Armory Sponsor
[ARCHIVED THREAD] - FS-2000 vs. AR-15 (Page 1 of 3)
Posted: 9/6/2006 2:14:56 PM EDT
|
I have tried to avoid this topic because I'm shure it will spark heated debate on both sides. But the subject grabed my attention when I was discussing the topic with a member of the US armed forces in my shop yesterday. He informed me that he and a fue others had the privelage of using the f2000 in combat for a one month trial period. he said that after the one month trial, the soldiers chosen are required to submit a report to command detailing the pros and cons of the weapon. After discussing at leingth his opinion and what he had heard from others using the f2000 on trial basis. I am interested in hearing others opinions and views on wich weapon is better and for wich particular situations it may be better suited. ie, CQB vs Long range, indoor vs outside conditions and of course overall function and reliability. Keep in mind I am not compairing a out of the box F2000 with a precision customized AR-15 for long range accuracy. Lets compair the basic issued equipment that most soldiers are using in battles right now.  |
I'm not military,but a friend of mine was and he is now obsessed with having the shortest carbine he can after doing urban training,aperently even an M4 is too long.I would say a good old vanilla M4 probably wouldnt be as good for CQB as an F2000,because of ballance and length,its nice to know a 15.5 inch barreled F2000 is about the length of a 10.5 M4 type weapon,the extra velocity cant hurt either.The M4/AR is more modular with more rail space though, I dount know if you can fit a PEQ-2, aimpoint, virticle grip and whatever else the normal grunt has issued to him for his rifle on the F2000 as easily.I think the F2000 would be a pritty good replacement for the M4 for cirtain roles at least though I am sure the military wont buy them in great numbers becasue they probably think that it will require too much training for the average guy it would be issued to learn how to use it when they already know how to use an M4 .I had decided not to get an F2000 a while back until I got to fondle one at a gunshow here a few weeks ago and remembered how excellent the ballance and handling cherictoristics are,now I'll have to get one .
|
|
With body armor and other chest-rig/gear, you will want to shoot the M4 with the stock collapsed, which puts the basic issue 14.5" barrel M4 at around 29" OAL (about the same as the FS2000). Heck, even with just a T-shirt, I can shoot my 16" M4 comfortably with the 4-position stock fully collapsed. I can then use a VFG for my off-hand, close to the receiver, for a stable shooting position (ala PS90/FS2000). Now, comparing the capabilities of the basic M4 versus the F2000, the 14.5" barrel vs 15.5" is a moot point. The difference in velocity between the 14.5" barrel and a 16" barrel are negligible for 5.56x45 NATO. FN has already made it clear their F2000/FS2000 is "not a target rifle", same as a basic issue M4. However, while the F2000/FS2000 is limited in its modularity (stuck with a non-FF lightweight barrel and 8-12lb trigger), the basic issue M4 can be upgraded (ala SOPMOD Block 2) to have a free-floated quad-rail HG, Giesselle 2-stage trigger, and a high quality 16" heavy-barrel for precision work. You may find that a customized "M4" such as the one presented in the previous example will cost roughly the same as a FS2000. As I said in the other thread, I do not see any significant added value from the FS2000 when compared to the AR15 other than that the FS2000 is a new and interesting weapon system. As a LH shooter, I don't see any major problems with the AR15 ejection system. Even when shooting RH, I get a whiff of gas in my nose and face using XM855/XM193 so it isn't a big shock to have a similar experience when shooting LH. It's all part of the experience Many people won't buy/adopt the FS2000 due to its bullpup design, heavy use of plastics, and overall cost. The US military and LE agencies have not been raving about the P90 or F2000 ever since the SCAR was revealed. If you look at Crane's presentation on the SOPMOD upgrades, you will see that there are very real long-term plans for the M4/M16 platform. |
|
My intention was to compair and contrast the two standard issue weapon platforms not to conjecture what can be modified on the m4 to make it compair favorably against the F2000. Also it is not a accurate method to compair OAL between a 14.5'' M4 millitary gun and the 18" civilian FS2000. For the accuracy My armalite AR varmeter with its match grade stanless barrel can get groupings of 1/2 inch at 100 yards wheras My Fs2000 with the military leingth freefloated barrel is capable of groupinge of around 1.5" wich is about the same as I get from my 16" M4. Keeping to direct compairisons wich weapon would make a better all around gun to be used by the soldiers on todays battlefield as well as the likely battlefields of tomorrow. |
