Fn fal

welder01

welder01

Regular
EE Expired
Rating - 100%
1   0   0
Location
victoria bc
I was just watching a hickok45 video on the FN FAL. What a great gun! I would love to own one but obviously cant because its a prohib. My question is why can't Canadians own the semi auto version of the FAL?
 
There's one VERY simple reason:

The anti's think this is an evil-baby-killing machine because it has a pistol grip!

(Actually, it's on the prohib list because the Lieberals were scared that a) it could be converted to full-auto with something as simple as a matchstick [yeah-right :rolleyes:] b) the Canadian military was replacing it's FN's [C1A1] with the C7 series of rifles and they didn't want the Canadian shooters having surplus semi-auto FN-pattern rifles, and c) almost any rifle or shotgun with a pistol grip was going to be put on the prohibited list because it looked "scary")
 
The funny bit is I got my Australian L1A1 from Milarm.

Another funny, Sweet young thing (reporter) asked to see the most dangerous rifle they had (expecting to see a fal)


the clerk reached up on the gun rack and pulled down a SNIDER! I certainly wouldn't want to be on the recieving end of a 58 calibre minie ball!:sok2
 
shredder said:
Lieberals were scared that a) it could be converted to full-auto with something as simple as a matchstick [yeah-right :roll eyes:]
Click to expand...

I don't know about other versions, but the C1 could very easily be converted to full-auto (speaking from personal experience) by what we called "paper slipping". You take some foil paper from a cigarette pack, fold it up into a small square and slip it.... well you get the idea. Worked quite easily. Of course it really was a useless thing to do as FALs are useless in full auto anyway. Way too hard to control. I think only Belgium and Australia made full-auto versions (someone correct me if I'm wrong) and most other countries chose to do a semi-only version. Not talking about heavy barrelled versions here of course. If gang bangers all had FALs converted to full auto our city streets would be quite safe. Don't know about low flying planes though. :)
 
The FN was an awesome rifle to shoot. People compromised, and we lost them, as well as 70% of our hand guns.


No Compromise.
 
fiddler said:
The FN was an awesome rifle to shoot. People compromised, and we lost them, as well as 70% of our hand guns.


No Compromise.
Click to expand...

Thats pretty much sums the situation up at the time , and it really came down to the govt. wanting to do away with private firearm ownership in Canada ; and firearm owners really had to scramble to justify what firearms they could keep . If the liberals had stayed in power , private ownership of firearms would probabley be almost totally eliminated by now . As then Justice Minister Allan Rock said at the time " only the police and military should have guns in Canada "; and the police totally supported the Long Gun Reg. , and the disarming of Canadian Citizens......and they still do.....
 
Gunexpert007 said:
. As then Justice Minister Allan Rock said at the time " only the police and military should have guns in Canada "; and the police totally supported the Long Gun Reg. , and the disarming of Canadian Citizens......and they still do.....
Click to expand...




The Police (RCMP) were against it until they found out it pays a Billion dollars. Now they won't let it go... or the money
 
Never mind the looks, the insides of the FN FAL were designed to be convertable for military purposes. Most countries only chose the semi-automatic version deliberately. When Canada built the FN C1 and C2 family, the same parts and production line was used. Just a few internals were changed out. So, with a replacement safety lever and trigger plunger, any rifle could be converted between semi and full auto. AFAIR, there was no distinctive marking on the lower receiver either, just on the rail of the upper.

There has always been a tension between "the authorities" and "the public" over firearms ownership. Used to be that full autos were common enough that if a small arms instructor wanted to corral a selection for a course, he could just call around to trusted (and well known) members of the community. For a long time, M1 Carbines were just cute little underpowered plinking guns. Then the bank robbers graduated from sawed off 12-ga. shotguns and revolvers, to sawed off Carbines. There was a famous Quebec gang that used them to shoot up the ceilings of banks during carefully timed robberies. Next thing you know, the feds changed the defined barrel lenght for a restricted rifle to 18 1/2" to scoop in carbines. When the gangs in Toronto were zipping each other with .25s and .32s, those cartridges were added in. The Mohawks in Oka had a Barrett Fifty in one of their longhouses; same solution. The reaction to any crisis has been to rewrite the laws, rather than address the causes.
 
maple_leaf_eh said:
Never mind the looks, the insides of the FN FAL were designed to be convertable for military purposes. Most countries only chose the semi-automatic version deliberately. When Canada built the FN C1 and C2 family, the same parts and production line was used. Just a few internals were changed out. So, with a replacement safety lever and trigger plunger, any rifle could be converted between semi and full auto. AFAIR, there was no distinctive marking on the lower receiver either, just on the rail of the upper.

There has always been a tension between "the authorities" and "the public" over firearms ownership. Used to be that full autos were common enough that if a small arms instructor wanted to corral a selection for a course, he could just call around to trusted (and well known) members of the community. For a long time, M1 Carbines were just cute little underpowered plinking guns. Then the bank robbers graduated from sawed off 12-ga. shotguns and revolvers, to sawed off Carbines. There was a famous Quebec gang that used them to shoot up the ceilings of banks during carefully timed robberies. Next thing you know, the feds changed the defined barrel lenght for a restricted rifle to 18 1/2" to scoop in carbines. When the gangs in Toronto were zipping each other with .25s and .32s, those cartridges were added in. The Mohawks in Oka had a Barrett Fifty in one of their longhouses; same solution. The reaction to any crisis has been to rewrite the laws, rather than address the causes.
Click to expand...

And as soon as some zipper-head figures out the shoelace trick, we'll lose all semi-auto rifles with a reciprocating bolt.
 
maple_leaf_eh said:
Never mind the looks, the insides of the FN FAL were designed to be convertable for military purposes. Most countries only chose the semi-automatic version deliberately. When Canada built the FN C1 and C2 family, the same parts and production line was used. Just a few internals were changed out. So, with a replacement safety lever and trigger plunger, any rifle could be converted between semi and full auto. AFAIR, there was no distinctive marking on the lower receiver either, just on the rail of the upper.

There has always been a tension between "the authorities" and "the public" over firearms ownership. Used to be that full autos were common enough that if a small arms instructor wanted to corral a selection for a course, he could just call around to trusted (and well known) members of the community. For a long time, M1 Carbines were just cute little underpowered plinking guns. Then the bank robbers graduated from sawed off 12-ga.

shotguns and revolvers, to sawed off Carbines. There was a famous Quebec gang that used them to shoot up the ceilings of banks during carefully timed robberies. Next thing you know, the feds changed the defined barrel lenght for a restricted rifle to 18 1/2" to scoop in carbines. When the gangs in Toronto were zipping each other with .25s and .32s, those cartridges were added in. The Mohawks in Oka had a Barrett Fifty in one of their longhouses; same solution. The reaction to any crisis has been to rewrite the laws, rather than address the causes.
Click to expand...

Think the dimwits even differentiated between the C1 and C2, when the FAL was restricted, C1 was classified as restricted, C2 was a prohib full auto. Only difference in the receivers are the markings. :confused:

Grizz
 
Any semi-auto can be made FA fairly easily.
The FN was declared evil because it's black, has a pistol grip and a 20 round mag. Mulroney's Gang had nothing to do with it.
 
Seems to that the cig foil or match trick disconnected the sear. Allowed "follower fire" which was OK with nice hard military primers. A soft commercial primer would ignite before the breech block locked into place and you had a hell of a surprise.

Also seems to me that the receivers were milled on some of the ex Australian rifles, which made it worse.

Don't get any ideas...
 
Stevo said:
FIFY. The Libs were responsible for it being restricted, prior to prohibited.
Click to expand...

Nope, he was right. It indeed was the Lieberals who prohibited the FN. Prohibited weapons order#13 (12.5 grandfathering, which names the FN as prohibited) was their handiwork, not Campbell's.

C-17 brought us 12.3, 12.4 (prohibited weapons order#12), and prohibited weapons order #11 (no grandfathering). C-17 did however restrict a whole bunch of other black rifles (other than the FN, which as mentioned was already restricted at the time), which were subsequently prohibited by the Lieberals in C-68.

This may be seen as splitting hairs, but it's important to lay blame where it is deserved.
 
ipscgraz said:
Seems to that the cig foil or match trick disconnected the sear. Allowed "follower fire" which was OK with nice hard military primers. A soft commercial primer would ignite before the breech block locked into place and you had a hell of a surprise.

Also seems to me that the receivers were milled on some of the ex Australian rifles, which made it worse.

Don't get any ideas...
Click to expand...

They had the safety sear cut off and welded into it's slot. The US commercial receivers are made without the slot. Be a tough conversion. ;)

Grizz
 
Ok has there ever been a instance where the govt. has gone the other way and taken a prohib and made it a non prohib? or a restricted and made it a non restricted
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom