The Down Range Forum

Member Section => Down Range Cafe => Topic started by: tombogan03884 on October 07, 2009, 09:24:32 PM

Title: Let's discuss the FNAR
Post by: tombogan03884 on October 07, 2009, 09:24:32 PM
 Most of you have probably seen That Marshal has put up the link for the gun giveaways,

http://www.downrange.tv/forum/index.php?topic=9220.0;topicseen

Lets talk about the guns,Vaquero's have been around for ever, I'd love to win these but I want to hear peoples opinions on the FNAR,
first off
Optic ? Leapold style scope Red dot style,(Aim Point or Eotech ) Standard barrel length is 20 inches or would you switch to iron sights ?

http://www.fnhusa.com/le/products/firearms/model.asp?fid=FNF049&gid=FNG022&mid=FNM0136
Title: Re: Let's discuss the FNAR
Post by: Badgersmilk on October 07, 2009, 10:12:49 PM
To much gun for a dot sight.   Dream BIG!
(http://www.nightforceoptics.com/homeRev_NXS_verticalb4.jpg)

NIGHTFORCE  3.5-15 x 56 NXS
Title: Re: Let's discuss the FNAR
Post by: seeker_two on October 07, 2009, 10:14:59 PM
Great concept....except for the proprietary magazines....would be so much better if they took M1A/M14 or FN/FAL(!) magazines...  :'(
Title: Re: Let's discuss the FNAR
Post by: fightingquaker13 on October 07, 2009, 10:34:43 PM
Honestly, I was very close to buying this rifle. Gander had it at less than $1k. Ironically MB talked me out of it.Why? Because the darn thing, despite being nearly perfect in every other respect doesn't use the cheap and abundant FN-FAL mags. If it did I would own one and be bragging on it rather than agonizing over AK vs  AR. :-\ Instead, it uses $70 proprietary mags, which means buying 12 doubles the price of the gun. If the gun is free though........ ;D This one is mine, mine, all mine Bwahahaha. ;D
FQ13
Title: Re: Let's discuss the FNAR
Post by: Pathfinder on October 08, 2009, 05:42:02 AM
Honestly, I was very close to buying this rifle. Gander had it at less than $1k. Ironically MB talked me out of it.Why? Because the darn thing, despite being nearly perfect in every other respect doesn't use the cheap and abundant FN-FAL mags. If it did I would own one and be bragging on it rather than agonizing over AK vs  AR. :-\ Instead, it uses $70 proprietary mags, which means buying 12 doubles the price of the gun. If the gun is free though........ ;D This one is mine, mine, all mine Bwahahaha. ;D
FQ13

Take your Ritalin, Garth!!

Geesh, you are all over the place, I shoulda bought this gun, oh, I did buy that gun, gotta sell it, maybe I should get another one, here's one I don't want but I will talk about it. . . .

I entered for the FNAR, but I am not keen on winniing it if I do. Yeah, I got some spare 7.62x51 lying around here someplace, so I could feed it for a long time. Two problems:

1. Doesn't really fit into what I like or want. Now, if it were a SCAR heavy, yeah, I would be drooling.
2. Some low post count newbie will win it anyhow.

Maybe instead of enrolling us twice automatically, MB and team should enter us once per post count. That would work for me.

Wait, then Tom would win everything.

Nevermind . . .     8)
Title: Re: Let's discuss the FNAR
Post by: ericire12 on October 08, 2009, 06:32:17 AM
Take your Ritalin, Garth!!

Geesh, you are all over the place, I shoulda bought this gun, oh, I did buy that gun, gotta sell it, maybe I should get another one, here's one I don't want but I will talk about it. . . .

I entered for the FNAR, but I am not keen on winniing it if I do. Yeah, I got some spare 7.62x51 lying around here someplace, so I could feed it for a long time. Two problems:

1. Doesn't really fit into what I like or want. Now, if it were a SCAR heavy, yeah, I would be drooling.
2. Some low post count newbie will win it anyhow.

Maybe instead of enrolling us twice automatically, MB and team should enter us once per post count. That would work for me.

Wait, then Tom would win everything.

Nevermind . . .     8)

Ding!

I'm saving my luck for another giveaway.
Title: Re: Let's discuss the FNAR
Post by: Swamp Yankee on October 08, 2009, 06:50:58 AM
Looks like some gear geek got a hold of a 91 and ruind it :'(
Mike Mc
Title: Re: Let's discuss the FNAR
Post by: tombogan03884 on October 08, 2009, 10:19:52 AM
Take your Ritalin, Garth!!

Geesh, you are all over the place, I shoulda bought this gun, oh, I did buy that gun, gotta sell it, maybe I should get another one, here's one I don't want but I will talk about it. . . .

I entered for the FNAR, but I am not keen on winniing it if I do. Yeah, I got some spare 7.62x51 lying around here someplace, so I could feed it for a long time. Two problems:

1. Doesn't really fit into what I like or want. Now, if it were a SCAR heavy, yeah, I would be drooling.
2. Some low post count newbie will win it anyhow.

Maybe instead of enrolling us twice automatically, MB and team should enter us once per post count. That would work for me.

Wait, then Tom would win everything.


Nevermind . . .     8)

 I'm hoping   ;D
Title: Re: Let's discuss the FNAR
Post by: Hazcat on October 08, 2009, 10:35:39 AM
Personally I think they should make them 'one for the Cat and one to give away'!


;D
Title: Re: Let's discuss the FNAR
Post by: tombogan03884 on October 08, 2009, 12:17:40 PM
Personally I think they should make them 'one for the Cat and one to give away'!


;D

We both won "Ruger " shirts, maybe we'll split these  ;D
Title: Re: Let's discuss the FNAR
Post by: tt11758 on October 08, 2009, 01:06:28 PM
Personally I think they should make them 'one for the Cat fat radio announcer dude and one to give away'!


;D


There Haz, fixed it for you.   ;D
Title: Re: Let's discuss the FNAR
Post by: Hazcat on October 08, 2009, 01:10:20 PM
The 'fat radio announcer dude' is supposed to be getting ready to drive to a wedding (or did you put all that work off on the long suffering Chunkette? )


;D
Title: Re: Let's discuss the FNAR
Post by: Conagher 45 on October 08, 2009, 05:35:56 PM
Hopefully my status is still low posting newbie....   Come on RUGER  ;D
Title: Re: Let's discuss the FNAR
Post by: Overload on October 08, 2009, 08:59:32 PM
If I understand the genesis of this gun, they took a Browning BAR and 'militarized' it.  Now, I've heard that military designed arms should hold up better long term, but is this true?  Is a Mossberg 590 tougher than a 500?  M24 vs Remington 700? Beretta 92 vs Cougar?  I guess we need to figure out which arms are military and which are civilian.
  It's safe to assume that any gun that is fielded by a major army fits this category.  Can we add any gun that was designed for a military test, but didn't make the cut?  That adds a lot of weapons, depending on which tests you include.  Each test usually has a dozen(+/-) different guns.  On the other hand, there might be a reason some of these weapons didn't make the cut. (as a short tangent, in the USA fighter tests, the F23 actually had better performance, based on the qualifications in the bid, than the F22, but the F22 was picked due to costs)
  So, what DID FN do to make this gun acceptable to the military, and is it enough to make it military tough?  Why wouldn't you want all guns made to this level?  I figure that dependability should be the #1 trait in any weapon.
Title: Re: Let's discuss the FNAR
Post by: fightingquaker13 on October 08, 2009, 09:13:51 PM
Looking at it, it strikes me as pretty much every thing I want in a dual purpose SHTF rifle. Configured to work as an "assault rifle" with a short barrel and rails, a deer worthy and easily availible caliber and BAR/FN quality. The only problem is high dollar and hard to find mags. Its like the mini-14. If the mini took AR mags I would take a bet that 2/3 of us would own one.
FQ13
Title: Re: Let's discuss the FNAR
Post by: Texas_Bryan on October 08, 2009, 09:59:56 PM
Looking at it, it strikes me as pretty much every thing I want in a dual purpose SHTF rifle. Configured to work as an "assault rifle" with a short barrel and rails, a deer worthy and easily availible caliber and BAR/FN quality. The only problem is high dollar and hard to find mags. Its like the mini-14. If the mini took AR mags I would take a bet that 2/3 of us would own one.
FQ13

If Mini's took AR mags we all know everyone would own one.  If Ruger made a AR mag Mini with a receiver mounted rail for optics, I'd go buy one tomorrow.  The mag issue on this is the main reason I don't want a .30 cal carbine, other than M1A or AK.  No AR 10 for me.