|
M4: 29.75" OAL w/ stock collapsed, 33" OAL w/ stock extended, 6.49 lb empty (FM 3-22.9) F2000: 27.32" OAL, 7.95 lb empty (FNH catalog) Muzzle velocity between 14.5" and 16" barrels are negligible. The F2000 has a gas piston with an adjustable regulator, and a special ejection chute. The weight distribution and bullpup design makes it feel more compact than the standard M4 carbine. OT: Stuff that I wish FN did from the get-go w/ the FS2000 was to go with the F2000 barrel and a permanently mounted flash suppressor to keep the 16" barrel length, ala the PS90 (basically what macguyver007 did). I didn't see any specific reason to go with the current FS2000 barrel other than possibly "import points" (ala Glocks) if applicable. The trigger quality control should have been more stringent keeping the trigger pull more consistent. Reading about trigger pulls ranging from 8 lbf to 12 lbf suggests FN's AQL must be a very low number during conformance inspection of the hammer groups. |
|
The facts here are simple: The f2000 will be more comfortable for use in vehicals but that is as far as its advantage goes. Mag changes are slower and more clumzy in the FN design, I have done a substabtial amount of CQB in training and real world and found the M-4 not wanting in anything, even with a 203, peq-2a, surefire, and aimpoint attached. The only slight flaw is universal and that is the 5.56 round and the lack of full automatic fire (I am not familiar if the f2000 is full auto or burst.) Any change made by the military will be negligable until the military is readily able to use caseless ammunition My opinion only |
Oh good More "FACTS"....  Sounds like a happy M-4 user, excellent.
|
|
Personally I think the FS2000 is a lot easier to swing around than an AR - something I would want to be able to do asap in battle. I suppose that could just collapse the stock on my AR, but why not hold the stock of the FS under my armpit for that matter - it's plenty comfortable for me that way. The AR obviously has its fans - and a market of upteen million guns patterned exactly the same probably helps. I like my ARs but the FN feels different to me, I haven't been able to do enough side by side to say that it is definitely a better feel - but I like it, seems to aim itself to a greater degree than an AR. For the accuracy part - how many rounds are fired per enemy kill? ARs aren't sniper weapons either. The whole point of an assault rifle is lots of fire and lots of fire quickly. |
There's no law that states you must shoulder the weapon to fire it in CQ combat. Besides, the minimal recoil of 5.56x45 would allow quasi-accurate firing w/o shouldering the stock in very CQ situations or from within vehicles. Once you leave the vehicle, unfold the stock. If this was a bad idea, the SCAR would not have a folding telescoping stock. |
The question is more about wich would be better in a particular situation not how can the AR-15 be modified so it will be adaquate. The way I see it the F2000 would be better suited for indoor or in-vehicle fighting seing as you can do a full 180 in a hallway sized area with the weapon at the ready without the added moovment of droping and then re-raising the muzzle. immagine sweeping a house when a threat suddenly presents itself behind you the time saved by having a short enough weapon to spin and engage your target rapidly and accuratly may save your life. |
| I may have to drop and re-raise the muzzle on the PS90 if I do room sweeps or full 360 spins (for whatever tacticool reason) inside a small furnished house with multiple rooms because of the longer barrel. The P90, OTOH, is much shorter and more intuitive because the muzzle is only slightly forward from your off-hand, so you can get a better sense of the muzzle location. |
| Some people have gotten black rit dye to leech out by washing it in hot water. Others have chosen to go the Duracoat route. IIRC the USMC evaluated the P90 and HK MP7 for a period of time probably in the same manner as the soldier or Marine you spoke to at your shop. |
