why were FNs prohibited ??

live-to-hunt said:
I had Fn's in the 80's -90's and the last Fn I sold .Was to a first nations person ,he didn't need any paperwork at all ,to transport it or anything. What a joke .After all the paper work and BS that goes with it. GOOD OLD CANADA.
Click to expand...


Laws are laws and should apply to EVERYONE......Why is it they can have firearms with out licencing and stuff beats me. I wonder how many of them have un registered firearms and the govn't turns a blind eye.

What a bunch of BS
 
cantom said:
What's the difference between the C1 and C2? The C2 has a heavy barrel w/integral bipod, and is provided with a C2 selector and a short trigger plunger. I don't believe there's any difference in the receivers, someone correct me if I'm wrong.
Click to expand...

Sorry to drag up this old thread but I was curious to see what happened to the old FNs I got to fire back when "nickles had pictures of bees on them" and when I was a member of the Canadian Reserve Armed Forces in the early 1980s.

I was lucky enough to be a wild, fit, athletic young buck in those days and I was assigned the FNC2 in my section. Yes the C2's barrel was a tad larger than the C1, the C2 had the bipod. But the breech block (what you are referring to as the receivers?) were identical between the C1 and C2. One time in the middle of a war game fire fight my FNC2 jammed. I opened it up to see that I cracked by breech block in two. Well there was a fellow with a C1 next to me and I grabbed his C1, and with little delay proceeded to take his breech block and put it in my C2 so that I could continue firing on the enemy (which made sense, the fellow was not happy with me, but the officers who were observing the battle said it was right thing to do, I had the fully automatic C2 machine gun).

Anyway it is kind of sad to see that the Feds have denied law abiding people from owning the FNC1 (especially those who spent time in our military). Since I have some experience with this rifle in a previous life (including cleaning it and trust me cleaning the C2 took twice as long as the C1), I would have loved to be reintroduced to it. Oh well, such is life in the nanny state. :cool:
 
Last edited:
swoopnhuck said:
But the breech block (what you are referring to as the receivers?) were identical between the C1 and C2. One time in the middle of a war game fire fight my FNC2 jammed. I opened it up to see that I cracked by breech block in two. Well there was a fellow with a C1 next to me and I grabbed his C1, and with little delay proceeded to take his breech block and put it in my C2 so that I could continue firing on the enemy (which made sense, the fellow was not happy with me, but the officers who were observing the battle said it was right thing to do, I had the fully automatic C2 machine gun).

:
Click to expand...

The reciever is the name used for the frame of the gun. On the FN, there are two. The upper reciever is the hunk of steel that the barrel attaches to, and that the bolt (the breech block you're refering to) rides in. The lower reciever holds the grip frame and the trigger system.
 
teclaydon said:
I've used the C2 ...it wasn't meant to be fired from the shoulder in full-auto. Fired from its bipod in controlled bursts (as a trained C2 gunner would do), it was very effective.
Click to expand...
mewithac2-1.jpg

You bet ya. Damm, they were hard to hold on to. I used to give it 30 rd bursts for laughs. The giant rear sights were useless and i'd walk the rds on target with my head up and butt as low on the chest as possible. The chopped dust covers with the emergency charger slot were retarded. You would get peppered by hot gas and carbon coming out of the hole for the piston rod. I was about 160lbs wet and lugging that sucker around with a full battle load was something else...not to mention the massive bra for those 30 rd mags. It was like an early form of body armour.
 
I missed out on the FN's too.:( My old unit had one stamped 0001 1953 in the lock up that I got to handle once. It broke my heart that the range was only a few minutes away. They also had C1's converted to .22 for the indoor range. I wish I could have liberated one of each.
 
cantom said:
Since it was fairly (actually extremely) easy to make it fire full auto, as they knew very well, they wanted to avoid a situation such as was seen with Lee Enfield rifles, where there were thousands of them being dumped at very low prices. I read that a number of countries were getting ready to sell off their FN's and the last thing they wanted to see was them being sold for $50 at hardware stores etc..
Click to expand...

going back to the topic, i agree it was the ease of conversion to full auto and fear of dumping.
 
I can remember ( round 1990 or so) the local gun store offered me an Indian Ishapore FN for $99. It was beat to ####, but still an FN...for 99 bucks.

They also had some "arsenal refinished" Ishapore FN's for $300 with newer furniture.

I ended up buying an AK instead due to ammo cost and the fact that it came with a drum.
 
IIRC the FNs were singled out under Mulroney, I definetly recall the Gunrunner or the like pre-1988 (or that year) with the ads in it calling for action to stop the FNs from being singled out, and yes as folks here have alluded to, it was in that time frame that not only Canada but several other FN using countries were preparing to switch to 556s. The fear of a slew of FNs hitting the market was a big reason.
 
And a rifle, or anything being bought up in a consumer market is a bad thing? kind of make me think back to the day in the old Milarm on 97th I think, when a boat load of long hairs came in and bought a few crates of ar15s....:eek::ar15::eek::ar15::eek::ar15::D
 
I remember Lever Arms selling them for $200.00, L1A1's. He also had G3's and real M-14's for the same price.

