# The FN C1 - Service Rifle of the Past  (and C7A1 vs FN C1A1)



## Luchi (13 Jun 2000)

I recently realized I‘m not aware of the difference between the two modifications of C1 rifle. 
My guess would be that C1A2 uses the improved magazines with the separate beefed-up front lug. Correct me if I‘m wrong.
Thanks!

"Luchi"
709 Coms Regt


----------



## Gunner (13 Jun 2000)

There are only two versions of the C7 in use.  The first is termed the C7 which has the original iron sights.  The second is the C7A1 which has the modification that adds the scope.  As far as I know there is no C7A2.


----------



## garb811 (13 Jun 2000)

The C-1 is the old 7.62mm rifle, now there was a rifle.  Didn‘t know there was a C1A2 and I used the thing right up until the C7 came in.  Perhaps you‘re thinking of the C2A1, a full auto version that had a bipod, 30 rd mag and heavy barrel, which was what the C-9 replaced as the squad automatic weapon.


----------



## pronto (13 Jun 2000)

Assuming that you‘re requesting info about the FN/FAL C1A1 personal weapon used by Cdn Forces since its adoption in early to mid 50‘s, until its replacement by the "M-16" series C-7, C-8 etc type weapon, may I give you the following information.

The C1A2 was a major modification by Canadian Arsenals Limited to the C1A1. It involved three things: a better ejector assembly which meant that a field expedient repair could be done without back loading the item to a rear echelon repair depot; the front sight assembly was replaced with the C2 sights; this also improved the gas block replacement assembly.

These modifications were considered by CAL to be significant enough that they wanted a new mark number employed- hence, C1A2. This never came to be and C1A2s were introduced into the CF inventory as C1A1s, however they were identified with a new series of serial numbers: 8LXXXX. Mine shoots great!

Full details can be found in R. Blake Stevens book "North Amereican FALs", pp 133-135.

BTW, for your own personal info, I am the only still serving member who served in 2 Sig Regt, 8 Sig Regt, Tor Sig Regt, 709 Comm Regt!

Velox Versutus Vigilans


----------



## RADIK (13 Jun 2000)

I believe the C1A2 was the "fully automatic" version of the original FNC1 7.62mm that was in service until the C7 and its Carbine model were introduced as the primary service rifle. 

FNC1 was, by all means, the most dependable and ‘solid‘ rifle I have come across, with exception of the soviet-made AK-47.  However, modern doctrine shows the smaller 5.56 C7, modeled after the U.S. M-16A2 is much better suited for contemporary combat for numerous reasons. 

G.D.S.


----------



## Gunner (14 Jun 2000)

Sorry Luchi...I was running off at the mouth and didn‘t notice you said C"1" not C7.  I was so pleased that I actually knew something about it.

My error...cheers!


----------



## Dav langstroth (16 Jun 2000)

Pronto;  You‘ve almost got it right!  There was an additional mod that incorporated the locking shoulder assembly but it was a small thing and probably not noted on the request fot model name change.  One of the greatest difficulties with the FN series was that when it finally broke...it broke real hard!  With the locking shoulder mod, one could remove the locking cam from the frame, grind a small bevel from the forward edge of the left side (the big side), replace the locking cam and square stake the frame to lock the cam in place.  First line mod with no special tooling required.  We were advised to mark the serial number on the frame with small asteriks to indicate that the job was done but not many bothered as you could see the mod without disassembly.

I didn‘t get this information from a book, it‘s what I do for a living.

Is yours an 8LXXXX series?  If it is you‘re a lucky guy to have such a fine weapon in your possession!

All the Best

Dileas Gu Brath


----------



## pronto (19 Jun 2000)

To Dav:
Yes, my C1A2 is serial number 8L4188. I shoot it fairly regularly at Winona and Borden with ORA/OACA. It‘s getting to be more than a pain to keep current with Firearms Act paperwork. One must remember to bring one‘s PAL/FAC, ATT, SAP and green sheets or 
FIN card. All these restrictions really curb crime in the streets, don‘t they?

Cheers


----------



## the patriot (29 Jun 2000)

Hello All,

This debate will probably go on forever. I‘m still partial to the old FN service rifle. It had greater range, more kick, and was in my opinion a "classier" weapon.  Granted the C7 holds its own, but I guess one of the reasons the FN was scrapped was due to the cost of maintaining such a weapon (parts and maintenance etc.).  How does everyone else feel about this? Which one of the two do you feel is the better weapon?!

-the patriot-


----------



## madorosh (29 Jun 2000)

There are a lot of facets to that question, so it‘s a good one.  Do you mean from an individual standpoint, or from a cost effectiveness standpoint, a casualty inflicting standpoint, etc.?

Personally, I did my basic with the FN and I couldnt‘ hit a damn thing with it on the range.  I‘m 5‘5" and it was too much for me.  The C7, with a small butt stock, is much easier for me to control and fire accurately.  It‘s also lighter, which I like when I have to march with it.

If I went to war, I would probably not like the plastic parts much, or the stopping power of the bullet, though I could carry more ammo and also feel more confident in my ability to dominate my immediate area with full automatic firepower and a 30 round magazine as opposed to semi-auto with the FN and 20 rounds in the mag.

There is the old question about whether its better to wound or to kill enemy soldiers - for the rifleman, better to kill him dead so he‘s no threat to you.  From a logistical stanpoint, every soldier you wound ties up that many more enemy rear area troops to look after him.  It‘s not an argument I get involved in myself, but it‘s something some people do consider - and I hear that the 5.56 tumbles more, causing nastier wounds, though the 7.62 is heavier and more likely to kill you than a .223, depending on where it hits you.

There is the question of cost, of interchanability of ammunition with the rest of the section (you could use C1 mags in the C2 LMG, but you can also use C7 mags in the C9).

Another question is whether or not one is inherently more accurate than the other out to certain ranges - and how important is that anyway - how many troops fire their rifles effectively in combat (a question going back to SLA Marshall, who may have gotten many of the answers wrong, but it is a question worth asking even today).  If the majority of killing is done with artillery and MG fire (in a conventional war, as WW II was - and as WW II vets found out) then does it really matter?  But that raises the question again of how will our infantry be employed in the next 10 years - and who will they be shooting at?

Sorry to drag this out - but there are a lot of other little (good) questions to consider.  Personally - from my perspective - I can carry a C7 and shoot it more accurately than I can an FN.  I could probably use the rifle butt more effectively too, and the bayonet - the C7 being lighter and smaller - though I‘m not sure which would be more resistant to shattering over an enemy helmet or skull - the plastic or the wood butt.

I‘ve heard a lot of guys say that they prefer the FN simply because it "feels" like a weapon - they like the heft.  So despite my own wishes, if the majority of my comrades preferred the FN, I would think their morale would be improved by switching over.


----------



## bossi (30 Jun 2000)

I‘m probably just a simpleton, but I liked the FN for the following reasons:  stopping power of the round, and buttstroke.

They put a scope on the C7 - makes me wonder what it would have been like to put a scope on the FN ... ?  I like the idea of being able to "reach out and touch somebody" at a larger distance ... especially if I‘m a better shot than they are!

However, I acknowledge that some people had difficulty with the FN and therefore prefer the smaller, lighter C7 - it‘s only human nature (similar debate probably ensued when the Lee Enfield was replaced).

Personally, I‘d also be happy to have a Mossberg "Intimidator" slung across my back when the s*** hits the fan - my logic has always been that if the battle has deteriorated to the stage whereby I (me personally) am firing my personal weapon, then it‘s only a matter of minutes or seconds, yards or metres before the bayonet fighting starts (and I‘m not interested in "coming in second" at that stage - heck, I‘d be packing a 9mm, too!)

Dileas Gu Brath
Mark Bossi, Esquire


----------



## Brad Sallows (30 Jun 2000)

Someone once told me (and I have never checked) that the C7 (with C79 sight), loaded, weighs more than the C1, loaded.  True?  False?


----------



## pronto (3 Jul 2000)

Quoting from B/OL/317-002/PT-001 (AKA CFP 317 (2)) 
rifle C1A1 and LAR:

Weight of rifle; 4.22 kg, 9# 6 oz;

Weight of rifle, full mag, bayonet; 5.24kg, 11# 10 oz. oz.


I can get similar specs for comparison for C7 avec sight etc from the "Never Pass a Fault" guys at the local Armoury.


----------



## pronto (6 Jul 2000)

Further to my last post on subj:
IAW CFP 317(18), C7, with loaded 30 rd mag, slig and oil bottle; weight 3.89kg. This is for the original C7 sans upper receiver and optical sight mod. 3.89kg= 8.558 #. I am told that the optical sight is no way coming in at 4#, therefore, the C7 cannot be heavier than the FN C1, all things being considered equal.


----------



## russm (18 Jul 2000)

Forgive me if I appear somewhat abrasive, but there appear to be a goodly number of people out there blowing smoke out of their posteriors.

I recognize some of the names of the contributors to this forum and I know that at least two of you have never served a day in the Infantry in your lives. There aren‘t too many clerks out there with real operational experience any more (especially Reserve clerks!)(sorry guys, but gate guard doesn‘t cut it). So your opinions of how a weapon shoots, or how it carries is somewhat irrelevant in this particular forum. No offense intended; I‘m just saying it like it is, as Infanteers do.

When I served in the British Army I had, for a number of years, a beautifully refurbished SLR with a very grainy triangular wooden hand-guard and butt. This was a rarity, since the black plastic SLRs had long since taken the place, generally, of the wooden ones. The rifle also had a heavier barrel than most and was very accurate. I once shot for a morning on an ETR at Hythe Ranges on the south coast of England, shooting at targets at 600m with iron sights. I was scoring 2 out of three hits - which isn‘t bad considering that the fig. 11 target is half the size of the SLR foresight blade at 600m.

I found the Canadian C1 to be woefully inaccurate compared to the Brit SLRs I had fired. I attributed this to the abuse they took when pooled at the summer recruit trg establishments, and the appalling lack of proper maintenance back at the Units by the gun plumbers (it didn‘t help, either that the "bolts" were kept in a box and issued randomly with any wpn).

I find the Canadian C7 to be OK at up to 300m. The sight is crap, though, and it‘s effect on soldiers‘ peripheral vision is bad news, especially in close country. And I‘d really like to meet the winger whose idea it was to put that sight on the C9, too.

Personally, I think the notion of developing a round to wound an enemy is ludicrous. A wounded enemy soldier can still operate a wpn and I can think of numerous situations where you would really want him to go down and stay down. The 7.62 NATO round is not only more than adequate for the task, but is most effective against soft-skinned vehicles. 7.62 AP does a good job on li amd vehs, as well.

As an Infantry soldier, I‘d rather suffer under the additional weight of the 7.62 round and benefit from the greater punch, penetration, and range, than have a lighter round to fire. The issue of carrying less 7.62 ammo due to the extra weight is a non-starter.

The FN is a most robust rifle and highly effective. I‘d welcome it back in an upgraded version.


----------



## madorosh (18 Jul 2000)

Well, you know, I really wasn‘t expecting too many people to take my comments all that seriously.  I thought I‘d help Mike get his messageboard up and running, and given the dearth of posters here, didn‘t see the harm in throwing in a few comments from someone who is clearly a REMF.  

To set your mind at ease, no offense taken, but it would appear my objective has been reached - ie stimulating discussion by those with more experience than I.  It certainly got YOU to pontificate at length - which is what this place is all about.

But I think you want to watch that same, tired old attitude of "if you weren‘t there, shut up."  It‘s not very condusive to stimulating thoughtful discussion.  That‘s what we‘re here to do - not to set policy for the Canadian Army.

I was under the impression the bulk of your service in the British Army was as a Territorial in some lesser known County Regiment; please correct me if I‘m wrong.  I mean, it would be very possible for some Falklands or Vietnam War vet to come along and tell YOU to shut yer gob.  Which really wouldn‘t make any sense at all - we all have the right to express an opinion.  That yours is worth more in this discussion than mine is obvious, my feeling is that there is no point in making an ass out of yourself by stating it.

At any rate, welcome to the forum, and its nice to see yet another Calgary Highlander here.

And while I haven‘t served a day in the infantry, I did serve one (single) night attached to a rifle platoon for the live-fire defensive ex two years ago.  And I was complimented on my shooting (with the C7).  Hardly operational experience, I realize, but not exactly armchair soldiering either.

With that, I‘ll gladly leave the conversation in the hands of those who (in your manner of thinking) have the "right" to comment.  Truth be told, I‘d prefer to hear from those with "operational experience" - know where we can find any willing to post?


----------



## Mr Magoo (19 Jul 2000)

In this day and age, I think that it‘s pretty clear that 
it‘s not only infanteers that have experience with the 
service rifle, also infanteers don‘t get that much time 
and ammo using their rifles anyway.  Our Bisley team has 
been from all trades for some time.

The FN is an outdated, heavy, difficult-to-clean weapon 
that was very suited for its time and depending on the 
mission could be used today.

The C7 has small rubber sights on the top of the C2 sight 
to be used in closed country.  The C2 sight is not crap, 
it‘s very good, and is an excellent tool to use at night.  
Your beloved British Army uses a 2X scope, if memory serves me correctly.

The 7.62 NATO round was also designed to wound, hence the 
metal jacket.  A wounded en uses a lot more en resources 
and has a greater negative effect on morale.


----------



## russm (19 Jul 2000)

Well Dorosh, if you took my general reference to non-Infantry opinions so much to heart I‘d say that is a personal choice...but if the cap fits, wear it!

I shouldn‘t think for one minute that anyone out there is interested in my service. Suffice to say that your own speculation about it is quite wrong!

You really spent a whole night with an infantry platoon? Dang Dorosh, I see you in a whole different light now (I think our Ladies‘ Auxiliary did something similar recently, too. They had a blast)!  ;-D

But enough silliness. If you‘d like to discuss this offline, feel free. 


For Magoo: 

You said: In this day and age, I think that it‘s pretty clear that it‘s not only infanteers that have experience with the 
service rifle, also infanteers don‘t get that much time 
and ammo using their rifles anyway. Our Bisley team has 
been from all trades for some time.

