The FAL Pics and info thread! (Sticky?)

LeeEnfieldNo.4_mk1

LeeEnfieldNo.4_mk1

CGN Ultra frequent flyer
Rating - 100%
28   0   0
Location
Alberta
Ok, I and many others on here have a large interest in the FAL, but no very little about it:redface:. So, How about a sticky on this piece of History we cannot own as they are too dangerous for mere mortals?

Info on all the variants, as well as pics from those lucky enough to have them. All in one conveniently located thread!

Unfortunately this firearm is too dangerous for me to own, so I can not contribute any pics, and like mentioned I know little about it.

How about it?
Or is it a bad idea?
Or Not worth it?
Or It will draw attention from all the M-14 related stuff so a big NO!?

Come on people lets play some Show and tell!

A great resource posted by "NavyShooter"
http://www.milsurps.com/content.php?r=156-FN-1A1-vs.-FN-L1A1-vs.-FN-C1A1
 
Last edited:
i just picked up a copy of r. blake stevens series on the fal, its pricy ($137 locally) but well worth it if you have a good interest in the FAL, or post war weapons design as it goes into great detail on the trials that led to 7.62 nato and the m-14
 
If this becomes a sticky could we also add the possible models or types of FAL style guns that we "may" be able to own, now or someday?
Thanks
Eric
 
I told the story on here when it happened, but about a year and a half ago I was at an auction in Edmonton and there were two 12.5 prohibited rifles up for sale: a Norinco 5.56mm AK and a British BSA L1A1. The L1A1 came up, a guy put in a $50 dollar bid, I countered, it went back and forth, no other bidders, I got it for $140. Then the AK was on the block, the same guy put in the same $50 dollar bid, I didn't counter, no other bidders, SOLD for $50. If there were any other 12.5 license holders in the building they were holding their wallets that day.

Without further ado:
left.jpg

right.jpg

leftside.jpg

stripped.jpg


It looks great. I wish I could tell you how it shoots, I don't know:(

I have shot others and I think they were a great rifle, but rather long and heavy so I can see why some soldiers were less than impressed with it. I did get to shoot them on full auto on a couple of occasions and can say that I thought they took the accepted idea that 7.62 NATO was too powerful for full auto shoulder rifles and turned it on its ear. Recoil manifested as muzzle rise instead of shoulder thrust, and with practice you could learn to handle the muzzle rise, and keeping medium-sized bursts onto a phone booth sized target at 100m or so was not unrealistic. Much better than than those damnable G3's, which came straight back and punched you so hard you had to check to ensure your fillings were still in place after a couple of magazines. Or the M14, which had extreme muzzle rise so it leaped out of your hands on auto like an overexcited puppy and is the gun which I think created the idea that 7.62 is unmanageable in that application. The M14 is unmanageable on auto, but other 7.62s aren't necessarily (most notably the AR-10, followed by the FAL).
 
BattleRife said:
I have shot others and I think they were a great rifle, but rather long and heavy so I can see why some soldiers were less than impressed with it. I did get to shoot them on full auto on a couple of occasions and can say that I thought they took the accepted idea that 7.62 NATO was too powerful for full auto shoulder rifles and turned it on its ear. Recoil manifested as muzzle rise instead of shoulder thrust, and with practice you could learn to handle the muzzle rise, and keeping medium-sized bursts onto a phone booth sized target at 100m or so was not unrealistic. Much better than than those damnable G3's, which came straight back and punched you so hard you had to check to ensure your fillings were still in place after a couple of magazines. Or the M14, which had extreme muzzle rise so it leaped out of your hands on auto like an overexcited puppy and is the gun which I think created the idea that 7.62 is unmanageable in that application. The M14 is unmanageable on auto, but other 7.62s aren't necessarily (most notably the AR-10, followed by the FAL).
Click to expand...

Those of us who actually used them always laughed at the "too powerful", excuse, and substituted that the CF was "too cheap" to allow FA fire. The are many reasons why it isn't always effective in combat, but powerful or controllable was not one. The FN's were heavy enough to counter the recoil, and provided the unit was clean and maintained, the gas system could be turned right down and that made the rifle a pussycat in the recoil department (at least for the time).


BTW, I'm jealous of that score. ;)
 
Having fired both the FN-C1 and FN-C2 on competitions, I think it's a damn shame that our current generation of civillian service rifle shooters have to either use a Lee Enfield, a clone of an M-14, or a clone of the M16/C-7 to compete. Like the era 1955 - 1988 has been washed from our national small-arms memory.
 
The FN C1 was my "1st rifle" at CFOCS in the 80's. I'd own one or two or... in an instant.
DPMS Panther had (has?) custom mods for caliber, barrel, flat tops etc to make it even better. A very functional action to build from.
 
Australian L1A1

Here is mine :D

IMG_2813.jpg


With Uber-rare SAS issue Colt scope mount. Has a 3 x20 Colt scope attached.


IMG_2811.jpg

IMG_2812.jpg


As the story goes all the mounts were smelted in Australia... except a few that were "saved" :eek:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom