Quoted: Quoted: I did not notice Mr. Bowles' comment.  My apologies. Having said that, M. Bowles, would you say that it is more bulky than a similarly configured AR-15? Why are you trying so hard to discredit the F2000, when you haven't actually seen or fired one yet?

You're reading way too much into it.

A gun for what purpose?

Quoted: A gun for what purpose?

The ultimate tactical carbine of course.

Packs the velocity and range of a 16" AR-15 in the size of a small sub-machine gun (would be classified as a "Pistol" in the state of michigan) that takes standard AR-15 mags and 5.56N/.223 ammo. What's not to like?

The 16" barrel

Quoted: The 16" barrel

You can always wait for the AUG, it's coming in a 20" barrel configuration. Unfortunately I'm not too fond of spending $400 for a new receiver to use AR-15 mags.

I agree that a longer barrel in the FS2000 would make more sense.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: It's the scope that makes it look bulky and OICW-like. Once you remove the scope I believe there is a 1913 rail underneath.... Time to mount an ACOG or Aimpoint or Eotech! And yes, I did see that chute at FNH's website. I'm concerned that if a case somehow got stuck in one of the vent holes, it may prevent other cases from ejecting. It looks like it has the charging handle on the left hand side of the rifle only, so how is it 100% ambidextrous? No, other than the optical sight it is still abnormally bulky, particularly in the buttstock area. Have you held one or even seen one in person? Quoted: Also I had the chance to hold one at a CMMG shoot this summer it shoulders really nice. you cant screw up the check weld, its not nearly as bucky as it looks He has. I did not notice Mr. Bowles' comment.  My apologies. Having said that, M. Bowles, would you say that it is more bulky than a similarly configured AR-15?

its more bulky towrd the rear, but I couldn't tell you if that really makes any difference, like some one said before the bulk is in some dead spots, areas that it really doesnt matter to much, it is also much lighter than it looks.

Quoted: Quoted: The 16" barrel You can always wait for the AUG, it's coming in a 20" barrel configuration. Unfortunately I'm not too fond of spending $400 for a new receiver to use AR-15 mags. I agree that a longer barrel in the FS2000 would make more sense.

Then dont...the AUG mags are much better anyway

IIRC, the A3 AUGs will allow use of either mag

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: The 16" barrel You can always wait for the AUG, it's coming in a 20" barrel configuration. Unfortunately I'm not too fond of spending $400 for a new receiver to use AR-15 mags. I agree that a longer barrel in the FS2000 would make more sense. Then dont...the AUG mags are much better anyway IIRC, the A3 AUGs will allow use of either mag

