-
5 Attachment(s)
Custom order C1A1?
Good morning everyone:
I've been looking for a nice C1A1 to round out my Canadian collection for a few years now; I had had one of the 1968 OPP contract ones several years ago and sold it when I foolishly downsized my collection, and of course have regretted that since. Anyway, I recently picked up this C1A1. The fellow I bought it from obtained it in the 1970's from the original owner, who had apparently ordered it custom from CAL back in about 1960 or 1961. It is a C1A1, but has the C2 barrel on it and bipod. It's a nice piece, needs cleaning from sitting for a couple of decades.
Does anyone know the history of these? I was born in 1968, so grew up in the Trudeau era when these were banned, and the only reality of C1A1 and FN's in general I have ever known is that of a "prohibited" weapon and government mistrust of its citizens. I know the Canadian military reportedly destroyed their stocks when they changed to the C7, and it supposedly was only a few of the OPP which are on the market (still like to find one). Was it really possible to special order one of these from CAL back in the day? If so, I find it really depressing to realize how much we as gun owners have lost in Canada.
Ed
Attachment 33857Attachment 33858Attachment 33859Attachment 33860Attachment 33861
-
I know Warren will know for sure, but I'm pretty sure that at one time the DCRA could use the military rifles and own them outright for their competition purposes. That would explain the originator. As for the rest of your suspicions, they're just about right. Yes, the OPP had the 8L series and the RCMP had some as well. The ones we had in stores when the C7 took over were put into war reserve as part of the C7 contract and when sufficcient stocks of C7s had been produced, they were mostly destroyed. They were still there for some time though, because the JTF was able to draw some for Afghanistan. The mags were depleted however and there was a shortage of them. They were never released and contrary to rumor were never sold to a banana republic. Now...where's Warren?
-
C1 SMGs, C1 & C2 rifles were sold to the public thru the auspices of the DCRA to DCRA and the various provincial rifle association members from the late 1950s thru the closing of the CAL plant in the early 1970s.
They were also auctioned off as/after the factory closed.
-
The "FAL Bible" compilation of R. Blake Stevens' three FAL books includes a reprint of a bill of sale for several C1A1s that were sold to members of a rifle club in 1972.
Looking at the pictures of the OP's C1A1, I notice the upper receiver appears to have the 8L-series lightening cuts on the mag well. Was this common among pre-8L rifles?
-
If you mean on the flat side of the receiver lower right where it supports the mag, I remember all C1's having that lightening cut.
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by
browningautorifle
If you mean on the flat side of the receiver lower right where it supports the mag, I remember all C1's having that lightening cut.
Really? It seems to be a common belief among SLR fans down in the States that only the 8L-series rifles had that kind of lightening cut. Everybody I've talked to seems to think that the pre-8L rifles had the bigger four-sided cut akin to the Belgian FALs.
(Of course, the primary reference for C1s down here seems to be the FAL books by Stevens, and the photo coverage of as-issued C1s is sorely lacking.)
-
I was only ever issued a couple of 8L series. Not much really because they were held for the rifle team use. Just because they were new. Not extraordinarily accurate. Most of my rifles were much earlier series. I'm sure they had the lightening cut. It was right under the carry handle when it folded. Some things changed like the charger cutout inside the receiver for the thumb, but the cut we're discussing was there. I'm sure of it. I understand the earlier version had a bit different cut but are you only concerned about the simple cutout? Or the presence of a cutout period?
-
I don't know anything much about variations of the C1 as there is little info out about them, but this one was originally built in 1960, with no modifications certainly since the late 1960's. So, I think the receiver is as it was built, FWIW. Does anyone want me to take photos of the internals or the receiver when cracked open?
Ed
-
More detailed photos are always welcome. We use them for later comparisons and admiring your prize...
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by
browningautorifle
I was only ever issued a couple of 8L series. Not much really because they were held for the rifle team use. Just because they were new. Not extraordinarily accurate. Most of my rifles were much earlier series. I'm sure they had the lightening cut. It was right under the carry handle when it folded. Some things changed like the charger cutout inside the receiver for the thumb, but the cut we're discussing was there. I'm sure of it. I understand the earlier version had a bit different cut but are you only concerned about the simple cutout? Or the presence of a cutout period?
The shape of the cutout. I've never heard of an inch-pattern SLR that didn't have a lightening cut of some sort on the magazine well.
How would you say the accuracy and/or quality of the 8Ls was, compared to the run-of-the-mill rifles in service? Given how few 8Ls were produced, I can see opportunity to produce either a really good product, or a mediocre product...especially given how CAL was having trouble staying afloat in later years.
-
The cutouts obviously did differ on the older/earlier rifles. I just can't remember when the narrow dish took over from the pantograph type of cutout. It was before 8L, maybe 6L? Or earlier? The accuracy of earlier rifles wasn't in question. I had a 2L series that was stolen by a good friend that ran the rifle team. He would come into stores and go through all rifles testing for tight and straight and...well, this rifle would group 5 rounds under a quarter at 100 yds. Yes, that's right. And he had the nerve to take it... Contrary to the belief down south, the FN shot every bit as well as it's contemorary NATO brothers. All series numbers included, not just the late ones. Of course as they got worn, not so accurate...
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by
browningautorifle
Contrary to the belief down south, the FN shot every bit as well as it's contemorary NATO brothers. All series numbers included, not just the late ones.
Oh, I don't doubt that...my C1A1, a Frankenrifle of Canadian parts assembled on an Imbel receiver, shoots every bit as well as my M14!:beerchug:
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by
enbloc8
The "FAL Bible" compilation of R. Blake Stevens' three FAL books includes a reprint of a bill of sale for several C1A1s that were sold to members of a rifle club in 1972.
Took a look at that bill of sale...a new-production 8L from Canadian Arsenals Ltd. cost $225.00 in 1972. No idea how to convert that through inflation, but that can't have been cheap.
-
Well, my Dad bought a new 4 door Mercury Meteor Rideau in 1972, no power windows and no a/c, but had the .302 V8 engine, and it, new, was $4000 that year..................
Ed
-
Two years later, I enrolled at the wage of $330 per month. Basic wage in the military. Gas was .25 per gallon in Canada. That's how much it was.
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by
boltaction
I don't know anything much about variations of the C1 as there is little info out about them, but this one was originally built in 1960, with no modifications certainly since the late 1960's. So, I think the receiver is as it was built, FWIW. Does anyone want me to take photos of the internals or the receiver when cracked open?
Ed
Ed,
Can you take a picture of the top of the action with the bolt and top cover removed?
And the right side and bottom of the receiver ring and barrel?
Is the serial number matching the lower?
Thx D
-
Out of interest, did Canada sell many NEW C1 rifles and variants to Foreign military forces as did Britain (very few) and Australia (many).
There was a strict licensing agreement that FN had tightly sewn up that allowed it for dependant nations with a shared military allegiance to buy or be supplied.
-
As far as I know Peter, we were hogs with our rifles. Only Canada. There are others here I expect to join this discussion but I'm certain we didn't sell any. Not like the C7. That's why when you talked about working on CDN rifles in workshop in Europe it surprised me.
-
Ah, yes but in Germany, there were a lot of shared Ordnance and workshop facilities, such as the big workshops at Werl and the huge Base Workshops at Wetter. Canadian Centurions went through there too. Ammo was also pooled to so you'd see Canadian ammo in use - was it IVI manufacture?
Australia offered the cheapest prices for allegiant nations to buy L1A1's so they got the business and the profit and so I'm lead to believe, the largest sales too.
Off the subject slightly now......... but David Howroyd from Sterling told me that as a result of Australia taking a huge slice of the what they called 'off-sales' of L1A1 rifles, Enfield wouldn't allow Australia to make/convert Brens into L4 guns as they'd undercut Enfield at that too! Whether that's absolutely correct is a bit of a ? but certainly Aust. wasn't permitted to use the Enfield Bren to L4 patents. On the other hand, when Lithgow wanted to use the Sterling magazines in the little F1 gun, Sterling just said '........ be our guest just so long as they are wholly and strictly for your own use and there are absolutely no sales abroad' The Aust Govt abided to it to the letter
-
The 7.62 you saw in Germany may have been DA in the earlier days and IVI later on. The DA would have been preemo stuff...
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by
browningautorifle
As far as I know Peter, we were hogs with our rifles. Only Canada. There are others here I expect to join this discussion but I'm certain we didn't sell any. Not like the C7. That's why when you talked about working on CDN rifles in workshop in Europe it surprised me.
That was my understanding too. Strict policy of no foreign sales of either rifles or "Inglis" pistols, though I understand they were willing to supply spare parts. Which didn't work out well, partly because CAL's prices were so high compared to either Enfield or Lithgow (or FN for pistol parts), partly also because many C1 parts were different compared to the rest. And I also imagine the lack of foreign sales meant Canada didn't even come to mind when it came time to buy spares...it was easiest to just contact whoever you'd dealt with in the first place.
End result being, Longbranch essentially lost its reason to exist after the C1A1s were completed.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Peter Laidler
Australia offered the cheapest prices for allegiant nations to buy L1A1's so they got the business and the profit and so I'm lead to believe, the largest sales too.
