Author Topic: The FN C1 - Service Rifle of the Past (and C7A1 vs FN C1A1)  (Read 153005 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Colin P

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 139,225
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 9,326
  • Civilian
    • http://www.pacific.ccg-gcc.gc.ca
Re: The FN C1 - Service Rifle of the Past (and C7A1 vs FN C1A1)
« Reply #150 on: May 30, 2010, 01:14:54 »
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.)

Offline Carcharodon Carcharias

  • Drawing the crabs from Downunder :) WTF is TWL?
  • Banned
  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *
  • 28,880
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 5,232
Re: The FN C1 - Service Rifle of the Past (and C7A1 vs FN C1A1)
« Reply #151 on: May 30, 2010, 04:51:44 »
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   

"You've never lived until you've almost died; as for our freedom, for those of us who have fought for it, life has a flavour the protected will never know." - Anonymous

Offline Petamocto

  • Banned
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *
  • 26,237
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 1,550
  • Thank god the Taliban doesn't use attack dogs.
Re: The FN C1 - Service Rifle of the Past (and C7A1 vs FN C1A1)
« Reply #152 on: May 30, 2010, 07:50:21 »
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.
"Do what you feel in your heart to be right - for you'll be criticized anyway." - Roosevelt

Offline Old Sweat

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 217,745
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 7,793
Re: The FN C1 - Service Rifle of the Past (and C7A1 vs FN C1A1)
« Reply #153 on: May 30, 2010, 08:00:07 »
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.)


Offline NavyShooter

    Boaty McBoatface!

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *
  • 183,896
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 3,020
  • Death from a Bar.....one shot, one Tequilla
Re: The FN C1 - Service Rifle of the Past (and C7A1 vs FN C1A1)
« Reply #154 on: May 30, 2010, 09:44:44 »
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
Insert disclaimer statement here....

:panzer:

Offline Petamocto

  • Banned
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *
  • 26,237
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 1,550
  • Thank god the Taliban doesn't use attack dogs.
Re: The FN C1 - Service Rifle of the Past (and C7A1 vs FN C1A1)
« Reply #155 on: May 30, 2010, 10:35:03 »
Navy,

Thanks for the post.

Interesting way to look at it with a relatively small collection (compared to a CF unit vault).
"Do what you feel in your heart to be right - for you'll be criticized anyway." - Roosevelt

Offline Fishbone Jones

    MSC -5620.

  • "Some people will only like you if you fit inside their box. Don't be afraid to shove that box up their ass."
  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Myth
  • *
  • 276,667
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 18,573
    • Army.ca
Re: The FN C1 - Service Rifle of the Past (and C7A1 vs FN C1A1)
« Reply #156 on: May 30, 2010, 12:01:57 »
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.
Corruption in politics doesn't scare me.
What scares me is how comfortable people are doing nothing about it.

Offline Petamocto

  • Banned
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *
  • 26,237
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 1,550
  • Thank god the Taliban doesn't use attack dogs.
Re: The FN C1 - Service Rifle of the Past (and C7A1 vs FN C1A1)
« Reply #157 on: May 30, 2010, 12:13:18 »
...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.
"Do what you feel in your heart to be right - for you'll be criticized anyway." - Roosevelt

Offline Carcharodon Carcharias

  • Drawing the crabs from Downunder :) WTF is TWL?
  • Banned
  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *
  • 28,880
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 5,232
Re: The FN C1 - Service Rifle of the Past (and C7A1 vs FN C1A1)
« Reply #158 on: May 30, 2010, 14:43:43 »
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
« Last Edit: May 30, 2010, 15:09:50 by Overwatch Downunder »
"You've never lived until you've almost died; as for our freedom, for those of us who have fought for it, life has a flavour the protected will never know." - Anonymous

Offline Petamocto

  • Banned
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *
  • 26,237
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 1,550
  • Thank god the Taliban doesn't use attack dogs.
Re: The FN C1 - Service Rifle of the Past (and C7A1 vs FN C1A1)
« Reply #159 on: May 30, 2010, 17:15:01 »
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.
"Do what you feel in your heart to be right - for you'll be criticized anyway." - Roosevelt

Offline KevinB

  • Has Been
  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 35,620
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 8,338
  • As a Matter of Fact the Sky is Blue in my world...
    • FN America
Re: The FN C1 - Service Rifle of the Past (and C7A1 vs FN C1A1)
« Reply #160 on: May 30, 2010, 19:36:55 »
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.



