FN FAL info
- Thread starter LeeEnfieldNo.4_mk1
- Start date
Bolt type (rear locking/tilt) is the same method, but not interchangable (SKS and SVT use the same principle as well) Gas system is not as adjustable, but still a short stroke piston. In principle, the method of operation and locking is thge same, but that is like saying the SKS and the FN are the same, and the AK and the Swiss Arms are the same. In other words, design wise, very similar but not identical.
Any 3 page thread deserves cheap ####...
NICE!!!!
Are the top and bottom ones Aussie versions?
Not sure about the top one, but IIRC the bottom one has an Israeli handguard.
Any 3 page thread deserves cheap ####...
Where did you get the picatinny body cover?
So theoretically, IF some company were to build an FN FAL look-alike that ran on the FN 49 system, it shouldn't be prohibited.
maple_leaf_eh
CGN Ultra frequent flyer
A good rifle, but not perfect
In principle the FN is two-halves of one rifle, and the sights are on opposite ends. The sight radius is about 24". The most important fitting is not bedding or frontend pressure, its the rigidity of the hinge. If you squeeze it too much the FN C1A1 safety sear seized up.
The issue sights were battle sights; the L1A1 was a single hole on a ramp, held in place by a spring dimple. The C1A1 sight was very good because the aperatures moved and changed sizes according to distance. Its problemS were a hinge pin resting on a sheet metal spring, and the aperature wheel spins against a flat spring disc. Very good if tight, untrustworthy is damaged.
A few of the smart service rifle competitors sought out the earliest C1A1's delivered. It seems the barrels were bored and then chrome plated. They were snug to the tight side of the tolerances. These rifles won Queen's Medals. Later deliveries were middle and loose tolerances, even after plating.
The other thing is the stock is designed for standing snap shooting and rapid fire 'hosing' a moving enemy, not belly shooting at paper targets. A lot of shooters got bruised cheeks because of the low comb.
In principle the FN is two-halves of one rifle, and the sights are on opposite ends. The sight radius is about 24". The most important fitting is not bedding or frontend pressure, its the rigidity of the hinge. If you squeeze it too much the FN C1A1 safety sear seized up.
The issue sights were battle sights; the L1A1 was a single hole on a ramp, held in place by a spring dimple. The C1A1 sight was very good because the aperatures moved and changed sizes according to distance. Its problemS were a hinge pin resting on a sheet metal spring, and the aperature wheel spins against a flat spring disc. Very good if tight, untrustworthy is damaged.
A few of the smart service rifle competitors sought out the earliest C1A1's delivered. It seems the barrels were bored and then chrome plated. They were snug to the tight side of the tolerances. These rifles won Queen's Medals. Later deliveries were middle and loose tolerances, even after plating.
The other thing is the stock is designed for standing snap shooting and rapid fire 'hosing' a moving enemy, not belly shooting at paper targets. A lot of shooters got bruised cheeks because of the low comb.
Tight tolerances my ass...the butt catch would fly open on automatic firing spilling the carrier out on to the ground. The C2's were just retarded. The Canadian rear disc type sight would fall out as well leaving a huge hole to pear through. Because the Canadian version had the body cover chopped for a magazine charger, occasionally shooters would get injured by hot carbon and #### blown through the port that the piston rod came through. I'm glad we got rid of them as a military. The rear and front sights were on different parts of the receiver. The play between the pivoting receivers would worsen over time causing poor medium range shooting. I couldn't hit anything past 300m with my personal issued rifle. The first C7 i was issued would outshoot that C1 anyday.
Besides they're prohibited which even more retarded than the rifle itself...you're not missing anything.
I expect it would still be prohibited, especially if newly manufactured.
The problem is making it look look like an FN. If it looks too much like an FN, it could be called a variant. If it is different enough what would the point be? It wouldn't be an FN.
Keep in mind the cheap sh*t AK-22, blowback .22 is prohib as a "variant" strictly because it looks more of less like an AK. The GSG .22 MP-5 lookalike is currently before the courts, (feds are appealing), again because it looks superficially like an MP-5. Never mind that in both cases the calibre, method of operation, manufacturer etc etc are all different, the powers that be still consider them to be "variiants".
Now you could take an FN-49 and modify it to take FN FAL furniture and accessories, and it would still be an FN-49. A fellow CGN member is currently working on an SKS/FAL, with varying degrees of success. But I doubt you could do it on a comercial scale, and the collectors would scream "bubba" and make voodoo dolls of you if you started butchering good condition FN-49s.
The difference between them is the rear sight. Canada started making a sliding leaf sight that attached to the dust cover, then switched to a larger version of the C1 disc rear sight. The Aussies stuck with the original leaf sight, which they bought directly from Canada. Everything else was made in Oz.
Only Canada kept the C2 and the automatic rifle concept. The Brits used a re-barreled Bren, and then the GPMG. The Aussies relegated their L2s to reserve and training use during Vietnam because of its deficiencies. They did try to make a modified version called the F2A2. Three prototypes were trialed. They used a higher straight line butstock, new bipod and forarm/heatshield, and the rear sight from a No4 Enfield. In the end, they didn't bother further and just issued a GPMG, first the M-60, and later the FN MAG.
The problem with the C2 (and the whole "automatic rifle" concept), was that it was originally proposed for a less powerfull cartridge. Once the .280/7mm was out and the 7.62 NATO was in, it stopped working. The C2 is just too light and the butstock shaped wrong for effective full auto fire with a full power rifle cartridge.
Most C2s and C2 gunners could not even meet the specified accuracy standard. It split bursts at pretty much any range, and the dispersion was greater than acceptable. The 30 round mags were too big, causing reliability problems because of the high stripping pressure required, and the springs surged in long bursts. They also caused the bipod to be higher than was really comfortable. They should probably have been reduced to 25 rounds. The only good thing about them was that the bipod made them a suitable platform for mounting a NV scope.
IMO the C2 should have been junked in favour of a re-barreled bren or earlier purchase of the FN MAG (C-6).
That said, I would love to add a 12(5) version to my collection. Even more I would love to shoot one again! Jamiejaf is right in his criticism, but a lot of that was the result of the sheer age of those left in service by the time the C7 came along. Other than the infamous "hamburger face" I never had problems shooting any of my rifles. My ex Singapore Police rifle was carried much more than shot and was (is) still nice and tight.
we supplied more than rear sight to the aussie for their L2A1 .
on the pic below of L2A1 , you will notice a brown plastic carry handle , brown plastic is canada , black plastic is brit and green plastic is aussie so they bought the brown plastic carry handle from us.
you will also notice the wooden bipod is different color and different grains to the grip and butt stock and that is bcos canada wood is the dark walnut whereas the aussie use the lighter cottonwood.
the front sight protector is unique to canada .
the aussie also bought front sling band, the metal parts of the bipod and the trigger plunger and ofcos you mentioned the rear sight.
Last edited:
