Give the L1A1/FAL a full auto option

[Merowech]

The Australian army used the L1A1 during vietnam, which was basically just an FN FAL made to imperial measurements rather than metric. Soldiers used to field modify their rifles for fully automatic fire (as the L1A1 was semi auto only, like in the CTB) by putting a matchstick in the sear/disconnect mechanism, or by swapping receivers from L2A1 rifles. They used to catch hell if they got caught doing it though

[Vasily Chuikov]

This won't be added as it would give the Australians an unfair advantage. The game is focused on standard infantry weaponry, not modified weaponry.
But there are many interesting similar stories from Vietnam. Australians used to modify their L1A1s a fair bit, I've heard from some vets that sawing off half the barrel became common for some soldiers haha
Another similar story is that the SAS would illegally modify their rifles so that they sounded like heavy machine guns. The logic being that if they got into a firefight, the NVA/VC would be fooled into thinking a five man recon team was a platoon sized force or larger.

[Jagdwyre]

Originally posted by Vasily Chuikov:

This won't be added as it would give the Australians an unfair advantage.

If a full auto battle rifle gives a team an "unfair advantage" then they didn't do a very good job on the gunplay.

As in full auto fire from an FAL is barely effective and isn't really any more effective than semi-auto in the real world. Even full auto on an M16 or AK in the real world is hardly any more effective than semi is, and the FAL kicks around even more.

If people think they need full auto in this game then the gunplay and damage model are bad.

[Vasily Chuikov]

Originally posted by Jagdwyre:

Originally posted by Vasily Chuikov:

This won't be added as it would give the Australians an unfair advantage.

If a full auto battle rifle gives a team an "unfair advantage" then they didn't do a very good job on the gunplay.

As in full auto fire from an FAL is barely effective and isn't really any more effective than semi-auto in the real world. Even full auto on an M16 or AK in the real world is hardly any more effective than semi is, and the FAL kicks around even more.

If people think they need full auto in this game then the gunplay and damage model are bad.

The L1A1 has a lot more stopping power than an M16. And since the grunt gets the L1A1, which makes up the majority of the team, you'd have over half the team moving around the map with what is essentially L1A2s. There's only a small number of L1A2s in game for a reason.

[Jagdwyre]

Originally posted by Vasily Chuikov:

Originally posted by Jagdwyre:

If a full auto battle rifle gives a team an "unfair advantage" then they didn't do a very good job on the gunplay.

As in full auto fire from an FAL is barely effective and isn't really any more effective than semi-auto in the real world. Even full auto on an M16 or AK in the real world is hardly any more effective than semi is, and the FAL kicks around even more.

If people think they need full auto in this game then the gunplay and damage model are bad.

The L1A1 has a lot more stopping power than an M16. And since the grunt gets the L1A1, which makes up the majority of the team, you'd have over half the team moving around the map with what is essentially L1A2s. There's only a small number of L1A2s in game for a reason.

In practical use the L1A1(and M14 for that matter) are barely more lethal than the M16. They still take multiple rounds to kill someone if you hit them in the limbs or areas in the lower torso.
The M16 also basically 1 shots to the upper chest just like pretty much every rifle does in the game.

The L1A1 is not nearly as powerful as you seem to think it is imo. And there's only a small number of L2s because they weren't issued to every grunt. If the L1A1 was select fire in the real world during Vietnam it would be select fire in the game.

[static]

L1A1 (or FAL) on full auto is hardly any more controllable or effective than a full auto M14. There's a bunch of good reasons why the L1A1 was set up as semi automatic.

[=(e)= Lemonater47]

FAL translated means "Light Automatic Rifle". The L1A1 is not of course automatic so FAL doesn't fit. I mean it'll be like calling the M4 an M16.

SLR is what everyone called it. "Self Loading Rifle". With the L2A1 being called the AR. "Automatic Rifle".


Also yes as far as the game is concerned the M16 will one shot people in the chest consistently out to 130m. The L1A1 will do it at 1000m+. But how many people do you shoot at over 130m?

[.bastet.]

Originally posted by GIULI1933:

by putting a matchstick in the sear/disconnect mechanism, or by swapping receivers from L2A1 rifles.

I doubt the latter happened very often. The first sounds like a good way to screw up your weapon, even if it does work for short amount of time.

[TEA.UP®IrishHitman79]

Ths SLR/Fal is useless in full auto suffers the same as the M14.

L2a1 was a poor lmg also, we never decided on it and was no real improvement over the Bren gun.

The front forgrip of an Fal(SLR) should be firbreglass. The wooden ones used to get very hot and go on fire from the barrel, also the 30 rd mags were awful.

All that said the FAL is one of the best BR ever made, absolute cracker...

They should add the m14e2 now!

[Neat_au]

Originally posted by ♨TEA.UP®♨♣IrishHitman79:

Ths SLR/Fal is useless in full auto suffers the same as the M14.

L2a1 was a poor lmg also, we never decided on it and was no real improvement over the Bren gun.

The front forgrip of an Fal(SLR) should be firbreglass. The wooden ones used to get very hot and go on fire from the barrel, also the 30 rd mags were awful.

All that said the FAL is one of the best BR ever made, absolute cracker...

They should add the m14e2 now!

Interesting re the adoption of the L2 - they WERE issued in Australia and continued to be used up till the late 80's and early 90's in limited contexts (reserve and support units included). We had a strange period in Australia were we had a number of LMG/Sqaud support weapons in use - the M60, the FN MAG, The L2 and the Bren which had been rechambered into 7.62.

[Spaghetti Western]

Think when IrishHitman says "we", he probably refers to the UK Mod?

The UK never adopted a SAW variant, despite every other member of the commonwealth with licensed FAL manufacture opting to do so, i.e Canada, Aus, India, South Africa.

The British made more extensive use of the converted L4 Bren, in that role than we Australians did.

Regarding the OP, yes have heard of the old "match stick into the trigger group" trick being used for full auto fire, however it was strictly prohibited & of limited practical use with a rifle in a full powered chambering anyway.

[TEA.UP®IrishHitman79]

+1 to Spaghetti western. Thats from experiences with the Irish forces. The Bren gun was thought of highly here, The "saw" version of the FAL was not seen as much of an improvement over the Bren.

The only other issue's with the FAL i can remember...

Its trigger was very sloppy imo, And not as accurate as a m14, well definitely not a NM m14.

But all in all the better Battle rifle imo. That exposed action of the m14/m1 Garand trouble free in battle i think not!!!

[static]

So... what'd be the point of the L2A1 if OP successfully pushed the devs into making the L1A1 full auto?

The L1A1 SLR as fielded by ANZAC forces during the Vietnam War was semi auto, deal with it. Regarding banned field modifications, I highly doubt we'll be wielding L1A1s with matchsticks jammed into the trigger group in RS2.

[=(e)= Lemonater47]

Read a story from an Australian armourer. The field modifications done by the soldiers were dangerous and could render the weapon unusable in the middle of a firefight. It was so bad that if he saw anyone that really wanted their L1A1 full automatic he would either do the modification himself properly or simply give them an M16. He had no power to stop them other than trying to convince them not to. If that didn't work he didn't want to see them get themselves killed with a dodgy field modification.

[Jagdwyre]

Originally posted by static:

So... what'd be the point of the L2A1 if OP successfully pushed the devs into making the L1A1 full auto?

Well the L2 would still have the benefit of a bipod.

But either way obviously the L1 shouldn't have full auto.

[FlashBurn]

Keep in mind the L1a1 is not simply a semi auto only FAL. Its basiclly a re-engineered rifle intended to be a semi auto rifle only. for craps sake, you cant stick FAL metric parts into a imperial measurement L1a1. They changed the entire dementions of the thing and added in junk like the sand cuts to the bolt. So while the same basic design they are in effect different rifles since one is made to a metric standard and the other an imperial. They changed all the damned engineering drawings.

So if someone wanted a full auto L1a1 its not like just swapping parts. They would have to do some bubba gun smithing on a rifle never intented to be a full auto. This can lead to all sorts of issues. Since you dont have a full auto sear and trigger bits you have to hack up a semi auto one. Many semi auto rifles simply will not fire correctly if you simply start hacking on the sear. And even if the rifle is sort of ok with that crap, the parts themselves where not designed to do that. So your trigger could brake, hammer might not fall on the firing pin with enough force, cyclic rate could be crazy high, dwell time to low with fun explosive results. Oh, and it would end up a full auto only and these sorts of rifles sort of turn into anti air craft guns on full auto anyways.

If it legitlly made historical sense to have full auto battle rifles then do them right. Which means they suck rather bad in full auto. But an L1a1 is not an iconic FAL or G3. Its that iconic SLR do hicky.