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.