I need to emphasize that the early FN C1s and the later progression had changes. One example doesn't nearly tell it. But because we're here, just by the nature of our interest, I think we all know that would be true.
Printable View
Wasn't the lightning cut on the receiver more like the parent Fal in the early C1 Jim?
I can't remember now, it's been ages. I just remember that even as a young soldier I could see there were differences between rifles in the platoons. They lay side by side and it was obvious...to me...others thought the very idea of noticing was ridiculous.
I can remember seeing the cutout for the thumb in the receiver for charger loading in a 2L and after that it was gone. Things like that...
Really, we all ought to be pestering the living heebee-jeebies out of Kev the Kiwi aka; NZL1A1collector to get his typewriter out and start putting all of this down. To rewrite properly, the UK and Commonwealth FAL's. Then you could have a complete chapter about the small vagaries in production between the rifles from start to finish. I'm sure Collector Grade would be up to reprint it.
It's all very interesting, while I have my anorak on and firmly zipped up, I have noticed definite quality of finish differences between some Lithgow produced rifles, some very well finished, while others still have machining "lines" still evident on their receivers ... I know, sad!
Are you asking to see my collection of inch pattern flat washers Mike, all with colour coded tags, indexed by year and manufacturer :madsmile::rofl::thup:
And whats wrong with that?
https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...qqdaeykr-1.jpg
https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...psfbqgls-1.jpg
https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...fa6pjcsw-1.jpg
https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...ndles_sm-1.jpg
https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...dLabeled-1.jpg
https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...ttPlates-1.jpg
https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...mjdg0nza-1.jpg