I like the modernization. I'm still unsure about the M16/M4 sliding buttstock but that FN does look good. I wonder if it's a stanard 50,60 or a 50,63? In any case, it's a well thought out upate
I'm puzzled about the sliding buttstock's effectiveness. For example the 7,62 variants of the AR16 /M16 family- the SR 25 and the latest AR rifle don't have a sliding buttstock. The models I've seen all have the classical butt. So I'm just asking a naive question.
No I wasn't aware that the sliding buttstock locked in place. I though it would 'stick'/stay in place with (unseen) little bumps in the slide that's attached to the tube and the pin near the buttplate would act as a moveable 'brake'. How does the sliding butt lock?
Not trying to insult your intelligence here, but come on, if you've never actually seen the damn thing in person and have no idea how it works, just say so.
When the rifle is firing the stock stays fixed. It doesn't go back and forth like a piston, if that's what you were thinking. So no, there isn't any difference in the operation of the buttstock regardless of which weapon it is attached to. Semi-Automatic rifles operate by means of a buffer spring that stores energy from the last round to cycle the action and load/chamber/fire the next round. On the M16 FOW it is inside the stock. On the FN FAL and most other piston operated rifles, this buffer spring is located in the receiver on the piston above the bolt carrier, so there is nothing in the buttstock, and that is the reason why FNs and Kalashnikovs sometimes have folding stocks while M-16 FOWs cannot. In the case of your particular type of rifle, the buttstock would obviously be "empty" and not have a buffer spring.
Some of my specifics might be a bit off as my personal experience with the C1/C2 is limited (well, non-existant, really, I can take it apart but that's about it.). Grumpy old men feel free to correct me.