Looks like it would make a great field gun though.
Title: Re: Let's discuss the FNAR
Post by: Ping on October 08, 2009, 10:52:35 PM
I would go with one for Haz and one for Tom. Hell, they are the ones that get the juices flowing on the DRTV Forum so it might be win-win for all!!!!!!!!  ;D
Title: Re: Let's discuss the FNAR
Post by: JSC3ATLCSO on October 10, 2009, 01:23:43 PM
Personally I think the gun needs to be in the Ugliest Gun thread.  I did sign up for the giveaway.. Can't win if you don't/won't play.  My dad has been wanting to get an AR for about 4 years and he makes/has the kind of money to go and buy the most tacticool short stroker out there but is freakin out about a Superior Arms AR15 that is 800 bucks.  So If I win being a low post count (compared to others) I'm giving it to my Dad. 

I'll wait on my M1A that is STILL on order.. GRRR..  I can't believe that springfield has a 10 Month back log on a run of the mill M1A 
Title: Re: Let's discuss the FNAR
Post by: 2HOW on October 10, 2009, 02:03:44 PM
Honestly, I was very close to buying this rifle. Gander had it at less than $1k. Ironically MB talked me out of it.Why? Because the darn thing, despite being nearly perfect in every other respect doesn't use the cheap and abundant FN-FAL mags. If it did I would own one and be bragging on it rather than agonizing over AK vs  AR. :-\ Instead, it uses $70 proprietary mags, which means buying 12 doubles the price of the gun. If the gun is free though........ ;D This one is mine, mine, all mine Bwahahaha. ;D
FQ13
This is a long range rifle, 300 and out. Why do you think it needs hi-cap mags or more than two standard. This is not a supression arm, this is a rifle you need to reach out. The AK and such are what you need for 200 in close. You cant have it all Baby.
Title: Re: Let's discuss the FNAR
Post by: m25operator on October 10, 2009, 02:53:08 PM
On the magazines, not only are they expensive, but are they even available??

I bought an FN SPR, with detachable box mag, after purchase, went online and none to be had, it took almost 2 yrs before they were available, so I bought 3 more.

Always check availability before purchasing a firearm. First kid on the block has it's drawbacks.

I started making my own holsters, because I kept buying pistols that had just come out, and holster makers were waiting to find out if the demand was there.
Title: Re: Let's discuss the FNAR
Post by: Overload on October 10, 2009, 03:06:27 PM
A few people have brought up a good question, although they haven't made the final leap of logic: What advantages does this have over a M1A?  I'm using the FNAR Standard 308 and SA Loaded model, as they seemed the closest to me.
         FNAR    M1A
Barrel   20"     22"
Weight   9lbs    9.8lbs
Shots    20      20
Price   $1821    $1608


(If we go with the Heavy FNAR, weight goes up to 10lbs.)
Features (differences)
FNAR features: pistol grip, scope rail, forward tri-rail. high comb stock (for scope)
M1A features: front and rear sights, Garand style safety, parts & accessory availability, system experience

Now, what I can't see here is if there's an accuracy difference, a reliability difference, service life difference, ergonomics difference.  Setting up either for long range use is going to require extras, the FNAR should require less.

I'm in the market for such a weapon, and I'm leaning twards the m1a in one of 3 configurations: either the Springfield Loaded or SOCOM with the Extended Cluster Rail, or by going whole hog and building up a LRB M25 receiver.  I'm also looking at the Keltec RFB or some kind of a AR10.
Title: Re: Let's discuss the FNAR
Post by: PegLeg45 on October 10, 2009, 04:10:35 PM
You boys get ready to shed a tear....this pot is mine.
Title: Re: Let's discuss the FNAR
Post by: seeker_two on October 11, 2009, 07:06:08 AM
This is a long range rifle, 300 and out. Why do you think it needs hi-cap mags or more than two standard. This is not a supression arm, this is a rifle you need to reach out. The AK and such are what you need for 200 in close. You cant have it all Baby.

Sometimes, the rifle you have is all that you have for the job....it would be nice to have the capability for supression fire for your FNAR (i.e. lots of hi-cap mags) just in case that target you think is at long range ends up being closer than you thought....  8)
Title: Re: Let's discuss the FNAR
Post by: Jungle Warrior on October 19, 2009, 11:37:18 PM
Okay Guys & Gals:   As a '69 RVN Vet - 75th & Americal, Ft Benning Cert Sniper, one really doesn't want to be sending "Down-Range" a lot of FMJ from either the FNAR or the M-14E2.  These weapons are for spot hunting your foe from a distance with accuracy that is called for in the configuration of 7.62 Nato -- you don't need more than 7 magazines of 20 rounds on any given mission.  If the shit hits the fan, you want your M-16, M-4, AK-47 or another shadow toy to spue out the lead into the advancing force's faces -- 7 bandeliers with 7 mags in each should do it.

The capable range of either of these two civilian semi-auto weapons in 7.62 Nato is sufficient to impress the best, but not for the purpose of "fire for effect". 

Within one's reach if you happen to have a bunker, you need a variety of toys but at least three weapons:  hi-capacity 9mm handgun, 7 round shotgun, and a semi (or full auto) rifle calibre that will fit all the environmental needs of your locus -- right Mike?

Most of us, just need a high quality bolt action rifle to really enjoy sending money thru a tube.  With the quality of today's rifles, you would be suprised at the accuracy you can acquire from an "over the counter".  Remington 700 BDL in .270 out of the box -- 1/3 inch groups at 100 yds from bags with factory fodder consitantly, and that was before I did my lap rounds.  Now, wow -- Lt Pride would be Proud.

Even at my age, supposidely being wiser (guess that's attributed to the starring at the ceiling at night, walking the perimeter, the night sweats, the dreams), I am still able to put 10 rounds under a fist at 500 yards, with my Army Hospital cane at my side.

Bottom line:  If you want blanket fire power, get a hi-capacity mag with a 5.56 semi or an AK to plug it into.  If you want accuracy with impressive results out to "965+ meters" with "devestating effects and minimum splatter", get a 7.62 Nato with a match barrel from a quality manufacture, bolt or the new semi's.

Me, hell I am just as desirous of toys as the next.  I've entered my name and already have a place reserved in my locker.  Trijicon, Bender scope or Zeiss?

Quote
Ranger really do not leave their comrads behind.  At least most of their parts are returned home; but their memory remains forever.  My Salute to the 14 who gave their all.
Title: Re: Let's discuss the FNAR
Post by: billt on October 20, 2009, 10:08:01 AM
If I understand the genesis of this gun, they took a Browning BAR and 'militarized' it.

Exactly. In doing so they added a box magazine to the Aluminum receiver, installed a plastic pistol grip stock, and ran the whole thing through a sandblaster, then jacked up the price. That is my argument against this rifle. You can go out and by a Browning Safari BAR with a blued STEEL receiver, beautiful Walnut stock, and in Magnum chamberings with the B.O.S.S. System no less, for almost one third less! All you are getting in the FNAR is bigger ammo capacity. That's it. When is the last time you needed more than 4 rounds of .300 Win. Mag. to stop anything? I'm not knocking the gun. I too almost bought it, until I examined a BAR Safari B.O.S.S. in .300 Win. Mag. sitting right next to it for $400.00 less. From a value standpoint it just didn't make financial sense. The FNAR should cost less, not more.  Bill T.
Title: Re: Let's discuss the FNAR
Post by: 1911 Junkie on October 20, 2009, 10:49:47 AM
Exactly. In doing so they added a box magazine to the Aluminum receiver, installed a plastic pistol grip stock, and ran the whole thing through a sandblaster, then jacked up the price. That is my argument against this rifle. You can go out and by a Browning Safari BAR with a blued STEEL receiver, beautiful Walnut stock, and in Magnum chamberings with the B.O.S.S. System no less, for almost one third less! All you are getting in the FNAR is bigger ammo capacity. That's it. When is the last time you needed more than 4 rounds of .300 Win. Mag. to stop anything? I'm not knocking the gun. I too almost bought it, until I examined a BAR Safari B.O.S.S. in .300 Win. Mag. sitting right next to it for $400.00 less. From a value standpoint it just didn't make financial sense. The FNAR should cost less, not more.  Bill T.

But it's TACTICOOL!  8)
Title: Re: Let's discuss the FNAR
Post by: billt on October 20, 2009, 03:45:38 PM
But it's TACTICOOL!  8)

Very true! But so are these:

(http://img196.imageshack.us/img196/2718/dsc00011b.jpg)

(http://img204.imageshack.us/img204/9703/017ban.jpg)

And a lot to go bangy-bangy with!

(http://img11.imageshack.us/img11/6947/308ammo003.jpg)

(http://img193.imageshack.us/img193/219/308ammo002.jpg)
Title: Re: Let's discuss the FNAR
Post by: tombogan03884 on October 20, 2009, 04:04:48 PM
 Bill, this is a give away. Will they give you a $400 check with a free BAR ?