Why is the FAL prohibited?

667 said:
All the C1's I ever saw (in the 80') were already "converted autos".

Gratuitous C1 ####... circa 1984... man was I skinny.

Click to expand...

Pattern 82 web gear, American M1 helmet, OD combats, black combat boots, and the FN C1A1. Ah, the memories.........

Even in the artillery we got to have fun with the C1's every now and then.
 
I just found a Department of Justice publication from 1992.

Weapons Prohibited and Restricted
by Order in Council
Reference Manual.​

In the back Appendix C are the following Prohibited Weapons Orders Including tazers, ammo types, and various other things that scare our misguided MPs.

Order in Council (Effective August 5, 1992)
Prohibited Weapons Order No 3,
Prohibited Weapons Order No 8
Prohibited Weapons Order No 9
Prohibited Weapons Order No 10
Prohibited Weapons Order No 11
Prohibited Weapons Order No 12
Lots of reading and that was the start
The FN was restricted in the 80s

That list came out less than a year after the First Nations Worriers made a stand at Oka.
 
shredder said:
Pattern 82 web gear, American M1 helmet, OD combats, black combat boots, and the FN C1A1. Ah, the memories.........

Even in the artillery we got to have fun with the C1's every now and then.
Click to expand...

Looks like the older 64 pattern webbing. Great pic.
 
because there is no wood or steel when a unicorn farts rainbows in a downtown utopian paradise where everyone gets along hugging each other stoned out of our minds on every hallucinogenic in a giant hippie love in that would make Woodstock and burning man look like a nuns convention In Miles City Montana.
But really do people know how much kick is involved in shooting a 308 sized round? I love my m14 but id never even dream of using it full auto even if I had the chance im all about muzzle control, never got to fire a FAL but I wish I could have
 
The FAL was not originally designed for the 7.62 NATO round, it was designed around a British round, the .280.

The British had actually adopted the round and the FAL designed to fire it when Winston Churchill (yes, that one) became PM again in the early '50's and he insisted on commonality with the US. The Americans didn't like the round because (so they said) they wanted a round that could be used in both rifles and machine guns to the same effect. Apparently, the .280 round wasn't good in a machine gun. The Yanks also wanted (insisted) on a round that could kill at 1000 yards - roughly comparable to the 30-06, which the .280 couldn't do. It did have much less recoil than the 7.62 NATO round and was far more controllable in full-auto fire.

Churchill overrode the adoption of the .280 round and FAL, and the Brits were forced to start again using the then-new 7.62x51 round. FN scaled up the FAL to take the round and the FAL wound up passing most NATO nation's tests except the Americans and French. The Americans wanted a home-grown design and settled for the M14 - which is basically a Garand with a select-fire switch and a detachable box magazine (the French just updated the MAS49 to take the 7.62 NATO round). It's been said that the Americans would have failed the FAL in competitive tests against their M-14 design no matter how good or how much better the FAL was than the M-14 because the US Army wanted government-owned production (Springfield Armory was US gov't owned at the time).

It's interesting to note that Canada was the first nation to adopt both the FAL and the 7.62 NATO round together in 1955. Somehow, the FAL passed OUR Arctic tests but failed the US tests :rolleyes:

As someone who's handled and shot the FAL, and who owns a M-305 and has shot a Springfield M1A, the FAL wins hands down for ergonomics and ease of maintenance.
 
I like the feel of the Metric FNs. I have both in my collection and it could be the grip and the lack of a flash eliminator on some especially the Israeli FALs, it seems to make them feel compact.
 
??? Reasons that the FAL family of firearms are prohibited. Liberal males have teeny tiny #####es and the rifle makes them feel inadequate? Liberal females are lesbians and any item that hints of masculinity is to terminated with extreme prejudice!

How anyone can't appreciate the form and function of this firearm is beyond reason.

I'm taking this one to Valhalla when the time comes!

 
shredder said:
The FAL was not originally designed for the 7.62 NATO round, it was designed around a British round, the .280.

The British had actually adopted the round and the FAL designed to fire it when Winston Churchill (yes, that one) became PM again in the early '50's and he insisted on commonality with the US. The Americans didn't like the round because (so they said) they wanted a round that could be used in both rifles and machine guns to the same effect. Apparently, the .280 round wasn't good in a machine gun. The Yanks also wanted (insisted) on a round that could kill at 1000 yards - roughly comparable to the 30-06, which the .280 couldn't do. It did have much less recoil than the 7.62 NATO round and was far more controllable in full-auto fire.

Churchill overrode the adoption of the .280 round and FAL, and the Brits were forced to start again using the then-new 7.62x51 round. FN scaled up the FAL to take the round and the FAL wound up passing most NATO nation's tests except the Americans and French. The Americans wanted a home-grown design and settled for the M14 - which is basically a Garand with a select-fire switch and a detachable box magazine (the French just updated the MAS49 to take the 7.62 NATO round). It's been said that the Americans would have failed the FAL in competitive tests against their M-14 design no matter how good or how much better the FAL was than the M-14 because the US Army wanted government-owned production (Springfield Armory was US gov't owned at the time).

