Jump to content
American MilSim
Sign in to follow this  
Alet338

Israeli Heavy-Barrel FAL classification?

Recommended Posts

I have an Izzy HB FAL that i would like to run, and I am wondering whether it would be acceptable as an LMG. The real-world Izzy is in the same class as the RPK, basically an FAL rebuilt for use as an LMG (heavier barrel, reinforced reciever, extended mags, bipod, etc.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Something akin to the L2A1? Australia and Canada used a heavier, reinforced version of the L1A1 (their variant of the FN FAL) in the late 50's theough the mid 70's in a role similar to that of the Bren or BAR. It used the same mags as the regular infantry battle rifles but was issued with a 30rd mag rather than the standard 20rd. In this regard it is very similar to the RPK. It was prone to malfunction with sustained fire and was phased out in favor of the FN Minimi (basically the M249).

 

Sounds like an LMG to me...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you have ever fired a real one you would not call it an LMG...  

 

At best, an automatic rifle but even compared to the classic M1918 BAR or the later FN BAR D it's not even close.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How would the RPK be considered an LMG while this isn't? In real-world applications the Israeli HB was used in exactly the same role. As a lightweight fully-automatic suppression weapon, modeled off of an existing rifle for convenience, but reinforced and altered to withstand prolonged fire

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Have you fired an RPK? Have you fired a heavy barrel FAL?

 

If you had, you would not wonder. Quite a bit of difference between a full size cartridge like 7.62 NATO and 7.62x39.

 

Don't get me wrong, I love my FAL, I owe my life to those rifles but the FAL was NOT a platform to build a light machinegun on.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Forgive me, but I don't seem to follow your train of thought. It would seem that you don't approve of the real-world decision to implement the modified FAL as a 7.62x51 SSW. Nevertheless that is what happened. That aside, I am curious as to why you think the heavy barrel FAL was not an acceptable SSW, when compared to the RPK? I have fired the 7.62x39 full-auto, albeit out of a standard AK, and I have fired a full-auto FAL as well. Granted the recoil management of the FAL is more suited to prone firing, but I fail to see how that would disallow it as an SSW. With the integrated bipod and extended, heavier barrel, the recoil is not unusable, and is certainly far and away better than other comparable rifles, such as the BAR. The best comparison I can think of in terms of usability would be the BREN and it's variants.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I thought the FNFAL was getting phased out pretty much anywhere that could afford better?

Which countries are still using it as a SSW?  I can't find any decent information that says one way or the other.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is NO comparison at all between a heavy barrel FAL and a Bren.  

 

-20 round mags (no, the Israelis did not issue 30 round mags)

 

-Non detachable barrel

 

in a 

 

Fusil - Rifle 

 

Automatic - Automatic 

 

Leger - Light 

 

NOT A MACHINE GUN.  

 

Not now, not then, not ever.  

 

Besides, if it was approved for you as an SSW at AMS events, it would probably be on the list of approved SSWs.  

 

(PS Dave, don't knock the FAL, you should see what I can do on the range with my 50.63, besides most everyone is phasing out most everything that was issued 50 years ago by now) 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Heavy Barrel variant in Israel and the FALO in Britain were modified FALs used as light support weapons in a squad setting (SSW). I have never taken this weapon to an AMS event and as it is a one of a kind custom there is no precedent for it to be in their current ruleset. On the airsoft field it is functionally identical to an RPK, and there is real-world precedent for it being used as an SSW as that is what this variant was specifically built for. Is there any reason, those facts being considered, that this weapon would be disallowed as an SSW at an AMS event? I would like a clear answer from a confirmed staff member, if at all possible

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And Dave, while it is not being currently issued, it does see sporadic use among poorer nations in the middle East and South America, where they are still using old surplus

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It was a light automatic rifle...  

 

it was NEVER a support weapon.  

 

The M16A2 is a "Heavy barrel" as well.  Does that make it a squad support weapon?    

 

It was used by commonwealth nations but never replaced the BREN (which was the squad support weapon)  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And Dave, while it is not being currently issued, it does see sporadic use among poorer nations in the middle East and South America, where they are still using old surplus

This is milsim homie.

 

The Heavy Barrel variant in Israel and the FALO in Britain were modified FALs used as light support weapons in a squad setting (SSW). I have never taken this weapon to an AMS event and as it is a one of a kind custom there is no precedent for it to be in their current ruleset. On the airsoft field it is functionally identical to an RPK, and there is real-world precedent for it being used as an SSW as that is what this variant was specifically built for. Is there any reason, those facts being considered, that this weapon would be disallowed as an SSW at an AMS event? I would like a clear answer from a confirmed staff member, if at all possible

Pretty much all airsoft SSWs that feed from a hicap magazine function the same.

 

 

Aswayze, are you official AMS staff? I can see that Alet338 asked to be approved by AMS staff. If you are then just a simple yes or no would be great. If not then there is no need to continue posting about this.

 

 

What, discussion isn't allowed? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually, I am not at all opposed to rational discussion. To that end, could we talk about the differences and similarities between the RPK and HB FAL and their application, and why one would be allowed while the other would not?

-

The RPK functions identically to the AK47, however with a more rigid receiver, and heavier longer barrel to improve accuracy and reduce damage from overheating during extended fire. The barrel is not quick-change, and so necessitates controlled fire to prevent scrapping the weapon. It is employed as a force multiplier and SSW in small squads, where a belt-fed weapon would be unnecessary or impractical. Due to its identical function with the standard-issue AK47, it can be deployed with a minimum of extra training, making it more practical for larger forces with reduced training capacity or time.

-

The Israeli Heavy Barrel FAL functions identically to the common Metric-pattern FAL, and shares many components, allowing for improved serviceability with a minimum of extra training. It has a extended heavier barrel for improved accuracy and heat absorption, as well as a reinforced, Type 2 receiver to take the strain of extended automatic fire. Unfortunately, there is not much data available for the Israeli versions deployment, however, its counterparts (British FALO/Canadian C2A1/Australian L2A1) have more information available. the wikipedia page for these variants reads;

-

 

  • Also known as FALO as an abbreviation from the French Fusil Automatique Lourd;
  • Heavy barrel for sustained fire with 30-round magazine as a squad automatic weapon;
  • Known in Canada as the C2A1, it was their primary squad automatic weapon until it was phased out during the 1980s in favor of the C9, which has better accuracy and higher ammunition capacity than the C2;
  • Known to the Australian Army as the L2A1, it was replaced by the FN Minimi. The L2A1 or 'heavy barrel' FAL was used by several Commonwealth nations and was found to frequently experience a failure to feed after firing two rounds from a full magazine when in automatic mode.

-

These variants were all purpose-built as SSWs, with only slight variations between them. For airsoft purposes, these differences are of course only cosmetic, so switching from one to another is merely a matter of swapping handguards and buttstock. These were of course not as widley employed as the RPK, but their purpose remains the same, and as i can guarantee that it will likely be the only one on the field, it will do nothing to break immersion. I can see no logical reason for AMS staff to disallow this weapon, but if you have a reasonable argument not rooted in unobjective opinion, i would like to hear it.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I never said that. It got to the point where you began posing the same points about the same thing and wasn't adding anything to the discussion.

 

And you were?  :rolleyes:

 

RPK ~ AK,

HBAR FAL ~ FAL

 

Hopefully these explanations will be digestable.  

 

1) Very few countries ever used the HBAR/FALO/C9/whatever and even fewer use it now as it has been largely replaced across the board, as you stated due to recoil, weight, logistics, etc. The idea behind MILSIM is to simulate, for better or for worse, actual firearms used by current militaries.  This may not be the case in every circumstance, but AMS does well to toe the line.  Since the HBARFALOGRAPHIZER isn't used by anyone worth mentioning, it isn't included in the SSW.

 

2) Appearance is important.  There is a reason no one can use their AR clones (namely, the HK416) as crossover SSWs, even if they do come issued as automatics.  This is because it is hard to tell at a distance what exactly someone is shooting, and if a HK416 looks similar to a M4 you will inevitably get calls for an admin jamming the radio channels.  For this reason, AMS tries to maintain a "big and/or belt fed" standard for SSWs.  The RPK is noticeably different than the AK as the barrel is half a foot longer, has a different stock, has a bipod, and uses a larger capacity box or drum magazine.  The FALO looks a little different than the FNFAL with a shorter handguardand maybe a bipod, but those were the only differences I saw.  Pretty similar to the RPK/AK, but I'll get to that in a minute.

 

3) Balance is also important.  Having a full auto AEG is a huge advantage that is offset by (hopefully) an increase in weight and size.  This argument doesn't play out well when you get into the smaller SSWs like the RPK where the weight difference from a full size AK can be small.  I am making an assumption that the weight difference between an RPK/AK and a FAL/FALO are about the same.

 

4) Marketability plays a key here... there are dozens of players with an RPK, but I haven't seen many FALs, much less the HBAR version.  

 

So, the RPK is currently issued, somewhat noticeably from an AK, but probably not much different in weight, and widely used in the community.  The FALO is not issued or widely used, somewhat noticeably different from an FAL, and not much different in weight, and somewhat obscure in the community (too bad, FALs are neat).  So, I vote no go for the FALO with an allowance that maybe the RPK isn't that great of an option for airsoft, but due to its market flooding I understand why it was selected as a SSW.

 

Hope that helps explain somewhat more past the real world application.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I appreciate the concise and reasoned response. I will respect that decision, and I will use one of my other FAL variants that fills a more standard role. As a final note, if you look up the thread a ways, I did attatch a picture of the gun in question. The benefit of the Izzy over the FALO is that it is far more visually distinct, with a permanent bipod, unique flash hider (among FALs) and a very unique handguard. The barrel is 21" long, with a inch and a half flash hider on top of that, so carrying it around is no joke. I do not personally feel that identifying it from distance would be an issue. As the closest visual counterpart is the aforementioned RPK. But, as I said, I will respect the decision, and will stick to rifleman or DMR role

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm reattaching pictures because I can't see yours (work restriction).

FALO

500px-FALO.jpg

FAL

vk279fala.jpg

 

 

They are a little different, not much tho (handguard/bipod).  The FAL barrel is <22 inches, which is the same as the FALO.  Flash hiders aren't really that noticeable at a distance unless you have something obscure on it.  I think the RPK has a few more differences over the AK, but not much either.

Mind you, I'm not staff so  Â¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Izzy is fairly similar to the FALO, the primary differences being a different flash hider, a wooden stock, and a different, albeit similar, handguard design. The wood used for the stock and handguard is significantly lighter, and the handguard also has a heat shield that extends to the gas block. The real Izzy also has a flip-up support on the buttpad, similar to the M249 and other SAWs, but that proved difficult to replicate, as surplus Israeli buttplates are pretty rare and expensive

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...