Combloc
Stop Negassing me!!!!!
I'd like to add a short addendum to this. While researching the 5.56 CETME, I often come across information about the original magazines for these rifles referring to them as being designed by the Spanish specifically for the CETME but that's not correct. What they actually are is a carbon copy of an early design FNC magazine. Let me illustrate. NOTE....If you're bored easily or really don't care about magazine minutia, now might be a good time to make your escape. You have been warned.
In the pictures that follow, a CETME Magazine is in the middle, an early FNC is on the right and a later FNC/STANAG 5.56 magazine is on the left. For identification purposes, I've marked the later one with a "-" using a white china marker.
Right side:
The feed lip contour is a little different on the later FN. We'll get to that in a bit. All are steel.
Front:
That's not an illusion you're seeing. The later one is taller and is the exact same height as a standard STANAG magazine.
Left side:
Rear:
Top:
Notice that the newer magazine has a plastic follower designed to actuate the bolt holt open on a SCAR 16. Whether this magazine is an FNC that was upgraded or it was for a SCAR from the outset, I cannot say. What I can say is that both FN's are exactly as they were when they left Belgian service.
Bottom:
Closeup of the top rear:
Notice that the newer follower is designed to actuate the bolt stop on a SCAR 16. It will also work just fine in an M16/M4/AR-15 . The CETME and early FNC will work in those rifles as well but your bolt won't lock back automatically. The FNC never had a bolt hold open feature.
Also of note is that the bolt carrier clearance notch is the exact same width on all three magazines. A STANAG magazine has a more narrow notch. For that reason alone, I suspect that the magazine on the left is an FNC that was updated for use in a SCAR 16.
In this picture, I have added a Colt STANAG magazine on the extreme left for comparison:
Here's a detail shot of the top of the earlier FNC magazine:
The CETME is identical.
And here is the same area on the newer design:
The distance between the feed lips is the same on both magazines but the overall shape and geometry is different. I assume this schtuff was changed for reliability reasons. That's a guess but I think it's a pretty safe one.
A comparison between the Colt (top) and the later FNC (bottom):
In every way that matters, they are identical.
And here is the Colt compared to the early FNC (which is identical to the CETME:
There are so many differences, I'm not even going to attempt to point them all out because I'll probably get it wrong anyways. Cut me a break Francis....I'm not an engineer you know! But if you study them closely, you'll see them. You're probably smarter than me anyways!
Alrighty...I'm done. Be honest;that was mind-numbingly dull wasn't it? Now you know more than you probably ever cared to know about FNC and CETME L magazines. YaY!!!
In the pictures that follow, a CETME Magazine is in the middle, an early FNC is on the right and a later FNC/STANAG 5.56 magazine is on the left. For identification purposes, I've marked the later one with a "-" using a white china marker.
Right side:
The feed lip contour is a little different on the later FN. We'll get to that in a bit. All are steel.
Front:
That's not an illusion you're seeing. The later one is taller and is the exact same height as a standard STANAG magazine.
Left side:
Rear:
Top:
Notice that the newer magazine has a plastic follower designed to actuate the bolt holt open on a SCAR 16. Whether this magazine is an FNC that was upgraded or it was for a SCAR from the outset, I cannot say. What I can say is that both FN's are exactly as they were when they left Belgian service.
Bottom:
Closeup of the top rear:
Notice that the newer follower is designed to actuate the bolt stop on a SCAR 16. It will also work just fine in an M16/M4/AR-15 . The CETME and early FNC will work in those rifles as well but your bolt won't lock back automatically. The FNC never had a bolt hold open feature.
Also of note is that the bolt carrier clearance notch is the exact same width on all three magazines. A STANAG magazine has a more narrow notch. For that reason alone, I suspect that the magazine on the left is an FNC that was updated for use in a SCAR 16.
In this picture, I have added a Colt STANAG magazine on the extreme left for comparison:
Here's a detail shot of the top of the earlier FNC magazine:
The CETME is identical.
And here is the same area on the newer design:
The distance between the feed lips is the same on both magazines but the overall shape and geometry is different. I assume this schtuff was changed for reliability reasons. That's a guess but I think it's a pretty safe one.
A comparison between the Colt (top) and the later FNC (bottom):
In every way that matters, they are identical.
And here is the Colt compared to the early FNC (which is identical to the CETME:
There are so many differences, I'm not even going to attempt to point them all out because I'll probably get it wrong anyways. Cut me a break Francis....I'm not an engineer you know! But if you study them closely, you'll see them. You're probably smarter than me anyways!
Alrighty...I'm done. Be honest;that was mind-numbingly dull wasn't it? Now you know more than you probably ever cared to know about FNC and CETME L magazines. YaY!!!