I say: But the discussion was about the wpn‘s application live and in theatre, was it not? It‘s use in theatre will largely be by Infanteers. We‘re not talking about target shooting to get trophies here - of the Bisley team, only the Infanteers are likely to engage the service rifle for its intended purpose.

You said: The FN is an outdated, heavy, difficult-to-clean weapon that was very suited for its time and depending on the 
mission could be used today.

I say: Outdated compared to what? And what exactly does "outdated" mean in this context? I did say I‘d welcome the FN back in a "modified" version, however.

Heavy? Compared to what? I‘ve never heard a fit, properly trained Infanteer complain about the weight of the FN...even one with a Starlight scope on it (though that‘s dating me a bit).

Difficult to clean? Compared to what? The nooks and crannies in the upper receiver of the C7 are harder to get at and there are other, more awkward-to-clean rifles out there yet.

You said: The C7 has small rubber sights on the top of the C2 sight to be used in closed country. The C2 sight is not crap, 
it‘s very good, and is an excellent tool to use at night. 

I say: Take a look in any Infantry Unit wpns lock-up and see just how many of those "small rubber sights on the top of the C2 sight" are still there. Most of them wear off within a short time of receipt in the unit, making using and training with them a non-starter. Also, use of the C2 optic is extremely limiting to the all-important peripheral vision in close country. "Tunnel vision", even for a moment, is a very bad thing for an Infantry soldier. The C2 sight also has a nasty habit of becoming loose on the wpn right when you need it most. Infanteers tend to put their wpns through much more arduous conditions than simply firing on a range. Simply re-tightening the wing-nuts on the sight mount doesn‘t cut it, as the wpn zero is lost and subsequent shots fired are inaccurate. BTW, all optic sights have certain inherent light-gathering qualities in poor light conditions. The C2 sight is poorly designed and not nearly robust enough for the Infantry. Like I said...it‘s crap!

You said: Your beloved British Army uses a 2X scope, if memory serves me correctly.

I say: That would be the sight on the SA80, which was not being discussed. I don‘t know much about that sight as I only used it a few times close to the end of my British service. I do know that the wpn it‘s mounted on is absolute crap and a very poor substitute for the FN.

You said: The 7.62 NATO round was also designed to wound, hence the metal jacket. A wounded en uses a lot more en resources 
and has a greater negative effect on morale.

I say: That‘s crap! Any grunt in the thick of it wants the enemy to go down and stay down. He couldn‘t care less what‘s happening in the enemy‘s rear ech! A 7.62 NATO round will go through a brick wall and kill the bastard on the other side. A 5.56 probably won‘t. See if you can attend a penetration demonstration some time...you‘ll get the idea.


----------



## Gunner (20 Jul 2000)

russm,

This is a free thinking discussion group and it does not matter if someone is a wrench bender, cook, admin clerk or grunt.  If they have an opinion about a topic they are more then within their right to contribute.  In case you forget, the C7 is classified as a service weapon, not an infantry specific rifle.  You obviously have alot of experience and could contribute alot to this forum, however, your comments toward other active members are for the most part narrow minded infantry drivel.

I carried the C1 and the C2 and I much prefer the C7 and C9 series we currently have.  Is it the optimum solution for a Canadian soldier, no of course not, but what army in the world is kitted out with the best of weapons...?  Not many.

I‘m off to the Ladies Auxiliary for tea now.  Cheerio!


----------



## Ex Coelis (20 Jul 2000)

Gents, the sight  on the C7 is a C79; the C2 is a mortar sight and is also used with the C6 SF kit.


----------



## russm (20 Jul 2000)

Folks, I am enjoying the jousting here, but feel I may have been a bit too caustic. No offense meant...I do tend to take the piss a bit some times (hey, it‘s an infantry thing!). Of course it is a free world and everybody (even non-infantry   :-D  ) are entitled to their respective opinions.


Gunner: Your points are very fair and I got a real kick out of your Ladies Auxiliary remark!

Ex Coelis: Quite right. In my efforts to get all flustered and unnecessary, I quoted the wrong sight designation. The C2 sight is the good sight (though not the simplest to use); it‘s the C79 sight that‘s the "crap" sight. Got it!

Folks, a final shot (if you‘ll pardon the weak pun) from me on the wpn issue: While the muzzle velocity of the 69 grain 5.56 bullet is about 3000 fps, compared to the 168 grain 7.62‘s 2600 fps, the heavier 7.62 bullet is actually faster beyond 500m. In addition, the energy retention of the 7.62 is far greater than the 5.56 at any given distance (almost three times as much at 500m) and significantly less susceptible to the effects of wind. This results in a harder hitting, more accurate round at greater distances, which is especially important for fire put down as a section or by machine-gunners. Being able to reach out to an enemy at greater distances with greater effect is extremely important to an infantry soldier.

Good Lawd, it it time for tea already?

Cheers,

RussM


----------



## russm (20 Jul 2000)

BTW I think the C9 is a great piece of kit, despite it being 5.56. It‘s essentially a scaled-down FN MAG (C6 GPMG) anyway, and that can‘t be a bad thing! A damned sight better than that LSW crap the Brits are using. That and the SA80 is making the press quite regularly in the UK due to the poor quality (of the gun, not the press - though that‘s suspect, too), so I understand.

One lump or two?


----------



## Gunner (20 Jul 2000)

russm, good post, I have to admit I was pulling your chain too.  

Agree totally with the stopping power of the FN.  But, how important is the ability to reach out and touch someone with that stopping power on the modern battlefield?

The majority of engagements are thought to occur around 100 metres and closer.  If you are in a defensive position and the enemy is charging towards you (500 metres away), they should probably be shot because they are stupid.  Secondly, if you are a Sect Comd or Pl Comd or Coy Comd are you going to let the enemy comd know where you are by opening up that far away?  

Finally, my final comment is the rifle is really only for personal protection and security of the crew served weapons anyway so why would you want a rifle capable of "reaching out and touching someone".  If you accept this comment, what becomes more important to an infantry soldier... to carry more crew served weapon ammo or their own heavy rifle and heavier ammo.     

Cheers!

PS.  Do they even have Ladies Auxiliaries any more or has feminism destroyed that aspects of a units wellbeing?


----------



## russm (20 Jul 2000)

Gunner:

No, of course we wouldn‘t want to give our posn away (at least until we had got the en close to where we wanted him).

I should say that I am constantly bemused as to where all this modern doctrine is coming from, given that we haven‘t had a war which would necessitate general-warfare-type tactics in almost 50 years. It bothers me when we somewhat blindly follow U.S. (for instance) doctrine, given that theirs is not battle-proven either. I agree that certain fundamental equipment (and other)changes can significantly demand a change in tactics, but I tink change for change sake is silly. Also, as an infanteer I feel terribly uncomfortable with this modernistsic "we will conduct the war on a computer screen from a great distance, using our personal wpns only for personal protection" approach. Will computers even be effective on the modern battle field, given the corresponding tchnology out there to produce devastating ECM? Who know. It may well be that we are reduced, once again, to a man and his rifle using a hand signal. There‘s still a lot to be said for a good runner!


As for the Ladies‘ Auxiliery: They are still very much alive and kicking (at least in my own Unit). Ours cook baked goods and even entire meals out of the WOs‘ and Sgts‘ Mess kitchen and sell them to the troops for a pittance. They‘re always there when we‘re getting ready to deploy, selling their stuff to the troops. All the money, above operating costs, goes to the ladies‘ Aux. Bursary which is presented at the Regimental birthday celebrations to the most deserving soldier who‘s taking studies. It‘s usually around $700.00, so it‘s worth having for the average troop.

When I worked in Bn HQ, I had quite a bit of contact with them and really learned to appreciate all they do for the troops. 

Cheers,

Russ


----------



## russm (20 Jul 2000)

Yep, my keyboarding skills suck!

But then so do flaming hoemmerroids. Thank goodness I only have bad keyboarding skills   ;-D


----------



## russm (20 Jul 2000)

Hemorrhoids, damn it, hemorrhoids. My kingdom for spell check!


----------



## Gunner (20 Jul 2000)

Thanks for the reply russ!

There was a very good article on Canadian Doctrine in the Army Training and Doctrine Bulletin (last winter edition?) by Dr Jaromoycz (sp?).  We have adopted the doctrine of maneouvre warfare from the americans, who adopted it from the germans.  During the Persian Gulf War (after the doctrine of maneouvre warfare had been in place for approx a decade, the US reverted back to the same attritionist style warfare that they had used since the US Civil War (and have for the most part won most battles).  Dr Jaromoycz‘s point was if we want to adopt a doctrine that works, why german doctrine as they lost WWII using that doctrine.  Better to adopt (then Soviet) doctrine as they really won WWII and by the end had mastered the art of war.  Hence, his arguement is Canada will adopt the US doctrine (who got it from the Germans) but when push comes to shove, we will revert back to our long held attritionist ideology because doctrine is based on our own culture and you cannot superimpose your mindset on someone else‘s doctrine.

Anyway, enough of the doctrine.  I guess what brouhgt that up was your comments on moving away from the soldier with his rifle advancing against the godless hoards!  You hear from our leaders about the "high tech" military the Canadian Army is transforming itself into and I laugh at those comments.  True we are getting some good equipment in the form of Coyote, LAV III and dare I say the Armoured Combat Vehicle (ACV) but I‘ll use the analogy that we are moving from a black and white TV to a digital television. Sure it looks good now, but when the next generation of plasma tvs come in, we will once again have an inferior product.  My point being that it is not as high tech as our leaders say it is as the technology has been available for years, so we‘re buying old "off the shelf" technology and we are wow‘d because we actually have an Infantry Fighting Vehicle worthy of the name...something our allies have had for years (Marder, Warrior and Bradley).   

I‘ve bored you enough...cheers!


----------



## Servicepub (24 Jul 2000)

To debate which firearm (or weapon system) is better is to overlook the reason behind the choices. It is battle doctrine that defines the army‘s weapons. Canadian battle doctrine has changed from the post-war European theatre/soviet threat to one that recognises that the Canadian Army must serve in a variety of conflicts (and ‘near-conflicts‘). The long-range capability of the 7.62mm was shown to be overkill for the new doctrine. Once that decision was made it was a no-brainer to adopt the 5.56mm as this was already in use by several allies - either as Standard or Secondary Standard. After the ammunition was selected it remained to adopt a delivery system. Canada made an intelligent choice in selecting the battle-proven M-16 rather than a European model. For several reasons the European manufacturers did not want to licence production in Canada and, at the time of selection, there was no single model which our NATO allies had standardised upon. With the licenced Colt we got not just the manufacturing rights but also the right to market the Canadian-made model to NATO allies. In fact Diemaco has successfully sold large quantities to the Netherlands, Denmark and Norway. In fact, a new contract was signed last Thursday with Denmark to supply another large quantity of C-7/8 rifles. The UK has also placed a large order for the SFW (Special Forces Weapon) which is a Diemaco design based on a short barrelled C-8 with sights and M203 built-in.


----------



## Gunner (24 Jul 2000)

ServicePub,

Doctrine is based on your security environment, however, it is abit of debate whether it is equipment that defines doctrine or doctrine defines what weapon systems you purchase/utilize.  You point is moot as the C7 Familiy of weapons were adopted during the height of the Cold War (in the 80s anyway).  

The ammunition standard was based on the movement to the 5.56 mm "NATO Standard" that had been adopted by all members of NATO.

Your comments on the export of Canada build C7/C8s was interesting as I didn‘t think there would be that large of a European market for the weapon.


----------



## Mud Crawler (11 Jan 2001)

where can i get a pic of the C1??I dont even know what it is.7.62 with 20 round mag, is it the FN fal?


----------



## Honi soit qui mal y pense (11 Jan 2001)

Mud Crawler,

The FNC1 was in fact the FN FAL.  It was more close to the FN FAL than the British L1A1, which had several modifications.  If you go to the Fabrique Nationale website (or any of the websites devoted to FN weapons in the US) you should get a good picture of the C1.  

By the way, the C2 looked alot like the C1, but it had a heavier barrel and a tripod.  It was the section support weapon before the C9.  

Cheers

Civitas et Princeps Cura Nostra


----------



## Mud Crawler (12 Jan 2001)

merci Honi soit qui mal y pense


----------



## bossi (12 Jan 2001)

Actually, the C2 had a bipod (not tripod - i.e. two, vice three legs)

But I‘m not really an expert on this subject.

Dileas Gu Brath


----------



## the patriot (23 May 2001)

For those that are interested.  I‘ve come accross a website that has alot of information on the old FN C1. It is listed as The Fal Files - FN FAL under Military Information of User Submitted links.  Here‘s a direct link to the site.
http://fnfal.com/falfiles/index.html 

-the patriot-


----------



## John Nayduk (23 May 2001)

Nice to see the FN again, brings back some memories.


----------



## JRMACDONALD (25 May 2001)

Patriot- good to see you ‘re keeping the pressure up! Do you have a link to a website for  the Brown Bess or Martini -Henry!!!!?


----------



## Fishbone Jones (25 May 2001)

Actually JR, I wouldn‘t mind finding some links for the Martini-Henry. Stuff is getting really scarce and I wouldn‘t mind shooting mine again.


----------



## John Nayduk (25 May 2001)

While you guys are at it, why not dust off your old lance, crossbow or gladius.


----------



## JRMACDONALD (26 May 2001)

Recce guy/Another---  Agreed/understood-- just don‘t say anything about the OPTICAL SIGHTS they used!!!!!(some one might get upset!)


----------



## newfoundlander (6 Jun 2003)

What would you prefer in the battlefield the FNC7 or the C7?   :mg:    :sniper:    :cam:    :skull:    :evil:


----------



## Danjanou (6 Jun 2003)

The what?

I think you mean the FNC1/C2 or FNC1A1
as the old Fabrique National family of weapons were called.

Seriously doubt we‘re going to bring back a older weapon heavier system that uses a different calibre than all our allies use.

They were good weapons (for their time), heavy to lug around, but robust.

In retospect we probably should not have got rid of the SMG though. It still would have been useful for vehicle crews, wpns dets etc IMHO.


