Talk:FAMAS

Anti recoil

I know there is a anti recoil system inside de cross(stock), in the top portion. it has a spring/lever/thingy. I and 2 guys did some dissasebling and cleaning of this along with a caporal chef in the foreign legion. So i know it's there. That's why it has such a small recoil. But there's no info on the wiki page. I'll try and find some schematics. Maybe someone else can add something too. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Choice777 (talk • contribs) 09:56, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Untitled section

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.

I've gone through and tried to clean up as much of the grammar and form as possible without disturbing the actual content of the article, but that entailed basically rewriting it. I fixed the Development and Production section, but I'm too tired to do the rest right now. Some parts seemed either redundant or irrelevant, so I deleted them, but if anybody feels that they should reappear and can find a way to do so while still keeping the article coherent, more power to you. 24.203.189.173 (talk) 04:42, 20 April 2008 (UTC)CplKyle

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

"there has never been a 7.62 NATO Bullpup rifle" -- not actually true. The British EM-2 was made in 7.62mm as well as the original .280. HughesJohn (talk) 13:36, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

Object

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

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)

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))

Variants

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

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

Asams - let's review the situation: (1) Wikipedia now has another article about something that is sometimes referred to as "FAMAS"; (2) it's possible that some readers will type "FAMAS" into the search engine looking for that other entity; (3) those other readers will arrive at this article, and should be sent elsewhere; (4) the otheruses1 template does exactly that; (5) the template is NOT an advertisement for that other article (the otheruses4 template arguably was, and I support its removal); (6) if readers coming to the article who are in fact looking for info on the assault rifle decide to check out the disambiguation page, so be it. That's one of the neat things about Wikipedia - that readers learn about other things.

If you can cite a policy or guideline that justifies removal of the otheruses1 template, please do so. Please be very specific; I believe WP:NOT was mentioned previously, and I fail to see the relevance of that - so please cite a specific sentence or phrase in support of removal. Please also remember WP:AGF; it's not possible for someone to prove good intentions, which is why we start by assuming such, and only assume bad faith when there is substantial evidence to do so. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 00:13, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

John, please read WP:HAT first. Now, FAMAS is a French language acronym that is the only term used to describe a noteable rifle and has worldwide notability. FAMAS is also a Tagalog language acronym that has reigonal notoriety and is not commonly used in the English language nor is it notable in the English language. The example of War having a disambiguation link at the top for War (band) is excellent, but a more appropriate example might be AK-47 having an inappropriate disambiguation link to some basketball player. The person that added it in the first place roams Wikipedia creating links from English WP articles to Tagalog articles and that is the appropriate way of doing things. This is inappropriate. --Asams10 (talk) 00:22, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

A Tagalog language acronym? Does "Filipino Academy of Movie Arts and Sciences" sound Tagalog to you? You were linking WP:HAT, so maybe you should read it, because placing a disambig-link obviously does not violate WP:HAT. You are also citing the War/War (band) example. You might notice that War has a disambig-hatnote as well. And the AK-47 example is a rather inappropriate example, because there is no other AK-47 article that needs to be disambiguated (let alone a basketball player).--79.212.237.219 (talk) 00:40, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Do you mean that 50,000+ Philippine-related articles are not appropriate in English Wikipedia? Take note that there are many Filipino writers here in the English Wikipedia and Filipinos speak and understand the English language, being our secondary language. So, if an average Filipino will search for FAMAS in the English Wikipedia, he or she would expect the award-giving body and not the rifle. Although the rifle should get the article title (because it's more popular), an "otheruses" tag should be used to help other readers to find what they are really looking for. The disambig link does not violate any policy or guideline especially WP:HAT. If you think that FAMAS award article does not meet notability, nominate it for deletion, although, I think it would pass for being notable. --Jojit (talk) 02:03, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm laughing here because you're making it sound more obscure. It's an acronym of an English Language translation of a Tagalog article. It's one of four award-giving bodies in the Phillipines? Bustling movie industry there, eh? The athlete I'm speaking of is Andrei Kirilenko (basketball) and the fact that he is so obscure you know nothing of him is why he's not on the AK-47 page as a hatnote... thanks to the efforts of people like me. Thanks for making my points. --Asams10 (talk) 01:23, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Does WP:HAT says that it is improper to use otheruses tag if the term is obsure? --Jojit (talk) 02:12, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Two questions, how many people actually look up Filipino Academy of Movie Arts and Sciences on English Wikipedia? And out of all of those, how many do suppose type in FAMAS, expecting to get the Academy's article? I can answer with confidence that the answer to bot is "very few". So, why is the disambiguation link necessary?--LWF (talk) 01:36, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

yes right a English Language translation of a Tagalog article. And you know that from...? Well the point is that it's neither a Tagalog Acronym nor a English translation of a Tagalog article, nor anything else like this. It is, and has been since 1952, the original name of that organization (which happens to bear an English name, even though their members propably speak Tagalog indeed). But thanks for making my points.--79.212.226.239 (talk) 19:20, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Google "FAMAS Awards". It looks like a reasonable search term. --B (talk) 01:57, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

About 80,000,000+ Filipinos? But beside that point, it is not the question of whether few people would search for the term. The thing is somebody will search for other terms and disambig link should solve the problem. We are trying to help other people here. And there is no specific rule or guideline that prevents us from including otheruses tag. --Jojit (talk) 02:03, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

It's an acronym of an English Language translation of a Tagalog article says it all. Koalorka (talk) 02:09, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes you are right. Asams10 didn't verify this claim before he was saying it out loud here. That really says it all. If not, tl:FAMAS says the rest.--79.212.226.239 (talk) 19:21, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

There's nothing wrong with a disambig tag. This is just another example of hiding information again. Sf46 (talk) 02:25, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

It is perfectly plausible that someone comes to Wikipedia looking for the film awards and end up on the rifle article, why must we make it so difficult for these users and exclude them??? IMDB has an entire section titled "FAMAS Awards" ([1]). Google search results can't always be used as evidence, but since it's been mentioned already, "FAMAS Awards" yields twice as many results (349k) as "FAMAS Rifle" (118k) and a case could very well be made that the rifle term is in fact the more obscure of the two! — Deon Steyn (talk) 06:29, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

But just searching "FAMAS" gives you almost 15,000,000 results while adding awards gives only 348,000 results BonesBrigade 17:56, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

IMDB also has an article on Howard the Duck but does that justify a disambig comment under the Duck article? --132.22.254.237 (talk) 13:42, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

To summarize again: (a) a number of experienced editors have now commented that "FAMAS" is in fact a common acronym for the movie awards; (b) the otheruses1 template at the top of the article is not the "advertisement" that was originally in place (otheruses4); rather, it's a simple pointer to a disambiguation page; (c) what the editor who posted the otheruses template does or doesn't do with regard to other articles is irrelevant to this one; in any case, what is here isn't what the editor started out with (an otheruses4 template that specifically mentioned the other article); (d) even if the otheruses template only helps a few editors, it doesn't interfere with readers of this article, so the downside of having it is minimal; this really shouldn't be a big deal, and we've probably spent enough time debating it. Much more, and this starts being a candidate for WP:LAME.

And yes, I've read WP:HAT. In fact, a section of a book that I've written is about that guideline. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 14:18, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

BonesBrigade, you clearly did not read my full post: "FAMAS Awards" yields twice as many google results as "FAMAS Rifle". Anonymous user, the cartoon character is unlikely to be confused with the animal, the FAMAS articles however share an identical acronym. Your argument is a type of informal fallacy known as false analogy: you propose a relationship between the two sets articles and falsely conclude that they must share other properties. — Deon Steyn (talk) 22:56, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

False analogy, eh? How about false precision. Why don't you support your statistical example after I tear apart your methodology and defend the Howard the Duck analogy. Yeah, that would be great. You Googled FAMAS awards and FAMAS rifle. Try this, Google FAMAS alone and count the first few pages. See how many Filipino organization articles you get vs. how many results you get. What you've done is cook the books. You get 430 Million hits under the word "awards", however, you get only 53 million with Rifle. The Google search engine is only as good as the words you plug in. Remember, the original edit? This one? That's the one I was reverting. It was added because some Wikipedia editor wanted to ride the shirt-tails of the FAMAS rifle. This was the analogy that works. Howard the Duck is just as obscure. Google it and you get results. Plus, you're arguing from the absurd. You pick apart little detials about the analogy rather than facing it head on. HTD yields 681,000 hits when you put it in quotes. Even given your absurd skewing by putting two search words without a quotation mark, you're 360,000 hits. Therefore, even if you're skewing it, Howard the Duck is more popular than the FAMAS awards... HOWARD THE DUCK. Let's sit and ponder the meaning when we talk notoriety. Yeah, I thought so. Oh, PLEASE break out the, "Dude, you were edit warring" argument. --Asams10 (talk) 23:58, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Is this still going on?

Wow, you have absolutely no comprehension of either false precision (not relevant here) or false analogy. Perhaps the page wasn't clear or you just didn't bother reading it, but "duck verus howard the duck" articles it not a proper analogy for two articles about concepts sharing the identical acronym, i.e. "FAMAS versus FAMAS", hence it is a false analogy.

As for search results... here they are and they. Using quoted terms, both search engines have 3½ to 4 times more results for "FAMAS Awards" than for "FAMAS Rifle". I have already warned against arguments based on Google, but the idea surfaced already and I think if anything it shows that "FAMAS Awards" are more popular.

Search results

		FAMAS Rifle	FAMAS Awards
Google	quoted	2,260	7,900
	unquoted	352,000	138,000
Yahoo	quoted	6,850	26,000
	unquoted	301,000	181,000

No one is riding the coat tails, this assumes that somehow the one article is more important or worthy than the other, it is a shared acronym and as such should be disambiguated as per WP:DAB. Of course now some has created an entire DAB page which is completely unnecessary and a was of time for someone that could currently only search for one other article, but that is another story. — Deon Steyn (talk) 07:08, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

You're the only one keeping this alive. The concensus was that the disambig link was fine then you messed with that one by reverting the disambig page and reverting this page... AGAIN. Your reason doesn't fly anymore. --Asams10 (talk) 13:28, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

I did not see any consensus —which in any event can't overrule guidelines. Of course now that the dab page page has been expanded (by you), the current hatnote (to dab page) is correct and I have no problem with it. — Deon Steyn (talk) 07:26, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, perhaps I should have said that it was a concensus in that nobody was reverting it anymore. My Filipino background aside, neither the FAMAS (movie thingy) nor the FAMAS (Montreal organization) even begin to touch the notability of the FAMAS rifle... but then that's my opinion. --Asams10 (talk) 11:48, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Exports

Is it odd that such a fine weapon has not seen more exports? I thought that former Francophone countries would have adopted it. Is the French government not advocating its sale, or is the world market just too flooded with AKs? Antarctica moon (talk) 07:37, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

First, you'd have to agree that a rifle that requires Steel cased (nonstandard) ammunition to function reliably, is a 'fine' weapon. Then you'd have to agree that a firearm that costs twice as much as competative models like the HK33 and three or four times as much as MAP M16's... wow, perhaps ten or twenty times as much as a AK... well is it worth it? Yes, to those few US citizens who bought them in the 80's and a few Arabs countries. Personally, I love the design and would love to have seen a non-French version that costs lest. --Nukes4Tots (talk) 13:51, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Good points. That's why adoption has been low. Antarctica moon (talk) 04:04, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

AFAK a small quantity has been exportated to Djibouti's gendarmerie and presidential guards... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.2.91.63 (talk) 18:42, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Addition to Users

I saw FAMAS in the hands of a Sri Lankan soldier (probably a commando) in a CNN-IBN video. Can someone confirm ??

It's not FAMAS. Sri Lankan soldier was holding a Chinese QBZ 97. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.231.45.101 (talk) 06:23, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Pronunciation?

How would one pronounce FAMAS? i think it's Fah-mahs but i keep hearing Fay-muss and faa-muhs. 71.162.23.46 (talk) 03:17, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Yup it's like you pronounce it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.66.196.237 (talk) 12:27, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

unsourced statements

I have noted some unsourced statements made by 162eRI in his 05:39, 6 December 2010 edit, should they be flagged for a citation, removed until substantiated? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.168.211.30 (talk)

Cameroon another FAMAS user.

There is a photo on www.militaryphotos.net (page 7 of African Militaries thread) of Cameroonian soldiers parading with FAMAS F-1s.SASH155 (talk) 02:35, 11 May 2013 (UTC)SASH155

Rifling

There's some ambiguity with the rifling. It states that because of 1:12 rifling it (F1) can only use French made SS109. But optimal rifling for SS109 is 1:7. 1:12 is optimal for M193. Does anybody know anything about this? Grizzly chipmunk (talk) 14:20, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Pop culture

For anyone interested, there is currently discussion of the relevance of Pop Culture, trivia, and content that relates to fictional uses of firearms such as this going on. One is at the Firearms Project, Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Firearms#.22Popular_culture.22, and at the Video Game Project, Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Video_games#Video_game_references_in_firearms_articles. It's likely that the result will be the deletion of sections like this across many articles. --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 06:53, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Future replacement

I removed all the unsubstantiated and un- or poorly-sourced comments on the rifle's unreliability, and all rumor, then updated the section to be provable and recent facts on target with the section title. Hope this works for everyone. Shoobe01 (talk) 19:00, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on FAMAS. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20140524022855/http://www.janes.com/article/38273/france-launches-famas-replacement-tender to http://www.janes.com/article/38273/france-launches-famas-replacement-tender

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 17:57, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on FAMAS. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110617074513/http://www.forgottenweapons.com:80/lorem-ipsum/rifles/french-mas-type-1955 to http://www.forgottenweapons.com/lorem-ipsum/rifles/french-mas-type-1955
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110617074519/http://www.forgottenweapons.com:80/lorem-ipsum/rifles/french-mas-type-62 to http://www.forgottenweapons.com/lorem-ipsum/rifles/french-mas-type-62
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070222055838/http://www.riflesnguns.com:80/node/649 to http://www.riflesnguns.com/node/649
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100822145526/http://www.hrvatski-vojnik.hr/hrvatski-vojnik/1612007/ind.asp to http://www.hrvatski-vojnik.hr/hrvatski-vojnik/1612007/ind.asp

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:25, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on FAMAS. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.forgottenweapons.com/lorem-ipsum/rifles/french-mas-type-1955
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.forgottenweapons.com/lorem-ipsum/rifles/french-mas-type-62
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.riflesnguns.com/node/649
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131104191621/http://modestclub.com/wp-content/themes/thematic/lib/vanuatu%20daily%20newspaper-74754.html to http://modestclub.com/wp-content/themes/thematic/lib/vanuatu%20daily%20newspaper-74754.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:38, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion:

• Brazilian General FAMAS FÉLIN.jpg
• FAMAS G2 Commando car door.jpg
• FAMAS Philippine National Police Special Action Force.jpg
• FAMAS bayonet.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 19:08, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

Correct way of writing the name of the rifle: FA-MAS

Taking the fact that Forgotten Weapons writes it as FA-MAS as justification to do so in turn is grossly WP:UNDUE, when it is in contradiction to the overwhelming majority of sources already used in this article. When 30 to 40-something other sources are in contradiction with one, that is usually a good indication that the singular source may not be ideal for this particular claim, especially when its author later backpedalled on using the hyphen altogether. Loafiewa (talk) 20:50, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

"FA-MAS" is the correct way of writing the name of this rifle. It's not just Forgotten Weapons that writes it this way, hyphenating it is the correct way. The link I provided is one of the official manual (pdf) of the FA-MAS. Markings that can be found on the rifle is also written as "FA-MAS". Official documents, manuals and promotional content both in English and French writes it as "FA-MAS". Guns & Glory (talk) 02:03, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

Considering that neither the FFL nor the French Army write it this way that claim seems dubious to begin with, but it doesn't matter. Wikipedia runs on WP:SCHOLARSHIP and due weight, the 'official' name matters far less than the name used by the majority of reliable, secondary sources. Loafiewa (talk) 13:13, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

Pictures

Why are there two pictures in the lead section of this article of soldiers carrying weapons other than the FA MAS in an article exclusively about the FA MAS. A picture of its alleged replacement is not necessary when a link to the corresponding article will do. 70.107.192.191 (talk) 12:46, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

Suggested citation under === MAS .223 ===

As a paid contributor with a COI to the source, adding this here instead of directly into the article. "existing number are not only extremely rare but cost in the range of $25,000 with no spare parts available on the market." LoVeloDogs (talk) 21:17, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

Another citation opportunity attesting to the value, on 2 June 2024 another was sold for $37,025.00 on GunBroker.com, item #3 in this compilation of "25 Most Expensive Guns Sold on GunBroker in June 2024":

https://www.gunbroker.com/c/article/25-most-expensive-guns-sold-on-gunbroker-in-june-2024/ LoVeloDogs (talk) 22:58, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

References