Martin Baxter wrote:

Nav wrote:





I never fired a modified FN (i.e. with full auto) but the recoil was
quite large and seemed (to me) to make the semi-auto about as much as
one would want. Could you keep it anywhere near a target on auto? How
did you make it fire a 3 round burst -was it a further modification?


Here we used to use two versions of the FN, designated FNC1 and FNC2,
(FN Canada), C1 was semi auto with twenty round clips, the C2 was full
auto with a bipod, heavier barrel, modified barrel attachment to
facilitate rapid changes, and thirty round clips.

I have fired both weapons extensively, you are correct, on full auto the
C2 climbs up to the left something fierce, the idea is to squeeze of a
short burst of three rounds, it takes a bit of practice.

That being said the weapon is ridiculously expensive, complicated, heavy
and far too powerful to make a good assault rifle.


Yes, I agree the recoil is (was) not well enough controlled to make it a
great automatic weapon. It was also not that accurate I(MHO) as compared
to the .303 I shot in competition. However I often ended the day with a
sore shoulder from firing .303 in a shirt and never had such a problem
with the FN SLR. People still use .303 for hunting here -how about in
Canada?

I'm still not able to get out of Doug exactly what this FN FAL weapon
was that fired an (accurate?) automatic 3 round burst. From my
recollection of the firing meachnaism I don't see how it could be
accomplished without a major rework of the trigger and selector
mechanisms. I wonder if it would be worthwhile to do such a thing with
better automatic weapons around.

Cheers