What if the FAL was an assault rifle?

So the OTL M72/M118 bullet (basically the M1 ball) for the 7.62x51?
http://www.snipercentral.com/history-m118-ammunition/
gQYJYoc.jpg
That would have been an option, although I seem to recall in the early years the US used a steel cored projectile for the standard 7.62x51 "ball" ammo. There may been concerns about lead cost and availability ?
 
Gun Jesus has a video on the prototypes. He said that the people who designed them were just mechanics/engineers and had no prior experience.
They thought that what looked good on paper would work well in reality.

One of my PODs for the weapon is HMG getting Sterling arms to develop the gun as they held the development rights to the AR18 at the time, rather than just stealing the design as they did. And then basically fucking it up.

I recall a story when one of the Sterling engineers getting to dismantle an early prototype SA80/L85 and it had sterling parts inside!
 

longsword14

Banned
I recall a story when one of the Sterling engineers getting to dismantle an early prototype SA80/L85 and it had sterling parts inside!
Gun Jesus told that too !
On to the FAL, I don't get the love it gets. A breech locking gun would have been better and lighter.
 
One of my PODs for the weapon is HMG getting Sterling arms to develop the gun as they held the development rights to the AR18 at the time, rather than just stealing the design as they did. And then basically fucking it up.

I recall a story when one of the Sterling engineers getting to dismantle an early prototype SA80/L85 and it had sterling parts inside!
Although I have never even handled an AR18, one of my regrets is not ordering one several decades ago when I had the opportunity to do so.

Another POD would have been for the UK to have funded incremental improvements to the AR18. The folding stock design might have helped keep the stowed length down, and I was partial to the use of a gas piston vis the AR15/M16 system.
 
Gun Jesus told that too !
On to the FAL, I don't get the love it gets. A breech locking gun would have been better and lighter.
It was a relatively mature design, that was more or less ready to go into mass production when nations were deciding what rifles to buy ? It seemed to work well enough for most of the nations that adopted it, although the Israeli experience is probably worth looking at. I do agree that there are other designs that are probably better from a technology perspective (at least on paper.)
 
Then there is the AR-10...
Come to think of it, does the FN FAL even get much traction if the .280 is adopted as a caliber? Seems like there would be a lot more competition ITTL.

I like the AR-10 concept today. Back in the 1950`s I suspect some nations might have preferred the more conservative FN FAL design. In our time line the FN FAL seemed to get a lot more sales than the AR10 ever did.
 
There was an awful lot of 30-06 weapons kicking around post 45 - from tank MMGs to Springfield 1903s in many of the Western armies

So it makes far more sense (imo) to improve the 30-06 rather than another proprietary round such as the Mauser 8mm - that is if the planets align and the .270 is chosen to replace the Carbine/Rifle/SMG weapons of the principle Western powers.
Yep.. It would be interesting to (me anyways) to see how well an improved military issue 30-06 round would perform if it had gotten the same level of detailed improvements that the 5.56x45 round has received over the decades.
 
The issue is that the M1 produced too much recoil for the Garand to handle. It would work in a bolt action, but the recoil I gather was close to the limit of what a shooter to handle and probably would require some sort of recoil buffering system, which I have no idea what that would do to accuracy.

BTW didn't the L42a1 only come about in the 1970s?

More an issue of M1 ball would break a Garand in next to no time.
 
Yep.. It would be interesting to (me anyways) to see how well an improved military issue 30-06 round would perform if it had gotten the same level of detailed improvements that the 5.56x45 round has received over the decades.
With the advances in powders, the 30-06 can be done around to 3000fps for the 174 gr. bullets, so you're up to 30-06 Ackley Improved of 300WSM level of performance, without hitting high pressure loads

So not a huge difference, really.
 

Deleted member 1487

That would have been an option, although I seem to recall in the early years the US used a steel cored projectile for the standard 7.62x51 "ball" ammo. There may been concerns about lead cost and availability ?
You sure that wasn't AP ammo?

Yep.. It would be interesting to (me anyways) to see how well an improved military issue 30-06 round would perform if it had gotten the same level of detailed improvements that the 5.56x45 round has received over the decades.
See the 7.62x51.

I like the AR-10 concept today. Back in the 1950`s I suspect some nations might have preferred the more conservative FN FAL design. In our time line the FN FAL seemed to get a lot more sales than the AR10 ever did.
A big part of that is the FAL getting the British/Commonwealth contract. The AR-10 had a lot more competition than the AR-15 did, while coming out years after it's competition was already settled into the market. Plus it had a number of early quality control issues, which killed a contract and of course US government interest. Then there were the political issues, like the US embargoing sales to Cuba despite the interest of the regime in it, and the Netherlands banning weapons sales to Portugal (the Dutch owning the contract for sales in Europe).

