With the direction the Blackface govt is going, my primary choice for firearms is non-restricted. I have enough restricted and prohibited. Not buying anything the govt knows about.
FAMAE 540 FAQ: Why its cool, and you should own one
- Thread starter b-wingpilot
- Start date
With the direction the Blackface govt is going, my primary choice for firearms is non-restricted. I have enough restricted and prohibited. Not buying anything the govt knows about.
A NR, private sale, where the seller forgets to verify your PAL, is the best bet at this point. If you don't already have one or more squirrelled away, I would consider (in priority):
- HK G36,
- B+T APC223,
- OG Famae SG540,
- Bushmaster ACR, or
- Tavor X95.
It is worth bearing in mind that the G36 and SG540 both use different proprietary magazines unless you invest in the applicable adapter. The APC223 and ACR are both NATO STANAG magazine-fed.
The savvy black gun owner sold off all of their NR "Black Rifles" while the selling was good back before the new PAL Validation requirement came into effect. No names, no trail.
Last edited:
Good choices, but I'd rearrange the order of desirability...
- HK G36,
- Bren2 (there are private-sale NR conversions available out there for the right price, you just have to find them)
- ATRS receiver set with quality AR parts,
- Bushmaster ACR
- Tavor X95
- Famae 540 wayyy behind the others
I have no first-hand experience with the APC223, so I can't really comment or recommend it.
Each to their own, but I rate the original Famae SG540 much higher than you do. Mine is lightweight, accurate (2 MOA with bulk 5.56mm ammo), reliable, and reasonably ergonomic if you are a Right-handed shooter. The Trigger is actually quite decent if you tune it correctly using the adjustment nut hidden by the Pistol Grip. I used to be ambivalent about the SG540 based on my negative interactions with the SG542. However, the more I shoot the 540 the more I grow to really like it for what it is - a much lighter-weight, stripped-down precursor to the SIG 550...
The B+T APC223 is a superbly crafted firearm. In its NR form it is reliable, accurate, durable, and ambi-ergonomic. The only down-side is the rifle's overall weight and a front-heavy balance due to the 18.5"+ Barrel. As a bench rifle it is hard to beat, and it certainly earns its second place finish behind the G36.
Plenty of Bushmaster ACRs encounter loosening Barrel Ratcheting systems, my own included. You can shim the Barrel Extension to re-center the Ratchet Handle, but have to actually remove metal in order to restore the sharp "teeth" required for the Ratchet System to hold tight. You are far better off investing in the Templar Precision Fixed-Barrel Trunnion system if you plan on shooting an ACR on a regular basis.
As for the Bren2, those converted to NR still have too hot of a paper trail for my liking. Similarly, the ATRS Receiver set is firmly in the FRT "gray zone". As a result I wouldn't touch one with a 10' pole, let alone invest in the high-end AR parts required to build a set out. Clearly YMMV, but I'd be very wary of anything that has changed classification lately or has been "prohib" via the FRT.
The B+T APC223 is a superbly crafted firearm. In its NR form it is reliable, accurate, durable, and ambi-ergonomic. The only down-side is the rifle's overall weight and a front-heavy balance due to the 18.5"+ Barrel. As a bench rifle it is hard to beat, and it certainly earns its second place finish behind the G36.
Plenty of Bushmaster ACRs encounter loosening Barrel Ratcheting systems, my own included. You can shim the Barrel Extension to re-center the Ratchet Handle, but have to actually remove metal in order to restore the sharp "teeth" required for the Ratchet System to hold tight. You are far better off investing in the Templar Precision Fixed-Barrel Trunnion system if you plan on shooting an ACR on a regular basis.
As for the Bren2, those converted to NR still have too hot of a paper trail for my liking. Similarly, the ATRS Receiver set is firmly in the FRT "gray zone". As a result I wouldn't touch one with a 10' pole, let alone invest in the high-end AR parts required to build a set out. Clearly YMMV, but I'd be very wary of anything that has changed classification lately or has been "prohib" via the FRT.