Exactly why there will never be much pertinent info in this thread. Certainly an AR dominated board, and almost everyone that owns an AR and can't afford a PS/FS/high dollar gun will always pipe in saying what they personally own is the best. Just like the AK47 guys that can build guns for 200$ who can't afford an AR vehometly defending an obviosly inferior weapon, we see it again between the 600$ ar's and the next price level guns. Like asking whats better between a yamaha and a honda on a yamaha forum or vise versa. Personally, I don't think there is an answer to this question, besides anyone wanting to know would have to try both and see what fits them, their needs, shooting style, and ergonomic preferences and buy accordingly. The beauty of the AR is it's modular enough that it can be modified to suit any need or preference, and the FS at this time cannot so it's simply not going to fit each and every user. The biggest advantage of thr AR is the abundance of replacement parts, and aftermarket upgrades. We'll never see such for the FS, so if you can't have both, the AR is the obvious choice. Having said that,i think the FS balances better, and feels great. Takes time to build confidence though, so if I have to grab one gun from the safe to protect me and mine, it wouldn't be the FS at this time, and maybe not the PS90 even though I think it's certainly better at CQB than either of the above. A year from now my choice may be different. One gun though, will never fill all roles. |
The following comparison of 16" vs 14.5" velocities was taken from ammo oracle. It compares the range which at which the velocity of rounds drops to 2700 feet per second, which is the minimum velocity necessary to get good fragmentation: Distance to 2700 fps M193 55 grain round 20" Barrel - 190-200m 16" Barrel - 140-150m 14.5" Barrel - 95-100m 11.5" Barrel - 40-45m M855 62 grain round 20" Barrel - 140-150m 16" Barrel - 90-95m 14.5" Barrel -45-50m 11.5" Barrel - 12-15m So, the 16" barrel stretches this range by about 50% with the M193 55 grain load and almost doubles this range in the M855 62 grain load. |
|
Although not readily apparent, the minimum fragmentation velocity of ~2700 fps is more applicable to M193 and M855 than other bullets. However, Bushmaster's data tells a slightly different story:  Take note of the MV differences using M855. Since the OP wants to compare the basic issue M4 with the F2000 (I'm not sure why he posted a pic of a souped up M4 in the process), M855 would be more common than M193 in the system. There's a difference of a whopping 82 ft/s. Distance to drop to 2700 ft/s: 14.5" w/ M855: 70yd 16" w/ M855: 100yd Using a BC of 0.304" for the 62gr SS109, and MV of 2907 and 2989 ft/s respectively. Wow, an extra 30 yd
|
The Bushmaster charts appear to be a bit optimistic with velocities. Assuming those figures are right, 30 yards increase over 70 yards actually comes out to a 42% increase. Considering problems troops encountered with 5.56 rounds that did have the terminal effect expected, I would think that an increase in fragmenting range would be welcomed. |
You're getting stuck on percentages. There are a few other factors that affect M855 fragmentation (bullet design/construction and the target that is being shot at). Whatever the military does use in the future, it probably will not be M855. A non-match 77gr FMJ or perhaps OTM will probably be more feasible (a cheaper version of the Mk 262 Mod 1). |
|
I think it is a bit early to judge a kited out M-4 vs. an essentially stock FS2000 which is very early in its development cycle as far as the aftermarket is concerned. I'm pretty confident that in the due course of time lighter trigger components will be made available ala the "Trigger Tamer" for the Steyr AUG. That being said I think there are two systemic flaws in the FS2000. The first is that it is an inefficient bullpup, by that I mean it still has a lot of dead space in the rifle. For example the Bushmaster M-17s is a bullpup design that has a 21.5" barrel in a 30" gun design. The FS2000 has a 17.4" barrel with a 29.4" OAL. I would be much more impressed with the FS2K (and the military F2000) if it had at least a 20" barrel without sacrificing its OAL. With 20" like velocities in a sub M-4 sized package I would say the FS2000 would be the superior platform. The second is the lack of a last round bolt stop on the FS2000, for whatever reason the Europeans don't like LRBHs but for me at least that is a serious deficiency. As far as the lack of rails the modular fore grip on the FS-2000 can be equipped with a tri rail in addition to the full length top rail, so I'm not sure how much of an issue for comparison that would be. |
Well said, though I have to disagree with your piont on accessories and parts becoming abundant for the FS2000 The AR15 has had almost 4 decades to have the ubundance of accessories and parts built for it The F2000 has been out for less than 6 years. Give it time  As for reliability, I have put my 2000 through hell for the reasons that I can tell my customers and anyone else who askes My opinion on the weapon and back it up with first hand gathered factual data. And also when I grab a gun to investigate a bump in the night I know that I can trust The FS2000 with my life. And inspite of investing over $3500 in my AR-15 Sadly I cannot say the same about it. |
|
My $750 AR-15 (2 stuck cases after 2500+ rd of Wolf steel cased ammo due to a brand new and tight chamber, and lots of rapid semi-auto fire in sandy and hot conditions) is more reliable than the PS90 (1 misfeed, 1 short stroke out of 450 rd very slowly fired using brand new FN ammo) How much percentage of a difference is that, V42? I asked the guy who made the Trigger Tamer for the AUG if he would consider making one for the PS90. He said, nope it doesn't like one could be made  After looking at the FS2000 hammer group, it looks exactly like the PS90 hammer group. If someone makes such a part for the FS2000, it could be adapted for the PS90.
|
|
In comparing the FS2000 against the AR-15 (in my case an AR with a folding stock and a 16" barrel), I find even thought the FS2000 is heavier on paper, the weight is closer to the rear so the gun balances way better to me. I can fire my Aimpoint equipped FS2000 offhand from the shoulder with one hand and keep all of my shots in a human sized silhouette at 50 yards (this is the furthest I have tried one-handed shooting). It is the most comfortable longarm I and a few other people have fired shooting offhand with a standard two hand hold. The balance and pointability is superb. I find it way better than the AR-15/M4 in this regard. However when you remove the optics, the factory rear sight on the FS2000, even though it is labelled as a back up iron sight, is way too small. The whole thing is about the size of a matchstick. I would not hold my breath for too many American LE units who use the AR or M4 to convert to the FS2000 or the F2000. It is too different from the AR/M4, which all of their training and manipulation is based on. Also it is more expensive. A friend of mine wrote a detailed piece on the FS2000 which will appear in a major publication in the near future. |
I agree with you! The PS90 is extremely well balanced. If you line up a M4 with the PS90, the M4 is only slightly longer. However if you take into account the pistol grip and trigger location, you will find that the PS90 w/ the 16" barrel has the essential OAL of a SBR'd M4. The SBR'd PS90 would have the essential OAL of an AR15 w/o a barrel 
|
Totaly agree with you on the Iron sights  . I would hate to ba the sorry sack on the battlefield with a broken optic and nothing to use but thoes tiny back up sights. I have been considering installing a flip up AR-15 rear sight as well as a Rail mount AR-15 front sight just in case of the eventuality that my Eotec should ever Go TU on me. |
Have you tried moving your eye closer to the rear aperture? |
We will never see an abundance of parts for the fs2000, because quite frankly, we will be lucky to be able to buy these 5 years from now, let alone in 4 decades, lol. There will never bee enough fs2000's ever sold in the US to warrant the R&D needed to have such aftermarket support. I'm sure we'll see some rails here and there, maybe an intergral light or laser, but there's no way in hell there will be as many options as there are for the ar15. That and there's not gonna be any huge contracts from .mil's looking for aftermarket upgrades for these, as they are not going to be used by our military to any extent. The overall design doesn't lend itself well to the likes of collapsable stocks, free floating forends either. Hell, we'll be lucky to see any barrel or caliber options before import on these is halted. It is what it is, and it will never be much more than it is now, not that thats a bad thing since i agree it is a fine weapon. The new SCAR may be a different story though. It's design looks to be much more modification friendly, and there will be .mils looking for upgrades and advancements for it in the future. |
Have you ever taken an F2000 apart? It has at least as much modification potential as The AR-15 But unlike the AR-15 The FS2000's design would allow these modifications to be made at a moments knotice on the battlefield. |
Right, because we all know how often M4 FCGs need to be swapped out in the field... The SCAR has QCB capabilities and SOPMOD Block 2 and Block 3 upgrades will pretty much put the M4 at the same level in the future. |
I was Talking about accessories like the Targeting system scope/computer that is being used in battle at this very moment as well as things like the gernade launcher If you are in battle with a gernade launcher on your M4, you are stuck with a gernade launcher on your M4 The accessories On the 2000 allow for a fully modular USER FRIENDLY weapons system that can be easely modified and changed to suit the continually changing battlefield that todays soldier faces. A weapons platform that the only tool a soldier needs to make crucial modifications to it is his finger. This is a weapon that can and has been intagrated with targeting control and situational awareness devices that the AR-15 can only dream of. |
If the options were EOTech or BUIS, I would pick the EOTech. But the iron sights are not that bad. Is the aperature smaller than that of an AR? Or is it the lack of surrounding metal that you dislike? |
| It is a couple things the lack of vertical adjustability ie. ar15 sights and the apature sits verry low you have to lower your head and squish tight against the stock to see through it. dont get me wrong, they are better than nothing but I just think in a no-optic situation I would rather go with the more comfortable to use AR-15 m4 style BUIS |
The lack of surrounding metal is a big problem because the aperature is small and gets lost against the background without it. Also, as mentioned by mcgyver007, the rear sight is very low to the point of making you scrunch your face down to be able to use it. Since the front sight is adjustable for elevation, the rear sight is only adjustable for windage. I noticed the site was a problem the first time I picked the gun up, but the balance and pointability of the gun sold me immediately when I stumbled upon one at a gunshow. I figured I would put an optic on it anyway so . . . |
Ok, now the shit around here is getting deep. The fs2000 is a gun, and only a gun. They don't dream, eat, shit, make a sandwich, or take a piss and besides having a hollow stock that can contain a battery pack and possible ECU, there's no difference between it and any other gas piston AR in terms of what it can do. It shoots a projectile, nothing more. Sure, the grenade launcher is modular, and maybe a bit cooler than a 203, but for one, civies aren't going to get them, and our miltary apparently could care less about this weapon, so we are not going to see any dubious mil leftovers.We will never see as civies, any of the tacticool gadgets, as we can't even get the dang pos scope the f2000 comes with, nor the compu controlled sight, anything worthwhile in the future will be the same. Anything that is made, or can be made, can also be made in such a way that it can be attached to a pic rail, in which the AR can be equiped with aplenty. AR's are plentiful, as are the parts and accessories, most of which can be machined in garages across the country. For civies, the FS2000 will NEVER, reach the same level of popularity. Our military is not going to use these weapons, and that for one decreases demand and drastically reduces the interest in making accessories as there will no pot of gold at the end of the R&D rainbow. The ridiculous price and limited advantages over a cheaper AR will decrease it even more. Sounds like someone better lay off the FN cool aid IMO. I for one like the fs2000, and besides holding one, and field stripping one, I have no experience with them. I'll own one soon enough, and like the design it's based on, but it is what it is, a gun that fires a projectile thats aimed by a human, same as any other. I don't care what kind of failure prone, heavy ass combersome electronics you put on any rifle, it's only as good as the man behind it, and that will always be the bottom line. As it is, our troops seem to have little trouble winning any firefights they get into. It's the bullshit IED's and towl heads blowing themselves up at every opportunity thats the biggest problem. All the CQB battles going on over there aren't going to be affected by any electronic gizmo's or tacticool grenade launchers attached to whatever they may have, as they are nearly all designed for longer ranged combat which seems a rarity these days. Seems like militaries keep trying to build on their strengths instead of their weaknesses, but who am I to say. Until there's a gun that aims itself, fires and reloads itself, and operates without putting a soldier in harms way, it will always and only be another rifle no matter how evolutionary it may seem. The next REVOLUTIONARY step will be unmanned infantry platforms, which IMO is the only way to effectively do CQB and truely decrease causualties, as there are just too many variables when you enter the enemies bedroom to speak and any crack head with a scrapped out SKS can kill a well trained soldier with a little cleverness or luck. Regardless, we mere civies will never see any of it. IMO, the only real advantages one rifle has over any other, is RELIABILITY, WEIGHT, CAPACITY, ERGONOMICS and ACCURACY, of which the FS has no advantage over an AR in the least, the rest is left up to the man behind the trigger, and always will be. Is the FS cool? Hell Yeah. Does it look cool? of course. does it handle well? depends on the shooters preferences. Does it do anything any other rifle can't do? absolutely not. Will it ever? No. Bottom line, sorry if it bursts someones bubble but your just fooling youself if you think any differently |
|
The simpelest differences between the F2000 qnd the AR-15 are all that you need to look at to see the advantage in reliability. The AR-15 blows crap into its most sensative parts with every shot fired the F2000 completly seals the chamber from gas by using a sealed piston and accuating rod. How can you argue the F2000 offers no advantage over the AR-15 when it has been tested to function afer fireing three times as many rounds as it takes to foul up an AR-15? As for the fact that civillians will never get to use the cool accessories. I am not talking about civillians this thread is to descuss the proes and cons in MILLITARY USE. If you are so shure the millitary will "never" use this weapon than why has the millitary already spent millions in R&D as well as placing five hundred of these "never to be used weapons" in the hands of soldiers on active duty in Iraq. |
How do you mean lost against the background? Only reason I ask is that I really haven't had any trouble with it. Seems to be just as accurate as any other aperature sight I have used. Quite frankly I wish that they would have left off the BUIS all together, and made the weapon a little more streamlined. The only part on the whole gun that looks like an afterthought to me is that. Looks cheap and it is. When the AR series was made I can see the reason for durable, primary use iron sights. We live in a different age now. When you can put on an EOTech that is going to survive any kind of handling the gun does what is the point? If you have the EOTech tightened down, and drop it so hard it breaks - you're gonna need a different gun too. Get the AA model with lithium batteries and you have 1000 hours of sight use time. Lithium batteries self passivate, so they last a looong time. Throw a set of spares in there and you have another set of batteries in the stock that'll sit ready for 10 years. If you have the gun in a SHTF/battle/zombie/whatever scenario you are going to run out of ammo before you run out of batteries. |
Agreed, that these are the only advantages a rifle can have over another. Reliability? Should go to the FN in theory at least, as 007 said - the bolt stays clean. I've had one problem so far, with Wolf. For the rest it has been flawless, and that includes 90 more rounds of Wolf I fired since. My first Bushy had more failures (smaller, like FTE, FTF) in the same amount of rounds when I was breaking it in. Weight? The FN may be heavier on paper, but it feels lighter in the hands. If you don't believe it, pick one up and handle it for a while, they aren't bricks. Capacity? It uses AR MAGS for crissakes! What advantage does an AR have other than a short enough magwell to accept unweildy, less reliable 90 round drum magazines? The FN and the AR have identical capacities if you are comparing rational magazine choices. And a drum mag that holds three times as many rounds but takes up ten times the space is not a rational choice. Ergonomics? Personal opinion in every case, but IMHO the FN has the AR beat. Could it use some tweaking still? Sure. Only thing I can think of off hand would be a "grippier" grip, but as it is the grip is comparable to one of the injection molded you would find on an AR. You can slip an aftermarket grip on the AR that is better, which is not an option with an FN. Accuracy? Well, I haven't done bench tests but have to concede the AR may be slightly more accurate. Course, what's the difference between 1MOA and 1.5MOA for this kind of rifle? If I am going to snipe something from long range I wouldn't pick an AR except as a last resort either. 5.56 isn't a good long range cartridge. If you can hit an enemy at the range you intend to use the weapon (100-200 yards is reasonable with an 'assault rifle', 500yards is not) it serves its function. |
I did *not* do a good job of explaining this point. Let's see if I could do a better job. What I meant is that with my eyes, the apperature of the FS2000's rear sight is so small and the metal around the hole in the rear sight is so thin that it is hard for me to distinguish whether I am looking through the rear sight or not. It is hard enough so that it slows down how fast I can engage targets with the rear iron sight that comes with the gun. My gun is backat FN getting the refit, so I can't pick it up and work with it and try to describe it better. If I planned to use the gun with open sights, I would definitely put a different rear sight on the gun. Luckily the top rail makes mounting any type of accessory easy. |
Where did you hear that the US military has spent millions on R&D of this weapon as well as that there are 500 of these in the hands of troops in Iraq? |
| The millitary always expends vast sums of money on R&D on anything before they place it in the hands of soldiers on the battlefield The fact that they are in active use on the battlefield in iraq has been confermed first hand to me by several soldiers who either used them themselvs or saw them in use by other soldiers. the number of five hundred units in current deployment came from conversations i have had with the FNH rep |
I wouldn't want to use that sight as a primary sight either, so I am not arguing with you about that at all. In fairness I don't think it was intended, hence the designation as a back up sight. Did the earlier models look like this:  If you have your cheek up against the toilet bowl on mine the width of the rear back up exactly matchs the width of the front posts. With the sight picture through the aperture exactly matching the inside width of front posts. Makes it pretty easy to line up for windage. |
HK MP7s and FN P90s were also seen in limited use in Iraq. As is, units and organizations with a large enough budget will try their best to get the coolest toys to try out w/o any definite plans for widespread adoption/issue. Then there are also foreign allied soldiers who were ISSUED HK G36s, MP7s, F2000s, etc... not to be confused with US soldiers. |
|
Can you use a caliper to measure the ID of that aperture? It looks like a NM aperture for an AR15. I wonder what FN was thinking when they designed this as a BUIS? I could understand a small aperture + elevation adjustment for a good battle sight, but the lack of a rear elevation adjustment means it is only suited for one zero, and the rest has to be done with Kentucky sighting. |
Only one problem... The weapon is useless with the stock folded... 'Folder stocks' are only good when you have to make the weapon compact for transportation (eg getting in and out of armored vehicles, or for paratroopers).... To actually deliver accurate fire (remember: we don't spray and pray) you need to open the stock.... |
The issue here is not 'dollar value'... The FN may cost more, but that does not make it a 'better' class of weapon... It just makes it (a) new, and (b) expensive to produce.... The AR still has the Stoner action and an incredible amount of modularity going for it... The FN2000 (the FS is a civvie version) has a serious problem in it's ejection system (pushing cases down a tube = bad ju-ju in shitty environments. Case gets stuck, you've got a very expensive brick), almost no modularity (You can turn each 'old' generation of the AR into the new one (We do it all the time) but the FN has no such option), and of course the 'normal' bullpup trigger issues... Yes it's shorter... But being short is not the end-all and be-all... The AR system is still 'better'... And price has nothing to do with it... |
1) The M4 M203 is rail-mountable... 2) 'Targeting control and situational awareness devices'? Such as what? If it exists, you can slap it on a 1913 rail and therfore a M4...  3) the two-half M4 is far more modular than the FN ever will be... Upper-swaps and such... All you need is your finger or a spare round... We don't change out FCGs EVER, so why would that matter... |
Because the shit-eats argument is bullshit... There is no reliability advantage in the real world, as the 'crap being blown' won't effect reliability untill long after you are out of ammo... The number one cause of jamming is FOD, something the FN is FAR MORE seceptable to due to it's ejection-tube system.... |
[ARCHIVED THREAD] - FS-2000 vs. AR-15 (Page 1 of 3)
Armory Sponsor