Don't tell Andy this (don't want to inflate him too much), but I always admired our English and Aussie brothern above all other allies. Taking Montegomery off the table, I was impressed with the English performance in WW2. The Germans fielded the best trained ground forces, but the RAF managed to give the tenacious Uk a reprieve. The Aussies have never failed to earn respect as well. I've even fired an Owen SMG. A now dead friend had one of two known privately owned.

Anyway, the Brown Bess, Enfield line, Sterling SMG, Browning HP, and L1A1 are all fantastic. Their gear was always bombproof (camo, field gear, small arms) up to the illfated SA80.

If they were available, I'd own factory built L1A1s instead of my Imbels. The FCH would get replaced by a Israeli FA model though.

Andy, he was a RM.

Andy, I suspect you were trained on the FCH? I've worked with US soldiers who were trained to fire the M16 NTCH (nose to charging handle), and it was a difficult habit to break for them. They still felt it was "better" in spite of all of its shortcomings. In the end, they shot better NTCH because of their prior experience and training.

I've never liked FCH. The G3 (I've owned many 7.62, three 5.56 and three 9mm variants) ALWAYS annoyed me because of that dreadful folder. The location made it difficult too.

Same thing with the HK G36.

For me - they are just slow and cumbersome. However, just like NTCH I conceded that a properly trained person is probably just as fast with a FCH.

Since it's going to be asked, NTCH is no longer acceptable because:

- the varying depth of changing body armor makes it hard to achieve.
- the variety of optics makes it less favorable to learning to shoot with a variety of CWs.
- the modern battlefield is largely urban where CW changes frequently .
- less situational awareness.
- collapsable stocks vs fixed stocks
- NV

- training weak side transitions with common non-cross dominate eye sight

...but I'm just some guy with a lot of opinions.

I have indeed been trained on the FCH.... But also got to play with a "knob"... I have been intrigued by the H&K sight drums that have been set up to work on both FALs and SLRs...

MP5 didn't have the silly H&K folding handle (that is THE worst of the breed) but these days I am more familiar with UMPs and G36s, the handle is a weak point and I have seen several broken off G36s when being manipulated "like you mean it"...

Brit field clothing is good stuff, better than many generations of Aussie DPCUs, the earlier "greens" were however The Duck's Guts" ..

Andy,
The MP5 CH never bothered me. The short receiver places it in a "reachable" location, and as you said its fixed. This is especially true with the K. Between the Choate sidefolder (short LOP) and above comment - I could work one quickly.

Totally agree with the G36 comment.

My only UMP experience is with a couple of semi auto 10rd USC. I never shot them enough to have any problems.

As a side my dead friend also had an Austen SMG which is basically a Sten with a MP38/40 folding buttstock.

Swinging this back into the 308 Battle Rifle OP Lane...

Have you tried any of the 308 AR10 variants or have you seen the Rob Arm XCR-M? I had one of the first XCR-M and if the company had a better rep I would have kept it. I think it had some GREAT design features, but it was HEAVY. I sold both of my Colt LE901-16S Mod Carbines earlier this year. Outside of being a 308 (benefit) it was just an extremely heavy AR (detractor).

Good posts to read!

This is why I never used it and one of the reasons I think anything over 1.5 power on a battle rifle is not needed.

NTCH? CW?

Nose To Charging Handle
Cheek Weld