Its a shame, because it apparently had some advantages over the FAL:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ArmaLite_AR-10
In U.S. Army tests at Aberdeen Proving Ground in November 1960, and later in Portuguese service, the AR-10 gained a reputation for accuracy (some rifles would group into 25 mm (1 inch) at 100 meters with service ammunition).[35] Portuguese paratroopers found the AR-10 to be not only accurate but reliable in combat, despite rugged service conditions in African jungle and savannah.[36]

A few Portuguese and Sudanese model AR-10s found their way by various means to nearby African countries; in Chad, the AR-10 was much appreciated by members of the French Foreign Legion. As one police instructor in the Congo stated, "It was a good combat weapon that never failed me; a bit too long (but not as bad as the FAL or M14) for house-to-house work or really heavy brush, but great for 400-800 meters, in the flats - and really nice on the body, after wandering around 12-14 hours looking for bad guys."[27][37]
 
With the advances in powders, the 30-06 can be done around to 3000fps for the 174 gr. bullets, so you're up to 30-06 Ackley Improved of 300WSM level of performance, without hitting high pressure loads

So not a huge difference, really.

Having had a thunk I can see a relatively cheap improved M1+ round developed for existing and future .30 cal Machine guns, the M2 continued for use in the M1 Garand and a match round produced for snipers (m1903s not the M1C unless its action is improved to handle the higher loading)
 
You sure that wasn't AP ammo?

>My understanding is the original M59 ball round was steel (or perhaps Iron ?) cored. It may also have been considered to be semi AP ?





A big part of that is the FAL getting the British/Commonwealth contract. The AR-10 had a lot more competition than the AR-15 did, while coming out years after it's competition was already settled into the market. Plus it had a number of early quality control issues, which killed a contract and of course US government interest. Then there were the political issues, like the US embargoing sales to Cuba despite the interest of the regime in it, and the Netherlands banning weapons sales to Portugal (the Dutch owning the contract for sales in Europe).

>Yep, my understanding is that the Commonwealth designs also modified (and probably improved ?) the original FAL design somewhat.

Its a shame, because it apparently had some advantages over the FAL:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ArmaLite_AR-10

>Yep, today I would probably choose an AR-10 style rifle over an FAL style Rifle if I wanted a semi auto 7.62 x 51 rifle for Civilian use. At the time I can understand why the FAL was originally chosen.
 

Deleted member 1487

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/7.62×51mm_NATO#Overview
Cartridge, Caliber 7.62mm, NATO, Ball, M59 (United States): 150.5-grain (9.8 g) 7.62×51mm NATO ball cartridge. A further development of the initial T65 cartridge. It had a long heavy bullet with a Semi-Armor-Piercing iron or mild steel core and a gilded steel jacket. After the Vietnam War it was replaced by the M80 Ball cartridge as the standard round. Data contained in TM 9-1005-298-12 mentions the approximate maximum range of 3,820-metre (4,180 yd) at 856.2-metre-per-second (2,809 ft/s) muzzle velocity.[27]

>Yep, today I would probably choose an AR-10 style rifle over an FAL style Rifle if I wanted a semi auto 7.62 x 51 rifle for Civilian use. At the time I can understand why the FAL was originally chosen.
There was no AR-10 to choose when the FAL was adopted. When the AR-10 was sorted it was too late to change over.
 
Having had a thunk I can see a relatively cheap improved M1+ round developed for existing and future .30 cal Machine guns, the M2 continued for use in the M1 Garand and a match round produced for snipers (m1903s not the M1C unless its action is improved to handle the higher loading)
Yep. Optimized "heavy ball" and "AP" rounds (along with balistically matched tracer rounds) for the 30 06 that were not expected to be used in the M1 rifle would have been a nice adjunct to a true intermediate rifle round IMHO.
 
IIRC the West Germans wanted the FAL but they wanted a licence to make it themselves and FN would only sell them directly. Free licences for those who liberated Belgium and no licence for those who conquered it twice in 26 years.
 
Last edited:

Deleted member 1487

Yep... As per the link you provided it appears the original US 7.62 ball round that was widely issued didn't use a lead core.
Yup.

FN also continued to sell the FAL long after the AR10 was avalaible.
When you're locked in to a weapon system it isn't really worth buying something better and new if it isn't a major increase in performance, see the various SPIW programs and replacements for the 5.56. There were better options invented, but since there is a production path already grooved it would be more expensive to adopting something marginally better than continue with what you already have.

IIRC the West Germans wanted the FAL but they wanted a licence to make it themselves and FN would only ell them directly. Free licences for those who liberated Belgium and no licence for those who conquered it twice 26 years.
Yes exactly. Of course they were trying to standardize with the rest of NATO, as the FAL, being the only rifle in 7.62 NATO at the time IOTL and the one the Brits were adopting, but had to find their own option not only for cost reasons, but to ensure they controlled the supply chain (and have their economy benefit from that military spending). The G3 was probably the better rifle overall in the end; FN really shot themselves in the foot though (pun intended) by incentivizing the German arms industry to develop independently and compete with them, while then not letting FN get in on the profits (they could have charged for the license, unlike with the other nations they gave it to for free, as the Germans were willing to pay for it).
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Top