@Peter, so that was the reason. I'd always figured that it was a matter of available production capacity...that Australia, having a full production line and a comparatively small military, had the capacity first, while Britain didn't start offering foreign sales until its (much greater) armament needs were filled.
---------- Post added at 05:58 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:53 PM ----------
Quote:
Originally Posted by
enbloc8
Took a look at that bill of sale...a new-production 8L from Canadian Arsenals Ltd. cost $225.00 in 1972. No idea how to convert that through inflation, but that can't have been cheap.
Managed to crunch it through a Bank of Canada website...it would work out to about $1250 Canadian today. Not a cheap "toy", then or now.
In comparison, I recall reading that a brand new Lithgow SLR, in a gun store, cost $700 AUD in the early 80s. In comparison, a new Remington 700 was priced at $350 AUD.
-
Photos of FN -- pic heavy
-
Should anyone want any closeup photos of the breech block or anything else, let me know. I'm going to have surgery on my knee tomorrow, so will have some time on my hands in the next few days where I probably won't be able to do much other than take photos. Come to think of it, if anyone wants photos of my FG 42 I could do that too. It's a CA, so doesn't have the external selector anymore, but everything else is original WWII.
Ed
-
There goes my service rifle...yes, I carried the C2 as well as the C1. I far prefered the C1 because most of our C2s seemed to have seen better days. I never liked the bipod either. I used to use a hose clamp to keep it in place and shoot it like a rifle. (Don't tell the armourer, unauthorised mod...)
-
It may say C1 but it is actually in C2A1 configuration.
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by
The Wizard
It may say C1 but it is actually in C2A1 configuration.
That's the point through the whole thread. It started as a civilian owned C1 and is now a CA /C2.
-
Would a C2 have been legal for Canadian service rifle competition? I can see some benefit to the idea...effectively it's a heavy-barrel SLR. The fellow who built my C1A1 also built a semiauto C2 for somebody else, and he was raving that it was the only FAL he'd built that shot better than the C1A1 he sold to me.
And are C1s still legal under current service rifle rules?
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by
enbloc8
Would a C2 have been legal for Canadian service rifle competition? I can see some benefit to the idea...effectively it's a heavy-barrel SLR. The fellow who built my C1A1 also built a semiauto C2 for somebody else, and he was raving that it was the only FAL he'd built that shot better than the C1A1 he sold to me.
And are C1s still legal under current service rifle rules?
Yes they would be, however the "powers that be" won't issue a permit to shoot the gun.
In fact you can get a permit to take it to the range, however the permit will specifically exclude firing....
Lovely to live in a "free" country eh??
-
There was also a C2 competition.
-
i remember a militia's C2 beat a bren in a competition in chilliwack .
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by
sandstorm
a C2 beat a bren
Anything is possible when a trained crew uses a weapon they've practiced with and someone else heads out without quite enough practice...or a bad day...
-
I am jumping into this duscussion a little late, but noticed that there was mention about the private sales of FNs to DCRA. I bought a deactivated C1A1 a couple years ago to add to my collection and noted the serial number was very near the highest known for C1A1 production. I then noticed in Blake's book on the North American FALs, the receipt shown included the serial number of this rifle. There was an anomaly to the rifle in that it had the earlier solid gas block rather than the "8L' type with the removable sight ears. It would be interesting to know if the others that came on this invoice also had that feature? Were the replaceable ear blocks all sold to DND? Or were some earlier parts used up on the civilian rifles?
I also have a C2A1 in my collection (also deactivated) that came from the estate of a DCRA shooter. It was a full auto, and other than a 1968 receiver, seems to have mirrored a typical C2A1 production rifle.
https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...Ginvoice-1.jpg
https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...A1FN0005-1.jpg
https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...A1FN0006-1.jpg
-
I wonder if your rifle had a barrel change before deactivation. This may sound strange but if I were doing one(and I have), I'd pull off the good barrel and install a less stellar example. I never saw a solid gas block on an 8L series and I did see lots of them. My theory is of course since you're going to butcher the barrel anyway, why not butcher a shot out or worn barrel...they aren't that hard to change. I guess the alternative to that is the competitor that owned this rifle shot out the original barrel and this one was the available replacement...
-
I guess I could have a look down the bore and evaluate.
All I have ever found for C1s are the 8L series with the bolt on ears, so this one at least represents the other style ears. I keep hoping to find an earlier C1A1, but to this point they have alluded me.
-
And as an aside. Your Hinge Pin screw is in the wrong way round. & the gas Regulator Retaining clip is on upside down!.........................(Armourers eye for detail!).........:madsmile:
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by
stencollector
look down the bore and evaluate.
It is deactivated isn't it?
-
Yes, which is why I will down the bore and not through it. Not that it matters I suppose. I can examine the rifle for any signs the barrel was changed although it sounds like tank hunter has noted a few inconsistencies already.
-
The things he sees are common faults done by either a junior soldier stripping and assembling or someone with no training in that area. Doesn't really matter. It's an excellent looking example...
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by
browningautorifle
The things he sees are common faults done by either a junior soldier stripping and assembling or someone with no training in that area. Doesn't really matter. It's an excellent looking example...
B.A.R is correct in his comments. However.......If a things worth doing. It's worth doing CORRECTLY! VERY good to get into the habit of doing that!.......
The gas retaining ring/ clip for example. If not fitted 180 Degrees round from the position where it is shown in your picture. May WELL catch a finger/ clothing etc in handling. That is WHY it SHOULD be in the position just described! & as for the hinge pin screw. Yes technically it doesn't matter which side it is in. The Rifle WOULD function if it were a live example. But, esthetically. It would LOOK nicer in the correct plane. Yes?..........
The point of this forum is to HELP others with advice & assistance where possible I believe. We all have spheres of Knowledge that benefit each other. Otherwise, well. What is the point?............Just my Two Pennies worth.
-
Another thing about having the 'prongs' of the gas regulator circlip at the top, exposed is that you can bet, just as sure as god made little green apples and as night follows day that one of the more 'learned' crunchies WILL unhook it with the small blade of the combination tool and it'll disappear under the handguards, deep into the bowels of the gas cylinder. Then he'll unscrew the handguard screw and take off the handguards and THEN, he'll have access to the gas cylinder that is, according to him, a bit loose because it has a small degree of rotation built in. So the next thing is he'll blame that on his pi55-poor scores that morning and try to tighten it up against the small PIN, gas cylinder that he hasn't noticed under the gas regulator.
No small pin to use as a tommy bar to tighten the gas cylinder............ Not even a problem. In his belt he has tucked his leatherman tool. And so it goes on and on and on.
Don't laugh, it actually happens and we used to see it time and time again. There would be two outcomes to this. The first would be that when it's totally all come unstuck, it'd be put back into the armoury like this or the second scenario would be that he'd walk over to the Armourers shop and say words to the effect '...... sod-all to do with me..... I got it like this!
Is it still like this today Skippy, Son? Arte et Marte
-
It was the same for us mechanics Peter. On any road move across the Canadian prairies, there would be the inevitable breakdown in the middle of nowhere. We would pull up, and the first word out of the guy's mouth would be: "I'm not the driver....I just signed for it yesterday." We would look West (you could see for about 40kms) the East, and reply: If you're not the driver, then how did it get here?"
Arte et Marte indeed.
-
This will make Peter's teeth wiggle...
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Peter Laidler
No small pin to use as a tommy bar to tighten the gas cylinder
You can use the firing pin for a bar. Just slip it through the holes provided. That's after you use it to drive out the small pin, retaining, he refers to. You can use the bayonet handle for a hammers, tapping...imagine coming upon this in the quarters when on rounds...? The standard "That's further than you're taught to strip it" might apply...seemed a bit blunt at the time...
-
Another was polishing up the woodwork with brown (or black on the later plastic stocked weapons.....) boot polish to get them to shine for some parade or something.......... I used to tell them, in front of the NCO's that people like me and others have spent 50 years, since the end of the old nasho (national service) and blanco/polished brass webbing era trying to consign bullshi...., er spit and polish to the past. Ironing razor sharp creases into work-a-day strides and shirts............ All anyone can ever ask for and expect is clean and smart.
And when someone commented that it was OK for me because I had a batman to do my stuff..... Then I let them have both barrels! Batman.......... I'm the xxxxxxx batman! I have to say that the best/nicest thing any of the crunchies ever said to me was something very small and almost insignificant. That what they liked was that I had a pair of overalls - and used to wear them! (probably because I hadn't ironed my good stuff I used to tell 'em)
Happy days. But under the skin, all Armies and the crunchies are the same, certainly in Oz and NZ they were. Arte et Marte
-
I have examined 2 of the C1s on the above invoice and they both had the early pattern solid sight guards integral with the gas block.
-
Very interesting info. I wonder what came about there. Maybe they didn't see need to install the new model barrels for civilian use. I NEVER even heard of the solid sights on 8L series in service use...and we sure had lots of them.
-
The replaceable foresight protectors is a good idea to me. Ther were a bit of a pain at Field and Base workshops if they'd broken oiff as it was a barrel change. If it'd been bent and cracked open at one side you were allowed to weld repair but missing.... New barrel. No5's were as bad but we were permitted to make a new semi circular protector(s) from square section lock washers and re-weld. Just take Bren and No4 barrels as good examples. Why did they have replaceable protectors and not the rifles?
