Talk:FAMAS

Military history: Technology / Weaponry / European / French Start‑class

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles

Start

This article has been rated as Start-class on the project's quality scale.

This article has not yet been checked against the criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: not checked Coverage and accuracy: not checked Structure: not checked Grammar and style: not checked Supporting materials: not checked	To fill out this checklist, please add the following code to the template call: \| b1<!--Referencing and citation--> = <yes/no> \| b2<!--Coverage and accuracy --> = <yes/no> \| b3<!--Structure --> = <yes/no> \| b4<!--Grammar and style --> = <yes/no> \| b5<!--Supporting materials --> = <yes/no> assessing the article against each criterion.

Associated task forces:
/
	Military science, technology, and theory task force
	Weaponry task force
	European military history task force
	French military history task force

Firearms Start‑class

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Firearms, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of firearms on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.FirearmsWikipedia:WikiProject FirearmsTemplate:WikiProject FirearmsFirearms articles
Start	This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

France Unassessed

	France portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject France, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of France on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.FranceWikipedia:WikiProject FranceTemplate:WikiProject FranceFrance articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Did someone copy the entire article from world.guns.ru? The grammatical errors and spelling seem to be the same as those soon on that site.

Yes, the G2 version uses STANAG 5.56 magazines. It also has weaver and picattiny R.A.S..

Isn't the G2 version that works with STANAG magazines? David.Monniaux 11:42, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

What is meant by "Famas G2 is only used by French marine.": marine = "Marine Nationale" (thus French Navy) or the marine troops (marine infantry etc.)? David.Monniaux 11:16, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

This quotation from http://world.guns.ru/assault/as21-e.htm might answer both questions:

" G1 was an intermediate design, and was consequently replaced by the latest production model, the FAMAS G2, which appeared circa 1994. This rifle has the G1-style enlarged trigger guard but can accept only STANAG type (M16-compatible) magazines. It was adopted and purchased by the French Navy in the 1995, with the French Army soon following the suit, and also offered for export."

Rama 07:18, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The French Army does not issue the FA-MAS G2, and sticks with the F1 (BTW, marine troops are part of the ground forces like any other "arm"). The French Air Force may have the G2 too. breversa 12:15, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have seen criticism of the FAMAS by those who say it was rejected by the French Foreign Legion, which prefers the US M-16. Is this true and if so why? LeoO3 04:36, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

That's untrue. The French Foreign Legion, like any other troops, use the standard FAMAS. Special forces (commandos de marine, etc.) use other weapons, like the FASS 90 or short machine-guns, yet retain the FAMAS for parade. I have never seen the M-16 refered to as a weapon chosen over any of these, though. Rama 22:17, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

French special forces (1RPIMa, CRAPS, commandos marine, etc.) sometimes use the M4 carbine because of its modularity, but not the M16. However, the M16 is one of the few foreign weapons allowed to be fired in the army firing ranges (along with the Uzi and H&K MP5). breversa 12:15, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The M16 is modular. I don't see why it isn't. All you have to do is replace the handguard with a rail system. As far as I know all M16 is modular.

What I meant is that french special forces don't USE the M16 - not that the M16 is not modular. breversa 15:00, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But M4 is shorter than M16, so a better choice for special force operative; M4 is sometime better than Famas, mainly because it's a non-bullpup design and Spec Ops who are used to fire with both shoulders (and who are entitled to do it) don't like to receive hot brass in the face

bullpup and ambidextrous

"The FAMAS assault rifle is of bullpup configuration and allows for ambidextrous usage." The bullpup page claims that bullpup designs can't, or usually can't be used ambidextrously because of the side casing ejection. Can someone clarify why this one can? Archtemplar 23:02, 20 December 2005 (UTC)Archtemplar[reply]

The two are fairly unrelated, actually. Bullpup means that the firing of a cartridge occurres behind the trigger. The is no reason for this to make ambidextrous usage impossible. In the case of the FAMAS, the whole system is symetric; to reverse the direction of empty case ejection, your pull the removable head from the bolt until you see the ejector and the plug, you reverse them and replace the bolt in its place. The cases will now exit the stock of your FAMAS on the left rather than on the right. The whole operation is a matter of a minute. Rama 23:57, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

ok, you seem to know what you're talking about, but it's still unclear on the page. i think some sort of amendment to one of the pages should be made to clarify why this one is different from "most" bullpup designs. Archtemplar 07:00, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I have read the page bullpup, and I am under the impression that there is an ambiguous wording. As I understand it, the page is mainly repeating an argument of bullpup design detractors, which is that for a given ejecting direction (say, right, for instance), you can fire a conventional riffle (like the Sig 550) from you right hand comfortably, or from your left hand a bit less comfortably (the spent case will fly in front fo you), while with a bullpup, firing from the left hand flies the case into you face (these little things are horribly hot when they come out the ejector). Of course we can discuss at length the validity of the argument (why would you fire your rifle from your bad side ? If it is a question of cover, you are very likely not firing your rifle from the shoulder anyway... bah).

Now, I seem to recall reading that the Enfield SA80 cannot be set to eject spent cases to the left, and it is possible that this contributed to the general confusion. In any case, there are bullpup designs which eject the case on the front or the bottom of the weapon, so I think that the whole question is much overrated. Rama 08:43, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The FA-MAS is fully ambidextrous (as stated above, the ejection side can be changed in a matter of seconds by field-stripping the rifle and interchanging two parts), as is the Steyr AUG, but NOT the SA-80, nor the IMI Tavor or STK SAR-21. Bullpup and ambidextrous have nothing to do with each other. breversa 12:15, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-Only

Wasn't there/isn't there a semi-auto-only variant? There was also a .222 Remington model to, if I recall.

Yes there is to both questions.--81.197.218.62 15:32, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, perhaps that should be added to the variants section. I might be able to dig up the info from an older Jane's Guide.

Those seem to be very rare thou. Mentioned here http://www.waffenhq.de/infanterie/famas.html "ein halbautomatisches Modell im Kaliber .222 Remington für den zivilen Markt." and Ive seen on in .223 in some swiss gunshop. Probably .222 was for civilian sale in France, where military calibers are forbidden for the civilians and .223 for the export.--81.197.218.62 18:01, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also mentioned here http://remtek.com/arms/famas/index.htm "a semiautomatic-only version of this interesting assault rifle has been imported in limited quantity by Century International Arms" Possibly marketed in US as MAS 223.--81.197.218.62 18:17, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

AFAIK, there were a handful imported into the US in the 80s. The .222 bore was more than likely for French consumption and other nations that forbid "military calibers" (e.g. Italy, etc.).

9mm Variant

Does an 9mm variant exist? The photo in the article has a strange looking magazine well.

May be a .22lr variant...

The image shows an unloaded FAMAS of the French Army, apparently with a plastic fake magazine. Rama 07:20, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Top picture FA-MAS is shown with a one-round plastic magazine used for firing F1 rifle grenades (called "chargeur PCL" = "chargeur pour cartouche de lancement" = "(grenade-)firing round magazine") or ceremonies/parades.breversa 12:27, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No 9mm version exists.

However, the G2 version was thought to be declined in several versions (all in 5.56mm) : standard, compact commando version, ultracompact SMG version, and DMR/sniper version. To the best of my knowledge, none of them (except standard, of course) ever saw the light but as prototypes.

The .22LR version, should it really exist, is not made by GIAT. breversa 12:15, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Parenthetically, there was a FAMAS .22LR look-alike. If memory serves, it was built in the Philippines. It was not GIAT built, did not use any of the FAMAS parts and was blow-back operated. It was just a cheap look-alike and nothing more. There was also a M-16, AK-47, and PPSh-41 look-alikes too. A gunsmith friend of mine stated that they were of very low quality.

7.62 FAMAS?

Has there/Will there ever be a FAMAS using the 7.62 NATO calibre round?, Just asking becouse there has never been a 7.62 NATO Bullpup rifle. I was thinking it would make a great sniper weapon. User: EX STAB 28 March 2007.

I know there is the AWC Bullpup but it is just a bullpup stock conversion for an M14.

AFAIK, there's no plan to make a 7.62mm version of the FAMAS. Current improvement plans are the FÉLIN system. However, Kel-Tec has recently (Q1 2007) introduced their 7.62x51mm RFB (Rifle, Forward-ejection, Bullpup) semi-auto rifle. breversa 15:00, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Object

What is the thing in front of the Carging handle on the FAMAS. --DanMP5 03:47, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This device's name is "alidade de tir courbe" (≈ "indirect fire sight"). It is used to aim the rifle when using rifle grenades in indirect fire (rifle grenade direct fire uses a U-notch sighting system situated within the carrying handle). The firing position is prone, with the rifle held skywards like a mortar. Provided distance is accurately measured (taking elevation into account), accuracy is about 5m radius, and the range goes from 60 to 340m. breversa 15:00, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rifle in parantha-c's

ignoring my obvious spelling error in the title, shoudl rifle really be capitalized? almost any other articals dont have it like this artical. just wondering what you guys think(ForeverDEAD 23:35, 17 August 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Variants

Can we have a list of variants please? Ryan4314 (talk) 10:49, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FAMAS as the Filipino Academy of Movie Arts and Sciences Award

Please do not remove the otheruses tag in this article. The award giving body is also known as FAMAS in the Philippines. --Jojit (talk) 05:18, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You'll have to make quite the case that somebody typing FAMAS in the English version of Wikipedia is really looking for an obscure Filipino organization. --Asams10 (talk) 22:33, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It will be difficult if not impossible. Most English speakers will know "FAMAS" as a assault rifle used by the French, not a Filipino organization. BonesBrigade 22:38, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(Chuckles) As Asams eloquently put it, you'd have to make one hell of a case. Koalorka (talk) 22:47, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

as long as there exists another article with the same name, we need to link it from here. of course it's way less popular but that doesn't alter the fact, that it exists. And as long as it exists, people may want to find it. and in order to enable them to find it we need to link it from here.--79.212.242.77 (talk) 23:11, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop whispering. No, as long as another article exists with the same name, it must meet a minimum standard of notability for a disambig statement, otherwise it's merely advertising for the other article and comparable to spam or graffiti. I'm sure that a disambig statement would be appropriate on the Filipino language version of Wikipedia, however it's highly obscure here. --Asams10 (talk) 23:14, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

if you think the other article isn't notable (espacially for the english WP) then put it on the afd page. but as long as it exists, the disambig template is justified. WP:DAB does not say "don't put a otheruses-template on the top of the article, if someone is opinionated about the topic". here is something you can copy and paste to the award article: {{AFD}}. Either do that or just leave the otheruses-template in its place.--79.212.242.77 (talk) 23:38, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]