I thought I'd show you this for those of us that carried the FN. Sacrilege...but I'm also wondering if any of you, Peter, Tankie, Beerie...or other armorers have been party to this.
FUNKERTACTICAL What does it take to destroy an FN FAL?
Printable View
I thought I'd show you this for those of us that carried the FN. Sacrilege...but I'm also wondering if any of you, Peter, Tankie, Beerie...or other armorers have been party to this.
FUNKERTACTICAL What does it take to destroy an FN FAL?
Why doesn't funkertactical work for me........ Anyone? Just waiting for it to happen is like watching paint dry. FN FAL's/destruction? Simple, we did plenty of captured ones with a hot axe
Yep....., just got it to come on. Tough old birds eh!
The hot axe...yes that'd be the Argie ones I should think, for an example. There must have been a few from Ireland and maybe the Congo...among other places.
Yep, Destroyed a 'Few' ex Argie one's with the 'Gas Axe' at Warminster, myself!....:(
On the Plus side though. I just obtained a Deactivated Argentinian FAL yesterday. From a Militaria Fair I attend each month.
It's a version I have been seeking for a long time. The Type 'A', that takes the Bladed bayonet with the Two flash 'Hider' prongs. Similar to the Brit Trials version in the fifties. :thup:
Any pics on that new one?
Ill do some soon Buddy. AND the host of bayonets acquired to fit it. Including the EX Brit Trials variant!.................Wait, Out!...........;)
As promised, some pics of the Argie FAL recently acquired.
The hinge pin screw, left & right is missing. & Bubba has put a length of steel rod in as a pin!.....:ugh:
it has a BRIT mag instead of an FAL variant. The brit lug has been ground off, to allow insertion into the Mag well!......:rolleyes:
Im afraid my close up pic of the Argie National Logo is a bit blurred! my close up 'Facility' on the cheap lump of Shi......Er, Rubbish camera. Wont go in close. :(
I now have a similar (Not Argie) variant with the 22mm Tubular flash hider.
And one the same, but with Bipod. I believe the G1 Version?
I like Fal's!......:thup:
Now lookin for the type B bayonet. Which is the same as the ones shown in the Pic's. But WITHOUT the Two Prongs on the crossguard!...........:cheers:Attachment 58137Attachment 58138Attachment 58139Attachment 58137Attachment 58138Attachment 58139
As promised, some pics of the Argie FAL recently acquired.
The hinge pin screw, left & right is missing. & Bubba has put a length of steel rod in as a pin!.....:ugh:
it has a BRIT mag instead of an FAL variant. The brit lug has been ground off, to allow insertion into the Mag well!......:rolleyes:
Im afraid my close up pic of the Argie National Logo is a bit blurred! my close up 'Facility' on the cheap lump of Shi......Er, Rubbish camera. Wont go in close. :(
I now have a similar (Not Argie) variant with the 22mm Tubular flash hider.
And one the same, but with Bipod. I believe the G1 Version?
I like Fal's!......:thup: NOTE: PLEASE Excuse Photo repetition! My Editing skills are nowhere as good as my 'Modest' Weapon Repairs!..........:surrender:
Now lookin for the type B bayonet. Which is the same as the ones shown in the Pic's. But WITHOUT the Two Prongs on the crossguard!...........:cheers:Attachment 58137Attachment 58138Attachment 58139Attachment 58137Attachment 58138Attachment 58139
Nice...I remember the pics at the end of the Falklands war of all the Argies lined up to turn in weapons to the Brits. All the Para models without mags fitted and troops without equipment. I always wondered exactly what happened to those weapons, although we had no visions of them appearing in a gun shop close to us... I saw one similar to yours with a steel forestock, I believe it would be German G1, with a bipod integral near the old airport at Nicosia. It was in the hands of a Turk, no finish remained and this would have been 1980...that was one I wanted to take home.
I often wondered whether those FN armed nations, with the small knib type front magazine retainer thinggy ever encountered problems with them - such as losing magazines or whatever else you can think of. The LOSS of magazines didn't feature in the trials reports although LOOSE magazines were reported on.
Anyone out there in forumland ever had problems with them?
I suppose that you're not likely to damage a UK/Can/Aust magazine lug whereas you might with an alloy FN type. Any thoughts...........?
It was my understanding that this is exactly why we three (CBA) adopted the large lug. Or was that just a failsafe...?
Personally I think it was a failsafe mechanism. After all, even the first L4 Bren had the FN type punched-out lug.
But we had a heavy price to pay for going outside the FN design. They didn't miss a trick. Same as the flash eliminator too
My Dad had some of these on Troop trial when he was attached to the Royal West African Frontier Force during the Fifties. (X8 Experimental Range. Model A & B) He too, remarked on SOME having loose mags.
And the reason the Brit patt Flash eliminator was fitted with OUR L1 series of Bayonets.
He told Me that it was common for the bayonet to be fitted incorrectly. & when the Rifle was fired, because of this. The Bullet exiting the Barrel, shattered the spine of the Bayonets!
And thinking about it, you really wouldn't notice the fitting of it in the dark!......:confused:
I have fitted & removed a bayonet to this Rifle I have. I have to admit, it IS indeed. A little 'Fiddley'! NOT what you want, when you need to 'Snap One On' in a Hurry!.....:ugh:
Matter of fact some time back I had opportunity to function an FN with a mag that had no lug remaining whatsoever. As I remember, other than a bit of a fiddle to correctly locate, it wouldn't come out or wobble at all. The housing's big and all encompassing. The lug would be to catch when you're rotating the mag into place. Mostly...
Guess you were fortunate then Jim. :thup:
it must be born in mind, that all things manufactured. Have tollerances both + & -.
If you have a Rifle & a particular Magazine. That exited their respective Factories.
With BOTH having Minimum acceptable tollerances. Then you WILL indeed, get a little
'Slop' of the mag. Albiet not always stopping the Weapon from functioning.
However, this 'Movement' does in some cases. Cause it to jam during firing. The angle of
Presentation of the round can be affected & you get a misfeed.
I am of the opinion, that 'Other' Armed Forces round the World. Function test a particular Weapon to a particular Magazine. & when 'Proven', this is why they are numbered to the weapon.
Lugers, Nambu's Etc spring to mind. to name just a FEW!:rolleyes:
I guess...I didn't take it out on the fire and movement range though...Quote:
Originally Posted by tankhunter
Nice FAL-Canada varientQuote:
Originally Posted by tankhunter
That's not a Canadian variant. Unless you mean it's an FN...and that makes it similar?Quote:
Originally Posted by Lee Enfield
Well, after scratching about in my spares chest today. I found a left & right correct hinge pin assembly. So Bubba's length of steel rod was removed PDQ!
& I also found a correct FAL Magazine, fitted to an Indian L1A1 I have in the collection! Mint Brit Patt Mag fitted now in the Indian L1!.................
All I need now, for another FAL is: 1 x Gas Plug assembly. 1 x Font & Rear sling loops. I have since discovered there are TWO patterns of Rear Loop assemblies!.......
There is a small retaining plate version, which simply allows the loop to swing forwards & rearwards. Then there is the OTHER Pattern Which has a much bigger base plate.
This allows the loop to completely swivel 360 Degrees. THIS is the pattern I am looking for now!................
We had plenty of the X8 FN rifles in Singapore during the 60's. Most of the back-room/rear echelon blokes had them. The Singapore Guard Regiment had them and the Governors Guard had highly polished rifles in gloss paint but not chromed (although the bayonet blades probably were). The REME LAD (LAD = Light Aid Detachments, the small REME workshops attached to the smaller units) at 25 Coy and 27 Coy had them too and the Military Police/ADP post at Nee Soon still had No5 rifles in their armoury. 40 Base had the usual racks of FN spares. The big shooting competitions always fielded a mixed bag of kit as we had .303 and L4 Brens, FN's and L1A1's Owens, Sterlings and AR15's
I seem to recall that the original trials FN bayonets slid down that long dovetailed lug on the barrel as they incorporated a sort of spring loaded recoil buffer thinggy that was supposed to allow the bayonet to slide on this as the rifle recoiled and ........... anyway, it was supposed to make it as accurate with the sliding bayonet as without a bayonet - so said! I didn't understand it then and don't understand it now. It' still a weight acting as a damper on a vibrating barrel. Sorry to go on!