I have a decent quantity of AR mags already on hand.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: It's the scope that makes it look bulky and OICW-like. Once you remove the scope I believe there is a 1913 rail underneath.... Time to mount an ACOG or Aimpoint or Eotech! And yes, I did see that chute at FNH's website. I'm concerned that if a case somehow got stuck in one of the vent holes, it may prevent other cases from ejecting. It looks like it has the charging handle on the left hand side of the rifle only, so how is it 100% ambidextrous? No, other than the optical sight it is still abnormally bulky, particularly in the buttstock area. Also, another concern I have is when operating in moist environments, such as RVN, rounds had a tendancy of swelling up when left in the chamber overnight (or over a period of a few hours).  Now, as I understand it, the FN2000 ejects spent brass in groups so there is a very real possibility of a shell (or multiple shells) being left in the ejection tube for a few hours and if they swell up, well, then you're screwed. theres plenty of room in the ejection tube for that. The way its set up is theres a plunger rod thingy that pushes the cases out  its part of the bolt carrier, if you can camber a round its going to push the case out Thanks for clearing that up.  Do you have anymore details on the ejection system? I still have a few concerns though: 1)  I would imagine that slamming the buttstock on the ground to remedy a double feed may bery well disable the rifle entirely. 2)  Magazine changes. 3)  Extremely short sight radius. 4)  Bulky/unwieldly. 5)  Collabsible/adjustable stock? 6)  Not much pic rail space. 1) why would it disable the rifle? are you telling me that they are going to use cheep airsoft plastic or something and bad screws/rivits and the reciever is just going to fall out? 2) people dont seem to ahvea  problem with the AUG. its just like an AR-15 only behind your hand, and it has a longer, more funnel like feeding system. as long as you know where the magazines go, it looks to me like you just push them in there. now from what i've read, the big black thing in front of hte magazine if the release, and you just bring your hand to it, and push it up, grap the magazine, and pull it out. 3) thats what scopes are for. 4) i honostly like it. i'm assuming its hollo behind the mag well, which is the only part on it that really looks bulky. now if that form fitted it would use just as much, or more material. plus it adds strength to the stock, and adds a backing to the nice long magazine feed. now if you think the hang guard is bulky, they make a lof ot hem, some with lazers, some with flashlights inside, and then one that jsut has some substance to it to actualy give you a grip. the  scope is long, which i'd think you'd like considering your number 3 question. 5)yeah ok, the only way you can do that is adding a thicker butt pad, but thats what makes a bullpup. look at the distance between the butt bad and the grip? thats short, because its not only suposed to be small (which is why its a bull pup), but its so short that nobody needs to really make it any smaller. unless you jsut can't stand a shorty stock, it shouldn't be a problem. i've never really woried about stock lengths, as long as i can reach the grip. 6)yeah you're right, there isn't. but what are you going to put on it? a scope? a flashlight? a lazer? a swiss army knife? the pic rail is for the scope, and the grip is where you put the light/lazer/grenade launcher. yeah you can't have all 3, but i think you'll survive., and i'd bet money that people will make things for it that add more rails.

1)  Double feeds from hell are often cleared by violently slamming the buttstock onto the ground and considering that the chamber and internals of the weapon are situated in the buttstock, like all bullpups, I just don't think that it could survive such abuse and still function afterwards.

2)  In retrospect, this issue can most likely be corrected with proper training/doctrine.  Although, one can't help but wonder if a conventionally configured rifle would be naturally more comdicve to quicker magazine changes.

3)  I'd have to disagree with you there.  While proper optical sights are superior to conventional iron sights in almost every respect, it's still nice to have that capability should the need arise and it seems like that capability is significanlty hampered with such a limited sight radius.

4)  You bring up a good point.  If the cavity behind the mag well is indeed hollow, then I'd like to see it constructed of the same material and shape as found in the Sully Stock (solid urethane).  There may be a slight increase in weight but the increase in structural integrity would be phenominal, IMHO.  I have no qualms with the handguard, especially considering that the FN-2000 can also be had with a pic rail handguard, which is perfectly suitable for mounting a VFG.

5)  Thank you for addressing this issue.

6)  For the type of applications I'm considering, there is exceedingly sufficient pic rail space.  [hypothetical]However, there is not enough pic rail space for military applications, and that would most certainly have to be reconciled by the engineers at FNH if we want our military to be armed with the best.  I recently spoke with an SF Soldier deployed OCONUS who stated that he prefers the Trout front BUIS over the PRI simply becuase the PRI occupies a little bit more pic rail space.  Not to mention that due to the positioning of the forward ejection port/slots, a side mounted picatinny rail would be near impossible which means that the FN-2000 does not lend itslef well to mounting lights, laser designators, etc..., a big disadvantage, IMHO.  Of course, thos may be addressed by only installing 9 o'clock, 12 o'clock, and 6 o'clock rails, althogh I'm not sure how deireable that solution mught be to the military.[/hypothetica]

Justin

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: It's the scope that makes it look bulky and OICW-like. Once you remove the scope I believe there is a 1913 rail underneath.... Time to mount an ACOG or Aimpoint or Eotech! And yes, I did see that chute at FNH's website. I'm concerned that if a case somehow got stuck in one of the vent holes, it may prevent other cases from ejecting. It looks like it has the charging handle on the left hand side of the rifle only, so how is it 100% ambidextrous? No, other than the optical sight it is still abnormally bulky, particularly in the buttstock area. Have you held one or even seen one in person? Quoted: Also I had the chance to hold one at a CMMG shoot this summer it shoulders really nice. you cant screw up the check weld, its not nearly as bucky as it looks He has. I did not notice Mr. Bowles' comment.  My apologies. Having said that, M. Bowles, would you say that it is more bulky than a similarly configured AR-15? its more bulky towrd the rear, but I couldn't tell you if that really makes any difference, like some one said before the bulk is in some dead spots, areas that it really doesnt matter to much, it is also much lighter than it looks.

Thanks Mr. Bowles.

Regardless of what the naysayers say, I'll probably buy one. I'm alreday on the list and have been told they ship out in March 2006. Here are some pics from the Vegas Shot-Show.

Does anyone know if FNH-USA plans on manufacturing a 6.8 SPC variant?  Now that the ammo is readily avaialbel and affordably priced, I don't see why not.

too bad the civilian version will be OD... but I want one!

Anyone notice the barrel extension for the FS2000? What are the chances it is an actual 20" barrel and not just a 16" with a 4" shroud/extension?

So do you think we will get a new forum in the Armory , for the owners of the FS2000 and P90s?
I can see the FS2000 and P90 photo threads now.

The question is, will FS2000 be able to fire Wolf? If it's a piston driven design, I'd say so!

6)  For the type of applications I'm considering, there is exceedingly sufficient pic rail space.  [hypothetical]However, there is not enough pic rail space for military applications, and that would most certainly have to be reconciled by the engineers at FNH if we want our military to be armed with the best.  I recently spoke with an SF Soldier deployed OCONUS who stated that he prefers the Trout front BUIS over the PRI simply becuase the PRI occupies a little bit more pic rail space.  Not to mention that due to the positioning of the forward ejection port/slots, a side mounted picatinny rail would be near impossible which means that the FN-2000 does not lend itslef well to mounting lights, laser designators, etc..., a big disadvantage, IMHO.  Of course, thos may be addressed by only installing 9 o'clock, 12 o'clock, and 6 o'clock rails, althogh I'm not sure how deireable that solution mught be to the military.[/hypothetica] Justin

See that black thing on top of the rifle?  That's an integrated sight/laser/range finder.  The reason you need so much rail space on an M-16x weapon is because none of it is built-in.  Granted, these sophisticated sights won't be available to civilians.

G

Quoted: So do you think we will get a new forum in the Armory , for the owners of the FS2000 and P90s? I can see the FS2000 and P90 photo threads now.

I'd already thought about suggesting changing the FAL forum to a general FN area. I'm definitely in for a F2000, waiting on the ammo situation before I decide on a PS90.

Oh who am I kidding.. I'll get both.

FN FS2000 / F2000 - Tell me more?

Service means citizenship - join the Mobile Infantry.  Would you like to know more?

Quoted: 6)  For the type of applications I'm considering, there is exceedingly sufficient pic rail space.  [hypothetical]However, there is not enough pic rail space for military applications, and that would most certainly have to be reconciled by the engineers at FNH if we want our military to be armed with the best.  I recently spoke with an SF Soldier deployed OCONUS who stated that he prefers the Trout front BUIS over the PRI simply becuase the PRI occupies a little bit more pic rail space.  Not to mention that due to the positioning of the forward ejection port/slots, a side mounted picatinny rail would be near impossible which means that the FN-2000 does not lend itslef well to mounting lights, laser designators, etc..., a big disadvantage, IMHO.  Of course, thos may be addressed by only installing 9 o'clock, 12 o'clock, and 6 o'clock rails, althogh I'm not sure how deireable that solution mught be to the military.[/hypothetica] Justin See that black thing on top of the rifle?  That's an integrated sight/laser/range finder.  The reason you need so much rail space on an M-16x weapon is because none of it is built-in.  Granted, these sophisticated sights won't be available to civilians. G

If you think the Military would be willing to discard the millions of dollars worth of laser designators and pay millions more for an optical sight that offers an evloutionary, not REVOLUTIONARY, increase in capability, well then, you're sorely mistaken.

Quoted: FN FS2000 / F2000 - Tell me more? Service means citizenship - join the Mobile Infantry.  Would you like to know more?

*smacks g23c with a copy of the book*

Don't ever do that again.

