Fusil Automatique Leger translates to Light Automatic Rifle — FAL or LAR.

THE FAL OPERATING SYSTEM

     The essence of the FAL operating system is the tilting block design of its bolt locking system which is based somewhat on the SVT38/40 Tokarev design. The boll carrier contains the bolt and controls its movement into and out of the locked position. When the bolt goes forward, it strips a new cartridge from the magazine and inserts it into the receiver, then stops against the breech end of the barrel. The carrier continues forward until it also encounters the breech face. But as it does so, cams cut into its interior allow the bolt to drop into a locking seat cut into the lower receiver.
     The firing pin is released by the trig­ger/sear mechanism and strikes the car­tridge primer. The cartridge ignites and accelerates the bullet through the bore. About eleven and one half inches along the barrel is a gas vent leading to a regu­lator which bleeds a portion of the com­bustion gases off. Part of these gases act against a piston which thrusts against the face of the bolt carrier. As the carrier moves back, the internal cams cause the bolt to rise out of the locking seat and move back with the carrier, taking the fired case clutched in the extractor with it. Just before the bolt reaches the end of its travel, the case rim encounters an elector plate which flips it out of the breech. The bolt and carrier meanwhile have compressed a recoil-spring which thrusts the bolt/carrier system forward to begin the cycle all over again.

GROWING PAINS

     Extensive trials went on all during the late 1940s and early 1950s in both the United States and the United Kingdom. The British now worked on both the EM2 and the FAL concepts while the Americans remained stubbornly attached to the T45/T65 (M14/7.62 X 51 mm) rifle/cartridge combination. At trials held at Aberdeen Proving Grounds in 1950. The rifle/cartridge combinations were test­ed against one another for the first time. The Americans objected to the British .280 cartridge as being underpowered and so marginal that cold weather might ren­der it ineffective. It was also so small in diameter, they said, that it was unsuitable for tracer or incendiary rounds. The EM2 rifle by itself was felt to be too weak to handle a larger cartridge.
     On the British side, the M14 was judged too heavy and awkward and the 7.62 X 51 mm T65 cartridge produced far too much recoil and was too heavy. The T45/T65 rifle/cartridge combina­tion was said to be uncontrollable in full automatic fire.
     The FAL design, on the other hand, received an excellent reception. Ameri­can officials were impressed. Based on this show of interest, M. Saive rede­signed the rifle to handle the larger, more powerful T65 cartridge.
     The British now gave up on the bus— ness of standardization. A board of examining officers meeting at Pendine in 1951 endorsed the new .280 car­tridge and the FAL rifle. But the United Kingdom Council and the Defense Minister (Labor Party decided to ap­prove the EM2/.280 on what they felt were solid grounds: the bulIpup rifle was lighter and shorter overall but had barrel five inches longer than the FAL and it had an optical sight.
     Arguments immediately broke out in Parliament and the press, along politi­cal party lines, but strangely reversed. The Labor Party had given tip trying to convince the Americans that the British design was superior and were resolved to build a British rifle in British facto­ries for British soldiers.
     The Conservative Party led by Win­ston Churchill, who had plenty of war­time experience with multiple arms and ammunition supplies, wanted a common cartridge and rifle throughout NATO. And if that meant accepting an American design, so be it. To no avail. The Labor government announced acceptance of the .280/EM2 on July 3. 1951. At this point, Canada entered the picture. The Canadians had decided they would accept whatever rifle and car­tridge was deemed acceptable to NATO— which meant in effect, an American decision. Now, faced with the possibility of having to manufacture three separate cartridges, the new American 7.62 X 51 mm. the British .280 and the old .30-06 for their current M1 Garands, they demanded and got a meeting between the United Kingdom, the United States, France and Canada to select a NATO standard cartridge. The meeting was a failure and nothing was decided.
     In the meantime, the US Board of Ordnance had ordered three FALs chambered for the T65 cartridge. When the T65 cartridge was adopted, further trials were ordered to compare the FAL to the T45 rifle (the M14). The Canadians meanwhile, were deliv­ering the coup de grace to the fine EM2 concept. They told the Brits, all very unofficially it seems, that they were willing to accept the .280 car­tridge and the EM2 rifle if the Americans would agree. Since there was no chance that that would happen, Britain acquiesced. Another meaning­ful factor in their decision to drop the EM2/.280 combination was the fact that Fabrique Nationale could begin production of the FAL immediately whereas the EM2 startup was at least two years off. In December 1953, the United Kingdom ordered 5000 FAL rifles for field trials