Last edited:
LOL - Let the gouging begin!!!
https://www.canadiangunnutz.com/forum/showthread.php/2335300-BNIB-Famae-540-1M
https://www.canadiangunnutz.com/forum/showthread.php/2335300-BNIB-Famae-540-1M
Not gouging, just leaving some haggle room.
keep in mind these mags are pricey buggersAs a lefty, the G36 stock knuckle hits me right in the front teeth. Can't handle that at all. Also the proprietary mags is a big issue.
Friend of mine has a SG542, which I have access to if needed. I socked away a few hundred rounds just in case. Ammo that will be useful in my L1A1, if the fcukers don't try to take it away first.
I have an X95 and a few others.
IMO it is worthwhile having something chambered in 762x39. It is a very common caliber and there will be loads of that ammo around when things get desperate.
As a lefty, the G36 stock knuckle hits me right in the front teeth. Can't handle that at all. Also the proprietary mags is a big issue.
Friend of mine has a SG542, which I have access to if needed. I socked away a few hundred rounds just in case. Ammo that will be useful in my L1A1, if the fcukers don't try to take it away first.
I have an X95 and a few others.
IMO it is worthwhile having something chambered in 762x39. It is a very common caliber and there will be loads of that ammo around when things get desperate.
Idiots in charge can't even come up with a realistic plan to confiscate 2020 OIC guns.. That's why I'm not overly concerned with NR paper trail, following it to confiscate requires at least half a brain.
As a lefty, the G36 stock knuckle hits me right in the front teeth. Can't handle that at all. Also the proprietary mags is a big issue.
Friend of mine has a SG542, which I have access to if needed. I socked away a few hundred rounds just in case. Ammo that will be useful in my L1A1, if the fcukers don't try to take it away first.
I have an X95 and a few others.
IMO it is worthwhile having something chambered in 762x39. It is a very common caliber and there will be loads of that ammo around when things get desperate.
Well, I can see the teeth thing being a show-stopper with the G36, but the proprietary mags are not an issue if you happen to have a STANAG Mag-Well Adapter. I have an NEA version that I got at a gun show for $30. Unlike most NEA/BCL products, it fits and functions 100%!
I have found the SG 542 to be disapppointing, twice. It has much to recommend it, but I simply couldn't get around the 4 MOA best accuracy that I could wring out of the platform. When a steal of a deal came around on a second 542 a few years after the first, I jumped on it thinking that the piss-poor accuracy with the first rifle must have been a one-off. Wrong! The second SG542 that I had shot just as poorly as the first. 4 MOA on a good day. No thanks. I will take a decently fitted FAL over the SG 542 any day, but would take the original Artillerie-Inrichtingen AR10 over any of the popular "Cold War" Battle Rifles.
I agree regarding a 7.62x39mm bullet-launcher. IMHO, the Czech VZ-58 remains the best of the bunch, including the venerable AKM.
The 542 is not mine. We haven't shot it for group as a month ago it was basically unfired. I'll put it on paper in the spring. For close range 100-150yd hitting power, not a lot beats a semi-auto 308, even if isn't overly accurate. Mostly I am interested in it for bear defence in the woods.
After having a C1 beat into me and humping that heavy pig around during military service, I really didn't like the FAL for a very long time. Then I got my L1A1, which was just a cheap rifle to keep me in the 12-5 class and over the years it has grown on me. With its plastic furniture it feels lighter and slimmer than the C1. It has a decent trigger and shoots well enough. As the right arm of the free world, the FAL can't be discounted.
I have never liked the VZ's. The wood on them is just awful and they feel skinny and underbuilt to me. I think I'd choose an SKS before a VZ and I have a real dislike for the SKS. IMO the best 762x39 semi-auto available to us at this time is the T81. But, that's just like, my opinion.
