You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
FAMAS ?s
- Thread starter ADIDAS69
- Start date
The FAMAS (Fusil d'Assaut de la Manufacture d'Armes de Saint-Étienne) rifle is a 5.56 NATO caliber French infantry rifle of "Bullpup" design. Instead of the gas type operation used in rifles like the Russian AK series and the U.S. M16, it employs a delayed blowback system in which a lever attached to the bolt has to rotate at a mechanical disadvantage, thus delaying opening of the bolt until chamber pressure has dropped to a safe level.
It is a case of an attempt to design a self-loading rifle without the complexity of a locked breech operation or a moving barrel; like other such designs (e.g., the U.S. Pedersen, a competitor of the gas-operated Garand M1), its apparent simplicity proved a delusion.
But, as with some other designs, to operate the bolt has to be allowed to move a small amount under full pressure. That, coupled with problems in the delay mechanism, has allowed the bolt to open too fast and leave the cartridge case unsupported while pressure is still high. Brass cases, subjected to high pressure, blow out, wrecking the rifle.
But steel cases, being stronger, contain the pressure and allow the rifle to function normally.
One reason for early dissatisfaction with the FAMAS was that NATO standard calls for brass case ammunition, and for ammunition compatibility across the alliance; obviously, the FAMAS does not comply. Its steel case ammunition will function with no problem in other nations' rifles, but NATO standard brass case ammo cannot be used with the FAMAS.
Jim
It is a case of an attempt to design a self-loading rifle without the complexity of a locked breech operation or a moving barrel; like other such designs (e.g., the U.S. Pedersen, a competitor of the gas-operated Garand M1), its apparent simplicity proved a delusion.
But, as with some other designs, to operate the bolt has to be allowed to move a small amount under full pressure. That, coupled with problems in the delay mechanism, has allowed the bolt to open too fast and leave the cartridge case unsupported while pressure is still high. Brass cases, subjected to high pressure, blow out, wrecking the rifle.
But steel cases, being stronger, contain the pressure and allow the rifle to function normally.
One reason for early dissatisfaction with the FAMAS was that NATO standard calls for brass case ammunition, and for ammunition compatibility across the alliance; obviously, the FAMAS does not comply. Its steel case ammunition will function with no problem in other nations' rifles, but NATO standard brass case ammo cannot be used with the FAMAS.
Jim
tahunua001
New member
nobody really fully complies with nato anyway. several militaries still use 45ACP in a limited fashion including the US. M193 and M855/A1/(whatever the latest incarnation is up to) are not the same as SS109. and virtually all of the 50 BMG loads are unique to the nation that fields it. from what I've seen, the M9 gets beat to hell with extended use of standard american target loads, no less the comparatively hot 9mm nato loads that they are supposed to be using in warzones. a french gun that requires french ammo to shoot is not that much worse than a lot of the other inconsistencies out there.
True to a point (the problems with the M9 have been greatly exaggerated), but a French unit that has exhausted its supply of French ammo should not have to choose between being destroyed or using U.S. ammo that could wreck their rifles. A big thumbs down to the MAS designers, though they might have had outside constraints put on them for reasons I don't know.
Jim
Jim
tahunua001
New member
though good points (except my exaggerations about the M9, those comments were based on personal experience), one might argue that the problems with the famas, although unsafe with SS109, might be less pronounced if they were able to acquire some M193, which if I recall correctly is less pressure. it's also a far sight better than the conditions pre-nato, where americans were sometimes forced to fire 7.7 japanese out of 30-06 rifles... possibly being able to shoot 6.5 japanese out of 6.5 carcano(not sure if that's right or if there was ever even an oportunity to do this in wartime) something tells me if a unit is low enough on ammo that they need to borrow from others... it might be a little too desperate to stay in the front line anyway.
Huh? There were reports of GI's firing 7.7x58 Japanese out of M1903 rifles in WWII (yes, it will work, but not the reverse), but how did NATO, which was not founded until 1949, solve some kind of ammo supply problem in the Pacific in WWII?
I obviously don't know what tests the French conducted (and I doubt anyone outside MAS does, either) but I think they probably tried all the NATO standard ammo before deciding only steel case would work. The question is why the higher ups would approve such a "solution" instead of adopting another rifle or sending the designers back to the drawing board.
French relations with NATO have always been, well, interesting. At one point, the French politicians would not even agree to joint maneuvers, which their military considered essential. The result was that the British, Americans and Germans would set up an exercise to begin, say, at 0700 on such-and-such a date. The three forces would be in position before that, but there would be a gap between them. At 0600, a French unit, which just happened to be in the area carrying out totally independent exercises, would move into the gap. By pure coincidence, of course, the French wanted to carry out their own maneuvers in that same area, and again by pure coincidence, their actions conformed to those of the other units.
Silly games. I wonder if the Soviets let their Warsaw pact allies indulge in such childish nonsense.
Jim
I obviously don't know what tests the French conducted (and I doubt anyone outside MAS does, either) but I think they probably tried all the NATO standard ammo before deciding only steel case would work. The question is why the higher ups would approve such a "solution" instead of adopting another rifle or sending the designers back to the drawing board.
French relations with NATO have always been, well, interesting. At one point, the French politicians would not even agree to joint maneuvers, which their military considered essential. The result was that the British, Americans and Germans would set up an exercise to begin, say, at 0700 on such-and-such a date. The three forces would be in position before that, but there would be a gap between them. At 0600, a French unit, which just happened to be in the area carrying out totally independent exercises, would move into the gap. By pure coincidence, of course, the French wanted to carry out their own maneuvers in that same area, and again by pure coincidence, their actions conformed to those of the other units.
Silly games. I wonder if the Soviets let their Warsaw pact allies indulge in such childish nonsense.
Jim
tahunua001
New member
hence why I said "PRE-NATO", nato did not exist in WWII, I was making the point that outside of a couple rare conditions, which were not very safe, there was no compatibility between nations prior to nato standards.
dakota.potts
New member
Interesting. I know that the HK roller-delayed blowback system also causes a lot of brass wear and tear, but it's generally accepted in those firearms that thicker NATO brass will work were commercial brass will not. The FAMAS must have a fairly violent ejection system if it is harder on brass than the famously violent Hk91/33
There were a number of Eastern bloc weapons that did not use standard Soviet cartridges or loads. Although cartridge interchangeability is more important than you might think, it is even more important not to run out of ammunition to begin with. A remarkable number of battles have been lost (at least by the loser) because they simply ran out of ammunition. Or men, whichever came first. All those coastal batteries on the French coast typically fired all their ammunitions when the invasion finally showed up, if they were in the invasion zone.
Even where there is a standard cartridge, frequently the mix of ammunition (like tracer rounds in a belt of machine gun ammunition) might be different.
Sometimes, particularly with large caliber weapons, a particular gun may only be declared obsolete when ammunition is no longer available. Even small arms ammunition can be used in incredible quantities but eventually even that will be exhausted.
Any idea when the last .30-06 ammunition was acquired by the army might have been?
Even where there is a standard cartridge, frequently the mix of ammunition (like tracer rounds in a belt of machine gun ammunition) might be different.
Sometimes, particularly with large caliber weapons, a particular gun may only be declared obsolete when ammunition is no longer available. Even small arms ammunition can be used in incredible quantities but eventually even that will be exhausted.
Any idea when the last .30-06 ammunition was acquired by the army might have been?
There was actually a fair amount of rifle/pistol cartridge interchangeability among nations prior to WWII, but it was usually for practical reasons rather than a treaty. For example, Poland used the same 7.9 and 9x19 as Germany; Yugoslavia also used the 7.9, and Belgium, Sweden, and Finland also used the 9mm. Britain used the 7.9 (in the Besa) and the 9mm in submachineguns and a few pistols.
It is often said that nations picked a cartridge that their likely enemy could not use or, conversely, so that a nation could capture and use the enemy's ammunition. I have never seen any case in which either situation was ever a consideration with military forces in the selection of a standard caliber. (For one obvious reason, if the enemy could not capture and use your ammunition, you couldn't do the reverse.)
A rumor among Americans in both World Wars was that the Germans could fire their ammo in captured American rifles but we couldn't fire captured German ammo in our rifles. (Read that twice to see the contradiction.) A variation was that German ammo could be fired in American rifles, but not the reverse. Some "low number" M1903's were wrecked by firing 7.9 ammo in them, probably as a result of that false story. GI's in the PTO claimed that the 7.7 x 58 Japanese could be fired in the M1903, and that is true; the clips even work. But that seems to have been done only "to try it"; there were no known cases in which Americans ran out of ammunition and had to use captured Japanese stocks.
Jim
It is often said that nations picked a cartridge that their likely enemy could not use or, conversely, so that a nation could capture and use the enemy's ammunition. I have never seen any case in which either situation was ever a consideration with military forces in the selection of a standard caliber. (For one obvious reason, if the enemy could not capture and use your ammunition, you couldn't do the reverse.)
A rumor among Americans in both World Wars was that the Germans could fire their ammo in captured American rifles but we couldn't fire captured German ammo in our rifles. (Read that twice to see the contradiction.) A variation was that German ammo could be fired in American rifles, but not the reverse. Some "low number" M1903's were wrecked by firing 7.9 ammo in them, probably as a result of that false story. GI's in the PTO claimed that the 7.7 x 58 Japanese could be fired in the M1903, and that is true; the clips even work. But that seems to have been done only "to try it"; there were no known cases in which Americans ran out of ammunition and had to use captured Japanese stocks.
Jim
I'd say that the most likely reason for common calibers was because they originated in the same place, Mauser being the best example. Mauser is still in business and they have been one of our clients, though not recently. So is Krupp. At some point there is little reason to create a new cartridge and most of the cartridges used in WWII were still in use for the next 30 years or longer. The record holder, of course, is the 7.62 Russian rimmed rifle cartridge.
But also at some point everything was new and was by no means a standard. I'd say the .45 ACP was more popular than the 9mm for military purposes at one time, in the sense that it was used by more armies. Until Belgium adopted the Hi-Power, followed by the Poles, only Germany used the 9mm, although Lugers were also used by a few others. Some countries used the 9mm only in submachine guns but used pistols in a different caliber.
There was also a certain cachet or prestige in using captured equipment and bringing them home as war souvenirs. But in the case of heavier weapons, their utility lasted only as long as the ammunition. For pistols, daggers and swords, though, I'd say the prestige factor was more important. Another thing is a common belief, at least in some armies, that the enemy has better weapons. Sometimes that was true in the practical sense, even if they weren't better finished or more carefully made.
But also at some point everything was new and was by no means a standard. I'd say the .45 ACP was more popular than the 9mm for military purposes at one time, in the sense that it was used by more armies. Until Belgium adopted the Hi-Power, followed by the Poles, only Germany used the 9mm, although Lugers were also used by a few others. Some countries used the 9mm only in submachine guns but used pistols in a different caliber.
There was also a certain cachet or prestige in using captured equipment and bringing them home as war souvenirs. But in the case of heavier weapons, their utility lasted only as long as the ammunition. For pistols, daggers and swords, though, I'd say the prestige factor was more important. Another thing is a common belief, at least in some armies, that the enemy has better weapons. Sometimes that was true in the practical sense, even if they weren't better finished or more carefully made.
Model12Win
Moderator
no less the comparatively hot 9mm nato loads that they are supposed to be using in warzones.
9mm NATO is just above standard SAAMI pressures. It is well below SAAMI 9mm +P pressure.
The notion that it is some kind of super hot ammo has been proven false.