----------



## Thaedes (6 Jun 2003)

As I understand it, the RCMP and JTF2 still have mp5‘s for counter terrorism purposes in civillian settings.  Doubt they‘d be getting rid of them any time soon either.


----------



## Danjanou (6 Jun 2003)

The MP5 is an excellent wpn, especially in the CQB role. However for various reason you‘re never going to see them in sufficient numbers to equip line units. especially in the CF with our political masters.

The old Sterling SMG though was rugged enough for green ops for the pers I suggestd and we had sufficient stocks of them at the time. We kept the pistols and 9mm ammo, so logistically it wouln‘t have been too much of a headache to retain them when we converted over to the C7/C8/C9.


----------



## WINDWOLF (6 Jun 2003)

They may have been heavy & a bitch to deal with sometimes but go hide behind a tree or car & i garrinty(spelling) you i will get you.

7.62 vs 5.65 was a hot topic before i got out.
Most older guys wanted to keep the c series because of the power of 7.62. Others wanted more rounds down range & interchangeable ammo with allies who used 5.65.

I really do not know if we made the right choice.
Each weapon has it,s pros & cons.I alway liked the feel of a C1 & C3. Nice balance & easy to get back on target with.The C3 was a bit of a pig @
full auto but like anything else you learned
the " son of a bitch" rule.

I never got to fire the new weapons,so i really have no opinion about good/bad.

Played with M16 & thought it was a pcs of crap.
Kept jamming & a real pain in the a$$ to stay on 
target with.

    :sniper:


----------



## Danjanou (6 Jun 2003)

Windwolf 
Fortunately I stayed in long enough to use both. Like you I was a little reluctant to switch too. I‘d used M-16s on exchanges with the Yanks and wasn‘t impressed either with the mattel toy.

The improvements in both wpn and ammo though make it a different wpn altogether from the 1960s vintage M-16. There were other 5.65 wpns that may have been a beeter choice, but I soon became a convert. 

Besides we had the C6 in 7.62 for those morons who tried to hide behind trees.


----------



## PTE Gruending (6 Jun 2003)

> Besides we had the C6 in 7.62 for those morons who tried to hide behind trees. >

M203 Baby! ;-)


----------



## McG (6 Jun 2003)

This topic has been around for a while.  Have a look at some other thoughts on it:
The C7 Vs. The FN C1A1


----------



## 762gunner (6 Jun 2003)

I used the FN C1 and for its time, it was a nice piece of work.   I would give my eye teeth (and a chunk of change) to buy one now (even converted to a semi-auto).  Due to its weight, it was not difficult to get near perfect scores on the range.  NOW?  It USED to be easy to get marksman on the range with the C7 iron sights, but the scope on the C7A1?  Well, I‘m not sure exactly what advantages it has.  Certainly the majority of scores in the Brigade I‘m in have gone down.  About 40% of shooters pass ELOC in the first try now.  I‘d LOVE to practice with an FN.


----------



## newfoundlander (9 Aug 2003)

which soldiers throughtout your career have tried the fnc1? and what did you like or dislike about it? please reply.
             thanks
          Newfoundlander  :fifty:


----------



## Long in the tooth (9 Aug 2003)

I recall carrying the C1 and C2 for miles without the use of the sling.  If nothing else my upper body strength was better for it!  The C1/2 were solid pieces of furniture that punished you terribly for using it incorrectly.  I never got ‘FN cheek‘ or a black eye, but often felt as if my right shoulder had been prepared with a meat tenderizer.  The good point is that it could be deadly accurate, and although logic dictates that a C7 round can do as much (or more) damage, it did inspire confidence.
The big fault is that we were stuck with a C2 as a section weapon with a 30 rd mag, 150 rds per gunner.  The C9 is clearly superior in terms of fire sustainability, and if you can believe it, I actually got a woody firing it on conversion training.


----------



## Doug VT (10 Aug 2003)

I first fired the C1 when I was 13, in Army Cadets.  Personally I don‘t see what all the complaining was about with the recoil.  I‘d heard all the horror stories and was prepared for the worst but was actually disapointed...  And yes, I did fire quite a lot of rounds in my time.  I‘ve never fired with the inserts, it was always full bore. I went to Cadets in Cornwallis...


----------



## MG34 (10 Aug 2003)

I carried both the C1 and C2 for several years.The FN series was well past it‘s prime at the time of it‘s replacement,with a shortage of parts and worn out weapons.


----------



## mark 36 hamon (25 Jan 2005)

Old topic but I'm new here, my 2 cents. I've never been in the army I'm a collector of military firearms and equipment the closest I can get to a C7 is an Ar-15 of which I've owned many and I like to shoot BUT if my life depended on it I would choose a C1 .I've owned 4 of these and currently I have a C1A1 and a C2A1 "CA" (C1 "D"is the light full auto Naval C1) both in minty condition I also have a Lietz sniperscope which I hope to mount on the C2 this year if I get my SAP for Winona (we rent it for our own club no DCRA/ORA).I have used my C1 out to 600yards at Winona with the sniperscope and I am amazed at how accurate it is for an untampered with semi-auto I can keep in the bull all day long and it has plenty of energy at the longer ranges which can't be said with the .223 plus7.62 bucks the wind much better the the 62gn .223 .the C1 is made the old way ,solid ,heavy strong some may argue these are weaknesses but I would want a rifle that would instill  confidence which I just don't get from an AR they feel too light too much like a toy fun to shoot but don't drop it it may break .Again like I said I'm not or have ever being in the Army these are just my feelings after shooting both types for many years


----------



## 1feral1 (27 Jan 2005)

Cpl.Canuck said:
			
		

> I used the FN C1 and for its time, it was a nice piece of work.    I would give my eye teeth (and a chunk of change) to buy one now (even converted to a semi-auto).



To stop any misconceptions before they start the C1 was always semi-auto with the exception of the C1D for naval boarding party purposes (as Mark says in the above post). This was fitted with a C2 change lever, and C2 trigger plunger (thats all you needed), and the rifle was identified with a large A on the side of the butt near the rear sight. The A was painted either red or white. I had seen both. Near the end of service many C1D's were placed into regular service at Army units through Canada. The Regina Rifles had a few of them.

Commercial sale of the C1A1 and L1A1 rifles back in the early to late 1980s was a common thing. I had paid $750 for my 8L CAL C1A1(former OPP rifle exported to the UK and resold back into Canada) in 1987, and $450 for my Australian L1A1 in 1977 (both since sold to friends before I left Canada). Both rifles had intact safety sears, and unaltered breech block carriers.

If you are looking to buy either types today, you still can as long as you had one previous to the grandfather clause back in the mid 1990s. I had recently (this month at MARSTAR) seen an 8L CAL C1A1 for $1,200 advertised in Canada, adn $750 for an L1A1.

As for the C1/L1 weapons system, for its day it was fine, but it was severly critisised in the Falklands (I had the chance to read in detail the AAR on its performance and critique from the British Army back in 1983) War by the English.

As for the LAR, the C2A1, well that was a beast which was mag fed, fired from a closed bolt, and had no barrel change capabilities, which all are not good characteristics for an LAR/LMG. The British stayed away from the idea staying with the L4 BREN (yet later adpoted the L86A2 which is the same method as the C2, but the Poms have since seen the light, using the Minimi in Iraq).

Australia was the only other country to use the C2 type of weapon were it was known as the L2A1 or 'AR' for Automatic Rifle. This was primarily used by unitsother than infantry, as the US M60 GPMG and L4 A4 BRENS were also used.

Australia purchased from Canada C2 bipod assemblies, early type rear C2 1000 metre sights, and carrying handles in qty for their ARs. None of these were made by SAF-L, but all other components were. Also the Aussie version did not have a removable ejector block as did the C2A1 and 8L C1A1.

Production of the Aussie rifles began in 1959 and went well into the late 1980s, where Canada had produced the C1 from late 1956 to only 1968. BTW Canada was the first country to adopt and mass produce the FN rifle.

Such limitations noted in the British report were its weight, lack of amount of rds that could be carried, magazine size, lack of qty of mags that could be carried, and effectiveness in CQB situations.

The good advantage was its range, punch and it's robustness. 

I carried the C1A1 from Jan 1976 until it was replaced by the C7 at our Unit in Oct 1990.

EDIT: Oddly enough, some private security firms are using 'upgunned' 7.62mm FN FAL rifles (upgunned meaning modernized, altered, customised, shortend bbls, picatinny rails etc) in Iraq.

Throughout the third world now, along with 'Mr Kalashnikov', one can find heaps of variants of the FAL rifle in the hands of many so called 'soldiers'.


Cheers,

Wes


----------



## chrisf (27 Jan 2005)

Worn Out Grunt said:
			
		

> The C9 is clearly superior in terms of fire sustainability, and if you can believe it, I actually got a woody firing it on conversion training.



"Clear weapons.... stand up..."
"I can't sir!"


----------



## Britney Spears (28 Jan 2005)

> Oddly enough, some private security firms are using 'upgunned' 7.62mm FN FAL rifles (upgunned meaning modernized, altered, customised, shortend bbls, picatinny rails etc) in Iraq.


----------



## 7ARMD (29 Jan 2005)

Hi there russm,

Very interesting postings, but finding it hard to believe "bolts" were kept in a box and issued randomly.
Quite scary


----------



## 1feral1 (29 Jan 2005)

7ARMD said:
			
		

> Hi there russm,
> 
> Very interesting postings, but finding it hard to believe "bolts" were kept in a box and issued randomly.
> Quite scary



FACT: The breech blocks for the C1's and C2s were kept separate (policy at the time), and were issued at random, so you never got the same breech block twice. Normally there were no serial numbers on the breech blocks, but the odd time one would have one acid etched by hand, and they would never match. The same method for the C7A1 is used or was when I left in 1994. Unserialised bolts and bolt carriers, issued at random. Thats just how it was/is.

In the ADF all bolt carriers match for the F88 and M16 FOWs. Its done for accountability. Same goes for the bolts for the F89 Minimi too. All serialised. The Cdn C9 does not have a serialised bolt either (again when I left in 1994).

Another funky CF fact.

Cheers,

Wes


----------



## 7ARMD (31 Jan 2005)

Wesley H. Allen said:
			
		

> FACT: The breech blocks for the C1's and C2s were kept separate (policy at the time), and were issued at random, so you never got the same breech block twice. Normally there were no serial numbers on the breech blocks, but the odd time one would have one acid etched by hand, and they would never match. The same method for the C7A1 is used or was when I left in 1994. Unserialised bolts and bolt carriers, issued at random. Thats just how it was/is.
> 
> In the ADF all bolt carriers match for the F88 and M16 FOWs. Its done for accountability. Same goes for the bolts for the F89 Minimi too. All serialised. The Cdn C9 does not have a serialised bolt either (again when I left in 1994).
> 
> ...


As an ex Armourer in British Army, this fact is still quite scary to me.
Apparently no-one has heard of Cartridge Head Space (CHS), or maybe CHS was just another case of the old 
adage "BS baffles brains."


H


----------



## Shec (31 Jan 2005)

7ARMD said:
			
		

> As an ex Armourer in British Army, this fact is still quite scary to me.
> Apparently no-one has heard of Cartridge Head Space (CHS), or maybe CHS was just another case of the old
> adage "BS baffles brains."
> H



Indeed it is a case of "BS baffles brains".   The odds of getting the same C1 breechblock was purely a matter of probability theory.     In fact in my experience neither headspace   nor any other breechblock related stoppages due to the practice were realized on C1/C2. 

Now headspace problems on the old re-calibred Browning GPMG, quite another story


----------



## axeman (31 Jan 2005)

Wesley H. Allen said:
			
		

> FACT: The breech blocks for the C1's and C2s were kept separate (policy at the time), and were issued at random, so you never got the same breech block twice. Normally there were no serial numbers on the breech blocks, but the odd time one would have one acid etched by hand, and they would never match. The same method for the C7A1 is used or was when I left in 1994. Unserialised bolts and bolt carriers, issued at random. Thats just how it was/is.
> 
> In the ADF all bolt carriers match for the F88 and M16 FOWs. Its done for accountability. Same goes for the bolts for the F89 Minimi too. All serialised. The Cdn C9 does not have a serialised bolt either (again when I left in 1994).
> 
> ...


----------



## 1feral1 (2 Feb 2005)

7ARMD said:
			
		

> As an ex Armourer in British Army, this fact is still quite scary to me.
> Apparently no-one has heard of Cartridge Head Space (CHS), or maybe CHS was just another case of the old
> adage "BS baffles brains."
> 
> ...



All weapons were/are 100% head spaced using the correct gauge for the weapon type during ATIs at the unit level conducted by the appropiate EME cell. Never a problem. 

If the C1 rifle failed HS, the locking shoulder was changed.

All FN C1 breech blocks were all made to one standard to eleiviate any problems, hence no serialised blocks. The breech blocks were also inspected for firing pin hole ovality. If the gauge failed, it was replaced. 

As for Axeman's comment on how his unit kept the bolts for their weapons. Nice idea, but at the end of the day, if the weapons are tasked for the summer fo example, do you really think you'd be getting the same bolts back upon return to the unit??? I don't think so.

Also during cleaning etc, especially in groups, parts can get  mixed, as when there is lesson on strip and assemply, etc, and this does happen.

Bolts for the C7 FOWs are not serialised, and anyone will do (they are all the same. Thats one of the advantages of the type of weapon. Thats just how the CF does things. Here in Australia only the bolt carriers on M16 FOWs are serialsed, the bolts are not. if the HS fails, replace the bolt, if it still fails, replace the barrel. Easy.

The 9mm T series Inglis Browning HP has matching serial numbers on the barrel, slide, and lower.

So, ther never was a serious threat to life and limb either on the C1s or the C7s, and C9 for that matter too.

Hope this clears the misconception up ???