Just a thought but is my assumption about this right or a load of crap, told to us my Mr Amto at 40 Base
I recall seeing a number of EX rifles held in QM as late as 1984 in Victoria BC. They were in a back room rack that few would know about and labeled clearly, "For cadet use only", the copper wash still evident on them...I mentioned what they were to the regular force Sgt there, and left the building. Some couple months later, I was there again and saw them no more...wonder what happened? Knowing us, they met the gas axe, as B Echelon was only a hundred yards away...
FN-FAL's manufactured to the high front and rear sight blocks were referred to by FN as the "FAL Canada" due to the fact that Canada made the first quantity order(2000 rifles) for the FAL in June 1953 some 5-1/2 months before the Brits (x8e1 and x8e2) and Americans (t48)...both ordered in Dec 1953.Quote:
Originally Posted by browningautorifle
The first guns not built to the FAL-Canada standard was the German G1 order which consisted of the 3mm lower front and rear sights, and a few mechanical changes.
Not exactly related to destruction testing, but.....
The word ‘stretching’ of the body has featured in L1A1 and Bren Gun mythology. And while not directly related to the ‘SPARE BODY’ thread, the point was raised. And that got me thinking….. So earlier this week I took the opportunity to speak to and later visit some of my colleagues, the scientific bods ‘….wot I know’. Apparently this is not a new myth, first appearing in the 50’s regarding Bren Gun bodies that could not meet the CHS and breech-block stop problems/criteria. I have simply taken the verbal conversation, precied it and changed it to relate to the L1A1. Here goes.
The ‘stretching’ of L1A1 bodies is stretching (if you’ll excuse the pun) the imagination of the most hardened metallurgists out there in forumland. Put simply, to stretch something, you need to pull it apart between two fixed points. For example. When you bolt two pieces of steel together, as the nut is drawn down tightly, the bolt will stretch. Just to emphasise the point, and we’ve ALL done it to our old Triumph motorcycle cylinder head studs, if you over-tighten to beyond the point of its elasticity, the bolt will shear (or it’ll strip the thread…., whatever but you get the point). Call it what you will but in laymans terms, that is stretching beyond the point of elasticity
At the point of firing the L1A1 rifle and Bren gun, the body is actually COMPRESSED at the point of firing when the max. load is placed along it. The compression takes place between the locking shoulder, along the body et al and stops at your unfortunate shoulder which in fact cushions the force we call recoil. So there is no stretching. Compression, yes but not stretching as in ‘something to pull against’.
So where exactly does ‘STRETCHING’ take place? One could reasonably argue that there IS stretching in the gun-body area between the barrel nut (or the locked barrel to body thread) and the locking shoulder while the projectile passes up the bore. But while this is a theoretical and indeed, a measurable fact, in reality it is so insignificant as to be of no real value in relation to the subject of actually ‘stretching’ a body. After all, the projectile is not actually holding anything back or supporting anything because it is actually moving! In our example, a nut against a bolt head is stretching the bolt in realistic terms! No, this soft lead core with a soft copper jacketed projectile is moving forwards AGAINST the locked breech block. This causes recoil which is the rearward compression of the breech block against the locking shoulder.
To measure the actual resistance of the projectile in the bore and the impact this resistance will have in mechanically ‘stretching’ the solid ordnance steel body can be measured using simple laboratory tools or leverage. Indeed, we use the same simple mechanics to manually/mechanically push different projectiles along bores for various tests and classroom lessons. The gun bodies are worn out and in the case of the Bren guns it is a case of worn out barrel bearings
(this was a hand written after-note…..) For the ultimate experiment that would certainly disprove this is this. You would have to clamp the barrel at, say, the gas block and clamp the breech block down behind the locking shoulder. And draw back the breech block back straight in line with the bore. The gas block would tear away before the body ‘stretched. And in any case, the tendency of the body would be to bend upwards (or downwards with the rifle). And don't forget, to stretch a Bren gun or L1A1 rifle body to any measurable degree, you've got to stretch it longitudinally to beyond the point of its metallurgical elasticity...........
Always ready to listen and discuss opposing views.
Peter, I think you have 'Stretched' that one out long enough, Mate!.............:madsmile: