fal paratrooper questions

[wonderdog451]

What was the original reason for developing the fn-fal paratrooper configuration?
What is the typical barrel length for a paratrooper?

[W.E.G.]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FN_FAL#Variants



FAL 50.61

* Folding-stock, standard barrel length.



FAL 50.63

* Folding-stock, shorter-barrel paratrooper version; standard metric charging handle and carry handle.
* Two variants with differing barrel lengths: 458 mm versus 436 mm. The shorter version was requested by Belgian paratroopers. This allowed the folded-stock rifle to fit through the doorway of their C-119 Flying Boxcar when worn horizontally across the chest.




FAL 50.64

* Folding-stock, standard barrel length, 'Hiduminium' aluminum alloy lower receiver, upper receiver was not cut for a carry handle, the charging handle on the 50.64 was a folding model similar to the L1A1 rifles.

[J. Armstrong]

Wiki is wrong about the folding cocking handle and no carry handle on the .64 - they are both attributes of the .63. All the .64s I've seen were just like the .61 excepting the use of the alloy lower.

Belgian military .63s used the "Holland" rear sight and lacked the bho. these features varied on other contract according to the specifications of the contracting country - many .63s had bhos, flip rear sights and/or standard fixed cocking handles.

[Tim Dreas]

Back when I saw Belgian paratroopers with FAL's the thing I remember about them was they had fixed cocking handles. I don't recall if they had carry handles but I remember noticing the cocking handles. They had shorter barrels and folding stocks. Back then I didn't know there were at least two lengths of shorter barrels.

[Growler Gator]

Wikipedia is NEVER wrong!!

My 50.64 Para's with carry handles and fixed charging handles are just imaginary, or possibly illusions!

And so are yours!

[J. Armstrong]

Originally posted by Growler Gator
Wikipedia is NEVER wrong!!

My 50.64 Para's with carry handles and fixed charging handles are just imaginary, or possibly illusions!

And so are yours!

Drat !! I was starting to like them, too. Now I can't even see them anymore I keep trying to grab the fixed cocking handle on my .63, but can't seem to get a hold of th' dang thing

Tim, there were quite a few variations on how the .63s were "optioned" out over the production run, apparently even as Belgian issue. In Stevens, the pix of the Belgian .63 prototypes clearly show a folding cocking handle, no bho, Holland sight, but it does have a carry handle. Pix of Belgian issue .63s aren't clear, but the Argentine contract Herstal .63s are the same. FMAP production had, AFAIK, the flip rear sight, fixed cocking handle, bho and carry handle. I'll have to scout around, I think I have some pix saved somewhere showing a couple of the variations.

[def90]

Originally posted by J. Armstrong
Wiki is wrong about the folding cocking handle and no carry handle on the .64 - they are both attributes of the .63. All the .64s I've seen were just like the .61 excepting the use of the alloy lower.

Belgian military .63s used the "Holland" rear sight and lacked the bho. these features varied on other contract according to the specifications of the contracting country - many .63s had bhos, flip rear sights and/or standard fixed cocking handles.

You do know that anyone can make a change to any Wikipedia entry if they feel that something is wrong..