Comments by "" (@neutronalchemist3241) on "MAS Type 62: France Does the FAL, With a Twist" video.

More than striker fired this is linear hammer fired. However, without knowing about the timeline, this would have seemed promising but, knowing it's the result of ten years of development, it's still really rough.
7
As SIG already experimented, trying to make the SIG 530 roller delayed, to make a delayed blowback 5.56X45 is really difficult. There's a too close tolerance between not enough delay and too much delay. To have reliable extracion without case separation the FAMAS F1 had to use steel cased ammos. Later they managed to tune it better, and the FAMAS G2 could fire any kind of ammo.
2
Striker requires less parts. The trigger group is simpler. On the other hand, for the same weight, it delivers less energy (it accelerates for a shorter distance) so it must be heavier and use an heavier spring.
2
For what advantage over the MAS49/56? The problem of this, or any other battle rifle in 7.62 NATO, for the French, is that it had practically no advantage over what they already had. When the Italians switched form the M1 Garand to the BM59 (that was a modification of the Garand, not a new rifle) the gained the detachable magazine, grenade launcher with gas cutoff, compensator, bipod... it was worth the price. But the MAS 49/56 already had the detachable magazine, grenade launcher with gas cutoff and compensator.
2
Without knowing about the timeline, I would have said it was promising but, knowing it was the result of 10 years of development, it was still really rough. A rather small firm like Franchi delivered the perfectly serviceable LF59 in much less time.
1
@drenek1 Both 7.62 NATO Battle rifles. Apples to apples.
1
@drenek1 The small private business was competing for the contract to equip the whole Italian Army. Apples to apples. It lost simply because the BM59 (another product of a private firm) was not beatable price-wise, not because the product wasn't ready. After 10 years of R&D this rifle was evidently not ready for production (and two of the other three designs seemed like made in a carpentry in the spare time). Being a state arsenal is not an excuse for being inefficient.
1
@drenek1 I suggest you to read my initial reply, when I pointed out that, knowing it was the result of 10 years of development, the prototype it was still really rough and nowhere near to be mass produced while, IE, a rather small firm like Franchi delivered the perfectly serviceable LF59 in much less time. All the crap about the French and the state arsenals is YOUR, not mine.
1
It's a linear hammer infact. A striker is spring loaded and direcly hit the primer.
1
Condidering that a rather small company like Franchi indipendently developed a perfectly serviceable battle rifle like the LF59 three years before... (It wasn't adopted by the Italian Army because the BM59 couldn't be beaten, for economic reasons).
1