I have NO idea if this is true, but wanted to get some additional insight...

i heard that the british had a rough time with sand in their fals because the bolt does not rotate to shuck it off.  true?

i also heard that the fal can struggle in the cold (i am aware that norway used the fal amongst other cold weather countries). true?

thanks!

The Brits did have a problem with sand in the action, it binds up the bolt carrier to the rails. They added the sand cuts to scoop the sand out of the rails and move it someplace else.  Still better than the AR platform in sand.  I dont think there is a problem with the bolt binding against the carrier, I have never had one.

I dont know about cold climate, I avoid that at all costs.

As long as you have lubricant in there you're fine in sand.  If you fall for the myth that you run firearms without lubricant in the desert then you'll have trouble.  Cleaning the receiver and bolt carrier to remove sand/debris takes literally seconds in any event.

The Inch model FALs did put in some "sand cuts" to help with debris removal.  Sand cut carriers are readily available if that's an issue for you.

Cold is no problem as long as you use a lubricant suitable for cold weather.  In fact with the adjustable gas system you're better off than most any other type of rifle for cold weather operation.

Much of the "trash talk" or rumors about FALs not working in a desert environment came from outsiders noting that the Israelis transitioned away from the FAL after the 1973 war.  I tend to think it had a lot more to do with noting the advantages of the 5.56mm cartridge and of a smaller & lighter rifle in general in their largely urban operating environment for infantry rather than any particular reliability problem with the FAL.

The Israeli move away from the FAL probably had a lot to do with cost as well.  FALs are very expensive and even more so, the license from FN.

Most the FALs that are out in desert conditions currently are Belgian and African and lack the sand cuts- they seem to work just fine w/o them.

During Desert Storm, the Brits brought their L1A1s out of mothballs because the SA80 flat-out didnt work in desert conditions.

Early SA80 flat-out didn't work in any conditions

Lulz.

As an interesting note, albeit OT, FN was going to let the US have the license to produce the T48 without charge.

I think Israel went with with the 5.56 for the free M16s

One of the guys who posts over on the FALfiles, who has first hand knowledge, said that the Israelis
had some trouble with their FAL due to poor weapon maintenance practices (not cleaning) and poor leadership.
Of course that was a long time ago and I understand that this is no longer a problem.

Another FALfiles poster, a former US Army Officer, was an "Advisor" to the Saudi National Border Guard during the 80's, they were equipped
with the metric version of the FAL and operated in the Saudi Desert near the border with Yemen. He and his troopers had zero problems with the FAL.
They did get in a few fights with Yemeni rebels so they real got to "use" the FAL.

Norway used a version of the HK G3, not the FAL, although the Brits had their L1A1's up in Norway quite a bit for training and exercises... not to mention the Argentines and Brits both had versions of the FAL in the Falklands.

The State of Alaska Dept. of Public Safety did a cold weather test that appeared in S.W.A.T. Magazine April 1986. The only rifles that had zero malfunctions where the Valmet and Galil - both without an adjustable gas system. The FNC, which is used by the Swedes as the AK5, had a stovepipe but then ran without malfunction when adjusted to the "adverse" setting. The FAL, M1A, HK93, AR-15, M-16, and Mini-14 all failed.

So who has a copy of  S.W.A.T. Magazine April 1986 and can scan the article for us?

I checked the SWAT archieves and they don't go back that far.

http://users.rcn.com/philistine/galil/Galil_Rifles.html

Towards the bottom there are links to the scanned pages of the article.

If you're a Falfiles member...



http://www.falfiles.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=124964



 

Thanks!