The FAL has much to recommend it, however the iron sights mounted on separate components of the rifle can create accuracy issues. I carried the C1 for 6 years as a Res F infantryman and never had any complaints aside from the ever-present need for oil to keep rust at bay on the wet West Coast. Those rifles could have been given a shot of lacquer over the parkerizing, resulting in a finish that would have worn much more slowly and been far more rust-resistant. We could have really benefitted from a fleet-wide purchase of the C1 "Sniper Scope" as well, giving every rifleman a combat optic decades before the Canadian Armed Forces actually pioneered such widespread optic use. I picked up a Brit L1A1 with the Black Pebble Furniture this summer at auction to go with my C1A1 and an orphaned "Sight Unit Infantry Trilux" combat optic that I happen to have. Then, to complete my Inch-Pattern Commonwealth FAL collection I just picked up an Australian L1A1 with a nice set of their distinctive Coachwood furniture. Unlike Canada and the UK, to my knowledge Australia never fielded an optic with the L1A1 rifle, opting instead to keep the L42A1 Enfield Sniper Rifle in service alongside the L1A1.
Last edited:
It compares incredibly well to anything 5.56 from the seventies to eighties before the weaver rail craze started. Light, super reliabe and given the nature of the 5.56 round accurate for any iron sight.
The same construction that makes the 540 so light, allows for movement because of the recoil in the nature of a 7.62x51. I suspect that the disappointment in the accuracy has as much if not more to do with the nature of the accuracy of the 7.62x51 round than with the twisting inherent in recoil. I don't think I have ever found that round to be better than 2.5-3 moa at best in bulk mode. For battle rifle mode that is still plenty. Sadly most of us are spoiled by the hyper accurate nature of the 5.56 mouse rounds.
I always get a laugh out of people wanting to use STANAG magazines in a 540.
If anything the magazine was the ARs' weakest point. The 540 mag is actually pretty awesome, still waiting for my first problem to occur with one,,,. That goes for all the mags, the pricey Swiss ones, the hard to find Chilean ones or all the various Canada Ammo smokey, yeller, clear, studded and flat ones. Roll on the mag changes,,,.
I don't know if the Manurhin steel mags fit the current Chilean ones. Too darn pricey to buy to find out.
Unless you own a 540 and can absolutely not find the proper mags, I can't stress enough,,,don't change it to the AR adapter.
Funny your thoughts on optics for a battle rifle from '60s-80s.
The US route was to pour the developmental funding equivalent of space shuttle level of funding into turning an M14 into something precise and only got something that people were afraid to stare at hard because it would affect it's accuracy negatively.
The UK adopted a receiver body cover for STANAG mounts that most often was a SUIT or Trilux issued one or two to a platoon then a section perhaps at best. For anyone remembering all the bins of SKS body/receiver covers with scope mounts at US gun shows, laugh all you want, this was the FAL solution too.
A lot of the Belgians and Dutch did a tiny adoption of the FAL STANAG body cover and the German ZF1 4x24 scopes.
Canada actually was in at the start with the UK for optics development, but then ran away at high speed. You might have been lucky enough to have knwon an old infantryman who had both an autographed Bible and knew someone or saw one of those early scopes used during the FN trials of the mid to late fifties. There was occasional word of a body/dust cover and scope, but they were more rare than Sasquatch sightings.
The Australians pretty much said forget it, irons or nothing. Same for the South Africans.
The Kiwis were small enough that nothing was ever official but locals probably jut bought one offs from everywhere.
The only western adoptions that were any good were either the German, Swiss and French.
The Germans adopted an approach to having one rifle per section with a low power scope. So they created this monstrosity of engineering that looked like a deformed transformer that would clamp n to their G3 by a thumb clamp. Best thing about it was the scope, the ZF1 4 power by 24mm built by either Schmidt and Bender, Zeiss or Karl Kapps. Nice big centered fence picket like the Elcan, not upside down like the SUIT. It also has a reticle bar and minor posts left and right for aim off and measuring. It probably had as much if not more influence on our Elcans than the Brit optics.
The Swiss eventually decided on a slide on clamp for their new STGw90s, but this is a generation too late for the story, over engineered, overpriced and still manages to employ a thumb clamp push.
The French, at Manurhin no less, made a sight block that compresses against the rear sight, slides forward against the square fitting on the front of the receiver top and uses a push button to unlock. HOORAY for private enterprise since it fits the Manurhin made 540s and een the PE90s too!
They even made a big brother for the 542. The top is set for the 1970s STANAG sight mount, the older two castle turret ones. Happily, the Bundeswehr dumped most of their ZF1 scope as surplus over the last ten years and I managed to score enough for all my smurfgewhrs.
I am a fair shooter, not your competition type known to pick the fly excrement out of a pepper shaker type. No, not that guy. I take more pride in the height of my pile of brass.
My findings with optics are that with the 5.56 round, it compliments the accurate nature of the round. What was a figure 11 battle target at 400m, is now a case of where precisely, you want your shot placement at 400m. A Volkswagon Beetle sized target at 600m, turns into a figure 11 sized battle target challenge at 600m.
Optics with 7.62,,,oh boy,,,different world. You will hit targets to 400m ok. Have no expectation that your shot accuracy matches where they necessarily hit. The combinations or recoil, rifle and less accurate nature of the round open everything up. The optics will now help your observation and follow up. Past 400m, a hillock or a bush are still a hillock or a bush, only you might see better the results of the strike.
I do know guys who used iron sight FNs out to 400m plus. A lot of the 7.62 talk always reminds me of all those rifles circa the first world war and having their range scales going out to 2,000 yards and meters. Once you get to it, it is the world of either accurizing or of inherent accuracy built into the rifle like the AR10,,,and constant training.
Surprisingly the Russians turned to the old world solution of fixing the optic to the side of the receiver, but did it in such a way as to make universal mounts out of them. It has worked so well that only now are they slowly changing over to a rail system
Last edited:
Ah Ha! Finally, somebody else shares my theory that the SG 542 receiver's gauge of sheet steel is too thin for the recoil forces of the 7.62x51mm NATO cartridge, resulting in inconsistent Receiver twist and flex during the firing sequence. This in turn, opens up the accuracy to more or less 4 MOA with quality surplus such as South African Battlepack. The same gauge of sheet steel is fine in the SG-540 due to the lighter recoil forces of the 5.56mm NATO round. 2 MOA is not uncommon with bulk 55 gr ammo. It comes as little surprise that the design engineers went with a substantially heavier gauge of sheet steel for the subsequent SIG 550 rifle, based on their mediocre results with the SG 54x family. The SIG 550 is considerably heavier than the SG 540, but its accuracy is also improved (1 MOA with 69 gr Federal Gold Medal Match), due to the elimination/reduction of Receiver twist and flex.
Last edited:
Many thanks for your numerous and varied insights into Cold War combat optics development and use during the 1960s, 70s and 80s. The various national optics mounting solutions for their respective "Battle" Rifles was interesting indeed! As you noted, the Americans went down a dead-end path with their attempts to accurize the M14, whereas the Brits were probably the first to adopt a successful infantry fleet-wide solution with the SLR's "Sight Unit Infantry Trilux" or "SUIT" Optic in the 1960s. Parallel Canadian efforts produced the excellent Ernst Leitz Canada-manufactured 4x "C1 Sniper Scope", however as you noted they were few and far between even for Reg F Snipers in the 1960s, 70s and 80s. IIRC, only 320+ C1 Sniper Scopes were procured in their entirety. They were mostly held as War Stocks for issue to qualified Snipers, as hand-select C1A1 rifles with the addition of a Sniper Scope = Canada's only "dedicated" sniper rifle during the FN C1A1 Cold War era.
