FN CAL rifle

[Kiltonge]

There are many pages on the Web that mention this rifle, but few actually give any useful information other than it was "unreliable" or "unsuccessful".

From various Belgian and French sites here's what I've established so far:

• Produced from 1965 to 1972
• Either 15,000 or 30,000 produced ( no definitive number )
• Exported in series to Zaïre and Gabon EDIT: per the page I've listed below, also Lebanon.
• Claimed to have been seen in action in Libya in the past couple of years ( though I've only seen FN FNCs in photos, which have a similar foregrip and could be mis-recognised)
• Around two dozen were evaluated in the USA, presumably by the US Army?
• A small number were evaluated by the French Army in 1969 under project "FU 75" * wherein the CAL was judged inferior to the M16 and HK33.
• Production was discontinued by FN in preference to a new design, the FNC, based on the AKM's rotating lock, rather than the FAL's tilting block.
• The 'superior' FNC weighs-in at 800 g heavier than the CAL empty. No-one has really explained this rather significant difference other than the inherent weight of the AKM's locking mechanism.

EDIT: This page http://www.arme-a-feu.wikibis.com/fn_cal.phpclaims a rather more realistic 3.3 kg empty for the CAL, rather than the 3.0 figure listed by Jane's for many years.

* Amazingly, this trial also included the rare HK32 in 7.62x39 a well as its cousin the HK33 in 5.56x45. Prior to reading this in COMHART volume T8 / 1 I'd never found a reference to the HK32 existing outside H&K's pattern room.

 

[Kiltonge]

One issue with the CAL in service was that it used a proprietary 5.56x45 box magazine, as it predated the STANAG standardisation of the M16-style design.

The FNC used the latter.

Edit: and a quick update. In addition to the original 20-round box mag, FN also developed a 25-round box with a small perspex window through which a red-painted spring coil could be observed, indicating remaining rounds.

 

[Abraham Gubler]

EDIT: This page http://www.arme-a-feu.wikibis.com/fn_cal.phpclaims a rather more realistic 3.3 kg empty for the CAL, rather than the 3.0 figure listed by Jane's for many years.

In this photo online here:

http://www.militaryimages.net/photopost/small-arms/p27456-fn-cal-2c-gyrojet-rifle-2c-spiw.html

You can see an FN CAL on display in a pattern room. The blurb for the CAL says weight is 6.6 pounds or 3.3 kg.

 

[Arjen]

You can see an FN CAL on display in a pattern room. The blurb for the CAL says weight is 6.6 pounds or 3.3 kg.

If you are assuming metric pounds, yes. With only English text visible in the image, I assume the blurb refers to the International Pound.

1 International Pound ~ 0.454 kilogram

6.6 * 0.454 gram = 2.9964 kilogram, slightly less than 3 kg

 

[Abraham Gubler]

If you are assuming metric pounds, yes. With only English text visible in the image, I assume the blurb refers to the International Pound.

1 International Pound ~ 0.454 kilogram

6.6 * 0.454 gram = 2.9964 kilogram, slightly less than 3 kg

Of course you're right. How embarrassment for me. 3kg for a 5.56mm rifle is not extreme the empty (no magazine) M16A1 is 2.9 kg.

 

[Anderman]

Some information and images can be found here


http://world.guns.ru/assault/be/fn-cal-e.html


just in case that worldguns.ru isn ´t known.

 

[TomS]

Have they cleaned up that site at all? The last several times I tried to visit (last year), my browser and anti-virus packages screamed bloody murder.

 

[Rickshaw]

Didn't Indonesia once look seriously at adopting it? I also seem to remember that it was adopted by the Swedes in a modified form, ah, here it is,

• Ak 5 assault rifle (Fabrique Nationale FNC derivative, made more rugged for Swedish demands) in versions:
  • Ak 5A No longer in use - replaced by Ak 5C
  • Ak 5B Designated marksman version - No longer in use - replaced by Ak 5C
  • Ak 5C Updated version with new handguard, buttstock, rail system and red dot sight which has replaced the Ak 5A as the standard issue rifle.
  • Ak 5D Shortened Ak 5A intended for Vehicle Crews and CQB operations
  • Ak 5D Mk II Shortened Ak 5 with the Ak 5C upgrade. Also intended for vehicle crews and CQB operations
  • Ak 5 with 40 mm grenade launcher (Colt M203)[/l][/l][/l][/l]

• • 
    
    [Source]
    
    The FNC was
    

    developed between 1975–1977 for NATO standardization trials.[1] The rifle’s design is based on the FNC 76 prototype, which itself originated from the commercially unsuccessful FN CAL rifle.

    [Source]
    
    So, while the FN CAL wasn't successful it did lead to further developments which were.

 

[Kiltonge]

Hi

The 1980 Jane's has two pictures of the CAL, but they are on two separate pages and I didn't notice until today that there are subtle differences in the foregrip. Shown here superimposed.

Upper, the para-folder shown in the book has a foregrip more like the later FNC whereas the fixed-buttstock variant has a shorter and less bulky foregrip.

In general the charging handle is a clever design in that it can be operated by the left-hand in a 'reach-over' manoeuvre. In that sense it is much better than the design adopted for the FNC. Given the timelines I suspect that this pattern was developed for the CAL and 'inspired' the similar feature on the Galil.

 

[Abraham Gubler]

In general the charging handle is a clever design in that it can be operated by the left-hand in a 'reach-over' manoeuvre. In that sense it is much better than the design adopted for the FNC. Given the timelines I suspect that this pattern was developed for the CAL and 'inspired' the similar feature on the Galil.

It looks like it might not reciprocate with the bolt. The action of the FN FNC looks like just another AR 18 copy (they mustn’t have patented it or were giving the license away) with the charge handle attached to the bolt and moving back and forth with it.

 

[Rickshaw]

The cocking handle is very similar to ones which were used on the FN-FAL, although obviously on the reverse side. On that weapon it reciprocated with the bolt carrier. On the FN-CAL it is described as also reciprocating:

The charging handle is located on the right side of the receiver, and moves along with the bolt group when gun is fired.

[Source]

Are you sure you aren't mixing up images of the foregrip? The FNC looks remarkably like your upper image. Might later FN-CALs been fitted with similar foregrips?

 

[Kiltonge]

The cocking handle is very similar to ones which were used on the FN-FAL, although obviously on the reverse side.

Indeed, but with a useful upwards incline that mean the left hand can reach across the upper receiver to use it. Unlike with FNC with its perpendicular charger, which required the user to roll the weapon 60 degrees or so to use it.

Are you sure you aren't mixing up images of the foregrip? The FNC looks remarkably like your upper image. Might later FN-CALs been fitted with similar foregrips?

Both images are of the CAL, so I would assume that something arose during deployment that caused FN to redesign the foregrip and they then carried that on to the FNC.

Here they are, in what I think is chronological order

Internally the FNC is primarily an AKM mechanism, hence my interest in the CAL as the 'last of the true FNs'.

 

[Kiltonge]

The cocking handle is very similar to ones which were used on the FN-FAL, although obviously on the reverse side.

Indeed, but with a useful upwards incline that mean the left hand can reach across the upper receiver to use it. Unlike with FNC with its perpendicular charger, which required the user to roll the weapon 60 degrees or so to use it.

Are you sure you aren't mixing up images of the foregrip? The FNC looks remarkably like your upper image. Might later FN-CALs been fitted with similar foregrips?

Both images are of the CAL, so I would assume that something arose during deployment that caused FN to redesign the foregrip and they then carried that on to the FNC.

Here they are, in what I think is chronological order. Not sure if there was a difference in the rear portion of the receivers for the fixed and para buttstocks, as was the case in the FAL.

Internally the FNC is primarily an AKM mechanism, hence my interest in the CAL as the 'last of the true FNs'.

 

[Rickshaw]

The cocking handle is very similar to ones which were used on the FN-FAL, although obviously on the reverse side.

Indeed, but with a useful upwards incline that mean the left hand can reach across the upper receiver to use it. Unlike with FNC with its perpendicular charger, which required the user to roll the weapon 60 degrees or so to use it.

Depends which hand you cock and hold the weapon with. The upward inclined, right side of the weapon cocking handle of the CAL is a poor-man's attempt at an ambidextrous cocking handle IMHO. Having been trained on the L1a1 and F85, I'm a firm believer you keep your "masterhand" on the pistol grip and cock with the alternate hand, not remove yand hand from the pistol grip to cock with it.

Are you sure you aren't mixing up images of the foregrip? The FNC looks remarkably like your upper image. Might later FN-CALs been fitted with similar foregrips?

Both images are of the CAL, so I would assume that something arose during deployment that caused FN to redesign the foregrip and they then carried that on to the FNC.

Here they are, in what I think is chronological order

No image sorry appears to be there.

Internally the FNC is primarily an AKM mechanism, hence my interest in the CAL as the 'last of the true FNs'.

Is there a true "FN"? FN seems to have been adept at copying other's actions.

 

[Kiltonge]

Depends which hand you cock and hold the weapon with. The upward inclined, right side of the weapon cocking handle of the CAL is a poor-man's attempt at an ambidextrous cocking handle IMHO.

So you started me thinking why they relocated the charger to the right-hand side and then had to incline it for left-hand access... I really don't know why. Why not leave it in the same location as the FAL?

Internally the CAL switched at some point during development or production from the FAL's tilting breechblock to an interrupted-thread rotating block, but would that have had such a significant impact on the location of the charger?

Apparently the August 2003 'Small Arms Review' has an article on the CAL, I'll try to locate a copy.

Some internet sources state that the CAL suffered from 'barrel corrosion', but that would hardly be a reason to discard the entire design and copy the AKM instead.

I'm beginning to suspect that FN couldn't compete on price with other 5.56 rifles such as the AR-15, which sold for about $350 at the time, let alone the stamped-and-welded AR-18. They had introduced the simpler, cast Type 3 receiver for the FAL in order to reduce costs on that weapon so perhaps the CAL suffered from the same intensive manufacturing burden.

 

[Kiltonge]

Oh my word, what a line-up!

http://www.falfiles.com/forums/showpost.php?s=62f05d6a879c895bccae0ddba9be5c34&p=1480203&postcount=24

Left to right: FAL, CAL, CAL, FNC early ( still has FAL handgrip ), FNC, FNC.

 

[Rickshaw]

I suspect you'll find the reason why the CAL moved from a tilting block to a rotating lock system was 'cause 5.56x45mm had too low a gas impulse to make the tilting block work reliably. Heckler & Koch had a similar problem with its roller-block design and had to go to a rotating lock system in it's later 5.56x45mm Assault Rifles.

As to why they changed the location of the cocking handle, it was to help with left-handed firers. One of the major criticisms of the FAL was that you did have to remove your masterhand from the pistol grip to cock it if you were left-handed. I've seen left-handed firers go through some complex tilting and twisting to enable them to cock it with the right-hand while holding it in the left-hand. Tilting the cocking handle allowed either hand to be used.

 

[Kiltonge]

Thanks Kadija_Man!

Edit: on an different track I was investigating why the Thais stopped producing HK33s and the reason relates to what you say about the 'preference' of the 5.56 for rotational locking.

The article noted that the 5.56 had a very abrupt rise to pressure peak and then a rapid decline, compared to the 7.62's gentle curve. That meant that the HK33's roller-lock had to be manufactured to exceptional tolerances. When H&K's reps left the Thai factory, the QC in place was insufficient to ensure this and it became uneconomical to produce the rifle. So they went back to buying M16s through FMS.