Trudeau restricted FN's, Mulruney prohibited them as well as all CA's like the M-14, G3, and SEMI AUTO's like the AKM's etc. The was a civilian board that the conservatives appointed to come up with these laws, and on it was ALAN LEVER of Lever arms, as well as pistol shooter Linda Thom, ...
 
I never got to do it but you don't have to talk to too many militia/soldier types to get the stories flowing about the groundhog that ran across the range and they blasted it with their C1's on full auto with a stick wedged into the sears...
Click to expand...

We used to use a paper match to wedge the trigger sear to make the C1 go full auto. Another major drawback of the C2 in the SAW role (aside from those monster 30rd mags jutting out the bottom) was the non-changeable barrel. She used to get pretty hot as I recall.
 
rb_roadrace said:
We used to use a paper match to wedge the trigger sear to make the C1 go full auto.
Click to expand...

We were told that C1s could be converted into auto, but I was only in the reserves so nobody showed the folks carrying the C1s this trick. Plus only being in the reserves the only time we ever saw live rounds was when we were on the firing range. All other times we were only given blanks (not that the round type has anything to do with converting the C1 to an automatic).

rb_roadrace said:
She used to get pretty hot as I recall.
Click to expand...

Damn skippy it got hot. I burned my hand at least once on it. If the larger C2 barrel got hot, I wonder how the smaller C1's barrel made out in full auto mode?
 
"...Because they are an EVIL military rifle and our firearms laws really don't make sense..." Yep. Scary looking and relatively inexpensive away back when too. Logic doesn't apply.
"...yet you can possses an M14..." You can't possess an M14 unless you owned it prior to 1 Jan., 1978, either. An M14 is select fire. As in MG. You can't have a semi'd M14 unless you have the 12(3) permit, either. Norinco M305/M14S' and M1A's aren't M14's. They're semi-auto sporting rifles.
 
rb_roadrace said:
We used to use a paper match to wedge the trigger sear to make the C1 go full auto. Another major drawback of the C2 in the SAW role (aside from those monster 30rd mags jutting out the bottom) was the non-changeable barrel. She used to get pretty hot as I recall.
Click to expand...

Done that. The old paper trick. With An FN the safety sear with an uncut carrier is easy to make fire safe auto. Its a safety feature which allows the safety sear to disconnect the hammer when the carrier group is forward and locked. The disconnector was easy to get at too. It was a chargeable offense mind you. The rifle is completely uncontrollable on auto.
...and pointless. After becoming a machine gunner I quickly learned that substained fire can only be controlled by a traversing elevation mechanism on a tripod.
I had a live fire(lightening/pegasus strike) where we jumped in at night, walked all fricken night and set up an ambush. When the sun came up, a 2 1/2 ton truck was pulled by us with a cable. I unloaded 6 30 rd mags in under a minute. I remember the truck being hit by so many bullets. Motar rds as well. The snow turned black around the truck....and not one bullet hole in any of the fig 11 or 12 targets. We are talking thousands of 7.62 combined from the rest of the Commando as well.
...on the range we could knock over square drop plates at 300m no problem.
Point being, frantic auto fire is useless.
 
jennis said:
Probably because they were scary looking....You cant posses a FNC1 (cept 15(5))yet you can possses a M14, Kind of like you can buy a ford crown victoria yet you cant buy a mercury grand marquis

AR /M4 variants are restricted, yet you can buy the Mini 14 right off the shelf. The rifle that got all this C68 business rolling and yet it has remained untouched, Im not sure which drugs the lawmakers were smoking or the quantity but you really have to shake your head at times
Click to expand...

It was a mini 14 ruger not the m14. And it is not restricted either
 
As per an earlier post,to my mind ,the reason was that a number of countries were dropping the FN in favor of 5.56 firearms-so they were afraid that we would become the "dumping ground" for the ,otherwise legal, surplus firearms.
 
buckbrush said:
I remember Lever Arms selling them for $200.00, L1A1's. He also had G3's and real M-14's for the same price.

Trudeau restricted FN's, Mulruney prohibited them as well as all CA's like the M-14, G3, and SEMI AUTO's like the AKM's etc. The was a civilian board that the conservatives appointed to come up with these laws, and on it was ALAN LEVER of Lever arms, as well as pistol shooter Linda Thom, ...
Click to expand...

All of the shooting community reps on that panel were very badly screwed, they were only there to make it look like the community was consulted, meetings were held in their absence and the input they gave was ignored. I believe Allan was invited to one meeting (in Ottawa, at his own expense) and never invited back, but his name was widely shown as being on the commitee's final recomendations.
 
enefgee said:
All of the shooting community reps on that panel were very badly screwed, they were only there to make it look like the community was consulted, meetings were held in their absence and the input they gave was ignored. I believe Allan was invited to one meeting (in Ottawa, at his own expense) and never invited back, but his name was widely shown as being on the commitee's final recomendations.
Click to expand...

That's a really dirty play... :(
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom