A real inch pattern geek question..

Hi all,

A very anorak question I've been mulling over...

Fn made the ABC group pay for every change to the Fal, as the design morphed from metric to to inch pattern and they changed just about everything with the possible exception of the breech block and the pivot pin assembly!

Now Canada and Australia kept the Fal half moon shaped machining around the locking should reinforce, the UK opted for squaring off the reinforce, so did the UK have to pay more for this specifically UK change?

As a follow on, why the machining change by the UK??

I challenge anyone to come up with a more geeky question than that!

Guess your question follows along the same line as this book I have Clarky!

It certainly looks like it Ron!!

The machining was a national preference, Australia followed the Canadian design that was a basic design for the Rifle Steering Committee. The British continued with their methods of milling, thus you get different styles of cuts, the critical measurements met the specification, looks were secondary and in fact if you compared the Canadian and Australian Rifles you will see differences in the machining.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by nzl1a1collector

The machining was a national preference

---

That makes more sense to me. I'd have a hard time believing that when rifle was made on Long Branch machines that Belgium took offense to machine cut differences.

Cheers Kev, that makes sense, as you say, differences in all three. the mag well lightning cut on the CAL rifle, is similar to the Fal, where the UK and Lithgow opted for a simpler narrow scallop.

It does makes you wonder why they would change things like the gas block assembly, where even the angle of the gas bleed channel was altered...

I venture it has to do with NMH - not made here.

It's a complected story. At this stage I haven't come across first hand written evidence that the ABC were paying for changes. The Rifle Steering Committee (made of FN, Canada, UK and America) discussed any and all changes that effected the FAL Rifle. Some porposals where accepted, some rejected others became national preferences. There were thousands of minor manafacturing tolerance changes done. FN did get ****ed off when the ABC rifle went with the larger front lug on the magazine, requiring a deeper slot in the front of the magazine well. FN looked at this and because of the way they were manufacturing their bodies claimed they would be unable to do the deeper slot. The front lug solved the problem of the weaker pressed 'beak' on the FN mags at the time. FN took on changes they saw would enhance their rifle such as the 2 piece firing pin. American designed flash eliminator slots. Etc.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by nzl1a1collector

It's a complected story. At this stage I haven't come across first hand written evidence that the ABC were paying for changes. The Rifle Steering Committee (made of FN, Canada, UK and America) discussed any and all changes that effected the FAL Rifle. Some porposals where accepted, some rejected others became national preferences. There were thousands of minor manafacturing tolerance changes done. FN did get ****ed off when the ABC rifle went with the larger front lug on the magazine, requiring a deeper slot in the front of the magazine well. FN looked at this and because of the way they were manufacturing their bodies claimed they would be unable to do the deeper slot. The front lug solved the problem of the weaker pressed 'beak' on the FN mags at the time. FN took on changes they saw would enhance their rifle such as the 2 piece firing pin. American designed flash eliminator slots. Etc.

---

As ever Kev, you are the all things inch pattern fountain of knowledge!

Just when I think I'm finally getting a handle on the subject, you open a new door mate....

A square corner is easier/quicker to machine than a radius corner, especially if carried out on a manual machine or, when FN/SLR rifles were produced, CNC machines were in their infancy.

Sometimes people think that you can "just stick a rad on a corner" or "machine a square hole, with square corners using a round cutter that is revolving", no problem. Sometimes things are not that simple and more complicated machining equates to more time/cost.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mrclark303

Cheers Kev, that makes sense, as you say, differences in all three. the mag well lightning cut on the CAL rifle, is similar to the Fal, where the UK and Lithgow opted for a simpler narrow scallop.

It does makes you wonder why they would change things like the gas block assembly, where even the angle of the gas bleed channel was altered...

---

Most of the C1/L1 improvements are real improvements over the Ex1/X8E1/T48 series of rifles.

90* gas port hole erodes less over time (reference Ak47 vs AKM).

The inch pattern gas block is arguably a dramatic improvement over the Belgian design - gas adjustment knob and front sight system.

The Belgian Ex1/X8 2 piece gas nut/carry handle sleeve is stupid - having to unbreech the barrel or remove the gas block to remove the gas tube or carry handle is stupid.

The butt stock "wings" on the Ex1/X8 belgian butt stock cracked and broke out.

I'm not sure that the 2 angle bolt locking surface matters (the Indians used the single angle bolt to the end with their IA1 rifles) - but the 2 piece extractor is a major improvement over the long tail flat wire spring BAR pattern of the Ex1/X8.

I used to prefer the Ex1/X8 pattern pistol grip, but have come to prefer the inch pattern angle and shape.

Having said that, the US pattern (T48) flash hider adopted with the C1/L1 is ungainly long.

The Lithgow solution to the flash-hider length issue was found on the L1A1F1 rifles sent to the PNG Defence Forces.

L1A1, flash suppressor, PNG F1 Arizona Response Systems

Combined with a "short" butt, it lopped several inches off total length. This suited the many "shorter-statured" PNG troops and made the barrel assembly a bit less of a "brush-hook".

A neat bit of engineering.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bruce_in_Oz

it lopped several inches off total length.

---

That would have been nice too.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bruce_in_Oz

The Lithgow solution to the flash-hider length issue was found on the L1A1F1 rifles sent to the PNG Defence Forces.

L1A1, flash suppressor, PNG F1 Arizona Response Systems

Combined with a "short" butt, it lopped several inches off total length. This suited the many "shorter-statured" PNG troops and made the barrel assembly a bit less of a "brush-hook".

A neat bit of engineering.

---

I often wondered what difference the Lithgow PNG FE made to the distinctive L1 'chime'.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mrclark303

the distinctive L1 'chime'.

---

I always took it to be the steel ringin' like a bell...that I heard.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by browningautorifle

I always took it to be the steel ringin' like a bell...that I heard.

---

Could be Jim, the Dragunov, (with its very similar FE) makes an almost identical chime on firing....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mrclark303

the Dragunov, (with its very similar FE) makes an almost identical chime

---

Don't think I ever heard one of those. Not too many around here.