Kevin S. Boland
Manager, Federal Sales
FN America, LLC
Office: 703.288.3500 x181 | Mobile: 703-244-1758  | Fax: 703.288.4505
www.fnhusa.com

Offline Petamocto

  • Banned
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *
  • 26,237
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 1,550
  • Thank god the Taliban doesn't use attack dogs.
Re: The FN C1 - Service Rifle of the Past (and C7A1 vs FN C1A1)
« Reply #161 on: May 30, 2010, 19:42:00 »
...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.
"Do what you feel in your heart to be right - for you'll be criticized anyway." - Roosevelt

Offline TCBF

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 13,760
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 3,941
Re: The FN C1 - Service Rifle of the Past (and C7A1 vs FN C1A1)
« Reply #162 on: May 30, 2010, 19:52:03 »
... 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.
"Disarming the Canadian public is part of the new humanitarian social agenda."   - Foreign Affairs Minister Lloyd Axeworthy at a Gun Control conference in Oslo, Norway in 1998.


"I didn’t feel that it was an act of violence; you know, I felt that it was an act of liberation, that’s how I felt you know." - Ann Hansen, Canadian 'Urban Guerrilla'(one of the "Squamish Five")

Offline KevinB

  • Has Been
  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 35,620
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 8,338
  • As a Matter of Fact the Sky is Blue in my world...
    • FN America
Re: The FN C1 - Service Rifle of the Past (and C7A1 vs FN C1A1)
« Reply #163 on: May 30, 2010, 20:07:15 »
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.

Kevin S. Boland
Manager, Federal Sales
FN America, LLC
Office: 703.288.3500 x181 | Mobile: 703-244-1758  | Fax: 703.288.4505
www.fnhusa.com

Offline zuicy227

  • Guest
  • *
  • 10
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 1
Re: The FN C1 - Service Rifle of the Past (and C7A1 vs FN C1A1)
« Reply #164 on: April 19, 2011, 12:31:45 »
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.

Offline Fishbone Jones

    MSC -5620.

  • "Some people will only like you if you fit inside their box. Don't be afraid to shove that box up their ass."
  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Myth
  • *
  • 276,667
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 18,573
    • Army.ca
Re: The FN C1 - Service Rifle of the Past (and C7A1 vs FN C1A1)
« Reply #165 on: April 19, 2011, 16:24:18 »
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.
Corruption in politics doesn't scare me.
What scares me is how comfortable people are doing nothing about it.

Offline Drobb

  • Guest
  • *
  • 80
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 6
FN C1
« Reply #166 on: January 27, 2019, 19:52:57 »
Quick from C1 users would the rifle if been more useful if equipped built in bipod like the Austrian FAL?

Thanks

Offline NavyShooter

    Boaty McBoatface!

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *
  • 183,896
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 3,020
  • Death from a Bar.....one shot, one Tequilla
Re: FN C1
« Reply #167 on: January 27, 2019, 21:31:56 »
Drobb,

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

NS

Insert disclaimer statement here....

:panzer:

Offline expwor

  • Donor
  • Member
  • *
  • 20,485
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 121
Re: FN C1
« Reply #168 on: January 27, 2019, 21:50:59 »
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

Offline Colin P

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 139,225
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 9,326
  • Civilian
    • http://www.pacific.ccg-gcc.gc.ca
Re: FN C1
« Reply #169 on: January 27, 2019, 22:00:52 »
You mean like this? 8)

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

Offline Rifleman62

    Retired.

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *
  • 97,640
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 3,141
Re: FN C1
« Reply #170 on: January 28, 2019, 10:00:20 »
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.
« Last Edit: January 28, 2019, 10:24:33 by Rifleman62 »
Never Congratulate Yourself In Victory, Nor Blame Your Horses In Defeat - Old Cossack Expression

Offline Colin P

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 139,225
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 9,326
  • Civilian
    • http://www.pacific.ccg-gcc.gc.ca
Re: FN C1
« Reply #171 on: January 28, 2019, 10:23:38 »
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.

Offline Rifleman62

    Retired.

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *
  • 97,640
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 3,141
Re: FN C1
« Reply #172 on: January 28, 2019, 10:42:55 »
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.
Quote
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.
Never Congratulate Yourself In Victory, Nor Blame Your Horses In Defeat - Old Cossack Expression

Offline Loachman

  • Former Army Pilot in Drag
  • Directing Staff
  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *
  • 215,847
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 7,410
Re: FN C1
« Reply #173 on: January 29, 2019, 15:51:03 »
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.