The Receiver Body Cover mounting system is less than ideal due to fairly loose tolerances and the thin gauge of steel used in the Body Cover. One can eliminate some of the lateral and vertical slop by peening the mounting rail of the Body Cover so that it is snug within its Upper Receiver track. The Canadian C1 Sniper Scope, British SUIT sight and German ZF-4 mounts for the FN G1 can all benefit greatly from this simple trick. The G3 mount for the ZF-4 was a whole different level of complexity, but it worked well as a clamping system for the G3's unique Receiver geometry.
The German ZF-1 4x Optic is a solid piece of engineering and works well with its bold but simple reticle. The Canadian C1 Sniper Scope features a similar reticle, albeit a bit thinner (more precise) with an upright aiming post and a lateral, segmented mil-hash Windage scale. The Brit SUIT Sight is the outlier of the bunch, with its wide, top-down Aiming Post that actually makes great sense when you think about engaging targets behind/peeking over cover.
I'm no competition shooter either, but I like to test the practical accuracy of the military-pedigree rifles that our lizard overlords still allow me to fire for the time being. I agree with your general observations regarding the relative accuracy of the 5.56mm and 7.62x51mm cartridges as fired off-hand or from a field-firing position with typical military shoulder weapons, however I beg to differ on the effective range of the 7.62mm NATO round. Fired from a DMR-type rifle such as the B+T APC 308 using a higher magnification optic and 175 gr match ammo, predicted first-round hits at 500m on a 6" plate are not particularly difficult and shots out to the Transonic range of the cartridge (eg. ~900m) are well within the realm of possibility. That said, such shots do typically require either very good eyes, or a higher magnification optic than a fixed 4x.
When I was serving in the early 1980s with the FN C1A1 as our service rifle, we typically fired with Iron Sights out to 400m as part of the infantry Annual Personal Weapon Test. I enjoyed the use of much younger eyes back then! The fire and manoeuvre part of the test known as the "Run Down" Started with engagements at 400m, then you ran to 300m to fire prone at fig 11 Targets on a timed 60-second exposure. Then you had to run to 200m and fire "snap shots" at 5-second, random exposures of a figure 11 or 12 from the Standing, Kneeling, Sitting and Prone positions. The you ran to 100m on a 60-second exposure to fire standing at Fig 11 Targets upon arrival. Then various engagements from 100m in different firing positions, then we advanced at a walk to 75m, fired 2 rounds standing per 5-second exposure of a Fig 11 Target (several exposures), then advance to 50 m and fire 2 rounds standing at each 5-second exposure. You had to change mags as you ran or in the middle of a timed exposure. The run-down was the test of one's "practical accuracy" with the service rifle, unfortunately only the Infantry qualified to this level so that we could proceed to section and platoon-level field-firing on austere manoeuvre ranges.
Those 1200 and 2000 yd sight settings on the WW1 and 2 bolt-action service rifles weren't there for wishful thinking, they were intended for massed "volley fire". The idea was to assemble an infantry company or battalion and based on map calculations from observation balloons or best guesswork, set the appropriate range on their sights, aim along a specific azimuth (direction) and let loose with 500 rounds of simultaneous rifle shot. If all went according to plan, a hail of .303 rounds would suddenly and silently rain down and strike Axis troops resting or assembling in supposedly secure Rear Areas. It was a terrifying tactic when it worked, as high-angle rifle and MG fire from Vickers guns was able to plummet down right to the depths of the German trenches. There was nowhere to hide unless you had overhead cover...
Last edited:
320 of the C1 scopes!
Wow, i never knew there were that many at all.
The Brit Trilux was copied and mass manufactured by the USSR as the NPZ produced 1P29 or USO scope. Same reticle, mount type, windage and elevation controls, 4 power and reticle even. Mind the Soviets actually aded a tiny parabola range scale too. They even made it with different range drums so you could change it to different weapons like 7.62x52R, 7.62x39 or even 5.54x39.