Cheers,

Wes


----------



## Highland Lad (2 Feb 2005)

1 aspect of the old C1 that I miss - the "quick reload" feature (half the breech cover removed to allow for a set of rails to guid a 5-rd stripper clip into place so that you could quickly get an extra 5 in place without changing mags). This made the weapon into a bit of a dirt sucker, but never enough to really bother me... I also preferred the butt storage for the pull-through, as opposed to keeping the tinkertoy cleaning rod in a pack (I keep meaning to get my hands on a string pull-through for 5.56, but never follow through for some reason).

Of course, there were the fabled 11 different ways one could use a C1 as a bottle opener (now I'm dating myself... pre-twist off! ;D) I just wish I could remember them...

As for the whole argument - weight per man didn't make a whole lot of diff, but being able to carry a dozen extra boxes of ammo for the C9s in the section more than made up for all the "stopping power vs weight" (etc. etc. etc.) arguments.


----------



## CH1 (13 Feb 2005)

I think the biggest pitfal of the C1/C2 was the gas piston.  Dont clean it and you could end with your B/B jammed 1/2 back.  Really nasty as you can't even break the wpn.  Also if you used the local sand pit or other abuse on the piston, you lost too much gas past & could end up with feed jams.  If I remember right, the reason for switching was NATO compatibilityof ammo, and the switch from Main Battle Rifles to assualt rifles.  More bang for the same scale weight of ammo with .556.  Oh yeah, Shilo and other sandy places played havoc in the trigger group.  Had to dust off both and do IA's to remember some of the weird & wonderful parts of the FN's.  My own preference is the FN over C7.  Use an A/P round & drill through 10 inches of concrete.  Or at least let them know you were knocking!  Over all the FN still serves pretty well across the globe.  Still see them in news clips.  Wesley, what did I miss?


----------



## the 48th regulator (13 Feb 2005)

http://grenadierprecision.com/

Here is a great site, dedicated to the wonderful weapon.  A company dedicated to excellent workmanship by Canadians living in the U.S.

tess


----------



## TCBF (17 Feb 2005)

I can forget my wife's birthday, yet still remember the serial number of the FN C2 I carried in Germany (3LA 510), or the FN C1 I once fired competition with (3L 8424).  I own two 8Ls, and three Aussie L1A1s.

When we changed from C1/C2/SMG to C7/C8/C9 in 4CMBG, we did it on a Friday night at 1700.  The whole Brigade had to do it at once, and being on two hours notice to move, had to change the "Snowball" ammo outloads in one go.  

When I was coaching shooting for the Cdn Boeselager Team, I noticed that we had way too many stoppages with the C7s.  Why?  Well, with the C1/C2 the hardest part to clean was the gas system, and you didn't much care about the bolt, because even if you drew a dirty one next time, you could clean it in thirty seconds.  With the C7/8, the dirty parts are in the bolt, and the boys soon figured it was not worth it to spend ten minutes on a bolt, then end up drawing a new dirty one next week.  So, I went to the Lahr AMU and got a bunch of baggage tags.  I had the team tag their bolts. "As you clean - so shall you draw!" I said.  The SQMS didn't like my tags cluttering up his vault, but saw my point.  Stoppages soon dropped to 1 or 2 per thousand rounds once they sorted out the sub-standard ejector springs and bad mags as well.

Yeah, I miss the FN, but the AR-10 would have made a good battle rifle too.  I think the whole C1 "fleet" was pretty beat up by the time we replaced them, perhaps other than the 8Ls.  The weapons tech in Cornwallis in 86 was starting to talk of matching bolts to rifles because or the problem with stacking tolerances.  He wanted to get the C7s sooner rather than later.


----------



## NCRCrow (17 Feb 2005)

2L1 135

I remember being a C2 Gunner on Battalion exercise and having this Bra to wear and have everybody give me extra ammo. (yeah thanks, Cpl)

Then I figured out that from the arrowhead formation to the extended line, I had the farthest to run.
(Boy did the section commander followed by the 2 i/c--scream)

I prayed to be the Fire Base on Platoon attacks!

Anyway, just a   rookie quick story!

2 LMG -Delta Team


----------



## 1feral1 (17 Feb 2005)

OLA003 (BTW...the 3rd ever C2 to be issued to the CF), 2L4525, and 5L3686 are number after in excess of 29 yrs are still embedded in my brain.

Cheers,

Wes


----------



## TCBF (17 Feb 2005)

Hey, good point - I still have my "Case, ammo, Mag, 1964"  (C2 Bra)

Anybody remember the Ex 1?  This was the first batch of FNs made up for the Army.  They were relegated to being used at CABC on Basic Para couses.  They were in bad shape.  Here is one reason why: One cold winter day in 1974, mine dropped several hundred feet.  The top four inches of the muzzle was sticking out of the snow, and the lowering rope hit so hard, I had to dig into the zig-zag hole it made to grab it.

"Pretty Cool !" I thought.  I was nineteen. 

 Do I want the Ex 1 back?  

 No.  

 But I want nineteen back.

Tom


----------



## 1feral1 (17 Feb 2005)

Ya the EX1's were used during training while jumping. Usually all were in pretty rough shape, with handguards held togther with gun tape, missing carrying handles etc. 

If I remember right, the7.62mm   EX1 rifle was a Cdn made 'under licesnce' copy (pre 1956)
of the early prototype of the FAL, and this is what the C1 was later taken off of (of course with heaps of mods and changes, etc). 

Instead of destroying them all, many were saved for 'training purposes' so that soldiers had a rifle to jump with, and that real C1s would not be used and be damaged. I do beleive they were still being used in the early to mid 1980s.

There was alo a 'plastic/rubber" version of the C1 which had a metal barrel, correct weight, and the only real C1 part on it was the carrying handle. This too was used for jumping at the School.

Cheers,

Wes


----------



## JimmyPeeOn (17 Feb 2005)

Well here goes a Pte's 2 cents.

FN - My dad has one and I've fired it on the civy range so I'm not totally "right out of 'er" about the firing aspect.  It puts a good hole in things with more range and is a longer distance weapon.  I think with a 6X scope on it, it would be an excellent section weapon for the troops with great shots.  However I've never used it in the field/carried it for anything more than 200M @ a time.

C2 - Never fired it or carried it, but 30 rd mag?!?!? COME ON!!!

C7 - Ive used this a lot, carried it farther than I can count ( yeah I know some of you guys carried it  A LOT more, whatever)
       The sight is a POS and if you dont care for it you are gonna be spending all your time carrying out IA's.
      But if you take a look at the recent conflicts and PSOs that Canada is involved in 90% of the time its in built up areas.
      there for i can sum up in 2 words an FLA and a saying.  FULL AUTO, FIBUA and "Spray and pray".

C9 - Used this a lot too.  200 rds...full auto only...that pretty much sums it up.  And yes the C79 has NO place on an lmg.


Cheerz

Oh by the way, russm you might wanna watch the news.  There are no front lines anymore, all the truckers, sigs and REMF's  are getting into it too.  It's not just a high and mighty infantry thing.  (no offence, just telling it how it is, like sigs do)


----------



## axeman (19 Feb 2005)

:warstory:     0L0001 i had the first one issued and used in the CF its still in my reserve regiment on display not to me but hey   
                        it  shot well and then i got the retro fit C2 site on it and wow did it help. but now its a museum piece,, such is progress... 
                        i sure do miss it some times ...


----------



## BernDawg (19 Feb 2005)

Amen to that Axeman. Some times I miss them too.  I don't mind the lighter weight of the C7 but I really didn't like being told to "take it easy" on the bayonet assault crse cause we were were breaking the new rifles and bayonets!


----------



## Highland Lad (19 Feb 2005)

Amen to that!

I remember - first weekend's trg (in garrison) after we got the C7s, we were doing bayonet drills with the 8ft rattan canes... busted 3 handguards and 2 bayonets before lunch!

First outdoor range shoot, we were loading wpns into an MLVW in the time-honoured fashion (grab 4 rifles at a time by the carry handles, put 'em on the bed of the truck, slide them forward, go get more)... busted 2 more handguards and a butt. Moral of the story: if you take plastic out in -40 ° range shoots, you have to treat the bangsticks gentle.

I do prefer the lighter weight, and missing the FN only makes me sound like an old fart, but... ah well.


----------



## mainerjohnthomas (20 Feb 2005)

3L8378-that was the serial number of the FN I had until they gave me some plastic 5.56 tinkertoy to play with.  When we first were issued the thing and did familiarization training with the C-7 all we could talk about was how cool this was, and how much it would be easier to patrol with.  After the first Range-ex we all wanted our C1A1 back.  The FN needed care and cleaning, but in the infantry that has been true since long before Wellington.  The FN had range, stopping power, and translated our higher level of training into actual combat power.  The M-16 is great for our southern bretheren who rely on crew served weapons, armour, and airstrikes for their combat power, its just a submachine gun with delusions of granduer.  If your troops can't hit anything past 100m, then give them an automatic to spray enough rounds downrange to keep the enemy suppressed.  If your infantry are expected to engage and destroy the enemy, then the FN had the range to do it (especially if coupled with modern sights like the C7 gets), and the ability to penetrate light armour, walls, vehicles, concrete and other urban cover is turning out to be a real  selling point.  The FNC1A1 was a good weapon for fighting with.  I remember my old FN so clearly I could draw the stains around the screws on the pistol grip, mine never jammed on me, and shot true to about 600m.  The C7 shot faster, was lighter, and could be shot like a pistol (wierd to watch, but true), but the round it shot was lighter, and wandered more.  It could lay down higher levels of fire, and at close range was deadly, but at longer ranges, I never stopped wishing for my FN back.  The FNC1A1 will remain the favorite weapon of mine.  If this was the states then at least I could buy the old girl, and not let her waste away in warstocks, ciao 3L8378, I still miss you.


----------



## big bad john (20 Feb 2005)

I know how you feel.  I've been using an Sa80 a2 and an M16a3 for years now...but I do miss my SLR!  I found the L1A1 very reliable and strangely comforting.  Oh well...


----------



## 1feral1 (20 Feb 2005)

mainerjohnthomas said:
			
		

> ...... and not let her waste away in warstocks, ciao 3L8378, I still miss you.



A sad note.... between Nov and Dec 2004, 27,500 of the 30,000 Australia L1A1 SLR rifles in war stock (the Aussie version of the C1A1) were destroyed by smelt. They have kept 2,500 for heritage and other reasons.

I bet the Cdn government if it has not discreetly done this already, will be doing it to their warstocks of the C1A1 rifle.

Cheers,

Wes


----------



## big bad john (20 Feb 2005)

Thank God the UK has retained theirs in War Stocks.


----------



## 48thHighlander (1 Mar 2005)

Thanks Tess for the plug!!!

For you C1 detractors here is a link to an old page on our site with information on Ol'Dirty.

http://grenadierprecision.com/oldirty.html

We do however think the C7, M16, M4 is reliable as most require, but is unsat when it comes to going the extra mile.  We are making the RAS for the LW5.56K-P being trialed in Iraq by the USMC 4th MEB Counter Terrorist Force in March.  The Leitner-Wise rifle is for all intents and purposes an M4 with the replacement of the direct impingement gas system with a short stroke piston system similar to, but IMO better than the HKG36.  One of the rifles has gone 50,000 rounds without cleaning.  They had some stoppages related to worn extractor and ejector springs, once replaced, the little sewing machine went on running, and hopefully will go another 50K.  

Check it out at http://leitner-wise.com

This product was developed at the request of colt who were getting complaints from the US Army about reliability, premature wear and controllability of the M4 and shorter 10.5 and 11.5" carbines.  It corrects ROF in short carbines, is truely self regulating.  The piston protrusion scrapes the piston cup of carbon with each stroke and no carbon is introduced into the receiver.  It corrects the problem of gas pressure curves and gas hole sizes in short carbines as well.  

I will be accompanying Leitner-Wise to Canada later in the year to demo to a special unit in Canada.


----------



## the 48th regulator (1 Mar 2005)

48thHighlander said:
			
		

> Thanks Tess for the plug!!!
> 
> For you C1 detractors here is a link to an old page on our site with information on Ol'Dirty.
> 
> ...



And you will need a salesman to help you promote your wares, especially one that has pulled a trigger in his lifetime.  Not like those mamby pamby yanks you hang out with.

Call me or yer dead!

tess


----------



## 1feral1 (2 Mar 2005)

This gas system is not new. back about in 1983, a company calling itself Rhino was doing custom jobs on Armalites for police and civvy use in the USA. From the info sent to me at the time, it resembled the gas system of the AR18 rifle and the L85A1 (SA80).

It is a good gas system (its even found on the 5.56 x 45mm ULTIMAX LSW from Singapore), and with the short stoke using a two piece piston, there is ZERO carbon or fowling of any nature passed thru to the bolt carrier.

However there is more moving parts (at least 3 including the spring), and thus prone to wear and tear, where direct gas has only the long term wear of a cheap gas tube and bolt carrier key. Direct gas systems have been around for more than 60 yrs now). The idea to utilise this system on a fleet wide conversion was dumped by yhe US Army over 20 yrs ago. Cost prohibitive I guess? After all there are 100s of thousands of these beasts in the national fleets of Canada, USA and Australia alone.

Cheers,

Wes


----------



## 48thHighlander (3 Mar 2005)

Wes, the gas system has been around 100 years.   Not much drastic has happened in weapons design in 100 years.   Actually it is very similar to the Stoner AR180 which stoner borrowed from earlier designs.   The USMC and USAF are trialing the weapon starting mid march on the 2 way firing range.   They are undergoing some familiarization training in Alexandria right now.   They are primarily interested in the LW5.56K-P which is a 10.3" barreled carbine and the LW .499P - A mini 50 cal in a M16 platform.   It is awesome! As you may know the shorter you go on the barrel of a M16, the more unreliable the system gets.   At this time they do not even offer a rifle length system.   They also had a SCAR entry.   The MRS.   It is a monolithic upper receiver with the ability to quick change barrels with the release of 2 levers.   It is even caliber convertable.   The FN SCAR was chosen however because it addresses all of the shortcomings of the stoner design.   Like getting rid of that lame little ejector and lame extractor.   Replacing it with a fixed exjector, and the extractor with an AK like extractor, and replacing the complicated locking lugs and barrel extension with a simplified design.

The USMC are looking at the .499 as a checkpoint and CQB weapon.   Imagine a charging car.   You open up full auto with your .499 with API.   The car stops, the passengers are all dead, and the car is on fire.   Imagine if you will some flaky little insurgent popping up over a cinderblock wall spraying his AK at you then dropping back under cover.   Send him on his magic carpet ride to allah with the .499 right through the wall.   It is a thing of beauty.

I am not selling this to you guys, I seriously think this thing could extend the service of the M4 carbine until drastic new technology can be fielded.   Current rifles are easily retrofitted.   

This is not a Rhino system, make no mistake about that.   This was a challenge/request of colt's.   Since colt's is always on the borderline of bankruptcy, they have not yet bought the tech package so LW will market it direct to the military.   

Tess, I know you could sell snow to an eskimo.   LW is very low key on sales.   They would rather provide the weapon and let it sell itself.     I will call you when we get the export permits etc.   We will be going to Ottawa, Pet, and just because we are there (not that their budgets would allow procurement) we are going to demo to Peel Regional Tac and Metro TO ETF.   Always helps to have a guy like you who speaks CF'ese and took bullets in the melon like you did.   This is in the very early stages of planning as they have to meet the USMC and AF committment first.

If you think adding 3 more parts to the M4 is a problem, please refer to news clips from Iraq.   These guys have more bling bling on their rifles than mac daddy g.   It has become a bag of bolts and screws. The LW parts add 1oz to the M4.   The rifle no longer shits where it eats which is worth a kings ransom.   

You can ask Tess.   I mourned the day they took the C1's away.   I am no fan of the C7.   However, I believe this final evolution makes it more reliable, self regulating, and very clean.   I am confident it would never be accepted in the CF as they seem happy as pigs in crap to slap some green furniture, a triad rail, and a cadpat sling and call it revolutionary.   The main reason Diemaco has been so successful in marketing to European countries is they use hammer forged barrels which are standard fare in Europe, and they were not an American company.   So much for that.   Colt just bought them.

There is shitloads of discussion on it on AR15.COM.


----------



## 1feral1 (3 Mar 2005)

Intersting.

Although I am a long time member of AR15.com (1feral1 is what I go by on there), I'll have to take a look.

If you are not a M16 fan, just imagine how I feel about the AUG.

Cheers,

Wes


----------



## 48thHighlander (3 Mar 2005)

AR15.com can be an unpleasant place whether or not you like the AR.  Try not to drown in the BS!


----------



## 48thHighlander (3 Mar 2005)

Let me help.  http://www.ar15.com/forums/topic.html?b=3&f=118&t=216563


----------



## Spr.Earl (4 Mar 2005)

Give me the F.N. C.1 any day.
Even though it is heavier but at least I know I have that punch.
7.62 is is of the best rounds if applied right and if the end user is trained corectly.


----------



## JimmyPeeOn (4 Mar 2005)

Wesley H. Allen said:
			
		

> Intersting.
> 
> Although I am a long time member of AR15.com (1feral1 is what I go by on there), I'll have to take a look.
> 
> ...


What's wrong with the AUG? It looks mean enough haha.  Bullpup isnt my fav configuration though.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (4 Mar 2005)

> What's wrong with the AUG? It looks mean enough haha.  Bullpup isnt my fav configuration though.



I hope you don't judge a weapon about how it looks... :


----------



## JimmyPeeOn (4 Mar 2005)

Ex-Dragoon said:
			
		

> I hope you don't judge a weapon about how it looks... :


Hell no, but thats about all I know about it.  Well that and the "see through" mags are useless after the 1st 17 rds.  But weapons intimidation factor does play a have its purpose in a stand-off situation.  Just curious about its deficiencies.

Cheers


----------



## 1feral1 (4 Mar 2005)

Although I am confident to use the F88 and variants anywhere anytime in any theartre, I just dont like the weapon. The only advantage is its overall SMG length with a 508mm bbl.

The Australians have spent millions over engineering this rifle, and still are doing that.

I am not happy with the exception of pins and springs, having an ENTIRE hammer mech, including its body totally plastic, and having no way for water to escape the recoil spring tubes. Thats nuts, a military rifle which is not recommended to submerging in water!

As for the mags, well, they are olive drab see thru, but so waht. No one really uses this feature, and it is not even mentioned in the pam, but I will say they are quite robust, never loose their colour, absorb shock, and are not expensive.

Cheers,

Wes


----------



## CH1 (13 Mar 2005)

Being as we are straying from "old faithful", my next choice is the HK 91, 93, G3 series.  they are heavier & the bolt carrier & bolt head require tlc.  But accuracy is great.  As with every combat arm there is pro,s & cons.  I still like 7.62x51 vs 556.  Guess I,m old fashioned.  From here I would go the AK family.  The 7.62x39 is a potent little rnd.  I still don,t mind some extra rifle.  Guess it depends on the tasking you are saddled with.  I was still working with old faithful well into the mid 90,s in both C1 & C2 configs, as well as a light barrel C2.


----------



## 48thHighlander (13 Mar 2005)

> And you will need a salesman to help you promote your wares, especially one that has pulled a trigger in his lifetime.  Not like those mamby pamby yanks you hang out with.



If anyone is Nambi Pambi, its me.  Nambi pambi they are not.  Charlton is USMC Active Duty, former Harrier Pilot and is now in a command position with SERE school.  The rest of them have at least 2 wars under their belts, and some of them wont even divulge what they do in the military.  Allthough as an example, when they are attending language school learning Farsi with the diplomatic corps people, it isn't that hard to figure out.  You don't have to shake a stick very far to find combat veterans in the US anymore.  Not sure if this is a good thing or not.  As for my business partner, he has no military experience but grew up in South San Antonio, so he has combat experience on me.  

What ever happened to the Core colors Tess?  You know the ones with with battle honors such as the 25th Service Battallion MP party?  Or Younge and Dundas?  Do those colors still exist?

Anyway, I am pretty stoked about the ARM-R (RAS) that 4th MEB is trialing.  I hope to one day report back here "Canadian boy awarded multi-million dollar sole source contract with USMC."  The chances are excellent.  How I will be able to fill the contract is a problem I would like to have.


----------



## the 48th regulator (13 Mar 2005)

> What ever happened to the Core colors Tess?  You know the ones with with battle honors such as the 25th Service Battallion MP party?  Or Younge and Dundas?  Do those colors still exist?



Ahhh my young friend, I have them!!!!  All rolled up and waiting for your return to the great white north!!  I will unfurl them when your up mate!

BTW where should I e-mail you my resume, I think I want in on some of that million dollar pay out, you will need someone to at least drive forks to move the crates.

tess


----------



## C1A1insert (15 Apr 2006)

Hello. I was under the impression when I  was using the FNC1A1 1979-1983, that the C1A2 reffered to the 0.22cal insert kit used mostly by the Roal Canadian Army Cadets and OPP. This is one set up I waould love to have again.


----------



## 1feral1 (15 Apr 2006)

C1A1insert said:
			
		

> Hello. I was under the impression when I  was using the FNC1A1 1979-1983, that the C1A2 reffered to the 0.22cal insert kit used mostly by the Roal Canadian Army Cadets and OPP. This is one set up I waould love to have again.



The C1A2 never existed, although the nomenclature was considered for the CAL 8L C1's of 1968. The basic differences was the gas block was copied from the C2 and the upper reciever had a removeable ejection block (as did the C2 also). There was also a slight difference in some milling marks on the upper too. If you wanna know more, try R. Blake Steven's book The North American FAL. Good info in there, and this has been part of my tech library since 1979, along with the Commonwealth and FN FAL books by the same author. Yes, that sub cal is even covered too.

The HK West German made sub cal in .22 was not called the C1A2 either. It ws simply an off the shelf buy and identical to the UK and Australian ones. The NSN for this kit even had a West German country code identifier (12), not 21 as Canada still has. This was noted on the OD wooden box, and the kit had an 'L' in its designation. They were still around a few yrs back, but I do beleive now Australia has destroyed along with the majority of it's war stock L1A1 SLRs.

The CF used the .22 sub cal force wide, and mostly on indoor ranges for training purposes by Cadets, Militia, and the Regular Force. I do remember it on those two indoor ranges at the Regina Armouries on Tuesday nights back in another life.

Cheers,

Wes


----------



## Centurian1985 (15 Apr 2006)

Hey pal, save some space!

Ah the old FN; what a face-grinder!

For those of us who fired that weapon a lot, not more than others but much much more than others, there were times when you wanted to scream because your cheek hurt like a ***** if you held it improperly too many times.  Fortunately after a few thousand rounds the nerves in your cheek just die (I still have a numb spot there to this day!) other guys I knew ended up with permanent scars due to having to keep firing without letting a raw spot heal.   It was also good for improvised grenade launching with flash bangs and blanks, although using US blanks resulted in blowing out pieces of assembly if you didnt turn down the gas assembly.

There was only one dangerous problem with the weapon; if you didnt close the assembly properly, the force of the gas from the fired round would cause the assembly to open and the sliding cover would blow backwards as the round was fired (yes, seen it happen! - can you say 'required several stitches'?) 

While the new C7 is lighter and easier to clean and use, it just doesnt have the stopping power of the old FN series. Like someone said earleir, we changed not because the FN weapon was no good but because the US led the way by demanding everyone switch to 5.56 ammo as part of a NATP logistics issue.  The big advantage of the C7 was that even a child can hold and fire it.  Far less recoil and easy to hold in the aiming position.  When the weapon was introduced it required a re-evaluation of shooting practices across the forces (the most important one was in 1987 due to a young reserves ranker who beat a lot of old-timers in competition that year). 

However, there was one last comment reference to the fact that most of our work is in distances less than 200 meters.  That tends to be true for BUAs we worked in and for that kind of work you cannot beat the MP5! For those lucky enough to have used them they are unbelieveably sweet, and use teh same ammo as our pistols, but not very effective at long ranges over 100m.


----------



## 1feral1 (15 Apr 2006)

Centurian1985 said:
			
		

> Hey pal, save some space!
> 
> Ah the old FN; what a face-grinder!
> 
> ...



We used to call that 'rifle cheek or chipmunk cheek', and although sometimes I even sufferred from it mildly, it was manily the girls who copped it bad with some minor swelling and maybe a bruise with tears too on occasion. I had never heard of anyone being scarred by it or being stitched (afterall its cheek vs smooth surface of a wooden butt stock, nothing to cut ones self on). Maybe he caught is face on the rear sight somehow?

As for the rifle opening up on occasion, when fired, the problem there is simply the BLLC (body locking leaver catch) was not modified when replaced (later ones had the mod done at CAL and later Diemaco during rebuilds- yes Diemaco was doing C1 rebuilds in the 1970s), as recoil (yes its all the same whether the gas reg was set at 12 or 0, Newtons law, remember - Recoil and the amount of gas used to cycle the action are two different things)  would literally move the BLLC rearwards as the BLLC would bind on the upper reciever edge just mm's away. When this happened, yes the rifle could open up all by itself, although I never heard of the body cover sliding off during the process.

I did almost 19yrs in the CF, and that from 17 yrs as an Armourer, so I know what I am talking about. Plus for sometime here in Australia I was involved in L1A1 and L2A1 factory level rebuilds (FTRs), which including breeching of bbl's and other things I had only read about in the CF.

As for the unauthorised use of US blanks (US M60 GPMG and M14 rifle easily identified as they were not crimped at the ends, but were rounded and had a red waxed paper plug in the hole at the tip) in the C1, this should have at a mininum, copped a warning or even a charge, you or your mates were lucky the rifle was not damaged, or no one was injured (split gas block - blown gas plug - blown gas reg - and damage to the ejector- ya, they will actually bend and sometimes snap with continued abuse - I have seen that!) or that you or your mates did not launch off a BFA at someone, as the use of such US blank ammo was prohibited in the use of the weapon. and thats in print in many CF regs for over 25 yrs! The rifle was designed to be fired on zero with a C1 BFA, using Canadian DA and later IVI 7.62mm blanks for the C1, C2 and C1/C5 GPMG. Nothing more.

Cheers,

Wes

PS as for using space, well for reasons unknown the post did that all by itself.


----------



## Centurian1985 (16 Apr 2006)

Hey i was kidding about the use of space  ;D

Reference the chipmunk cheek, if you were on a rifle team shooting day in and day out, you'd have to watch for it too. Two guys had scarring (1985-87). I wonder if that is VA claimable?  :warstory:

Reference the blowback, Ive never heard it described that way before, but I'll take your word for it, Im not an armourer.  We just assumed it was from not reassembling the weapon properly.  Happened to a guy named White during a 3 PPCLI C Coy annual qualification in 1986.  When the weapon broke back open, the plate slid backward and sliced open his left cheek (he was a southpaw like me  ;D).  The staff figured that he automatically jerked his head up or he could have lost his eye.  Heard of other cases but they were all second-hand claims, this was the only one I saw in person. 

About the blanks, you are right, it was unauthorized!  A lot of things were unauthorized that soldiers did anyway, e.g. breaking down the forestocks of a C7 weapon, disassembling firing mechanisms, altering firing sites,  using metal mags instead of plastic mags, but thats what a lot of soldiers do.  At that time I was a first year private and didnt know any better when a higher rank said to do something.  After I scrambled around getting the pieces of my weapon back together, one of them informed me that I should reset my gas block on the lowest setting as the US blanks were too  powerful! - gee thanks for telling me!  

Note to all : kids, dont try this at home!   :skull:


----------



## TCBF (16 Apr 2006)

My stock of 8L s is now down to one.  I just sold the other for $1200.  I will keep the remaining C1, and flog my L1A1s.  A good program to fund my next gopher-getter.


----------



## mainerjohnthomas (16 Apr 2006)

Anyone else have a chance to see an FN BFA's penetrating power against soft targets?  We lost one embedded so far in a tree that it really made us OPFOR types happy the firkin recruits couldn't hit the target any better than they could attach a BFA.  Still and all, I miss old 3L8378, that FN may have weighed a ton, but it had true stopping power.  When a target ducked behind cover, you had confidence that you could shoot through and either the round, or spall fragments would take care of business.  The sight/sound of 5.56 ricocheting off into space like so many deranged bee's just didn't give you the same assurance your target would stay suppressed.


----------



## NUTTS (9 Aug 2006)

How you guys liking the C7? Does anyone remember the good 'ol FN?


----------



## Danjanou (9 Aug 2006)

NUTTS said:
			
		

> How you guys liking the C7? Does anyone remember the good 'ol FN?



You did read the previous seven pages right? :


----------



## the 48th regulator (9 Aug 2006)

NUTTS said:
			
		

> How you guys liking the C7? Does anyone remember the good 'ol FN?



That's odd,  from your previous profile you stated that you joined in the '89.  The fist Battallion was already fully integrated with the C7 by then.  You would have used that your whole career.

Then again, I am willing to stand corrected.  

I served overseas with 1RCR in '94, I may know you, I was in Charles.

dileas

tess


----------



## Rodders (11 May 2010)

Overwatch Downunder said:
			
		

> A sad note.... between Nov and Dec 2004, 27,500 of the 30,000 Australia L1A1 SLR rifles in war stock (the Aussie version of the C1A1) were destroyed by smelt. They have kept 2,500 for heritage and other reasons.
> 
> I bet the Cdn government if it has not discreetly done this already, will be doing it to their warstocks of the C1A1 rifle.
> 
> ...



This post addresses precisely a question I was looking to have answered, and not surprisingly, my search led me to this website. Certainly the best forum on all things related to the Canadian military.

I've read through this entire topic looking for an answer, but unfortunately couldn't find anything.

To my question; I know that many examples of the FN variants used by Canada were put into war stocks. I also believe that some were put up for sale to individuals at a later date. Are there still a significant number in war stocks?

Thank you


----------



## Fishbone Jones (11 May 2010)

Rodders said:
			
		

> To my question; I know that many examples of the FN variants used by Canada were put into war stocks. I also believe that some were put up for sale to individuals at a later date. Are there still a significant number in war stocks?
> 
> Thank you



Most were left to rot and rust in warehouses. Eventually to be destroyed, just a few years ago. Some, very few, were sent to museums and the like. Being designated a class 12(5) prohibited firearm by the liebral hoplophobes, I doubt if any were sold to private individuals. None went as war stock, IIRC.


----------



## Rodders (11 May 2010)

recceguy said:
			
		

> Most were left to rot and rust in warehouses. Eventually to be destroyed, just a few years ago. Some, very few, were sent to museums and the like. Being designated a class 12(5) prohibited firearm by the liebral hoplophobes, I doubt if any were sold to private individuals. None went as war stock, IIRC.



Thanks for the reply recceguy.

Certainly not challenging your information. The reason I asked is I had a friend who served with the RCHA in Shilo in the mid to late 80's, and I seem to recall him saying something about boxing up greased FN's when the C7's were introduced. I may be mistaken, or he may have been lying.  

Thanks


----------



## 1feral1 (11 May 2010)

Mate, your friend is probably telling you the truth to some degree. Here all SLR's (L1A1's and AR's (L2's) were placed into LTS with a dip in hot 'thickso' cosmoline, so it would run into everything, gooing it up. 

I used to onw a Cdn CAL 8L C1A1 rifle, which yes was in private hands (mine), and was marked OPP (and crudly X'd out) on the lower, near the CFR. The rifle also had UK BNP proofs on the bbl, this means the rifles had left Canada for the UK, been proofed by the English and resold back into Canada. I purchased the rifle from an Ontario based company in about 1987 for $750, and sold it to a fellow army.ca member upon my departure to Australia in 1994.

To the best of my knowledge there is only a small number of the 8L C1A1 rifles in private hands, and again to the best of my knowledge no genuine CAL pre 8L (0L-7L) rifles privately owned.

Hope this info helps

OWDU


----------



## Fishbone Jones (11 May 2010)

Rodders said:
			
		

> Thanks for the reply recceguy.
> 
> Certainly not challenging your information. The reason I asked is I had a friend who served with the RCHA in Shilo in the mid to late 80's, and I seem to recall him saying something about boxing up greased FN's when the C7's were introduced. I may be mistaken, or he may have been lying.
> 
> Thanks



No he was probably right. However, they were neglegted in storage and ruined. The decision was made to chop and melt them.


----------



## Nfld Sapper (11 May 2010)

For some reason  1 R NFLD R has about half a dozen of them in their wpns vault....they appeared to still be serviceable....


----------



## RedMan (11 May 2010)

Wow, this thread makes me feel young again! 

I am 37 and going into BMQ in July for LCIS. I was in army cadets over 20 years ago in Chatham Ontario. The weapons we fired were the FNC1A1 (semi-auto) while we were at bases on weekends and summer courses. I couldn't remember if Ipperwash had a firing range??? Here at chatham, our Armouries were at the old "castle" type buildings and we also would shoot the old Lee Enfield (is that right?) 22's in the "basement" target ranges. I remember working the "Butts" at the different bases we went to and thought that was too cool!

As I was leaving Cadets, I remember seeing the C7's just starting to come in. Well my brother is a Cadet instructor and he says that the Cadets only use air-rifles now, and the old "castle" Armouries are no longer used by the CF and neither is Ipperwash as a base. Boy how times have changed!


----------



## Fishbone Jones (11 May 2010)

NFLD Sapper said:
			
		

> For some reason  1 R NFLD R has about half a dozen of them in their wpns vault....they appeared to still be serviceable....



Probably for use with the .22 cal insert.

Just a reasonable guess.


----------



## Rodders (11 May 2010)

Thanks Overwatch Downunder and recceguy. I appreciate the clarification.

Seems a pity they let these rifles deteriorate. I've never fired one, and I know there are mixed views here, but it is my understanding that it was a fine rifle.

Hypothetically of course, but I wonder how well they would have suited the Rangers. It's all a moot point now however.

Thanks again


----------



## kkwd (11 May 2010)

recceguy said:
			
		

> Probably for use with the .22 cal insert.
> 
> Just a reasonable guess.



They were used a lot with the sub cal when the range that was just 10 steps from the lockup was in use. That range was also used for firing the 6.5mm Carl G gallery round. The range was closed down when there were concerns about lead levels. I don't know if the cine target range out back of the drill hall is still in use. I suppose the FATS in the old Canex snack bar gets more use now.


----------



## Danjanou (11 May 2010)

Lead poisoning. Cool something else the wife can sue DND and VAC for after I kick off. Between that the cam sticks, mess tins, and the second hand smoke from the CO's O groups she should get a nice packet.

I wonder if one of those FNs is the special Pl Comd "shoots around corners" after he laid it down in behind the MLVW one?  ;D


----------



## kkwd (11 May 2010)

Danjanou said:
			
		

> Lead poisoning. Cool something else the wife can sue DND and VAC for after I kick off. Between that the cam sticks, mess tins, and the second hand smoke from the CO's O groups she should get a nice packet.



Add to that asbestos, the basement was full of it.  ;D


----------



## PMedMoe (11 May 2010)

kkwd said:
			
		

> Add to that asbestos, the basement was full of it.  ;D



Only if it was friable.     Geez, some places still have those ugly green 12 x 12 tiles that are made of asbestos.   :


----------



## Nfld Sapper (11 May 2010)

Danjanou said:
			
		

> Lead poisoning. Cool something else the wife can sue DND and VAC for after I kick off. Between that the cam sticks, mess tins, and the second hand smoke from the CO's O groups she should get a nice packet.
> 
> I wonder if one of those FNs is the special Pl Comd "shoots around corners" after he laid it down in behind the MLVW one?  ;D



Negative on the last part there Danjanou.......


----------



## SeanNewman (11 May 2010)

Too bad about what RecceGuy said about them all being melted down.

I wanted them to go up against the newer battle rifles like the AR10, SR25, M14, and HK417 9among others) in the test to identify the best section sharpshooter weapon.

We still have some in our lines that could technically take part in the trial but any hope of the winner being a "free" procurement is now gone.


----------



## dapaterson (12 May 2010)

Nothing is "Free".  Bringing any weapon system into service (whether purchased or brought out of retirement) means a need for tools for techs, parts, ammo... the initial procurement cost is often the least of the worries, it's the O&M (and NP) tail that gets you.


----------



## Danjanou (12 May 2010)

Plus you'd have to bring all us old farts back to teach you how to get FN cheek, eh KK  8)


----------



## SeanNewman (12 May 2010)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> Nothing is "Free".



Hence the reason I put "free" in quotation marks.  It would cost less than the others, and the literature already exists (although probably on a stone tablet which would have to be scanned to a PDF).

It's all a moot point anyway because it would never happen.  Retro-fitting the rifles with modern rails and optics would not be worth it when there are better alternatives out there.

While one of the lesser criteria, the need to look generally the same as the general purpose rifle must be considered (in order to have that person not stand out any more than necessary).  The rifle + optic + peripherals must look generally the same, which is to say that a massive silencer/scope is frowned upon (as is something made out of wood or bolt action).


----------



## BernDawg (12 May 2010)

Petamocto said:
			
		

> It's all a moot point anyway because it would never happen.  Retro-fitting the rifles with modern rails and optics would not be worth it when there are better alternatives out there.


While I agree with you that it's a moot point I have an interesting side note...  I seem to recall guys buying after market reciever covers for the FN that would, of course, fit on our C1's that had scope rails on them and "coyboying up" on ex with their own optics.  Never live but had fun while snoopin' n' poopin' during RV and the like.   :warstory:


----------



## SeanNewman (12 May 2010)

Yes I agree that it would be interesting to do, and I'm still curious to see how it would perform in the rest of the tests.

I realize that it has some strengths (as does the Ross Rifle for that matter), at the end of the day we're talking about rifles that are 50 years newer that it would be going up against.

Yes a 1964 Mustang may have been great for its day, it's kind of silly to compare it to a 2011 Mustang.

And just to be my own devil's advocate...say that it could shoot better, truer, and more reliably than anything else today, the giant cons going against it are weight, visual profile, and ease of learning.  A rifleman used to a C7 should be able to pick one up off the ground and be able to figure it out in no time.

Universality of systems and learning and all that jazz.


----------



## medicineman (12 May 2010)

I seem to recall the British had an optical sight unit that could be used on their L1A1's - the Trilux I believe, could be bolted on over the rear sight.  Yeah, I know we don't have them, but had to toss that out there as an option since you're getting nostalgic.

MM


----------



## SeanNewman (12 May 2010)

medicineman said:
			
		

> ... but had to toss that out there as an option since you're getting nostalgic.



You joke, but you seriously have to watch what you ask for from DLR when you request "600m, pierces ____ armour, ____ accuracy, and ____ rate of fire" lest you end up Iroquois Indians with a Longbow firing carbon fibre arrows using a MaxiKite.


----------



## a_majoor (13 May 2010)

Petamocto said:
			
		

> You joke, but you seriously have to watch what you ask for from DLR when you request "600m, pierces ____ armour, ____ accuracy, and ____ rate of fire" lest you end up Iroquois Indians with a Longbow firing carbon fibre arrows using a MaxiKite.



I'd go for a company of Welsh longbowmen myself.


----------



## medicineman (13 May 2010)

Petamocto said:
			
		

> You joke, but you seriously have to watch what you ask for from DLR when you request "600m, pierces ____ armour, ____ accuracy, and ____ rate of fire" lest you end up Iroquois Indians with a Longbow firing carbon fibre arrows using a MaxiKite.



I guess I came across the wrong way (the nostalgia comment - most of the weapons you were alluding to were a little older, C1, M14, etc), but I used a C1 for a couple of years and really don't have many bad things to say about it.  The query was about optical sights and the C1 - I'd say the option is there based on what I mentioned about the Trilux - just have to either tweek our weapon for a sight or get some on the Brit L1's with their sight rails/receivers.

MM


----------



## 1feral1 (13 May 2010)

Two points,

The UK rifle optics for the L1A1 SLR was the SUIT (Sight Unit Infantry Trilux). I had one for many years. I was a QD affixed to a long body cover, and once removed one could use the L1A1 or C1A1 rear sight not a problem. It fitted supurbly on the C1A1 rifle.

I had taken it on many Ex's just as a novelty. It was large and often in the way, and was easlier bashed about.

It had an inverted pointer and a GLTS source, and was 4X power. They are often around on sale now, but usually without the GLTS bit. I sold mine for $750 here in Australia back in about 1996.

Nomenclature: Sight Unit Infantry Trilux L2A2
NSN: 1240-99-964-7647
Dimensions:
Length: 18.8 cm
Width: 7.6 cm
Height: 6.9 cm
Weight: 340 gm
Reticule: Illuminated inverted post.
Range Settings: 300m (rear), 500m (forward)
Magnification: 4X
Objective Aperture: 25.5 mm
Field of View: 8 degrees (140 mils)
Light Transmission: 86%
Exit Pupil Diameter: 6.6 mm
Eye Relief: 35 mm
Environment: -75deg to +90deg
Active Element: 0.22 curies of Tritium gas
Illumination color: Red
Manufacturer: Avimo Ltd.

In regards to the L1A1/C1A1 being brought back into service. Even when there was many thousand SLRs still in war stocks in western Sydney, adn a smaller abundance of parts, the semi-automatic Springfield Armory M1A Scout was picked, and is currently in the system here to fulfill any requirement for such a rifle.

The M1A Scout is shorter, packs the 7.62mm NATO punch, has 20 rd mags, semi-auto, and is a combat proven system (Daddy M1 Garand - oh, its inventor John Garand was a Canadian), and is new not made in the 50s, 60s, 70s or 80s, but in the past few years. There are also some unique add ons too. That being said there is also some new add ons for the FAL family too, but possibly too little too late, at least for Australia anyways.

Regards,

OWDU


----------



## NavyShooter (13 May 2010)

There ARE 0L-7L rifles in Canada.

I have a friend who has a 0L rifle in his collection, right next to his EX1 series rifle.

Back in the day, CAL used to be able to sell them to DCRA members, and I believe the Stevens book shows a photo of one of the tags or receipts for sale of them to DCRA shooters.

I have in my safe one of the 8L ex OPP rifles.  The "tale" of these rifles, as I understand it is thus:

Every OPP det had two rifles.

In the early-mid 80's, they were deemed surplus, and gathered for disposal.  

They were sold to a company in the UK.  (Hence the UK import and proof marks.)

That company sold approximately 300 of them to Commonwealth Militaria in Ontario, some of them sequentially serial numbered.  

CM sold them for between $750 and $1400 per rifle (prices went up over the years) 

Thus, there are approximately 300 of these rifles in Canada.

Plus a few DCRA rifles.  

Assuming that there's perhaps 300 DCRA rifles, that's maybe 600 FN C1's that remain.  I heard a number bandied about that DND saved less than 500 of the C1's from the smelter for historical/display purposes.

That means there's about 1100 of these rifles remaining.    Ish.

There are a FEW FN C2's around as welll, I'm aware of at least one in private hands, as a Converted Auto (class 12-3).

I'm proud to have a rather rare piece of Canadian history in my safe at home, and I shared a photo library comparison between the C1A1, the L1A1, and the 1A1 (Brit and Indian respectively) on milsurps.com  

I also have the SUIT sight, and like it's QD system.  Very simple....almost un-British.

NS


----------



## NavyShooter (13 May 2010)

http://www.milsurps.com/showthread.php?t=4317

http://imageevent.com/badgerdog/cgnmilsurpknowledgebase/fn1a1vsfnl1a1vsfnc1a1


----------



## medicineman (13 May 2010)

Thanks Wes, knew you'd come through with that  ;D.

MM


----------



## 1feral1 (13 May 2010)

NavyShooter said:
			
		

> There ARE 0L-7L rifles in Canada.
> 
> I have a friend who has a 0L rifle in his collection, right next to his EX1 series rifle.
> 
> ...



Thanks NS for the reminder about the 0L's, truly a gem in anyone's collection. I do have the North American FAL book, and failed to remember that, its been many years since I had a squizz at it.

I knew a collector in northern Saskatchewan who had a C2, but it was made up, sure a C2 marked upper, but a parts gun, no genuine 'LA' series CFR. It too was SA, just like the Aussie L2A1 I once used to own, an AD63.

In Regina armouries they at one time had a C2, CFR 0LA003. 

Cheers,

OWDU


----------



## Haletown (13 May 2010)

or really old farts that remember how to take a piece of foil liner paper from a pack of Export A's, fold it just the right way, place it around the trigger sear just the right way . . .  and turn your semi-auto C1 into a fully Auto C2, without the heavy barrel & bipod.

Ahh the old days . . .  me & C823192  (if memory serves me well)


----------



## medicineman (13 May 2010)

Haletown said:
			
		

> or really old farts that remember how to take a piece of foil liner paper from a pack of Export A's, fold it just the right way, place it around the trigger sear just the right way . . .  and turn your semi-auto C1 into a fully Auto C2, without the heavy barrel & bipod.
> 
> Ahh the old days . . .  me & C823192  (if memory serves me well)



My dad told me of a guy that did that with live rounds - a bit of barrel warpage occured, followed shortly thereafter by career warpage.  I've seen it done on exercise with blanks, but I don't think it would be smart with the lighter barrel for much live stuff, especially if you're having a Rambo sustanined fire moment  :.

MM


----------



## Retired AF Guy (13 May 2010)

BernDawg said:
			
		

> While I agree with you that it's a moot point I have an interesting side note...  I seem to recall guys buying after market reciever covers for the FN that would, of course, fit on our C1's that had scope rails on them and "coyboying up" on ex with their own optics.  Never live but had fun while snoopin' n' poopin' during RV and the like.   :warstory:



There was actually a "sniper" version of the FN C1A1 which consisted of a modified top cover with a scope mounted on it. Cannot remember the scope designation, magnification, or who made it. I only seen it once and that was at a rifle range in Cyprus.


----------



## kkwd (13 May 2010)

Retired AF Guy said:
			
		

> There was actually a "sniper" version of the FN C1A1 which consisted of a modified top cover with a scope mounted on it. Cannot remember the scope designation, magnification, or who made it. I only seen it once and that was at a rifle range in Cyprus.



Look  familiar?


----------



## NavyShooter (13 May 2010)

OWDU,

I got curious, and now that I'm at home can refer to my Stevens book.

Page 133.

Bottom right corner.

Bill of sale from CAL.

Rifles 8L 5006 to 8L 5012 were sold together....in 1972 to a "qualified group of civilian shooter" along with 14 magazines, and a free replacement "Carrier assembly"....at No Charge.

Total price for the 7 rifles and 14 mags?  $1934.52.  

Having a C1 in your collection?  

Priceless.

And knowing that so few have or can have them, that's part of why I did up the photo montage on Milsurps.com.

NS


----------



## 1feral1 (14 May 2010)

WRT the'Sniper' version you mentioned. 

A scope called the Scope, Sniper, C1 was produced by Leitz Canada.

In my 18 yrs, 11 months in the CF, I had never seen one in service, and a good collector friend in Estevan Saskatchewan has one, with original case. 

As for the rifle, there was no special stock selection, just a generic C1. There was no 'sniper' modifications allowed to the rifle, unlike the competition mods (as per CFTO instruction) to the hammer and change lever.

I have no idea how many scopes were contracted to the CF during it's period of service, nor the scale of issue per Infantry Coy/Bn.

Cheers,

OWDU


----------



## Danjanou (14 May 2010)

KKwd you remember when a certain overeager M/Cpl (not me) found a case of those body covers and scopes in the asbestos/lead encrusted basement and wrote a proposal to DW that they be issued one per section and each section have a trained designated marksman. The CSM went ballistic.  8)


----------



## SeanNewman (14 May 2010)

Danjanou said:
			
		

> ...one per section and each section have a trained designated marksman...



If you stay around long enough your wish will come true.


----------



## Danjanou (14 May 2010)

Guess you missed the retired part of my profile there eh Starbucks Boy.

I'm a little too long in the tooth to come back and play M/Cpl or Sgt these days. I was using this particular weapon while you were playing with cap pistols. Besides the domestic niner would probably hate the pay cut I'd have to take.


See unlike other senior persons on here, I'll answer your inane comebacks and play with you. Mind I'm old, bored and lonely.
 8)


----------



## SeanNewman (14 May 2010)

Danjanou said:
			
		

> Guess you missed the retired part of my profile there eh Starbucks Boy.



Actually when I wrote "around" I meant _alive_, not serving...old man (fair retort for "boy")


----------



## Haletown (14 May 2010)

medicineman said:
			
		

> My dad told me of a guy that did that with live rounds - a bit of barrel warpage occured, followed shortly thereafter by career warpage.  I've seen it done on exercise with blanks, but I don't think it would be smart with the lighter barrel for much live stuff, especially if you're having a Rambo sustanined fire moment  :.
> 
> MM



It could be a problem but as long as you were careful with short bursts & pauses it was no worse than just squeezing off mag after mag as fast as you could pull the trigger . . . .  and guys could fire off 20 rounds in just a few seconds with just trigger pulling single rounds

When you could light your Export A off the Gas Plug, you knew you were too hot. 

You also knew you could cook off a round in the breech and it was a good time to drop the mag & pull back the bolt carrier , engage the empty mag catch and pause for some cooling off time.

Ahhhhh the old days & the fun you could have on a range.


----------



## medicineman (14 May 2010)

Apparently he failed to understand the concept of the controlled burst; I've done some pretty rapid applications with the C1 with live rounds, but they still took a little longer than a "few" seconds to empty a magazine; mind you, if I didn't care where the rounds were going, took alot less time  ;D.

MM


----------



## Retired AF Guy (21 May 2010)

kkwd said:
			
		

> Look  familiar?



That's her! Thanks.


----------



## marshall sl (22 May 2010)

Danjanou said:
			
		

> Plus you'd have to bring all us old farts back to teach you how to get FN cheek, eh KK  8)


 Man, if you think your old what the frak am I???


----------



## Danjanou (25 May 2010)

marshall sl said:
			
		

> Man, if you think your old what the frak am I???



You're still alive?  ;D


----------



## KevinB (25 May 2010)

The interesting thing about most of the usual sear tricks to get the gun to fire auto, was that a lot of the C1A1's had short trigger plungers installed, and only needed the C2 selector to run properly.

 Years ago I saw some CAR guns where C1's and C2 had swapped the lowers and upper, to give a select fire rifles, and semi-auto bipod heavy barrel DM guns, the C7's came shortly after so I only saw it once while watching a jump/FTX at Julliet Tower when I was supposed to be doing something else.  Back as a 17yr old reserve Artilleryman, I dared not ask who/what/where least the death dealing jumpers strangle me (funny how life experiences change ones views) 

I saw one of the C1's with C1 Sniper Scope in Ottawa at Connaught - never figured out where it came from, it showed up for a weapons display with C3's while on my SACC.


The chipmuch cheek -- later when I bought my own (Aussie L1A1 with mint CF furniture I added), I found if you actually got the proper stock, it pretty much dealt with that (that gun sadly was sold and deactivated by the new owner).

Later on in '94/'95 WO Tom Ahern (then freshly promoted out of JTF-2) tried to get some C1A1's as DM guns for A Coy 1VP's (he knew the CF was not going to buy HK PSG-1's or KAC SR-25's for this) upcoming deployment to Rwanda (which was scrapped after 3Pl flew to Uganda to spend 35 days in a hotel) as secuity for the DART, and it became unworkable due to few of us knew anything about the C1, and whomever had them did not want to release them (despite releasing NIB C8's and Pistols from warstock to DART, seeing mint No1 MkII* dumped in CLP and the decal pealing off them all made me want to cry as my own personally bought 9T3534 Mo1. MkII* did not have one).

In Iraq we conujured up a bunch of FAL's in various flavors (the Aussies loved to make 10-12" guns) however I sorted thru some of the full length Para ones we had to make a DM gun, and none short very well even with match ammo (it was hard to get fixed stock guns, but Para folders seemed in easy supply).  An ex-SASR buddy of mine ended up with a 16" gun that filled our DM role, until BigRed got me the Hk21A1, and I lived with a beltfed DM gun   (sub MOA with belted M118LR and a S&B Short Dot).


----------



## NavyShooter (29 May 2010)

I-6,

My L1A1 (Brit) would hold a 5 round group into 3/4" with match ammo.  

It is a mishmash of parts.  Somehow, the confluence of goodness imparted me with a good shooter.  Not one part matches, but it's a fine shooter.  Not every one will work so well as that, I just got REAL lucky.

My L1A1 (Aus) hasn't been range-tested, neither has my C1A1, since I can't get an SAP to take them to the range anymore.

:-(

My Ishapore 1A1 will pump in nice solid 2-3" groups, and leaves the brass all stretched, but not quite broken....a buddy of mine has an Ishapore that's got excessive headspace....he got a real pretty bulge on his brass when he used to shoot it.

NS


----------



## TCBF (29 May 2010)

NavyShooter said:
			
		

> ... My L1A1 (Aus) hasn't been range-tested, neither has my C1A1, since I can't get an SAP to take them to the range anymore. :-( ... NS ...



- It's all about timelines. Sometimes I WISH I had tested my C1A1 with a given load, then GOLLY! It turns out I HAD, back when I COULD, and the targets to prove it are right in front of me!   No photos, though...

 8)


----------



## Colin Parkinson (30 May 2010)

Mine's a hybrid between a FAL and FNC1, it was owned by a Reg force weapons tech on a base known as "Sleepy Hollow" It was/is a good shooter. 

The sad thing about the FN's was that many of us as young plugs and Jr NCO's were not taught the importance of maintaining the parts as whole. I remember being ordered to set up vats of Varsol and oil and the guns been stripped down with the parts tossed in and then reassembled from the pile. While it cleaned a lot guns efficiently, I am sure that did not help the reliability or the accuracy of the rifles.

I6 Being a young Reserve gunner is fine way to start a career, you now give me hope to be a Jedi warrior (4th class, Home Guard, that is.)


----------



## 1feral1 (30 May 2010)

One thing I remember about the whole C1/C2 thing was the commonality of the breech block, and carrier where one/any breech block will do.

Although there were some breech blocks which had CFRs etched into them, they were in no means related to a CFR held in the armoury, yet alone the region. No carries had any CFRs at all.

Australia and the UK had matching carriers and breech blocks to their L1A1 rifles (L2A1 ARs [Auto Rifles]) for Aust), if not matched the rifle was classified 'XX' and repairable.

Same goes for the C7 FOW, any carrier and bolt will do, where as here in Australia, the carrier and bolt are matched to the weapon on all Armalites (M16A1/A2 and M4's).  No exceptions.

Just some freaky small arms facts.

OWDU


----------



## SeanNewman (30 May 2010)

Overwatch Downunder said:
			
		

> Same goes for the C7 FOW, any carrier and bolt will do, where as here in Australia, the carrier and bolt are matched to the weapon on all Armalites (M16A1/A2 and M4's).  No exceptions....OWDU



Out of curiosity, what is your assessment of that?  Are you saying that it's procedure to keep the same bolt with the rifle, or that it wouldn't even work if you changed bolts?  I am of the opinion that any part of the rifle should be interchangeable...not so much that you'd want to because keeping matching numbers together is important.

A case where that doesn't work for us is something like the .50 cal because they're so old and have fired so many rounds that all the parts have more of less mated together and even if you wanted to change some parts you couldn't.


----------



## Old Sweat (30 May 2010)

For whatever it is worth, I was taught as a recruit way back in 1958 that the C1 differed from the Lee-Enfield in that the breech block and body cover were not matched to the weapon. (I was in the first squad in the RCA Depot not to be issued a SMLE No 4 Mk 1*. Some of the squads ahead of mine were held back to convert to the C1, which included all the TSOETs and range work as well as arms drill.)


----------



## NavyShooter (30 May 2010)

Petamocto,

I've assembled a couple of AR-15's (personal) and play gun-plumber as a bit of a hobby.

One thing I like to look for on an M-16 FOW rifle is the rear mating surfaces of the locking lugs.  A bit of oil, 30-50 rounds to get the rifle slightly carbon'd up, and pull the bolt out to have a look at the rear surfaces of the locking lugs.  If I see equal bits of carbon on each one, I know all are mating properly.  If I see one that's not getting contact (based on the oil/carbon) not as good, but not a big deal.  If there's more than 2 that aren't getting contact, there's something not quite right.

If you have consistent carbon/oil patterns on all 7 lugs, then IMO, you have good lockup.  (Presuming the headspace is GO.)

That's my take as an informed amateur, so those who're more in the know feel free to dissuade me of this opinion.

As an aside, my Brit L1A1 had the breech block, Breech block Carrier, and Upper Receiver with all different serial numbers, and there was no issue with headspace.  Having the different locking shoulders allowed minor headspace issues to be corrected, which is something that can't be done on an M-16 FOW.

NS


----------



## SeanNewman (30 May 2010)

Navy,

Thanks for the post.

Interesting way to look at it with a relatively small collection (compared to a CF unit vault).


----------



## Fishbone Jones (30 May 2010)

I'll go with NS on this one. I've probably built 15 AR platforms from scratch (buying all parts individually) and been involved in the building of maybe a dozen more. I've never experienced any fitting or headspace problems, unlike the Springfield M1A type systems we've done, where bolts, etc had to be hand fitted.


----------



## SeanNewman (30 May 2010)

recceguy said:
			
		

> ...I've never experienced any fitting or headspace problems...



And that's how I would think that all modern weapons _should_ be made.  We're not in the 1800s anymore when every factory made ammunition and parts that were different sizes even though to the same spec.

One would think that modern tolerances and computer-aided design would make for a 100% interchangeable parts list even if they've been used heavily.


----------



## 1feral1 (30 May 2010)

Petamocto said:
			
		

> Out of curiosity, what is your assessment of that?  Are you saying that it's procedure to keep the same bolt with the rifle, or that it wouldn't even work if you changed bolts?  I am of the opinion that any part of the rifle should be interchangeable...not so much that you'd want to because keeping matching numbers together is important.
> 
> A case where that doesn't work for us is something like the .50 cal because they're so old and have fired so many rounds that all the parts have more of less mated together and even if you wanted to change some parts you couldn't.



Hi,

Personally, I prefer the CF way of doing business. I have commented on this issue here in Australia many times here, and I find things are unnecessary when it comes to this accountibility nightmare. In the 21st century here in Australia, its now all about duty/care with HS failure, etc. The Defence Force is a business (actually referred to as an 'organisation' now), no longer a 'force'. Although I have only seen a few F88 fail HS in the past +15 yrs, and never seen an L1A1 SLR/L2A1 AR (HS set at time of assembly/bbl change WRT locking shoulders as specified previously) or M16 fail.  I would say HS at time of repair/component change, and then annually thereafter. I too appreciate the interchangability, and thats how it should be.

The M2 Browning here is QCB, and both bolts match the gun, and this however is necessary for the QCB version WRT HS and timing. The serial number and the size number of a cam are stamped on the bolt. This QCB version the the Cadillac of machine guns, very easy to maintain. Both barrels match the gun also. ATIs/prefires conducted pick up any wear/tear on the gun. if teh gun fails HS, the cam size is changed (bolt re-stamped to reflect this), and its a Unit repair

Cheers,

OWDU


----------



## SeanNewman (30 May 2010)

We had a fluke here last year with .50 cals.  You know the military standard of using the last three of serial/service numbers, well we had a range with a dozen .50 cals and with 1:10,000 odds we had two with the same last four numbers.

Not matching numbers = Significant Incident Report to fill out and - 1 x .50 cal in the inventory.


----------



## KevinB (30 May 2010)

A lot of units used electric pencils to write the Ser# on the bolt/carrier - it served as an accountability issue, remember the pictures of an AR-15 Semi-Auto Carrier, and a C7/C8 Auto Carrier, and how they where parnoid soldiers where going to swap bolts in the early days for the C7...


Personally have been on the receiving end of extra's for a dirty bolt, I prefer matching, as it ensure that some one does not go shopping for a clean bolt and screw someone with their dirty one.

Also for a purely lifespan wise outlook, bolts and barrel extensions will wear together to a certain point to mesh.  If you keep swapping bolts, you really do prematurely age them when you swap them.  
  Yes they can be swapped, but they really should not be unless its an emergency.


----------



## SeanNewman (30 May 2010)

Infidel-6 said:
			
		

> ...Personally have been on the receiving end of extra's for a dirty bolt, I prefer matching, as it ensure that some one does not go shopping for a clean bolt and screw someone with their dirty one..



If that's the issue then of course.  I 100% agree that in the case of accountability it's important to keep matching numbers and I don't think anyone would challenge you on that.

My question above was more about functionality because everything I knew pointed to there being no mechanical issues with swapping parts like this on the M16/C7 vice the .50 cal where it really is verboten.


----------



## TCBF (30 May 2010)

Infidel-6 said:
			
		

> ... Personally have been on the receiving end of extra's for a dirty bolt, I prefer matching, as it ensure that some one does not go shopping for a clean bolt and screw someone with their dirty one....



-  1988, Lahr, Cdn Boeselager Team: stoppages galore with C7s. Bolt carriers and bolts were filthy.  I got some baggage tags from the AMU, and said "As ye clean, so shall ye shoot!" Next range had two stoppages in 1,000 rounds.


----------



## KevinB (30 May 2010)

I hear 5-10% of lifespan banded about about the decrease caused by swapping bolts.

 I have zero knowledge if it is true, it kinda makes sence to me, but the other parts of me wonders if its life some of the other wives tales about bolt ring misalignment etc.


----------



## zuicy227 (19 Apr 2011)

I was in the Cadets in 1986, we used the FN's  in Ipperwash, ONT. ,on the range was awesome  and even working the butts. I wish i could own one, i don't care how old they are or how heavy they are , i want one , someone give me  a deal, i'll treat her good.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (19 Apr 2011)

zuicy227 said:
			
		

> I was in the Cadets in 1986, we used the FN's  in Ipperwash, ONT. ,on the range was awesome  and even working the butts. I wish i could own one, i don't care how old they are or how heavy they are , i want one , someone give me  a deal, i'll treat her good.



Unless you have a PAL with 12.5 Prohibited, aquisition & possession, you're out of luck and can't legally have one.


----------



## Drobb (27 Jan 2019)

Quick from C1 users would the rifle if been more useful if equipped built in bipod like the Austrian FAL? 

Thanks


----------



## NavyShooter (27 Jan 2019)

Drobb, 

Can you relate this query to your thread about the FNC2?  A remarkably similar rifle which did have a bipod?

NS


----------



## expwor (27 Jan 2019)

Drobb said:
			
		

> Quick from C1 users would the rifle if been more useful if equipped built in bipod like the Austrian FAL?
> 
> Thanks


More useful compared to what?  You'd need shooters who have shot the FN C1 and the FAL to compare the two
As the rifle that was most everyone's personal weapon (to the best of my limited CF knowledge) back in the day it seemed pretty useful to me. And that's with the caveat I had limited exposure to rifles (.22 only) until Militia 
And trivia, my FN (when with the PWOR) was made in 1959, no big deal except I was born in 1961, my rifle was older than me. 
Sorry waxing nostalgic now

Tom


----------



## Colin Parkinson (27 Jan 2019)

You mean like this? 8)

It's great when you want to shoot and drink beer at the same time.


----------



## Rifleman62 (28 Jan 2019)

On our Junior NCO crse in Shilo, the summer of 1963, the wpns we trained on were the Sten, BREN, the new Sterling, 3.5 inch rocket launcher, 36 grenade and brand new FN C1's in their cardboard boxes. It took forever to clean the new FN's.

Add: FN C1's with the notch behind the rear sight.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (28 Jan 2019)

I got to fire the 3.5" the ammunition so old it wobbled through the air! As for the C2, never thought much of it as a weapon, neither one thing or another. You had to limit your fire to preserve the barrel, easy to burn your hands on it. It was very accurate, the long mag was a pain to shoot with in prone and reload.

The FNC1 is already a heavy rifle, a bipod just adds to that and it would be a bugger to carry through the bush with it on. Better to shoot from a sandbag that at least offers some protection.


----------



## Rifleman62 (28 Jan 2019)

With the 3.5, you could load the rocket right pass the contact latches and then have to gently tip the launcher forward to get the round. We were using I think, 1954 ammo on our Group 1 Infantry crse in the summer of 1964. Every third rocket was a misfire that after going through the Misfire drills had to be unloaded and deposited in designated area. I still have a photo of the blown in place.


> You had to limit your fire to preserve the barrel, easy to burn your hands on it.



On the BREN, you never burnt your finger tips closing the ejection cover underneath the wpn twice.


----------



## Loachman (29 Jan 2019)

Colin P said:
			
		

> I got to fire the 3.5" the ammunition so old it wobbled through the air!



Muzzle velocity was a whopping 340 feet per second, so, yes, one could watch the rounds lazily coast downrange.

There was also a little-known anti-bunker version with a three-round gravity-fed magazine.


----------



## AlDazz (21 May 2019)

I have used the C1 and C7. The FN is the one I remember the best as it always seemed more battle worthy. I also remember the serviceability problems as they started to age. I always hoped they put the best in war stocks in case they were ever needed again.


----------



## SeaKingTacco (21 May 2019)

The entire FN stock was cut for scrap a few years ago.


----------



## Loachman (21 May 2019)

I forgot about my last post.

Nobody cares enough to ask about the anti-bunker 3.5 inch rocket launcer with three-round gravity-fed magazine...


----------



## AlDazz (21 May 2019)

Last fired that fine antitank weapon in 1978. If there was a 3 round magazine it one in the tube and one in each pocket.  I remember it did wobble in flight and was surprised when it hit the hard target.


----------



## Loachman (21 May 2019)

The first (bottom) two rounds in the magazine had wooden warheads. The third (top) round had a standard HEAT warhed.

The technique involved working one's way around to the back of the bunker, then firing the first two rounds at the door in rapid succession.

When an occupant opened the door to see who had just made a loud "knock-knock" sound, one could then fire the HEAT round directly inside.


----------



## NavyShooter (22 May 2019)

Heh.

Wish I had a mag-fed Bazooka.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (22 May 2019)

SeaKingTacco said:
			
		

> The entire FN stock was cut for scrap a few years ago.



The Russians are shaking their heads, I would not be surprised if they have large stocks of M1867 Russian Krnka covered in cosmoline.


----------



## FJAG (22 May 2019)

SeaKingTacco said:
			
		

> The entire FN stock was cut for scrap a few years ago.









If we can do this to perfectly serviceable M109s cutting up a bunch of rifles is nothing. 

 :'(


----------



## Rifleman62 (22 May 2019)

Too war like to have.


----------



## OldSolduer (22 May 2019)

Rifleman62 said:
			
		

> Too war like to have.



Yes, unicorns 🦄 and fairy 🧚‍♀️ dust are far more effective and satisfies that GBA crap.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (19 Jul 2019)

Forgotten weapons on the FNC1 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nk2ASY1Xj_U&fbclid=IwAR0h6yVh0Y9JX25qhacnbI50TGcoizi-6dyIrt9fGtGPm0EEdCl9BMp6cg0


----------



## NavyShooter (19 Jul 2019)

Neat.  My C1A1 is serial number 8L2369...these two rifles were probably built the same day.  

http://imageevent.com/badgerdog/cgnmilsurpknowledgebase/fn1a1vsfnl1a1vsfnc1a1

(And by 'my' C1A1, I mean the legally registered 12(5) rifle that currently resides in my safe in the basement.)


----------



## Old Sweat (20 Jul 2019)

Very interesting and informative video.

I was in the first recruit course in the RCA Depot not issued Lee-Enfields and trained exclusively on the C1. We were the first squad to commence training in 1958. A few of the squads that preceded ours were retained in Shilo for a few weeks to convert to the C1. Considering that this was the Canadian Army, I'm not sure whether the emphasis was on marksmanship and fieldcraft or drill. Just kidding, I think.

On my basic para in Rivers we used some of the old FALs, probably on the principle that it didn't matter how hard they were used and thumped around.


----------



## FJAG (20 Jul 2019)

Old Sweat said:
			
		

> Very interesting and informative video.
> 
> I was in the first recruit course in the RCA Depot not issued Lee-Enfields and trained exclusively on the C1. We were the first squad to commence training in 1958. A few of the squads that preceded ours were retained in Shilo for a few weeks to convert to the C1. Considering that this was the Canadian Army, I'm not sure whether the emphasis was on marksmanship and fieldcraft or drill. Just kidding, I think.
> 
> On my basic para in Rivers we used some of the old FALs, probably on the principle that it didn't matter how hard they were used and thumped around.



Was the new rifle drill already in effect or was there a period of confused transition?

 :cheers:


----------



## Colin Parkinson (20 Jul 2019)

I don't recall seeing anyone do slope arms with a FN/FAL. Otherwise the drill is similar.


----------



## Old Sweat (20 Jul 2019)

FJAG said:
			
		

> Was the new rifle drill already in effect or was there a period of confused transition?
> 
> :cheers:



I did my basic para in 1968, so the FN had been in service for more than a decade.


----------



## Old Sweat (20 Jul 2019)

Colin P said:
			
		

> I don't recall seeing anyone do slope arms with a FN/FAL. Otherwise the drill is similar.



Correct, so we went to carrying the rifle at the shoulder. The original present arms was a two step movement: the first step was to move the rifle out in front of the body with the right arm; while moving the left arm out to catch the foregrip. In a year or so we went to the three step movement.


----------



## Blackadder1916 (20 Jul 2019)

From CAMT 2-2 (1959)


----------



## CountDC (22 Jul 2019)

Blackadder1916 said:
			
		

> From CAMT 2-2 (1959)



There are a few FNs still floating around as trophy pieces.  Saw a FN and the good old SMG from the same period that was stainless steal plated (??), at least it looked like that material, and used as a competition trophy.  There was a unit presented with one a couple years ago in a display case that is in the Sgts and WOs mess.


----------

