The FNC (Fabrique Nationale Carabine) was FN’s followup to the unsuccessful CAL rifle. Chambered for the newly-adopted 5.56mm NATO cartridge, the FNC uses a long stroke gas piston system very reminiscent of the AK, combined with a stamped upper and milled aluminum lower. After about 5 years of development, the FNC was put on the market in 1980, and was quickly purchased by Indonesia, along with a license for domestic production as the Pindad SS-1. It would also be adopted by Sweden as the AK-5 (minus the 3-round burst functionality) and Belgium. About 6,000 semiautomatic sporting models were imported into the US. A number of those, including this one, were legally registered as transferrable machine guns before 1986.
As usual, another awesome video presentation by Ian. I tell ya’, this gentleman has the most incredible job in the world!
Ian’s superb way of presenting information is a treasure in itself. And by the way, hs use of proper wording and correct grammar makes listening to his presentations a good way to improve one’s English skills.
But… is not FN FNC pleonasm – Fabrique Nationale Fabrique Nationale Carbine?
I am aware FN FNC was used earlier like here
But what is origin of this redundant name? Was FN FNC phrase used in manufacturers catalog?
I’ve always felt that the FNC was an intrinsically better combat rifle than the M16, particularly with regards to the operating system. Whether those feelings are actually justified…? I have no real idea; before committing to that, I’d want to spend a few years carrying one around on the daily and using it. The lack of a bolt hold-open feature is about the only thing I can find fault with, as well as the lack of true ambdextrity in the controls.
I particularly have to envy the folding stock and the action; the ability to compact the rifle for routine carry is a feature that I think a lot of people tend to depreciate, but I’ve always felt that the M16 was too damn big for its own good, particularly when you compare it to what you’re getting in terms of cartridge firepower out of it. Something in that size envelope really ought to be bigger and more effective in terms of hitting power downrange–It’s kind of like how I’ve always felt that the Glock 19 was the perfect size for a 9mm, while the 17 really ought to have something with a bit more “oomph” coming out of it, to justify having to haul all that mass around…
Just feelings, mind you… Can’t actually quantify any of that, but it’s how I feel about the scales of the various weapons. For a 5.56mm carbine, the FNC is just about the ideal package in terms of size/ballistics for the cartridge. The few I’ve gotten to shoot were always satisfactory, and I’d love to own one with a bolt hold-open and a Picatinny rail welded on top… If wishes were horses, though…
I am the exact same way, except probably worse (fanatical / obsessive) about proportionality.
I always thought the G19 is the right size for 9mm (although now I lean more toward the P365XL), the G20 for 10mm, and the Beretta 92 is the right size for a box of Frosted Flakes.
LOL… What’s the definition of genius, again? How much that individual agrees with you? By that mark, Mike… You’re a genius.
The M9/Beretta 92 was always an oversized and overly bulky pistol for 9mm, to my mind. If you’re gonna haul something of that mass around, the way I look at it? I’d better be getting a bigger and more powerful cartridge along with it. The Glock 10 is about right for a 10mm service pistol, but I do prefer the Glock 29 for actual carry–Although, I would be willing to entertain the idea that the 29 is borderline on being a bit too small for that cartridge.
It’s all a cost-benefit thing, and I’ll admit that it’s highly personal. Andre the Giant might have found the Beretta 92 an ideal pocket pistol, but I don’t have his hands nor his mass, soooo… Yeah. Too big. Also, way too big for most of the people I trained on the M9, over the years–The number of times I’d take some tyro out to the range with my Glock 19 as a confidence-building exercise, and then see them do so much better with it, due to the smaller size that their hands could better control. The M9 is just too damn big for about forty or so percent of the military population in the US Army.
Yeesh… That should be “Glock 20” in that second paragraph. Oh, for the ability to edit a post, once it’s gone up and shown your ass to the world…
I often wish for the “edit” function too, but Glock’s semi-logical (sequential) yet utterly confusing numbering system isn’t your fault.
I never shot an FNC, but for me the XCR is in many ways the optimized AK. I’m waiting on my permission slip as we speak.
Agreement from a man of your experience and thoughtfulness is always a high compliment indeed!
My hands are actually quite large, and I have no problem with either the G20 or Witness Hunter grips. It’s just that my inner engineer whispers in my ear like a cartoon devil, “In a world where the P365 and even the 1911 have 7/8″ slides, there’s just no excuse for an inch and a quarter wide one on a 9mm!” Not to mention the fact that it’s a “solution” for a self-inflicted problem.
Mike & Kirk,
I’ve always felt that the proper “size envelope” for a 9 x 19mm was defined almost a century ago, with the FN HP aka P-35. No larger than a P.08, actually substantially smaller than a 1911, but with a 13-round capacity.
The nearest thing to it since then has been the Cz75 and its descendants. Which is fundamentally an odd hybrid of the P-35 and a SiG P-210 with a Walther-type searage (minus the annoying hammer-drop safety/decock feature).
I suppose the wider slides of the later generation pistols is mainly due to substituting the Petter M1935S-type locking system (locking the oversized squared chamber into the oversized squared ejection port) for the Browning locking system. It is certainly simple, strong, and easier to machine than the Browning “rib” lock, but I question if the slide needs to be as thick as the one on a typical Glock, except for something like a Glock 20 in full-power 10 x 25mm Auto.
The one thing that seems to have been proven over the last roughly eight decades is that the Walther-type lockup, as used by the P.38, Beretta M951, M9, etc., has a shorter service life than any Browning variant.
And yes, I have owned and carried “on duty” most of the above over the years, other than the French 7.65 x 20s.
As to hand size, I’m quite comfortable with a S&W M27 6″ with full-sized target grips. The grips on the original Colt Anaconda .44 seemed a bit skimpy to me. It really needed grips similar to the original 1950s Colt Python but about 10% larger overall.
“(…)FN HP aka P-35(…)”
This weapon was designed in interbellum, before 9×19 mm loads made specifically for sub-machine guns become widespread. This might prompt designers to make slides more stumpy.
“(…)with a 13-round capacity.(…)”
This mean almost doubling when compared against many 1930s automatic pistol, but this is rather low-end for later 9×19 automatic pistols with staggered magazine. Mentioned CZ-75 have capacity 16.
Eon and Daweo,
Excellent points. The P35 and CZ are both superb (and proportional) 9mm autoloaders. The P365 – a post-WWII +P rated design that locks in the ejection port – must have a slide forged by Hephaestus himself, with its frighteningly tiny (both narrow and vertically short) locking shelf.
The M9’s bulk, though, is all self-inflicted. By combining Walther’s big stress-riser square locking cutouts in the slide with Beretta’s own fixation on open-top slides, there’s nowhere else to go but sideways.
I’ve got a CZ-85 in the safe; I like it as a mechanical artifact, lovely machining and all that.
But… It’s still too big for what you get with 9mm ballistics, to my sensibilities. I never carry it, only ever shoot it when I feel like I need the intrinsic experience of it all, and a reminder for why I still loathe the single-double action concept.
Lovely work of mechanical art that they are, the CZ-75 full-size pistols are still too damn big for what you’re getting. The “compact” models they offer, though…? Just about right, if you can tolerate the inherent insanity offered up by the action.
Long time ago, I used to denigrate the Glock design as “combat Tupperware”. After actually shooting one, I changed my tune. Thirty-odd years later, and I’m still convinced that Gaston Glock put together the best combat pistol for this era, period. I love the idea that I can go from a deep-concealment pocket pistol in the G26 up to the G40 that can practically be used as a hunting pistol, and never change a damn thing about my trigger pull or other ergonomics…
Everything that came before the Glock was an inadequate compromise, to my mind. That “double-action, then single-action for every other shot” transition does more to mess with people’s minds than I think they realize; you have to put in considerable time and effort to overcome that problem, and most people will not do that.
I’m no DA/SA fan either (Don’t get me started!). What sets the CZ apart for me is the ability to carry cocked-and-locked in a reasonably-9mm-sized pistol, without either the single-stack (1911A1) or egregiously huge double-stack (1911A2) limitations of a pistol originally chambered in .45ACP.
I like Glocks, but more for their specs than their ergonomics.
“(…)M9 is just too damn big for about forty or so percent of the military population in the US Army.”
mentions numerous controversies related to test which ultimately led to adoption of 92. I guess with already long time spent there was pressure to “do this done”, which do not inspire more tests of hard-to-objectively features.
“(…)FNC was an intrinsically better combat rifle than the M16(…)Whether those feelings are actually justified…? I have no real idea(…)”
Swedes do tested following weapon when looking for new weapon in 1970s
(…)Evaluations were made during the winter 1975-76 for tests in cold weather. The following guns took part
After test with all the weapons FFV 890C and FN FNC turned out to be the best. They were outstanding when it came to winter climate and long life.(…)
FFV 890C was weapon closely related to Israeli Galil. So FNC was better fit for that particular Swedish set of requirements.
It always struck me as a little odd that the Swedes did not include the Valmet M76 in any of its variants as competitors. Is there a story there, I wonder?
Stoner or GTFO. (ducks)
“(…)M16 was too damn big(…)”
Indeed, this can observed when compared with direct ancestor namely AR-10
Length : 1016 mm
Overall length 986 mm
That is 30 mm difference. In M16A2 length was increased to 1006 mm. Though difference in mass, as important to foot-slogging soldier, must not be overlooked as M16 weighted around 2/3 of AR-10.
Sales would belie your assertion. The AR has the advantage of putting the reciprocating mass in the rear of the action, rather than much of it over the bbl. That seems to work out in the AR’s favor, albeit the Euros seem to be going for the HK AR w/ a piston, as well as our Marines.
I think once you factor in the inflexibility of the stock arrangement, it’s all a tradeoff. I don’t think anything ought to be back there, under ideal circumstances, because that makes it really hard to use the weapon from inside a vehicle. Once you’ve had to sit in a HMMWV with an M16A2 and then tried to figure out how the hell you’re going to be able to use that thing to defend yourself from the flank…? You really start to question that aspect of the design. I’d rather have the folding stock and a longer barrel than the M4 Carbine, TBH–And, the theoretical superiority of balance in the action? I’ll give that up to be able to fire that FNC out the window with the stock folded and having hooked something on the door frame.
Life looks a lot different when you’re seeing a dude with an RPG to your immediate left or right, within spitting distance, and you can’t get your weapon situated to even shoot vaguely in his direction. Right then, in that moment? You’d trade a lot of things for “Handy Deployment”.
As I’ve said before, the infatuation with folding stocks, SBRs like the M4, and bullpups all says one thing; the designers of IFVs in the 1970s made their interiors too damned small.
For the most part, they were designing for typical 1940s-stature troops (5’6′ and under 160 lbs. stripped, or even less in the case of the Russians), and your typical “troop” today is considerably taller and heavier than his grandpappy was at Normandy. Frankly, his father was taller and heavier than Grandpa back when the Bradley, FV510 Warrior, Stryker, etc. were being designed and prototyped.
The main reason of course was air mobility. Smaller, lighter, and able to leap across oceans in a single bound (in a C-141) was the ideal. They never really succeeded, even at that.
Then they decided to essentially make every IFV a light tank/tank destroyer. Which added weight and restricted interior volume still further by shoehorning in ATGWs and tank-killing autocannon like Bushmaster or Rarden. And made the air mobility factor they were OCD about even more problematic.
You end up, not with a practical IFV, but an underarmored light tank that can at best stick half an infantry section in the back in profound discomfort, even by battlefield standards.
And that’s not a “soft civilian” issue. An infantryman in full kit who’s been stuck in the back of an M2 for several hours with five other guys his size, with the same loadout, is unlikely to be able to bail and assault in Hollywood style. Not before five minutes or so of getting cramps out first.
The problem isn’t that infantrymen, or their rifles, are “too big”. It’s that the RfP staff requirements for the IFVs weren’t well thought-out to begin with.
BTW, the best (or least-worst) designed IFVs in history, from a getting the infantry in and out with minimum trouble standpoint, were the U.S. halftracks of WW2. The runners-up were their German opposite numbers, the SdKfz 251 series. Even designed for infantrymen 5’6′ tall and weighing under 160 lbs stripped, they still had more usable interior “passenger volume” than their modern-day descendants.
if you don’t believe me, buy a 1/35 scale plastic kit of a halftrack (Tamiya or Revell), one of a Bradley with a full interior (Academy or Tamiya), build them, and compare them. I have. The results can be very illuminating.
After which, you’ll probably wish you could go back in time to about 1970 and have a “talk” with whoever was responsible for the Bradley.
With a baseball bat in hand.
I am not arguing for the Bradley or the late-Cold War belief that “infantry” would primarily spray port weapons from inside IFVs. Nor am I unsympathetic for those crammed into cramped interiors.
You’ve already identified one problem with larger IFVs, mobility (and not just air, but rail or road tunnels, ships; decreased mileage / range etc.). Another issue is that (all else being equal) a taller-bodied IFV both carries more weight of armor (because volume), yet is a more vulnerable target – a fact only exacerbated on peer battlefields where, as you noted, every opposing vehicle is now a “light tank”; helos saturate the air, etc..
Self-deprecating sarcasm aside, I’ve always had a bit of a problem with the whole “Infantry Fighting Vehicle” concept–Only, I come at it from another angle, that of “Why the hell are you trying to do this?!?!?!?”.
Here’s the issue in a nutshell, as I see it: The role of “infantry carry” and the role of “fighting vehicle” are two flavors that simply should not be mixed. Why? Because they are two totally different, unrelated functions. Why are you hauling around an additional six to eight men to add to the casualty count when your lightly armored and heavily armed vehicle goes to mix it up as a sorry excuse for an armored fighting vehicle? Wouldn’t it make a lot more sense to reduce the size of that vehicle and up its available armor payload by taking the “guys in back” out of the equation?
On the flip side of that question, the point of the “infantry carry” thing is to deliver rested, well-armed infantry to the points where you need them. How do you do that, and then run them around the battlefield doing AFV work, wearing them out, and risking them? Plus that, the number of times where I’ve seen tactical situations wherein you’d be able to maximize the effect of your firepower assets, and still actually be able to use those vehicles to deliver the troops to the best place for them to debark the vehicles…?
Nearly three years as an observer/controller at the NTC, and I never once saw one. Never saw one during every single other training iteration I participated in during the course of my 25-year career as a combat engineer, and I never observed one in Iraq, either.
Transport and combat should never be combined. You also have to deal with the fact that the guys running the units equipped with IFVs are entirely too tempted to go off playing Rommel or Patton with their toys, which eventually lead to incredibly degraded troops that have been mix-mastered inside those vehicles for days on end.
To my mind, the IFV is a bad joke, foisted off on us all by the Soviets, and taken up simply so as to be seen “keeping up with the Joneses”. The logical sense of it still escapes me–I think we need the light armored firepower integrated into the mechanized infantry platoons, but the idea that it should also be integrated into the troop carriers is, flatly, insane. Separate the two functions, and you could economically produce two separate specialized vehicles that could carry more infantry and keep more of them alive.
I know of one incident in Iraq, during the invasion, where a US Bradley platoon took on a company-plus of dug-in Iraqi tanks they stumbled onto in a date-palm orchard that they were concealed in. It was an ugly situation that we won through sheer, unadulterated balls and luck, but at the end of the day? Wasn’t a one of those poor bastards in the back of the Bradleys who even knew what the hell was going on around them, nor did they have an iota of influence on the action. All they did was stumble out of the Brads at the end of it all, and spend an hour or so vomiting and trying to regain some semblance of an ability to function, after being thrown around inside the tracks for the fifteen or twenty minutes of frenetic action by the Bradleys. Several of the dismounts were injured badly enough by the experience that they had to be medevaced, and not from enemy action or fire; simply being thrown around inside as the platoon slaughtered a tank company at knife-fighting range was enough to break limbs.
You want a tank? Build a tank. You want to haul infantry around? Build dedicated infantry carriers, and keep them out of the hands of people that think they’re “armored fighting vehicles”, rather than a means to an end, which is delivering functional and intact infantrymen to the places on the battlefield where they’re needed.
The IFV is a concept dreamt up by fools for a nuclear battlefield that never eventuated, and I’ll be damned if I understand why they’re still being built.
“(…)wish you could go back in time to about 1970 and have a “talk” with whoever was responsible for the Bradley.(…)”
I fear you would need to go further back to persuaded anyone responsible for thinking: let pack 24 fully-equipped soldiers inside that
I think I’ve been inside one of those things, but I’m still not too sure about it… There was something totally inexplicable that we found out on a range, being used as a target hulk, down in the desert north of Fort Irwin. It was part of the Navy and Air Force bombing range, and when we went up there for an exercise scenario, there was all sorts of really unusual stuff out in the impact area. Being friends with the EOD guys didn’t hurt, and we went to scout out a bunch of the armor hulks on the theory that the “players” otherwise known as the “exercising unit” would likely fall prey to the same temptations…
There wasn’t a lot left of the thing, but you could see where the seating had been in the crew compartment, along with a lot of the rest of the vehicle’s guts. Compared to the M113 we were in, it seemed like a colossus from another age, gargantuan in scale. I’ve been in M75 and M59 personnel carriers, as well, but those were not built on the same scale as the M44.
The LVTP-7 AAV is another vehicle in this vein. I’ve been around Marine units using those things, and about all I can say is that it seems like a really good way to lose half a platoon at a time to misadventure and/or poor maintenance. An acquaintance of mine was crew on one of those, and having him outline all the things that could go wrong from the moment those suckers get dropped out of their ships to the moment they hit shore was… Enlightening. I have nothing but respect for the Marines who clamber aboard those things and put their faith in the maintenance performed on them. I’m pretty sure my dislike for putting my life in other people’s hands would have made me a really shitty Marine, in that regard. I’d rather jump out of airplanes with low-bid parachutes some dope-smoking deviant packed than ride an LVTP-7 fifteen miles through the surf zone…
“(…)I’d rather jump out of airplanes with low-bid parachutes some dope-smoking deviant packed than ride an LVTP-7 fifteen miles through the surf zone…”
Then consider yourself lucky to do not have ride inside earlier Marines’ vehicle namely LVTP-5 https://www.historynet.com/lvtp-5-amtrac-pulled-weight-vietnam.htm
Maintenance was always a challenge with the LVTP-5, and hard use on land strained its problematic mechanical systems. The crew could easily be kept busy just pulling daily maintenance, and replacing an engine or transmission often required an entire day.
more lethal problem for the LVTP-5 was its vulnerability to mines(…)fuel tanks were installed in its floor: 12 cells carrying up to 456 gallons of gasoline. Hit a mine, and the vehicle’s fuel supply would often go up in flames, with horrific results for anyone trapped inside. A lucky crewman would be blown clear of the amtrac by the explosion; otherwise he would be burned to death. Most Marines, therefore, preferred to ride on the top of the vehicle, stacking sandbags around the amtrac’s roof to provide some protection.
Once Marines started riding atop their amtracs, the machine gun was often blocked by the men or the sandbags. To address that, the machine gun would some times be mount ed over the sandbags so it had a clear field of fire.
“Why the hell are you trying to do this?!?!?!?” (С)
I am ready to subscribe under every word.
Allies, during WW2, were impressed by German armored personnel carriers in general and with cannon armament in particular.
But they did everything the other way around, because they did not understand the most important thing.
The Germans had a lot of armored personnel carriers with guns, not at all because it’s cool.
But because in Germany there were several mass-produced chassis, which they willingly used for a variety of tasks.
Including, mounted guns. Of which they had the same many. (After the defeat of the Polish, French, British and Russian armies at the beginning of the war)
And, mind you, the Germans almost never used these armed vehicles to transport infantry.
Beer doesn’t count well with sugar… 😉
According to the record, the M44 was rejected because its large size did not fit the current mechanized-infantry doctrine, not because of poor vehicle performance. But was the doctrine correct?
I can see two distinct advantages of a large APC like the M44 vs a modern IFV like the Bradley. The first advantage is cost, as only one vehicle with three crew could carry the same number of dismounted infantry as four IFV requiring 12 crew. That is a big difference in the whole logistics train, from factory to battlefield.
The second advantage is psychological, as a large APC like the M44 would try to avoid enemy fire and commanding officers would not be tempted to use it as a fighting vehicle because it is so vulnerable.
Actually, I’m kind of old enough to remember why they put the “firepower” and “transport” role together. It was for assault on objectives. When an armor unit “overruns” an objective with a charge, they’ll leave behind quite a few infantry in trenches and bunkers. Vehicles like the APC and IFV were intended to follow up slightly behind the MBTs and unload the infantry right into the trenches ala Vietnam tunnel rats style. This is also why the lower number of infantrymen in the IFVs was considered acceptable because they were supposed to follow up immediately on the shock and awe of a tank charge.
These days, I don’t think tactics like these are used often any more, it’s more a measured, long ranged elimination, so the need to unload an infantry squad right into a trench network isn’t as high priority as in the past. Still helps to clear built up areas like buildings though.
Still remember the protocol for clearing trenches. One grenade to open, M-16, full auto, right down the length of the trench. Your shot pattern would be a ridiculous basketball size spread and you’ll actually stop running from the recoil even when you are leaning forward for 3 seconds until the magazine runs dry. Same for room clearing. Those were the days when “collateral damage” would have gotten the reply “What’s that?”.
Ergonomically its known that it feels lighter to carry around long weapon, then one that is short and stubby and packed with weight.
So in that regard m16 wins, as being mostly aluminum its very light, 400grams lighter then this, which does not sound much but in long carrying every gram starts to matter.
Thats why HK with stanag mag in 5.56 failed, its just too heavy and not cheaper to choose it before M16 (along with 5.56 somehow not being ideal retarded blowback round)
But for the same durability reason, now with different caliber, AR10 kinda failed, and G3 was a huge success.
I agree with Kirk’s opinion of this weapon as well. Having handled one quite a bit back in the day, I found them terrific little rifles. The first time I disassembled an FNC I had the strong impression an AK-47 made a baby with an FAL, and it was a happy union. The lack of a hold open never bothered me a bit, just run it like an AK. A great companion for the MG3 I think, and hardly noticed, lightly tucked away behind ones shoulder while explaining the need for tripods on patrol.
LOL… I see someone has been reading my posts of yore…
Are you being purely facetious, or were you also taught the gospel of the machinegun from the tripod?
After certain adolescent experiences I’d rather not get into, by age 20 I was pretty well convinced that with the possible exception of the old BAR, a machine gun without a tripod under it was a contradiction in terms.
As for the BAR, I’m not even sure the bipod was useful on it. But I was dealing with the M1918 original, that was an actual selective-fire machine rifle, not a wannabee light machine gun with two different rates of full-automatic fire.
The details of the FN FNC are very enlightening. The gas system adjustment and accommodation for rifle-grenade launching, the provision for optics, the aluminum lower plus stamped steel upper, just excellent engineering over all the rifle.
In my amateur opinion, the FNC is a small-caliber-high-velocity version of the Kalashnikov, done the right way. Sort of the ultimate Kalashnikov. Very impressive.
“(…)Sort of the ultimate Kalashnikov(…)”
How it does compares to SIG 540 in that regard?
as I pretty well stopped my activity on FW, I want to send a short message to you – perhaps the last one. You are so packed with knowledge as no one else in sight. But please consider – people like to “talk their own way” pertaining to their cultural background and pay NO or little attention to what YOU have to say. Thus my mix of admiration and pity for you. To be you, I’d quit it long time ago. Write a book instead; you are gifted with knowledge of several languages.
Now to your point – this “upper” and “lower” rifle receiver split is IMO unnecessary; AK design proves it beyond doubt. But, because it was “cast in stone” by advent of M16, folks in the West just live by it. Sure, there is advantage of ready access with split receiver for cleaning or checking and that’s about all. But it is a “capitalist” approach catering to soldier in any possible way. Soldier does not really need that.
Anyone who is not convinced as yet of single receiver superiority, look kindly at vz.58 rifle. It has not been surpassed as yet. It does not need any “guide rails” and yet, action is very easy to control and remove. So it checking for empty chamber. It does not look as POS as many other rifles do. Now watch for Kirk’s reaction 🙂
Take care, good luck!
Single receiver with AK style topcover is a manufacturing dream, but any way you turn, can not escape from serious drawback related to modern mounting and use of optics – simply with side mounted is too clunky and ad-hoc looking, maybe even a drawback in rigidity.
You could make single receiver rifle with no topcover, its inner parts removed from the back (like Ultimax 100 lmg), but then its not easily accessible inside for cleaning, as topcover one is…
Learned lots I did not know about the FNC but, at this point, maybe it’s time for a reboot…maybe “Remembered Weapons”?
What is the cost of purchasing a license to manufacture a particular firearm?
Depends on the weapon, and the “stuff” you buy with it. I think the Indonesians bought a turn-key facility from FN, and the cost was in the low tens of millions, from what I remember. I can’t find a damn thing about that on the web, and I don’t remember the cite for that, either, so take it for what it’s worth.
There’s also the consideration of whether or not you’ll be able to sell the weapons to anyone else; an unlimited license to sell to all comers, in competition with the parent company? Gonna be pricey–That’s how the Koreans wound up with the K2 and all of that, instead of just happily producing the M16.
Regarding posts on the FNC, the Swedish AK-5 and Valmet:
From the wikipedia article on the AK-5:
“In 2021, Sweden announced that they were looking to develop a new rifle in collaboration with Finland, which would replace the Ak 5.”
According to https://corporalfrisk.com/2021/11/06/aiming-for-a-joint-target/
(…)while Sweden doesn’t have their own rifle manufacturer any longer, the extremely close cooperation between the Finnish and Sweden armed forces allow them to look at the picture from the somewhat unusual angle of treating Finnish companies as almost domestic ones from a security supply point of view(…)
Therefore I suppose situation is much different than earlier, when license production was aim.
I’ve heard it said many times before that apparently there were more DIAS for FNCs registered in the closing days of the registry than semi FNCs imported to the US, in an ironic twist. I also recall that something like 6-8 years ago there was something of a shitshow about trying to cram FNC sears into SCAR lowers that didn’t turn out, but would certainly make for an interesting video in it’s own right
What is this?
“DIAS” = Drop-In Automatic Sear (full-automatic conversion device requiring no alterations to the receiver). To ATF, a legal DIAS is the registered machinegun.
“AK style bolt” (C)
AK has nothing to do with it. Rather, they have one ancestor, but further development proceeded in different ways.
The bolt is based on the post-war Swiss design, which is based on the Garand bolt design.
They consistently tried to sell it to everyone in turn.
Someone bought …
In general, as one internet speaker put it
“Most people praise what they are more familiar with.
And most people are more familiar with what is more common in their half of the world.”
Any product intended for the production of multi-million units during wartime. Regardless of the production costs.
With the volume of production in peacetime, it becomes meaningless.
IMHO STEN was a role model.
For its production, in principle, it was not necessary to have a large, clumsy factory.
The production of any level of product readiness can be placed where it is convenient.
The M16, in this aspect, is not as flexible, but also good.
PS I’m not sure, if there was a (maybe French?) pre-end 1940’s (or even earlier?) rifle with a similar bolt?