It's interesting to note that Canada was the first nation to adopt both the FAL and the 7.62 NATO round together in 1955. Somehow, the FAL passed OUR Arctic tests but failed the US tests :rolleyes:

As someone who's handled and shot the FAL, and who owns a M-305 and has shot a Springfield M1A, the FAL wins hands down for ergonomics and ease of maintenance.
Click to expand...

While some of the first FAL prototypes were made for the British .280/30 cartridge, it was the EM2 bullpup in the same calibre that was briefly adopted by the UK, not the FAL. The FAL was only adopted after the cancellation of the EM2 because it could be more readily redesigned for 7.62x51.

Had the US adopted the FAL, it would have been manufactured by Springfield Armory (as well as H&R and High Standard). FN actually gifted the rights to the US government to build the FAL for US service. The real reason the FAL was not adopted was because the Ordnance Corps preferred its own in-house design. NIH has historically been a major detriment to US military small arms procurement. With the exception of the M1 Garand, most successful US military small arms have been developed outside the arsenal system.
 
Why is the FAL prohibited?

Simple...

It's an effective weapon against an out of control government. There really is no other reason when it comes right down to it.
 
WTH? You are all rational people trying to impose reason to a bunch of emotional Turdo Lieberals? It's useless and I've had to settle for an M14 since it's the closest to my precious 4L6178 as seen in this picture:





Crse 7708 Canal Du Nord Platoon. Started with 45 and graduated with 18 on the Parade Square. Battle School, Wainwright, AB....

It's all good! :wave:

Barney
 
What ? Did someone say FA C2? Sorry, more memories of FA fun!!!

Now, here I am as a SIXTEEN year old in my R031 Crse, Camp Vernon!

Talk about skinny! Holy poop, this was 40 years ago! :eek:




Cheers,
Barney
 
I will tell you why.

In the mid 80s, FALs were cheap. And our Bolshevik-occupation government was afraid of common serfs being able to arm themselves cheaply.

The FAL also looked scary and this also was enough to frighten the rabbit people. In fact they wet their knickers. And after much knicker wetting, the writing was on the wall for the FAL.
 
shredder said:
The FAL was not originally designed for the 7.62 NATO round, it was designed around a British round, the .280.

The British had actually adopted the round and the FAL designed to fire it when Winston Churchill (yes, that one) became PM again in the early '50's and he insisted on commonality with the US. The Americans didn't like the round because (so they said) they wanted a round that could be used in both rifles and machine guns to the same effect. Apparently, the .280 round wasn't good in a machine gun. The Yanks also wanted (insisted) on a round that could kill at 1000 yards - roughly comparable to the 30-06, which the .280 couldn't do. It did have much less recoil than the 7.62 NATO round and was far more controllable in full-auto fire.

Churchill overrode the adoption of the .280 round and FAL, and the Brits were forced to start again using the then-new 7.62x51 round. FN scaled up the FAL to take the round and the FAL wound up passing most NATO nation's tests except the Americans and French. The Americans wanted a home-grown design and settled for the M14 - which is basically a Garand with a select-fire switch and a detachable box magazine (the French just updated the MAS49 to take the 7.62 NATO round). It's been said that the Americans would have failed the FAL in competitive tests against their M-14 design no matter how good or how much better the FAL was than the M-14 because the US Army wanted government-owned production (Springfield Armory was US gov't owned at the time).

It's interesting to note that Canada was the first nation to adopt both the FAL and the 7.62 NATO round together in 1955. Somehow, the FAL passed OUR Arctic tests but failed the US tests :rolleyes:

As someone who's handled and shot the FAL, and who owns a M-305 and has shot a Springfield M1A, the FAL wins hands down for ergonomics and ease of maintenance.
Click to expand...

well written post..!
 
Squinty said:
I will tell you why.

In the mid 80s, FALs were cheap. And our Bolshevik-occupation government was afraid of common serfs being able to arm themselves cheaply.

The FAL also looked scary and this also was enough to frighten the rabbit people. In fact they wet their knickers. And after much knicker wetting, the writing was on the wall for the FAL.
Click to expand...

Top sentence is dead on the money.

Bolshevik translates into a three letter word, some of us know, some of us don't. None the less, well said.
 
Great pics Barney.

I have this one of my dad in the early 80's. He's upfront centre, holding two C1's.
JRBurnie19_zps70007e90.jpeg


Some others with C1's in them:
Scan_zps5wpuliau.jpeg

4_zpsui4rb31p.jpeg
 
Last edited:
TacticalTeacher said:



Cheers,
Barney
Click to expand...

Holly Cr.p Batman, I recognize that building from my cadet years at VACC in the early 70's.

Back then we were given opportunity to shoot C1A1 at the range. Were given instruction on the operation and cleaning of the C1A1. Did parade drill with the C1A1 with bayonets no less.

Actually treated like we were responsible young adults. VACC isn't like that anymore.

M
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom