Why is the FAL prohibited?

17 years as a Weapon Tech MOC 421. The FNC1 can be converted to full auto in two easy steps, only one of which requires a new part or some fairly easy machining of two existing parts. For obvious reasons I won't detail what the steps are but when converted the F1 will safely, if not too accurately, selectively fire semi or full auto. Anyone remember the FNC1D1? That was the conversion of a regular FN C1 to select semi or full auto and was destined to be issued to Naval Boarding Parties. The butt had a big "D" engraved on it.

I don't know if any ever made it on board ship (I was a an Army guy) but the MP5N is sure a whole lot better in confined spaces, not to mention not having to worry about a 7.62 X 51 mm spinning around inside a steel enclosed space.

BTW: The way to convert a C1 to auto does NOT include removing the safety sear which can lead to the weapon firing with the breech block not fully into battery. If that happened you could have a casing fail at the rim with bits and pieces of brass flying about inches from your face. Now that could really ruin you day!

I'd sure love to have a C1, the last time I handled one was when a reserve unit I was with was told to return the two they had as DP weapons (still fully functional but with a red painted band around the barrel) into Supply. I got to hold one and the feel and smell, well I was in 7th heaven for a few minutes. The best fun you can have and still have your clothes on.:d
 
removing the safety sear which can lead to the weapon firing with the breech block not fully into battery.

Actually a dual function component, CF armorer advised me against firing any FAL without it.

Grizz
 
EMEDiva said:
I agree with that. Remember loose lips sink ships.
Click to expand...

As a sailor, I joined after the FN-C1D's left the fleet, but have in my collection a copy of a manual describing in detail how they function, and what the 'navy specific' changes were.

I own 5 FN's:
-Canadian C1A1 (Ex-OPP)
-Indian 1A1
-Australian L1A1
-Australian L1A1
-British L1A1

The safety sear that's been discussed is a simple little piece of metal that prevents the hammer from being dropped (to re-engage with the trigger sear in a semi-auto) until the breech-block carrier is almost fully forward, which means that the breech block is locked in place against the locking shoulder and the rifle is safe to fire.

Understanding how that little piece of metal functions in other modes is besides the point, and what other parts interact with the rifle to make it work in other modes is also besides the point.

That said, the US BATF-E deemed that every FN-FAL variant in the US (with the exception of a small number of Belgian Imports way back in the 60's through Browning) was not allowed to have a safety sear cutout. There are less than 2000 FN-FAL's in the US that are deemed to be semi-autos that have a legal slot for a safety sear. If you look at the newly manufactured FN variants in the US, they are all built without the ability to even install a safety sear.

There are home-builders of the FN in the US as well who have built their own semi-auto receivers, and they do not have a slot for the safety sear either.

In answer to the original question, why is the FAL prohibited? The variety of answers that can be found in this thread are many....and are probably all a factor:

-Oka use
-"easily converted"
-Looks naughty
-Government hates us
-Alan Rock pointed at a picture and said no
-It was about to flood the civilian market, and the government was mad at an importer
-etc etc etc

Why? Because the rifle was named, and listed, in Order in Council 13. Period.

NS
 
Out-of-battery firing is extremely unlikely in a FAL without the auto/safety sear, though it might provide an additional layer of safety. The bolt needs to be in battery for the hammer to be able to strike the firing pin so as to fire a round. Lots of FALs in the US that were built from parts kits still have the three-position selector. Without an safety sear, firing the rifle with the selector in the third position results in one round fired and an uncocked rifle with a live round in the chamber, as the hammer follows the bolt forward.

An safety sear alone does not enable automatic fire. The following parts are also required:
1. Three-position selector
2. Short trigger plunger allowing sufficient trigger travel (a long plunger is typically found in guns built as semi-only)
3. Bolt carrier capable of tripping the auto sear (not found on some commercial rifles)

Likewise, the above parts do not allow automatic fire without an auto sear.
 
lakeside said:
17 years as a Weapon Tech MOC 421.
I'd sure love to have a C1, the last time I handled one was when a reserve unit I was with was told to return the two they had as DP weapons (still fully functional but with a red painted band around the barrel) into Supply. I got to hold one and the feel and smell, well I was in 7th heaven for a few minutes. The best fun you can have and still have your clothes on.:d
Click to expand...

A white band was for a DP rifle. The vast majority of the EX-1s (the FN made trials rifles) in Canadian service were marked that way, and were to be found in the army cadet units along with the airborne school in Edmonton back in the day. If a rifle was DP'd, it was no longer readily functional, usually by shortening of the firing pin.

The red band meant that the rifle was meant to be used with the .22 subcaliber kit. There was an instruction back around 2000 that reminded armourers that the FNs that remained at units were to be dedicated as subcal only and have the red band painted onto them. I was with 1RCHA at the time....HQ battery still held 4 or 6 rifles for that purpose.

The sub-cal kits were withdrawn from all units a few years back with the aim of them being released onto the open market, however they got shang-haid on the way and were demilitarized to scrap.
 
Last edited:
Not going to argue but the rifle I had in my hands had a red band around the barrel. I didn't strip the breech block so the firing pin could have been shortened.

I never saw a rifle with a red band being used exclusively for the .22 insert, the only rifles that had dedicated inserts where those with bulged barrels where the insert could not be removed. We had a tool in 2 Svc Bn (maybe locally produced) that would grip the insert from the breech end and pull the insert back enough so it would come free. Some did, some insert barrels simply were stretched to the breaking point.

Wonder why we didn't have rubber rifles back then (like the CAF now has to replicate the C7), maybe somebody just didn't think of it. Same for plastic furniture, maybe we just had enough in the CFSS to keep replacing cracked hand guards but other countries did use plastic. I also hate to think of all the really good rifles beat to snot at the CABC or during jumps, makes you want to cry.
 
lakeside said:
I also hate to think of all the really good rifles beat to snot at the CABC or during jumps, makes you want to cry.
Click to expand...

That was what they used the EX-1 for. They were the trials rifles, and were bought in reasonable quantity......1500 or 1700 depending on various sources with another 300 of the Ex-2. Since they were non-standard rifles, they were relegated to cadet drill use, or else for jusmp rifles at the school so real rifles didn't get damaged. Some EX-1s were also cut-away for classroom purposes. The base library here in Shilo had one of the EX1 cut-aways about 6 years ago which they forwarded to the RCA museum.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom