C1A1 Sniper

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 never used the sniper variant, but I shot marksman with the C1A1. I loved that rifle and at one point I owned one of the old OPP rifles that made it's way onto the civilian market. It went from restricted to prohib (for no valid reason) and I wish I'd never sold mine.
 
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.
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.
 
i was ok with the C1, its the C2 that weighted a ton, lol.
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. - dan
 
I used the FN C1 A1 in 70 s and 80s and I always thought it was very accurate for a battle rifle.
Specially with DA ammo , The first lots of later IVI were terribly inaccurate.
Was on the AB and RCR rifle teams with it .we did well even out to 600 yds.
shot a few DCRA and ORA competitions with it. But correct not designed as sniper rifle.
some of mine were 3L, 4 L, 6L and finally an 8 L serial number .
The 8 L was brand new never issued saved for Rifle team.
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 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.
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.
 
Curtton
Thanks for info that's a surprise as I always thought the Bren
very accurate and C2 not very accurate.
Perhaps it was the shooters were better skilled (C2 Team) not the weapon.
I got to fire a Bren back in 1972 as Army cadet ,what a blast.
 
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 first C1s had barrels which were undersize after hardchroming - apparently they miscalculated the after chrome bore diameter.

I believe the C1 was the first standard service rifle to have hard chromed barrels.

My buddy claimed that guys looked for early barrels, and when the Auzzie L1A1s started coming in guys robbed the barrels because they believed the auzzie barrels had undersize bores and shot better.
 
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
"unless we see the "Simplified Classification System" adopted and implemented"

Have there been any talks about just what this "simplified classification" will look like? Or is it all just promises without a plan right now? As I haven't been able to find much on it from the Tories past the normal vague political speak everyone does.

Like don't get me wrong, I'd love to get FALs, Saigas, and MP5s back, but how do we know this will affect the 1988 - 1995 OIC and not just be exclusive to the 2020 OIC and firearms related to it?

(also man... that C1 is just gorgeous! They really picked the best looking woods for the furniture on these! Though that thing probably feels like a boat anchor to hold)
 
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.
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.

FWIW, I was issued three versions of C7 for three different deployments. And yes, the A2 was front heavy but better adapted to shooting with body armour.
 
Back
Top Bottom