Printable View
They used FN as a resource and apparently refurbished any and all weapons. I wonder how many were really worn out vs how much was "make work" for a bunch of skilled Belgians needing a paycheck? The scale was phenomenal if the photos say anything. It would be interesting to know which were done by the FN workers since they apparently didn't mark anything to note a rebuild. Lots of mixed up stocks and parts on those weapons.
Stock could have been replaced anytime or more than once by the military or by a civilian owner.
If military , any cleaning session could cause a switch or any breakage .
If by an owner it could have been a case of what was on hand , or " You want HOW much fo that nice correct stock ? But you only want $20 for the same stock with a rebuild stamp on it ! " gun show deal. Or , the stock that WAS on it corrected another carbine and it's corrected this one better ( say Inland and early vs other maker and/or later ) .
Chris
Thanks again for all the replies guys! I think it's safe to say the stock has been replaced. I guess we'll never TRULY know though.
But as for the rest of the carbine, with uniformity on the finish wear, dirt and grime, patina, etc, is it safe to say it's original?
Lastly. How tight do you guys tighten y'all's barrel bands? I don't want to over do it, especially with a type one.
Dave, FN figures large in the forthcoming CC article. Stay tuned, some questions might find an answer. There's even a little more info in the three FN photos than is detectable in WBII.Quote:
Originally Posted by DaveHH
I'm more of a paper guy (documents, not targets), but a cursory glance at Albright's terrific early Inland article in CCNL 346 seems to preclude the possibility that this stock or handguard could be original. Is that right or should I stick to turning over pieces of paper?
Your guess is as good as mine. I'm sure no expert. I know Chris' article on the 5.4 Inland block (#361) answered every question I could have had on mine.
*Thread Locked*
Hey guys .... :lol:
Resurrecting a two year old thread on a tangential issue from another forum .... seriously? :nono:
Last two posts deleted and original thread left in tact as it was in 2014. :cheers:
Regards,
Doug