Sorry for the confusion; “HB” did indeed refer to the heavy barrel variant of the FN-FAL :oops:
The modified BREN stayed in service right through to the first Gulf War & may still be in service with some units (I’m a bit out of touch these days).
The BREN is a far more stable platform for automatic fire than the Heavy Barrel FN, which is too light to be controllable even on the bipod - “spray & pray” comes to mind 
No problem,im also sorry for the bad understanding from my part.
Bren is a good weapon,but isn’t it a little older than the FN FAL?
GENERAL PERON
One of the best presidents of argentina (if not the best)
A great man who has to be remembered by the entire argentine nations every day,he has done a great service for the motherland.
thanks
It is, but as Torpor says it is a far better MG because the FN FAL is too light to control properly during automatic fire.
Age doesn’t matter for weapons like that anyway, the Danes in Iraq were driving round with modified MG42s mounted on their little Mercedes jeeps and I think the German Army still uses it as well - the MG3.
It is, but as Torpor says it is a far better MG because the FN FAL is too light to control properly during automatic fire.
Age doesn’t matter for weapons like that anyway, the Danes in Iraq were driving round with modified MG42s mounted on their little Mercedes jeeps and I think the German Army still uses it as well - the MG3.[/quote]
yes it is,we use the MAG (7.62) for MG,instead of the FAL,but im afraid FAL also has that option,however,i think it has the job of multipurpose,as the standart weapon of our army.
MG42 :shock: ,the war changed since ww2!,still in use?.
A little bit off-topic as a reply for Erwin.
Quoted from: http://world.guns.ru/machine/mg08-e.htm
MG3 is one of the most popular universal MGs in the World. In fact, MG3 is modified version of the MG42, German WW2 era machinegun, adopted to fire 7.62mm NATO rounds instead of the 7.92mm Mauser rounds. MG42 was worlds first truly “universal” machinegun, designed for use as both light MG on bipods or as heavy MG on tripod or AA or pintle mount. MG3 started as MG42/59 in 1959, and since 1968 MG3 itself is in mass production.
MG3 is exported to Chile, Denmark, Italy, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Iran, Norway, Austria, Portuguese and Turkey. MG3 clones are built in Yugoslavia and other countries.
As for Danish soldiers in Iraq:
MG42 still in use? Yes. Different calibres but effectively the same weapon, I believe some newer versions have a slower rate of fire to save ammo for the infantry role.
Th thing about the 7.62 LMG was that they were Brens manufactured during and immediately after WWII and just adapted to fire 7.62!
thankyou!,very informative post!,but at least they modified the ww2 era mg,the 7.62 nato is by far better than the 7.92,that’s why it is more used in the modern days.
It is a good weapon,but i prefer new fashioned weapons 
.
You mean with a new layout? 
You mean with a new layout? :D[/quote]
right,i was thinking about old fashioned :oops: ,thanks
Two words: NATO standardisation. 7.62x39 is even more used than either and it’s fairly crap ballistically.
In any case, Erwin, the FAL is from the 1950s, so is hardly “new-fashioned.”
It could be argued that when you have an excellent design, such as the BREN, 9mm Browning Hi Power or MG 42, for a machine that isn’t actually that complex, there is no real need to change it, beyond changing the ammo to use NATO standard rounds.
Long, long ago (back in 1982 IIRC) I started my military career as an LMG gunner, (LMG being a rechambered BREN). I still remember the feeling of quality in the build of that weapon. A quality I found in the SMLE rifle I had, that was slipping in the SLR (FN FAL) and SMG, and had finally left the building with the SA 80.
Ain’t that the truth !
I would take exception to the BHP though, while a cam is less likley to wear than a swinging link I still prefer the 1911A1.
However we can’t choose what we’re issued - that’s decided by ‘greater’ minds than ours. :roll:
Lately it’s been decided by politicos, and they much more likely to know what we need and want. :evil:
Two words: NATO standardisation. 7.62x39 is even more used than either and it’s fairly crap ballistically.
In any case, Erwin, the FAL is from the 1950s, so is hardly “new-fashioned.”[/quote]
The modified FAL’s are and look more new-fashioned than an mg42:
FAL
(ignore the M-72 LAW)
and the MG:
any diference?
The rifle looks surprisingly like a std FAL with a retro fitted Para kit.
Not a retro kit, it’s a genuine FAL para 50.63.
Rear sight & folding stock “knuckle” are original & it has the 20" barrel.
Image intensifier comes as an optional extra
You could well be right Torpor, although I thought the 50-63 was available in two quite short bbl lengths.
I think the gods of the keyboard inflicted a typo on you earlier, I’ve had a check and the Para models break down as follows:
50-61 = 533mm bbl - Steel lower
50-62 = Unconfirmed designation of 458mm bbl version
50-63 = 458mm OR 436 mm bbl (aka ‘Super-short’)
50-64 = 533mm bbl - Alloy lower
The one in Erwin’s pic is a 50-61, as all the Argentine ones used steel lowers.
I stuffed up royally, as I’d actually forgotten about the Para models with std length bbl. Dammit ! I must stop eating out of aluminium mess ti…, er, what are they called ?
In the 90s was also in production a a version of the FAL named “Commando” with only 307 mmm barrel and a large muzzle brake/flash cover.
A little info about a Historic plane.
FMA-IA-58 Part 1
The Command-in-Chief of the Argentine Air Force officially presented at the beginning of 1968 the requirements to the Cordoba Material Area for the project and construction of the FMA IA-58 Pucará. The construction of the first prototype began in September of the same year, and made its first flight the 16 of August of 1969. The first prototype was equipped with two turboprops Garret TPE 331 of 904 HP, but soon for the series airplanes the Turbomeca Astazou XVI-G was selected, of 1.021 HP, that drive variables three-blade propellers. The Pucará is the only plane produced by the Military Factory of Airplanes that entered into combat, since it was used by the Argentine Air Force in the conflict of the Malvinas Islands. It is a two-seater ground-attack and tactical support airplane of entirely metallic construction, and their general characteristics are:
Width 14.50 ms; Length 14.25 ms; Height 5.36 ms; wing area 30.30 m2; Empty weight 3,985 kg; Maximum weight in take-off 6,625 kg; Maximum weight in landing 5,800 kg; Payload 2,640 kg; Speed at 3,000 ms of altitude, 520 km/h; Speed in deep 750 km/h; Cruise speed 485 km/h; Rate of climb at sea level 18 m/s; Take-off distance 420 ms; Landing distance 230 ms; Normal range 1,400 km; Ferry flying range, 3,400 km.
It count with two Martin-Baker Mk.6 zero-zero ejection seats. The fixed armament consisted of four FN Browning 7.62 mm machine guns located in both sides of the fuselage, and two HS 804 20 mm cannons in the inferior part of the nose.
The cannons contains 270 rpg and a ciclic rate of 850 rpm. The MGs had 900 rpg and shoot at 1000 rpm.
Has in addition three pylons to transport external loads by a gross weight of 1,500 kg, being able to take bombs, rockets or napalm tanks. In the time of the 1982 conflict tests for the launch of torpedoes were made, but did not prosper.
Pucará with the more common camouflage scheme used in the Malvinas-Falkland conflict
An example present in the South Atlantic armed with a ventral container of an additional cannon
Panzerknacker, was the Commando produced by FN, under licence or by a commercial firm ?