When the C1A1 rifles were new they were phenomenally accurate compared to the No.4s. Especially with the new DA ammo. So much that the Queen's Medal targets and matches had to be reconsidered. The idea that 300 off-the-rack rifles were chosen is not implausible.I'm going to take some issue with his statements around the 15 min mark. Going back to the 19teens, our sniper rifles were always specialized. Whether is was ball burnished barrels or special selection of No.4 Enfields that were remarkable in their particular accuracy, the guns were always different than mere service rifles. I doubt the Army simply slapped scopes on 300 FAL's and called them gtg.
Really neat glass though. I like the ocular range adjustments.
i was ok with the C1, its the C2 that weighted a ton, lol.Back in 1972 I weighed 120 pounds at 5' 7". That FNC1 was damned heavy!
Agree. Think I was 5'8" or so back in 1970 when we were qualifying with the C1. Worked fine for me, though a small stature friend of mine got pushed back (prone shooting) every time he fired it. He was game though, kept pushing back up to his position, and did reasonably well. That C2 though was quite a bit more of a load. - dani was ok with the C1, its the C2 that weighted a ton, lol.
one year in the 70s , i was with a reservist team and we competed with DCRA with bren and we beat them with our C2. it only happened once, lol.The C2 I hated rattled sight loose during firing, or rear sight broke off often.
and terrible wide beaten zone.
C2 not very accurate even for a LMG.
No one liked the mag vest on the chest.
The first C1s had barrels which were undersize after hardchroming - apparently they miscalculated the after chrome bore diameter.When the C1A1 rifles were new they were phenomenally accurate compared to the No.4s. Especially with the new DA ammo. So much that the Queen's Medal targets and matches had to be reconsidered. The idea that 300 off-the-rack rifles were chosen is not implausible.
My father told how his unit was issued C1s and the guys shot them with great results. Then there was a recall, whether to make them A1s or simply to catch a production mistake, I don't remember the story. However, the earliest C1A1 rifles had true bores from CAL which were internally chromed, which made them even better. The later rifles had a half a thou more tolerance, and were not as good as the early rifles. When he was on his run winning Queen's Medals, my father had an agreement with the QM to reserve the rifles he selected only to be issued to the shooting team.
The FNC1A1 and C2 were both heavy Korea era rifles. The C7, C8, etc series is much nicer to carry.I never thought of the C1A1 as heavy.
"unless we see the "Simplified Classification System" adopted and implemented"There are a few live examples still kicking around in Kanada. Not for much longer though, unless we see the "Simplified Classification System" adopted and implemented such that these harmless beauties are freed from safes once again to ring steel on the ranges....
View attachment 839099
I wouldn't say Korean War, but Cold War. Canada didn't start making C1s until the late 1950s, and carried postwar production LB No.4 rifles in the 1950 to 1953 scrap. I did Basic in 1987 and we had C1s.The FNC1A1 and C2 were both heavy Korea era rifles. The C7, C8, etc series is much nicer to carry.
Perhaps, Canada will go with the new US Army 6.8 SIG rifle and LMG in the future too.
Nah. Only Automatics should be prohib according to Pierre. Only...I think the simplified classification system seems to be to make everything prohibited.....