With the creation of NATO, several programs were put into place for militaries of these nations to have some sort of compatibility.  One part of that would be standardization of small arms ammunition.  Throughout the NATO countries numerous calibers and different types of weapons were being used.  The United States had great influence in the NATO ammunition trials, or it could be better said, they drove it.  Even after World War II and the success of the StG44 Sturmgewehr or assault rifle, NATO countries would pursue full powered military cartridges while the Warsaw Pact would grasp the idea of the assault rifle and develop the AK-47 and its intermediate 7.62x39mm cartridge.  The U.S. would introduce the 7.62x51mm cartridge into the NATO mix, which was basically a cut down .30-06 (7.62x63mm).  The British had their own idea with the .280 British cartridge which they submitted.  The U.S. forced the 7.62x51mm cartridge down the throats of NATO on December 15, 1953.  The British did not go quietly into that good night.  They felt the U.S. was wrong and actually began production of the EM-2 Enfield bullpup rifle and its .280 cartridge.  Churchill himself stepped in, ordering his forces to comply with the new NATO standard.  But what rifle?  In December of 1953 the British ordered 5,000 FAL rifles (X8E1) rifles from FN for testing.  In January of 1954 the Canadians procured 2,000 FAL rifles for testing.

FN in Belgium had began development of a new rifle in 1947 based on the German 7.92x33mm Kurz cartridge, believing they would follow the breakthrough in small arms technology the Third Reich had developed.  In 1948, the British requested FN to develop two new rifles, both chambered in the .280 British caliber.  One they requested be in the new bullpup design.

Right side of the classic FAL – the DS Arms SA5821S-A rifle. All parts of this rifle are made in the USA. This no frills classic fired accurately with no malfunctions of any sort.

Designed by Dieudonné Saive and Ernest Vervier in 1951, and produced two years later, the FN FAL would be destined to be the main battle rifle for more than 90 countries.  However, similar to the past, the United States would favor a home grown rifle over a superior foreign design.  The U.S. would adopt the M14 to fire this new 7.62x51mm NATO cartridge.  Basically a magazine fed M1 Garand, the rifle was difficult to control on automatic fire so it was issued for its years of service mostly with the selector removed making it a semiautomatic only rifle- in the American-Vietnam War, only the “Automatic Rifleman” was issued his M14 with selector, taking the place of the “BAR Man.”  The FAL was easier to control on automatic fire, more reliable under adverse conditions and used more advanced materials including aluminum and plastic.  The M14 would go down in small arms history as the shortest serving rifle in U.S. military history with it only being in production for 6 years, until it was replaced by the AR-15/M16 series even though it was still in use in combat.  The FAL would go on to be the most mass produced and used 7.62x51mm caliber rifle in history throughout the Free World.  FAL rifles would be produced under license from FN in Argentina, Australia, Brazil, Canada, Israel, Mexico, Netherlands, South Africa and Venezuela.

The FAL is a 7.62x51mm caliber, selective-fire magazine-fed and air-cooled battle rifle.  The magazine holds 20 rounds of ammunition.  The rifle utilizes a short stroke tappet piston operating mechanism.  The bolt is different from many used previously as the bolt design is similar to that of the Soviet SKS-45 and German StG44 rifle.  When the bolt carrier moves to the rear, the bolt lifts out of engagement via locking shoulder to extract and eject the fired cartridge case.  The bolt is very hefty and exceptionally robust.  Also, the rifle uses a gas regulator valve to restrict the gas flow to only that which is needed to operate the rifle.  The principle is to open the port just enough to reliably cycle the rifle.  This lowers the cyclic rate and prevents excessive wear on the rifle by over gassing it.  If the rifle was to get extremely dirty, the operator could open the port up to get more power until he could clean his rifle.  The soldier would set the regulator by firing a single shot and waiting for the rifle to cycle and lock open on the magazine.

Due to the folding stock, the recoil spring is modified. Instead of it being in the stock like the standard FAL, there are two embedded recoil springs and a short guide that inserts into the upper receiver.

The British FAL was the first to use modern materials such as plastic on the stock, pistol grip and handguards: this material was called “Maranyl.”  There were handguards made out of wood but this was not common.  It was found during destruction testing that the wood on an M14 would catch on fire where the polymer would melt at extreme temperatures and not catch fire.  The polymer would of course not splinter nor swell due to wet conditions.

For many years, FAL rifles have come into the U.S. for commercial sales.  Springfield Armory produced them in the 1980s to early 1990s and over these intervening years rifles have been assembled from parts kits imported to the U.S. built on American made receivers.  These kits could come from any of the countries throughout the world that produced them.  By today’s standards, the FAL would be considered obsolete.  The rifle does not have fancy rails all over to place any of the new hi-tech optics, lasers, vertical grips, and so on.  Though the mechanism is sound and proven, the rifles employed today are shorter, lighter and more accurate.  However, the FAL is a force to be reckoned with throughout the world and it will be for some time.

In 1987, a Federal Firearms License was granted to a start up gun company named DS Arms.  When David Selvaggio started up the company he looked at every automatic and semiautomatic only rifle available in the world.  He shot and evaluated and came to the conclusion he wanted to work with the FAL rifle system.  He was particularly impressed by the workmanship of the weapon, the handling features and the streamlined contour as well as the developmental history of the weapon.  He picked a winner: the most mass produced 7.62x51mm rifle in the world that had proven its mettle in every corner of the globe.  In April of 1993, DS Arms sold 1,000 stripped Imbel Springfield Armory marked receivers.  In May of 1993, DS Arms sold 1,000 stripped DGFM Argentine receivers, which Fowler had to stamp the serial numbers on a punch press himself.  In May of 1994, DS Arms began to sell 3,000 DGFM Argentine receivers.  Then DS Arms began to produce their own receivers, parts and eventually all the parts to make a 100% American made FAL.  For a brief time a hybrid rifle using both American and foreign made parts was made but it was quickly discontinued in favor an all American made parts.  The American made rifles were called the SA58 series.

This is the SA85SPR SASS rifle that DS Arms submitted to the U.S. Army for competition in the SASS program that was eventually won by Knights Armament Company. The rifle has the basic FAL mechanism with many improvements/updates including a SAW pistol grip, 1913 rail and fully adjustable folding stock.

There were two rifles provided for test and evaluation for this article.  The first would be a stock and traditional FAL rifle that would be seen anywhere around the globe, the SA5821S-A and the second would be the DS Arms world class SA58SPR sniper rifle.  This shows an evolution of the standard 1950s combat rifle to the 2012 modern version of a 60-year-old combat proven weapon system.

The SA5821S-A rifle is in many ways identical to the rifle put into service in the 1950s.  The rifle has a 21-inch chrome lined barrel with a Belgium made flash suppressor.  There are 12 holes drilled at an angle to allow gas to escape forward of the muzzle rather than to the sides.  The barrel is cut for a bipod as well.  On the barrel is the standard gas regulator, which has enabled the FAL rifle to function with the ammunition provided without over gassing the rifle, extending the service life of the rifle and reducing the recoil to the shooter.  This rifle was provided with black synthetic handguards.  This is definitely an improvement over the wood for many reasons including that these handguards do not catch fire, swell from rain nor crack and splinter.  The front sight is a post type common on many rifles.

The receiver is Parkerized grey and machined well.  No cosmetic flaws can be noted.  The traditional carrying handle is on this rifle as well.  The bolt carrier has the sand cuts and is also well made.  The charging handle is the round lever type located on the left side of the receiver.  The bolt carrier has the standard recoil slide rod hinge that links up with the recoil spring and plunger located in the fixed stock assembly.

The author test firing the SA5821S-A rifle. This is the basic battle FAL – strong and durable are the best words used to describe this rifle.

The lower receiver is manufactured from aluminum and is lightweight and anodized black.  The safety lever is located on the left side of the receiver.  The magazine catch and bolt catch are located in their traditional places in front of the trigger guard.  The stock and pistol grip are manufactured from high impact polymer and made in the USA.  The rifle is quite comfortable to anyone including a Sasquatch size man like this author.

This rifle weighs 8 3/4 pounds with an overall length of 43 inches with a impressive 22 inch sight radius, which is very beneficial on a 7.62x51mm caliber rifle as it enables the user to take advantage of the long range capabilities of the cartridge.  Fit and finish was superb and there were no rattling parts common on many field grade rifles.  The rifle was shipped with a 20-round FAL magazine with a DS Arms floorplate on the bottom.  The only major issue discovered with this rifle is one that is inherent to the family of weapons and not this particular rifle: difficulty in replacing magazines.  It is difficult to insert the magazine not even under stress as well to remove it.  It does not have the speed of many other comparable designs.  But the magazine is very reliable and robust. I would expect anyone who is to use this family of rifles would be able to get used to the magazine release and become proficient with it. The Maglula LuLa loading tool was found to be a plus in loading the magazine easier.

The SA85SPR has a fluted barrel with a M16-style flash suppressor.

The SA58SPR is totally in a class of its own.  Looking at this design it is clear to see how you can make a 60 year old design new again.  Similar to the AR-platform of rifles, the key to their success is modernization and keeping up with the changing needs of the operator.  Originally this rifle was designed to compete in the XM110 competition where it would compete with the likes of Knight’s Armament Company and ArmaLite, Inc. to name a few.  The DS Arms was a worthy competitor with all the features that the requirements asked for.

Starting from the front and working back, the SPR has a 19-inch fluted medium weight tactical barrel with a M16A2-style compensator on the end.  The rifle has the gas regulator enabling easy use of a sound suppressor as well as a Mil-Std 1913 rail segment on top of the gas block.  Full length quad Mil-Std 1913 rails are on the handguard also giving a continuous top rail from the gas block to the rear of the upper receiver. Unlike the original FAL, easy and reliable form of attachment for optics and all the new high speed lasers, flashlights, IR pointing devices, night vision/thermal optics as well as much more not seen on the early rifles that were designed for iron sight use only.  Both front and rear back up iron sights were provided on the SPR.  There was a Harris Bipod provided for the rifle.

Perhaps the only real complaint seen by this author in the FAL design is that the magazine release is not easy to get to and manipulate. The SWAT snipers found this awkward as well as they had issues inserting magazines into the rifle compared to the LMT and LWRCI semi-auto sniper systems they use on the job.

The lower receiver was manufactured from aluminum and matched the color of the steel upper receiver perfectly.  The safety lever is ambidextrous.  The pistol grip chosen was of that found on a FN Minimi SAW rifle as opposed to the standard FN-type.  The stock itself is very unique in that the stock folds to the right side of the rifle and is adjustable for cheek weld and length.  The rifle was provided with a monopod attached to the bottom of the stock.

The rifle was provided with a heavy duty carrying case, brass catcher, sling, detachable rail mounted swivel, three 10-round magazines & an instruction manual.  For test firing the optic chosen was the same optic that was adopted on the M110 rifle, the Leupold Mark 4 LR/T 3.5-10x40mm scope with the M3 illuminated reticle.  The scope was mounted on A.R.M.S., Inc. throw lever mounts. The ammunition tested for this rifle was both Silver State Armory & Black Hills ammunition in 168 grain & 175 grain OTM loads.  The best group obtained with the rifle was with Silver State Armory 175gr OTM with 3 bullets within .55 inches at 100m.

The quad Mil-Std 1913 rail with a bipod mounted to the underside. Also notice the front folding backup sight.

The SA5821S-A was test fired with 200 rounds of Silver State Armory 147gr ball ammunition.  No malfunctions were noted.  This rifle felt like the robust war horse it is.  Offhand there were no problems engaging a steel plate at 200 yards.  It was evident what the reputation of the military grade rifle was based.

The FAL is a pivotal design in the transformation from general issue of autoloading firearms throughout the world.  In many cases it was a interim rifle in use until it was eventually replaced with a mid-range assault rifle.  However, this family of weapons still sees action in every part of the globe.  In that case, it is hard to say the rifle is obsolete.  It is a true battle rifle for the traditional soldier – heavy caliber, selective fire and iron sights.  DS Arms has taken the rifle to the U.S., made it here and taken into the new millennium.  The SA58SPR is clearly an old design with a modern flare by taking a design from the 1950s and competing with many new designs for the next U.S. sniper rifle.  Wait, most of the guns that competed were also 1950s designs, but by Gene Stoner in the AR-10.  Classics never die, they just get updated and better.

When I answered the phone, I could sense the frustration in his voice. The caller was a friend of mine who head up small arms procurement in a Scandinavian country. His quick greeting was followed by the description of a small machine screw. As he gave me the dimensions in millimeters, I banged out a few numbers on my calculator, and realized he was describing a 6-40 screw – common in our inch-system. He told me it was for a U.S.-made gun sight. He had checked all of his sources in Scandinavia and even some in Europe, but none of these suppliers had any on hand. He asked if I would buy him some of these screws so he could pick them up when he visited me in Florida during the following week.

This episode started me to thinking about U.S. small arms. Is it time we consider going metric? I know we’ve been at this crossroads before, but it has never happened. Maybe there are good reasons now to reconsider. If you’ll allow me to present some facts, I’ll let you be the judge.
One of the first facts to consider, is that a “decimal-based measurement system” (the metric system) was proposed by Thomas Jefferson in 1790 and the U.S. mint was formed to produce the world’s first decimal currency with the U.S. dollar equal to 100 cents. Our system of measure did not go that way. As I’m sure you know, our inch-system is a carryover from our days as an English colony. The last major holdouts for the inch system were one-time fellow colonies: New Zealand, Australia, and Canada who switched over to metric more than 40 years ago.

Flirtation with a Metric Small Arm — the FN FAL
In 1953, the U.S. military had to decide what they would do if the 7.62mm Belgian FN FAL (U.S. designation T48) were to win the competition against the U.S. T44 (M14.) After beating out the M14 in several trials, the FAL was on the fast track to become the official U.S. service rifle, but the FAL did have one detractor: the design was metric. To assure there would be no U.S. production problems, Harrington and Richardson was awarded a contract to convert the design over to the inch system. H&R built a quantity of 500 inch-system FAL’s of exceptional quality. As this production was ongoing, engineers under the direction of Springfield Arsenal’s Roy Rayle, worked around the clock to correct deficiencies in the M14 design. In 1954 testing, the two rifles – T44 (M14) and the U.S.-made T48 (FAL) tested to a draw, and in subsequent trials the T44 went on to win.

Why the big exercise to make an inch-system rifle? To enable U.S. production of the T48-FAL in the 1953 timeframe, there was almost no choice but to convert the design and the drawings to the inch-system. Factories across America had manual lathes and milling machines that could produce weapon components, but these were all set up with inch-system controls. Screws, roll pins, solid pins, spring wire, and sheet metal stock were readily available in U.S. markets, but only in inch-system sizes. Similarly, measurement tools, like vernier calipers, micrometers, and gage blocks were configured for inch-system only measurements. Producing metric components in the U.S. without converting to the inch system was simply not a reasonable option. Success of the T44-M14 made the issue temporarily go away, with no need for further consideration of the metric system in small arms for a long time afterwards.

U.S. Government Mandates Metric
By 1968, most of the world had become metric so a Federal law authorized a 3-year study to determine the impact of increasing metric use in the U.S. Many of the major companies in the U.S. passed out conversion manuals for the International System of Units (SI) that was being adopted throughout the world and trained their workers to use the metric system. By this time, the newer Computer Numerically Controlled (CNC) lathes and milling machines were capable of easily converting back and forth from inch to metric so there would be no major trauma when metric drawings reached the production floor.

U.S. made M240 Coax with “Spirit” button for meeting the first year production goal.

The U.S. Metric Study was completed in 1971 and their published report recommended we should “go metric” on a carefully coordinated national program. Congress passed the Metric Conversion Act of 1975 and established a U.S. Metric Board, but a timeline was never established for metric conversion. U.S. arms producers like the General Electric Armament Systems Department, followed a government directive mandating that new guns should be metric. They complied in the next product they released, making the drawings for the newest Gatling gun totally metric. And what about the ammunition feed system that connected to it? It was produced using inch system dimensions. Why? Because the government directive said the guns had to be metric, but made no mention of the feed system, so it was a half measure at best. This was typical of the resistive mood of the country towards the metric system. After years of public apathy, spending money, and achieving only marginal results, the U.S. Metric Board was disbanded by President Reagan in 1982.

European Small Arm is adopted: It’s a Sweet Baby but it’s Metric.
In the mid 1970s an international shoot-off resulted in the adoption of the first metric weapon in modern U.S. military history, the 7.62mm FN Herstal Belgian MAG-58. The machine gun, U.S. designation M240, was designed totally in metric. The Army bought the manufacturing rights and the drawings with the intent to competitively procure the weapon and spare parts from manufacturers in the U.S. This required that the Army bring these 1950s era drawings up to current standards, meaning the ones outlined in a specification known as ANSI-Y-14.5 managed by the American Society of Mechanical Engineers. The Army converted the drawings themselves but left the metric system in place. They also left the drawings in first angle projection – the European standard – but more about that later.

It is important to note that by the late 1970s, the manufacturing scene in the United States changed dramatically. CNC machine tools were everywhere, with most of them easily capable of switching from inch to metric. Many conventional lathes and milling machines had digital readouts added to them, making them capable of inch/metric conversion with the push of a button.
FN Herstal won the 1979 production contract to make the M240 in the U.S, and built a factory in South Carolina. FN knew they would be faced with a challenge in finding qualified machinists and other factory help, but they had experience in setting up small arms factories in third world counties and reckoned South Carolina would be easy by comparison. They brought in their own manufacturing team to train the workers, hired manufacturing managers who had prior experience setting up manufacturing plants outside the U.S., and went totally metric on the manufacturing process. During the first full production year, a quantity of 4,509 M240’s was the production goal set by the Army. Guns from every production lot that year had to pass an interchangeability test with other M240s made on the same line. At specified intervals, U.S. made M240s were interchanged with FN Herstal-made guns and were required to pass the same acceptance test. In every case, the weapons functioned flawlessly and the production goals were achieved.

Five years later, the FN South Carolina plant submitted the lowest bid and won the manufacturing contract for the M16A4. If there was to be a metric/inch production challenge, this was it. There was no plan to change the M16 drawings to metric. In fact, it was never discussed. Rather, buttons were pushed on the CNC machines and machines that were formerly making metric M240 parts were now making M16 components. Not only were both inch and metric drawings on the shop floor at the same time but the U.S. drawings were in third angle projection and ones of European origin were in first angle projection.

First Angle – Third Angle: What is it and Who Cares?
The “projection of a drawing—first or third angle” relates to engineering drawings, or “blueprints” if you prefer that term. Since we must use a two dimensional drawing to define a three dimensional component, rules have been set up for where different views are positioned on the drawing – this is called the “projection.” Europeans set their drawings up in first angle projection while in the U.S. we prefer third angle projection. First angle and third angle drawings have one view in common but the rest of the views are in opposite locations. The differences between these conventions are explained in the illustration, and it all makes more sense if you consider the logic behind them. In the third angle system, the user moves his/her eye around the part 90° at a time to “see” another side of the part and the view is positioned accordingly. In the first angle projection system the part is “rotated” 90° each time for a new view. If you are familiar with one system and not the other, you’ll find the left side view where you expect the right side to be, the top where the bottom should be, and so on.

Textbooks describing these systems make the case that Americans find first angle projection illogical. To avoid confusion, drawing standards specify that a figure with two views of a truncated cone be placed in the title block of every drawing to show the part is depicted in first or third angle projection. There is little danger in confusing metric dimensions for inch dimensions; like making a firing pin 400 inches long instead of 400 millimeters. Not paying attention to whether the part to be made is described in first or third angle projection, however, can easily result in parts being made backwards.

By now you may be wondering how FN Manufacturing made out manufacturing with drawings in first and third angle projection as well as metric and inch. Surprisingly it didn’t cause them any problems. The U.S. Army eventually did convert the M240 drawings to third angle projection, fearing that small businesses making spare parts without understanding the application could mistakenly make the parts backwards.

Where Are We Now?
He we are today, 30 years after the metric M240 was put into U.S. production and where is our manufacturing technology? Essentially with the flip of a switch, practically every modern machine tool will operate in metric or inch. Electronic digital readouts on manual milling machines and lathes give even those machines dual capability and the opportunity for even the smallest machine shop to produce in either system. Even inspection equipment from Coordinate Measuring Machines to hand held vernier calipers and micrometers swap metric units for inch units at the push of a button. And what about first and third angle projection? Most good Computer Aided Design (CAD) systems that we now use to make our drawings can switch from either system by the mere selection of a “radio” button. Our military continues to procure metric weapons including the Beretta M9 pistol and the Heckler & Koch M320 grenade launcher and at the same time inch-system weapons like the M4 and M110.

It is the job of U.S. arsenals and military directorates to specify what small arms will be bought along with the drawing packages that define them. There is a directive in the Federal Acquisition Regulations that specifies metric dimensions should be used. Officially, the metric system is preferred, but there are open ended exceptions to the Metric Conversion Act. This means the military doesn’t really care if your drawings are inch or metric or if your hammer rotates on a 1/8-inch pin or one 3 millimeters in diameter. One of the newest small arms under consideration by the military is the LSAT designed by AAI. This light machine gun, firing cased telescoped ammunition, is designed in inch system and is likely to stay that way unless the military directs otherwise.

Pro – Let’s Do It
Just how difficult would it be to specify totally metric weapons from here on out? There would be changes to threaded fasteners, pins, nuts, spring wire, rollers, ball or roller bearings and other hardware. For the most part, the standard metric sizes are close enough to the standard inch sizes so that nothing is sacrificed in strength or durability. Sheet metal comes in standard metric sizes but this is one where direct substitution that could cause a problem causing the substituted part to be too thick or too thin. This change does require careful study and potentially some dimensional changes to mating parts.

Our NATO and other allies are all using the metric system and sometimes our weapons systems. If our small arms were designed with metric, components like pins, screws, and other hardware, would be available to them in their normal supply chains avoiding situations like the one my Scandinavian friend encountered. In short, metrification would make all U.S. small arms more attractive to the rest of the world.

Likely the best reason is that the metric system is incredibly simple. U.S. schools are teaching the metric system and students are finding it easier than our inch system. One high school teacher told me that when her students are required to make measurements, she gives them metric rulers. She switched from inch rulers because students became so bogged down with fractional inch conversions; they were missing the point of the exercise.

Con – Let’s Don’t
We’ve been making parts in inch system dimensions for a long time, now, and have a ready supply of inch system hardware and components. In many cases, metric components are more expensive. The easiest path forward is to continue to let small arms manufacturers produce weapons using any system they want.

Any change, no matter how small, always has an associated price. Not every machine shop is equipped with the latest machine tools and measuring equipment, and even those that do, will still find a certain percentage of their equipment will become obsolete.

The manufacturing success at FN aside, it cannot be denied, there is always the possibility of making manufacturing mistakes when using both inch and metric drawings in the same factory. Introducing metric drawings in first angle projection will only compound the problem.

Conclusion
It’s decision time. Do we make the change to metric in small arms now, or do we kick the can down the road and hope for the best? After all, we still have some allies who, like us, have not adopted the metric system – Liberia and Myanmar. If we hurry, we might at least say we’re not the last country to “Go Metric.”