A Wise Choice

[Thurrdome]

Why don't more armies use the FN2000? From what I've read, it is a superb, module-based weapon that can be modified w/o tools. It fires a powerful 5.56 mm round, has a grenade launcher built in, and an advanced 4X scope that takes wind and distance into account (and can be modified for night-vision).


Therefore, wouldn't it be a wise choice for more nations other than Slovenia to realize this weapon's potential and start buying? :|

[ShakesFIST]

What did you think about it when YOU fired it?

[Thurrdome]

Awesomeness and fully ambidextrous.

[ShakesFIST]

What kind of training did you do with it, besides firing it.

[DaGreatRV]

It's a nice design. Cool cartrige ejection system.

But I don't know how maintainance intensive it is, or how easy it is to clean.
Don't know how it handels sand, snow or mud.


And ofcourse it's bulky, especially with the grenade targeting computer on top.
Weight/heavy?

[ShakesFIST]

Ok, what advantages does it have over the current M16A4/M4?

[exarmyguard]

Ok, what advantages does it have over the current M16A4/M4?

None, as far as I am concerned. Same caliber weapon, same caliber grenade launcher, optics and other stuff can be hung of the M4 as can the other rifle. I can speak only for the M4 and I am certain the other rifle has improved ergonomics for the operator and a built-in sight, but I don't see a huge advantage. If it had a better rifle round than the 5.56, then it would be an advance. Just my two sheckels.

[Thurrdome]

Well, for one, the FN2000 is fully ambidextrous and requires NO tools to modify, unlike the M4/M16A2.

The FN2000 also has a standard-issue scope, with 1.6X (not 4X ) magnification. This provides the soldier with greater long-range capabilities and eliminates the situation many American soldiers have (which is having to purchase their own aimpoints and sights because of lack of unit funding). The [I]advanced scope version has night-vision capabilities and takes wind and distance into account when tallying a target, thereby providing the soldier with an even more powerful tool on the battlefield. The sight can also serve as an aimpoint, facilitating CQC.

The bullpup design also renders the FN2000 slightly more accurate than the M4/M16A2.

It also weighs in at around 3.4 kg.

[exarmyguard]

Hmm...very impressive indeed

[Macs.]

To make it short: There is no real big advantage over the current weapon system the US Army is deploying right now, is there ?

[ShakesFIST]

Well, for one, the FN2000 is fully ambidextrous and requires NO tools to modify, unlike the M4/M16A2.

The FN2000 also has a standard-issue scope, with 1.6X (not 4X ) magnification. This provides the soldier with greater long-range capabilities and eliminates the situation many American soldiers have (which is having to purchase their own aimpoints and sights because of lack of unit funding). The [I]advanced scope version has night-vision capabilities and takes wind and distance into account when tallying a target, thereby providing the soldier with an even more powerful tool on the battlefield. The sight can also serve as an aimpoint, facilitating CQC.

The bullpup design also renders the FN2000 slightly more accurate than the M4/M16A2.

It also weighs in at around 3.4 kg.

Whats the price of the fully loaded FN2000? I mean if the hypothetical unit you are talking about cant afford Aimpoints, how are they going to afford weapons with advanced night sights?

I don't understand how the bullpup design would make it more accurate than an M16. What kind of shot groups are to be expected from it?

[Thurrdome]

It costs a little over 1,800 dollars, including the scope (which also can serve as an aimpoint).

[ShakesFIST]

It costs a little over 1,800 dollars, including the scope (which also can serve as an aimpoint).

Thats about the same as the civilian version, except the civilian model doesnt have the scope.

[digrar]

Moved. Thurrdome take more care in where you place your topics.

[Hydro]

Well, for one, the FN2000 is fully ambidextrous and requires NO tools to modify, unlike the M4/M16A2.





The M4/M16 also requires no tools to modify for left and right handed use because (and here's the kicker) it's not a bullpup.


Thank God you're not a member of a Trials and Development unit anywhere. "Yeah I propose full roll out of this weapons system because it looks awesome, and it says it can do all this stuff".

What a mfr. says it can do, and how it ACTUALLY performs in the hands of an Infantry section out in the sticks for 6 months are normally two entirely different things.

[Chops]

Very eloquently put Hydro. If this thing is so sweet why haven't we seen it adopted more widely or by more "highspeed" elements?

[LaoSexMachine]

I don't get the fascination with this weapon. I handled the civilian one but never shot it. Just way too bulky. Besides you can't beat the ergos for a M4/16

[maw]

i've fired a couple hundred rounds through the civilain semi auto variant. i didn't like the trigger one bit. it felt heavy and had creep and not much feel towards the break point. now maybe i'm spoiled on the 2 stage on my ar's but even the g2 trigger in my ak's felt better. the barrel felt wobbly (not very scientific - i know), i needed more to take a look at that but something didn't seem right. accuracy was uninspiring @>2-2.5 moa. there are many guns i'd pick over this. ymmv.

[Hawkeye]

Belgian SF uses it as well, I don't know if that counts as a highspeed element. Anyways, South-Arabia is said to order 55.000 for some "guard" unit.

Though, I don't think countries using weapons like the M4 or scimilar will buy it, because it doesn't really offer (that much) improvement, allthough I do think it's pretty interesting for other countries (for example new EU/NATO members) who would switch from for example AKs to NATO-standard (5.56mm). That's all just theoreticly (sp?) ofcourse, I haven't handled an F2000 before.