the Garand. I'm wondering how and why. I have a Garand that I had rebarreled in .308 and it's my favorite rifle of any that I've owned or fired. By contrast, I've only ever held two FN49s and both were pretty beat up. However, they seemed to be of similar construction (that is, sturdy and robust) to a Garand.
I thought that maybe a comparison of the two rifles would be in order.
From the world.guns.ru website...
FN49
Overall length: 1116 mm
Barrel length: 590 mm
Weight: 4.31 kg
Magazine: 10 rounds, non-detachable
M1 Garand
Overall length: 1103 mm
Barrel length: 610 mm
Weight: 4.32 kg
Feeding: non-detachable, clip-fed only magazine, 8 rounds
So, size-wise, they're roughly the same. I can see that the FN may have an advantage in that the magazine capacity is slightly greater and because it feeds from stripper clips, it can be topped off more easily.
In terms of the cartridges that each rifle used, is there really that much noticeable difference between .30-06 M2 and 8mm Mauser? Does either have much of an advantage over the other in terms of its effectiveness in battle? I am inclined to think not, but I'm no ballistics expert.
I suppose that another advantage the FN might have over the Garand is that it has an adjustable gas system, so it would be most likely less picky about the ammo it digests, right? But assuming that the Garand is fed with M2 spec ammunition, is it really at a disadvantage?
Robustness and reliability in the field? Well, again, I'm no expert, but it is my understanding that the Garand was a pretty robust and reliable weapon in battle
However, the FN-49 being the direct ancestor of the FAL, I would imagine it's just as reliable as the M1 (of course, I may be wrong).
Ease of maintenance? I can't imagine how the Garand could be made simpler... one of the things I've always admired about it is how easily it can be disassembled for maintenance and reassembled. Is the FN49 as easy or simple to maintain?
I guess that my conclusion, having read the posts of FN49 owners, is that it was a fine battle rifle on par with the M1 but unfortunately eclipsed by the less complex and less expensive FAL. I don't think I would feel underarmed going into battle with either a Garand or an FN49, but I can't really see why one is better than the other.
So enlighten me![Smile :) :)]()
-Nic
I've been reading several recent threads about the FN49 and a few posters seem to be of the opinion that it is better than the Garand. I'm wondering how and why. I have a Garand that I had rebarreled in .308 and it's my favorite rifle of any that I've owned or fired. By contrast, I've only ever held two FN49s and both were pretty beat up. However, they seemed to be of similar construction (that is, sturdy and robust) to a Garand.
I thought that maybe a comparison of the two rifles would be in order.
From the world.guns.ru website...
FN49
Overall length: 1116 mm
Barrel length: 590 mm
Weight: 4.31 kg
Magazine: 10 rounds, non-detachable
M1 Garand
Overall length: 1103 mm
Barrel length: 610 mm
Weight: 4.32 kg
Feeding: non-detachable, clip-fed only magazine, 8 rounds
So, size-wise, they're roughly the same. I can see that the FN may have an advantage in that the magazine capacity is slightly greater and because it feeds from stripper clips, it can be topped off more easily.
In terms of the cartridges that each rifle used, is there really that much noticeable difference between .30-06 M2 and 8mm Mauser? Does either have much of an advantage over the other in terms of its effectiveness in battle? I am inclined to think not, but I'm no ballistics expert.
I suppose that another advantage the FN might have over the Garand is that it has an adjustable gas system, so it would be most likely less picky about the ammo it digests, right? But assuming that the Garand is fed with M2 spec ammunition, is it really at a disadvantage?
Robustness and reliability in the field? Well, again, I'm no expert, but it is my understanding that the Garand was a pretty robust and reliable weapon in battle
Ease of maintenance? I can't imagine how the Garand could be made simpler... one of the things I've always admired about it is how easily it can be disassembled for maintenance and reassembled. Is the FN49 as easy or simple to maintain?
I guess that my conclusion, having read the posts of FN49 owners, is that it was a fine battle rifle on par with the M1 but unfortunately eclipsed by the less complex and less expensive FAL. I don't think I would feel underarmed going into battle with either a Garand or an FN49, but I can't really see why one is better than the other.
So enlighten me
-Nic