Quoted: Quoted: 6)  For the type of applications I'm considering, there is exceedingly sufficient pic rail space.  [hypothetical]However, there is not enough pic rail space for military applications, and that would most certainly have to be reconciled by the engineers at FNH if we want our military to be armed with the best.  I recently spoke with an SF Soldier deployed OCONUS who stated that he prefers the Trout front BUIS over the PRI simply becuase the PRI occupies a little bit more pic rail space.  Not to mention that due to the positioning of the forward ejection port/slots, a side mounted picatinny rail would be near impossible which means that the FN-2000 does not lend itslef well to mounting lights, laser designators, etc..., a big disadvantage, IMHO.  Of course, thos may be addressed by only installing 9 o'clock, 12 o'clock, and 6 o'clock rails, althogh I'm not sure how deireable that solution mught be to the military.[/hypothetica] Justin See that black thing on top of the rifle?  That's an integrated sight/laser/range finder.  The reason you need so much rail space on an M-16x weapon is because none of it is built-in.  Granted, these sophisticated sights won't be available to civilians. G If you think the Military would be willing to discard the millions of dollars worth of laser designators and pay millions more for an optical sight that offers an evloutionary, not REVOLUTIONARY, increase in capability, well then, you're sorely mistaken.

Granted, I'm not too fond of proprietary integrated sight systems, and neither would the military.

I think that is where the FS2000 Tactical comes into play... I'm not too sure on the specifics, but the FS2000's handguard should be removable so you can swap in some other handguards with 1913 rails.

As a civilian, I have no use for a laser designator or tactical light. I just need a 1913 rail for optics/sights. BUIS's take up too much space, but as someone mentioned, the sight radius is very short.

But here's my take on iron sights:
Would you really be engaging an enemy target at ranges longer than 300m using iron sights? I'm not talking about qualifying but rather an actual scenario. What if the enemy at 400m has 4x or higher mag scopes with an accurate rifle? I would not be engaging him/her using iron sights regardless of the sight radius.

I would most likely stick a 4x scope on top of the FS2000 and call it a day, or maybe get BUIS's along with the scope.

What we really need is a red dot sight with a a black non-lit reticle in case the battery fails.

Quoted: Quoted: 6)  For the type of applications I'm considering, there is exceedingly sufficient pic rail space.  [hypothetical]However, there is not enough pic rail space for military applications, and that would most certainly have to be reconciled by the engineers at FNH if we want our military to be armed with the best.  I recently spoke with an SF Soldier deployed OCONUS who stated that he prefers the Trout front BUIS over the PRI simply becuase the PRI occupies a little bit more pic rail space.  Not to mention that due to the positioning of the forward ejection port/slots, a side mounted picatinny rail would be near impossible which means that the FN-2000 does not lend itslef well to mounting lights, laser designators, etc..., a big disadvantage, IMHO.  Of course, thos may be addressed by only installing 9 o'clock, 12 o'clock, and 6 o'clock rails, althogh I'm not sure how deireable that solution mught be to the military.[/hypothetica] Justin See that black thing on top of the rifle?  That's an integrated sight/laser/range finder.  The reason you need so much rail space on an M-16x weapon is because none of it is built-in.  Granted, these sophisticated sights won't be available to civilians. G If you think the Military would be willing to discard the millions of dollars worth of laser designators and pay millions more for an optical sight that offers an evloutionary, not REVOLUTIONARY, increase in capability, well then, you're sorely mistaken.

You're just changing the topic.  The point is that the M4/M16 needs rail space to accomodate the add ons, not whether this rifle would be considered by the US military.

G

PS - regardless, I agree with you about revolutionary.  A system where you have to carry 40 grams of sub-system to send 8 grams down a barrel at any enemy is inefficient.

I have fired both the f2000 and the p90. They both shoulder great and  feel very natural to use.  The f2000 I shot had an eotech sight. I was able to hit a 300 yard gong surprisingly often using 2 to 3 round bursts. It felt a lot like an aug. The fn rep commented that this particular f2000 had fired over 40,000 rounds so far with no problems whatsoever, not even a barrel change. These guys (fn reps) were kind enough to load mags for everyone, and their thumbs were wearing out, so we started helping them. These weapons got one hell of a workout that day. Thousands of rounds! I didn't really miss the front grip like the aug has. I will buy an semi f2000 when they come out, rather than a semi p90.
Regards, FW

The computerized sighting system for the FN F2000's 40mm grenade launcher is the aimbot hack for America's Army Operations. The laser range finder estimates distance to target and draws an LED point for you to place your sight reticle over (basically an aimbot style hack) and fire the grenade to hit your point target.

Anything in real life that mimics a hack in a video game is A-OK in my book.

Imagine in SWA:
USArmy1 has killed Insurgent 2 with his grenade launcher
USArmy1 has killed Insurgent 3 with his grenade launcher
USArmy1 has killed Insurgent 4 with his grenade launcher
USArmy1 has killed Insurgent 5 with his grenade launcher
USArmy1 has killed Insurgent 6 with his grenade launcher
USArmy1 has killed Insurgent 7 with his grenade launcher
Insurgent1: "OMFG! He's using hax! NO FAIR! hax0r! kick him! No spawn nading!"
Insurgent1 has started a votekick for USArmy1
USArmy1 has killed Insurgent 1 with his grenade launcher

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: 6)  For the type of applications I'm considering, there is exceedingly sufficient pic rail space.  [hypothetical]However, there is not enough pic rail space for military applications, and that would most certainly have to be reconciled by the engineers at FNH if we want our military to be armed with the best.  I recently spoke with an SF Soldier deployed OCONUS who stated that he prefers the Trout front BUIS over the PRI simply becuase the PRI occupies a little bit more pic rail space.  Not to mention that due to the positioning of the forward ejection port/slots, a side mounted picatinny rail would be near impossible which means that the FN-2000 does not lend itslef well to mounting lights, laser designators, etc..., a big disadvantage, IMHO.  Of course, thos may be addressed by only installing 9 o'clock, 12 o'clock, and 6 o'clock rails, althogh I'm not sure how deireable that solution mught be to the military.[/hypothetica] Justin See that black thing on top of the rifle?  That's an integrated sight/laser/range finder.  The reason you need so much rail space on an M-16x weapon is because none of it is built-in.  Granted, these sophisticated sights won't be available to civilians. G If you think the Military would be willing to discard the millions of dollars worth of laser designators and pay millions more for an optical sight that offers an evloutionary, not REVOLUTIONARY, increase in capability, well then, you're sorely mistaken. You're just changing the topic.  The point is that the M4/M16 needs rail space to accomodate the add ons, not whether this rifle would be considered by the US military. G PS - regardless, I agree with you about revolutionary.  A system where you have to carry 40 grams of sub-system to send 8 grams down a barrel at any enemy is inefficient.

That's an integrated sight/laser/range finder.  The reason you need so much rail space on an M-16x weapon is because none of it is built-in.

The point is that the M4/M16 needs rail space to accomodate the add ons

I'd have to disagree wth you on that one.  The optical sight is not integrated into the weapon, rather it is detatchable.  In other words, it is suitable to be mounted onto most platforms (the AR-15 included) meaning that it [the optical sight] offers the FN-2000 no real advantage over any other contenders (at least as far as optics is concerned).  Now, if the aforementioned optical sight was actually permanantly integrated into the structure and body of the weapon (and thus offering a significantly reduced profile and, I would imagine, a reduction in weight), well then, I'd agree with you that the FN-2000 does not require as much pic rail space as a conventional rifle, such as the AR-15.

Now on to the optical sight itself; it's not worth it.  The ITI Integrated Sight Module (ISM), the  optical sight orignally developed for the *gasp* XM8 abomination 'project' (and the only good to ever come out of the said 'project') offers a truly revolutionary increase in capability, providing "a red dot close combat optic, IR laser aimer and laser illuminator with back-up etched reticle" (www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/ground/m8-oicw.htm) in a SIGNIFICANTLY reduced package when compared to FNH's proprietary sight.

One final note, even though the above mentioned ITI ISM eliminates the nedd for dedicated laser designator and laser illuminator modules, the military would still require as more pic rail space than currently provided by the FN-2000 (and many other platforms, for that matter) and it would be short-sighted and ignorant of them not to.  The reason I say that is because it's very likely that some devcie will be developed in the near future that offers again, a revolutionary increase in technology (just as laser designators and illuminators did some years ago) and could you imagine if the military could not adopt the device becuase the rifles do not have sufficient pic rail space remaining (after other add ons such as visible lights, VFGs, underbarreled breaching systems, etc...) to mount it.  That would be an utter clusterfuck by the Army's Ordiance Department, don't you think?

Not to mention, this discussion is almost purely academic when you consider that bullpup rifles do not really offer the capability to mount optical sights in conjuction with weapon mounted night observation devices (especially with that optical sight mounted on the FN-2000).

Regards,

Justin

Quoted: I'd have to disagree wth you on that one.  The optical sight is not integrated into the weapon, rather it is detatchable.  In other words, it is suitable to be mounted onto most platforms (the AR-15 included) meaning that it [the optical sight] offers the FN-2000 no real advantage over any other contenders (at least as far as optics is concerned).  Now, if the aforementioned optical sight was actually permanantly integrated into the structure and body of the weapon (and thus offering a significantly reduced profile and, I would imagine, a reduction in weight), well then, I'd agree with you that the FN-2000 does not require as much pic rail space as a conventional rifle, such as the AR-15. Now on to the optical sight itself; it's not worth it.  The ITI Integrated Sight Module (ISM), the  optical sight orignally developed for the *gasp* XM8 abomination 'project' (and the only good to ever come out of the said 'project') offers a truly revolutionary increase in capability, providing "a red dot close combat optic, IR laser aimer and laser illuminator with back-up etched reticle" (www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/ground/m8-oicw.htm) in a SIGNIFICANTLY reduced package when compared to FNH's proprietary sight. One final note, even though the above mentioned ITI ISM eliminates the nedd for dedicated laser designator and laser illuminator modules, the military would still require as more pic rail space than currently provided by the FN-2000 (and many other platforms, for that matter) and it would be short-sighted and ignorant of them not to.  The reason I say that is because it's very likely that some devcie will be developed in the near future that offers again, a revolutionary increase in technology (just as laser designators and illuminators did some years ago) and could you imagine if the military could not adopt the device becuase the rifles do not have sufficient pic rail space remaining (after other add ons such as visible lights, VFGs, underbarreled breaching systems, etc...) to mount it.  That would be an utter clusterfuck by the Army's Ordiance Department, don't you think? Not to mention, this discussion is almost purely academic when you consider that bullpup rifles do not really offer the capability to mount optical sights in conjuction with weapon mounted night observation devices (especially with that optical sight mounted on the FN-2000). Regards, Justin

Nobody said the US Military was even considering the F2000 for adoption. This is all conjecture and fantasy at this point.

However to address your concerns, I'm sure the OICW's sight also costs a hell of a lot more than even the FN's proprietary sight. But I'm sure it could be integrated to the F2000 too.

Second, when the Air Force, Army, Marines, and Navy adopted the M16, it had no rails, and they got by just fine. If they did adopt the F2000, it's not like they would be going back to that however. If I recall correctly, the F2000 has an optional front handguard that integrates a flashlight if you want a Surefire. Combine that with the optional FN sight, and you have what most every soldier already uses (light, optics, and laser designator).

This is not even considering the fact that the system can be further developed/modified just as the M16 was a few years back, and like they "tried" to do with the G36 to XM8 conversion. I think some people automatically look at something and reflexively resist change. Others look and see improvements/opportunities to be made. Sometimes the people that resist change are right and sometimes they're wrong. I guess we'll have to wait and see.

And one last thing to the people saying that the F2000's ejection chute has the "potential" for being problematic, do you really think FN is going to do millions in R&D and marketing to sell such a system if it was so inherently flawed? Think about that. Defective/unreliable weapons don't get purchased, especially not in any numbers. If it was a problem I think you'd be hearing about it from everybody in the know, instead of people on the internet with no experience with the weapon saying "it might."

All I wanna know is if it's going to have a place I can stash my smokes.  Nothing like fighting off a nic-fit when you're busy fragging tangos.

I heard that FN was peddling the F2000 in Iraq to the US military.

here's a  few mor pics on this site:
http://www.sturmgewehr.com/bhinton/FNC/

I hope FN gives us threaded muzzles so we can slap on a Phantom asap.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: 6)  For the type of applications I'm considering, there is exceedingly sufficient pic rail space.  [hypothetical]However, there is not enough pic rail space for military applications, and that would most certainly have to be reconciled by the engineers at FNH if we want our military to be armed with the best.  I recently spoke with an SF Soldier deployed OCONUS who stated that he prefers the Trout front BUIS over the PRI simply becuase the PRI occupies a little bit more pic rail space.  Not to mention that due to the positioning of the forward ejection port/slots, a side mounted picatinny rail would be near impossible which means that the FN-2000 does not lend itslef well to mounting lights, laser designators, etc..., a big disadvantage, IMHO.  Of course, thos may be addressed by only installing 9 o'clock, 12 o'clock, and 6 o'clock rails, althogh I'm not sure how deireable that solution mught be to the military.[/hypothetica] Justin See that black thing on top of the rifle?  That's an integrated sight/laser/range finder.  The reason you need so much rail space on an M-16x weapon is because none of it is built-in.  Granted, these sophisticated sights won't be available to civilians. G If you think the Military would be willing to discard the millions of dollars worth of laser designators and pay millions more for an optical sight that offers an evloutionary, not REVOLUTIONARY, increase in capability, well then, you're sorely mistaken. You're just changing the topic.  The point is that the M4/M16 needs rail space to accomodate the add ons, not whether this rifle would be considered by the US military. G PS - regardless, I agree with you about revolutionary.  A system where you have to carry 40 grams of sub-system to send 8 grams down a barrel at any enemy is inefficient. That's an integrated sight/laser/range finder.  The reason you need so much rail space on an M-16x weapon is because none of it is built-in. The point is that the M4/M16 needs rail space to accomodate the add ons I'd have to disagree wth you on that one.  The optical sight is not integrated into the weapon, rather it is detatchable.  In other words, it is suitable to be mounted onto most platforms (the AR-15 included) meaning that it [the optical sight] offers the FN-2000 no real advantage over any other contenders (at least as far as optics is concerned).  Now, if the aforementioned optical sight was actually permanantly integrated into the structure and body of the weapon (and thus offering a significantly reduced profile and, I would imagine, a reduction in weight), well then, I'd agree with you that the FN-2000 does not require as much pic rail space as a conventional rifle, such as the AR-15. Now on to the optical sight itself; it's not worth it.  The ITI Integrated Sight Module (ISM), the  optical sight orignally developed for the *gasp* XM8 abomination 'project' (and the only good to ever come out of the said 'project') offers a truly revolutionary increase in capability, providing "a red dot close combat optic, IR laser aimer and laser illuminator with back-up etched reticle" (www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/ground/m8-oicw.htm) in a SIGNIFICANTLY reduced package when compared to FNH's proprietary sight. One final note, even though the above mentioned ITI ISM eliminates the nedd for dedicated laser designator and laser illuminator modules, the military would still require as more pic rail space than currently provided by the FN-2000 (and many other platforms, for that matter) and it would be short-sighted and ignorant of them not to.  The reason I say that is because it's very likely that some devcie will be developed in the near future that offers again, a revolutionary increase in technology (just as laser designators and illuminators did some years ago) and could you imagine if the military could not adopt the device becuase the rifles do not have sufficient pic rail space remaining (after other add ons such as visible lights, VFGs, underbarreled breaching systems, etc...) to mount it.  That would be an utter clusterfuck by the Army's Ordiance Department, don't you think? Not to mention, this discussion is almost purely academic when you consider that bullpup rifles do not really offer the capability to mount optical sights in conjuction with weapon mounted night observation devices (especially with that optical sight mounted on the FN-2000). Regards, Justin

FN has a couple of sights to use with the F2000.  The youre talking about adds a couple grand to the price and is an OICW type of sight.  The more typical one is the one shown in most pics thats similar in function to an ACOG.

And BTW, there is a 3, 6, 9 position front end rail available

What type of sighting system is expected to come with the FS2000? I'm hoping its the futuristic looking one even if it is just some 1x optical sight.

Quoted: What type of sighting system is expected to come with the FS2000? I'm hoping its the futuristic looking one even if it is just some 1x optical sight.

Everything I've been told is the FS2000 will not come with an optic.

Who's taking preorders?

I got some new info from FN regarding the FS2000...

The FS2000 is slated to be available around March 2006.

It will have a 16" hammer forged steel barrel, chrome lined, with a 1/7 twist.
It should be coming with flip up iron sights on the picatinny rail.
It will use a short gas piston, and the overall length of the rifle is not expected to be longer than 30" - so that will mean registration as a pistol in the state of MI (as well as some other states).

Anyone know the distance between the front and rear sight?

mmmm, shiny thing. Maybe I will have to get one.

Holy Crap!!

I just read the press release where Saudi Arabia is buying 51,400 F2000s and 3,600 F2000s w/40mm grenade launcher...

Does the bugly part forward of the handguard come off? I'd love to see it with a regular folding forward grip that isnt bulky, and a simple flip up irons + ACOG or Aimpoint uptop.

If only caseless ammo was off the ground already. This shell ejection issue with bullpups would be gone, and they could give you access to the chamber from the side for double feeds.

I think its cool. I want one.

btt

Quoted: Does the bugly part forward of the handguard come off? I'd love to see it with a regular folding forward grip that isnt bulky, and a simple flip up irons + ACOG or Aimpoint uptop. If only caseless ammo was off the ground already. This shell ejection issue with bullpups would be gone, and they could give you access to the chamber from the side for double feeds.

I'm not sure, but I think that foregrip in the photo at Talon Arms is photoshopped on, though I could be wrong. Normally it has a smooth/curved handguard up front. That grip in that photo is a bit silly looking. Personaly I'd prefer the curved handguard, at least I think I will.

I pre-ordered mine today, actually before even seeing this thread. I'm a lefty and I would like to have a chance to play with a truly ambidextrous rifle.

www.impactguns.com/store/FN-FS2000.html

6-8 month wait though.

I wouldn't call it ugly, just different. I'm also looking at it as a sort of investment. Who knows, after a year or two the dems may find a reason not to allow its importation anymore, or whatever. After looking at the past 10-20 years of legislation I'm of the mindset to buy whatever I can, while I still can!

I may buy two, if available...one to shoot and one to keep NIB in the safe.

The one on Talon Arms' site is the F2000 TACTICAL, not to be confused with the F2000 or the FS2000.

The FS2000 will have a pinned and welded proprietary flash suppressor w/ the curved handguards and OD lower from what I have seen in the demo photos.

I held one at SHOT.  It is really cool.  Made me forget all about the Steyr AUG.

Quoted: The one on Talon Arms' site is the F2000 TACTICAL, not to be confused with the F2000 or the FS2000. The FS2000 will have a pinned and welded proprietary flash suppressor w/ the curved handguards and OD lower from what I have seen in the demo photos.

I am happy that they are releasing this for public consumption, but what the hell is the deal with the pinned/welded flash suppressor and olive drab furniture? Don't they realize people like threaded barrels and black furniture more?

Quoted: Quoted: The one on Talon Arms' site is the F2000 TACTICAL, not to be confused with the F2000 or the FS2000. The FS2000 will have a pinned and welded proprietary flash suppressor w/ the curved handguards and OD lower from what I have seen in the demo photos. I am happy that they are releasing this for public consumption, but what the hell is the deal with the pinned/welded flash suppressor and olive drab furniture? Don't they realize people like threaded barrels and black furniture more?

I'm not sure. It sounds half-assed to me:

16" barrel is already not a SBR
27" OAL puts that above the 26" cut-off point, must be registered as a pistol in MI but not a big deal

What they could do to make it better:
20" barrel + threaded muzzle to use AR-15 flash suppressors
black furniture

Is there a BATF regulation that covers pinning and welding a FS onto a 16" barrel? AFAIK it only applies to barrels shorter than 16".