No problem with 7.62 NATO going long range now, especially talking match ammo, rifles of way more inherent accuracy like the B&T and better power of optics. The older generic 150gr surplus ball and iron sights only do so well with irons. The FNs might have been best off with irons followed by G3s, but still for the bulk of the cold war they were treated with optics as squad designated marksmen rather than for straight out sniping. More the section designated window sweepers. Sniping tended to get left back then to very specialized rifles. These days, the ability and kit has really jumped a few levels where 800m is not as much of a challenge.
The PE90 is heavier, that is why when I counter the periodic squirrel invasion, I have my trusty gun bearer, Sally, come along to carry my PE90.
Run downs!?! I still shudder when I hear about those.
I was in over twenty years before some fool decided that the rest of the army had to do them too.
As an 011 anything under 800m is CQB.
Last run down I did, I tripped over the bund at 300m, cartwheeled head over toes, landed on my feet running with my pants around my ankles, the whole time keeping my C7 pointed down range.
I was laughing so hard I forgot to shoot at the 200 and 100 and probably dumped most of that serials rounds at the 50m. The range staff never said a thing between laughing and trying to figure out how I kept my rifle aimed down range during a forward cartwheel.
One thing i think we forgot to bring up is the front sight of the 540 family.
It is a thick a$$ blade sight, meant for fast target acquisition and speed of shooting.
Kind of an iron sight theory of what the red dot has become, the quick and over obvious front sight for speed. The swiss front sight, despite being a blade is far more refined and better for target type shooting.
Wow, i never knew there were that many at all.
The Brit Trilux was copied and mass manufactured by the USSR as the NPZ produced 1P29 or USO scope. Same reticle, mount type, windage and elevation controls, 4 power and reticle even. Mind the Soviets actually aded a tiny parabola range scale too. They even made it with different range drums so you could change it to different weapons like 7.62x52R, 7.62x39 or even 5.54x39.
No problem with 7.62 NATO going long range now, especially talking match ammo, rifles of way more inherent accuracy like the B&T and better power of optics. The older generic 150gr surplus ball and iron sights only do so well with irons. The FNs might have been best off with irons followed by G3s, but still for the bulk of the cold war they were treated with optics as squad designated marksmen rather than for straight out sniping. More the section designated window sweepers. Sniping tended to get left back then to very specialized rifles. These days, the ability and kit has really jumped a few levels where 800m is not as much of a challenge.
The PE90 is heavier, that is why when I counter the periodic squirrel invasion, I have my trusty gun bearer, Sally, come along to carry my PE90.
Run downs!?! I still shudder when I hear about those.
I was in over twenty years before some fool decided that the rest of the army had to do them too.
As an 011 anything under 800m is CQB.
Last run down I did, I tripped over the bund at 300m, cartwheeled head over toes, landed on my feet running with my pants around my ankles, the whole time keeping my C7 pointed down range.
I was laughing so hard I forgot to shoot at the 200 and 100 and probably dumped most of that serials rounds at the 50m. The range staff never said a thing between laughing and trying to figure out how I kept my rifle aimed down range during a forward cartwheel.
One thing i think we forgot to bring up is the front sight of the 540 family.
It is a thick a$$ blade sight, meant for fast target acquisition and speed of shooting.
Kind of an iron sight theory of what the red dot has become, the quick and over obvious front sight for speed. The swiss front sight, despite being a blade is far more refined and better for target type shooting.
I was excited for the 540's iron sights till I laid them on a target down range, yikes, not going to be precise with that setup.
To knock your theory, the rear sight seems overly tight. You'd think they're open up the rear sight for quick use with the brick at the front of the barrel.
But maybe the enamel/paint process on the rear narrowed the original sight down. I was thinking about running a small drill bit through it to see.
Yeah, if they used enamel over the parkerizing, then the Rear Aperture Sight may e clogged up with Baked-on paint. I ran a small drill bit through each of mine back in the day. such that they were cleaned up to the bare metal. Huuuuge difference! The sights actually make sense at that point, and work well together with the enlarged aperture.
