feeding issues L1A1

took my L1A1 out on sunday. had soem feedind and ejection issues.
Firstly I noted that I had grabbed a FAL magazine, and secondly this had a block in the bottom to restrict capacity to ten rounds, thus the spring under the follower was a higher pressure than would be normal.

The mag never seemed to be properly seated to me, this i put down to being a FAL mag and also the issue of teh bolt not holding open afte rthe last round (i had to manually push the hold back switch up). But every couple of rounds the empty wouldn't eject OR the new cartridge would be trapped by the bolt with a scratch on the case before it entered the chamber.

Pretty certain that this all comes from having the wrong mag and it sitting lower than normal, but is there anything I'm missing or should be aware of. Could the stronger spring be an issue?

On the plus side, once the SUIT was zeroed to on paper it looked plenty accurate at 100 yards. Will shoot for groups when i get the rigth mag back out there with it.

Morning Newcastle,

I would hope that someone would reduce the strength of the magazine spring if they were limiting capacity, if not, then an over powerful spring will certainly give you the issues you are experiencing, combined with a wobbly Fal magazine, both issues will certainly conspire to prevent correct cycling of the rifle..

With regard to your automatic last round hold open, the L1A1 never had that function (only manual actuation), it was not incorporated into the British or Australian inch patterns as it would have rendered the sand cut mods pretty pointless!

This is assuming you are shooting a standard L1A1 of coarse and not a US spec build with a new receiver ??

Well done on finding a good SUIT/mount combo, hang onto it for dear life!

Er....... the spring wouldn't be under any greater pressure than if it was operating with a full 20 rounds. The difference is that your mag spring was already half compressed* (by the insert) and you were effectively loading rounds 11 to 20 into it.

Try L1A1 magazines next time. The little knib of the FN mags weren't as robust as the great big lump on the L1 mags

* technical bods don't come in here. I know spring loadings don't work on a linear scale but for our purposes here and all that stuff........

Morning Peter,

Ok, I see, but wouldn't the difference be the additional weight of the extra ten rounds acting against the spring tension, or would that not be enough to cause feed issues ?

Nope. Unless I am misreading what you're saying, the ABSENCE of the extra 10 rounds would be a bonus. Basically, unless there's something wot he ain't not told us, we/he can discount the mag insert thing.

Incidentally, Sterling encountered a similar problem when they shortened magazines. A 10 round magazine spring isn't 33% length of a standard 30 round spring. MUCH more to it than that of course as it's all........ anyways!

As a little aside...... I'm in teacher mode now......... Magazines and the loading strength of the spring is a VERY difficult thing to get right. The spring must remain compressed for long periods, lift or lower the weight of the contents and allow the stored energy of the weapon return spring to strip the top round off the top of the column while thge mag spring is at its most compressed. Not only that, on a machine gun such as the Bren, the first/top round is stripped off the column while the breech block is stationary, held on the sear just behind the top round without any inbuilt inertia to assist it. Of course, during auto fire, the BB starts its forward feed cycle from further rearwards with inertia plus the extra energy imparted to it by the buffer plate reasserting itself.

All complicated stuff you have to take in on the design courses

What kind of ammo were you using and what is your gas setting?

It must be a nightmare getting the magazines to run reliably on a new firearm, not something I ever thought much about to be honest, seems like a job for bright people with thick glasses and lab coats gathered around black boards, to work out to me ... most definitely not me!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by newcastle

took my L1A1 out on sunday. had soem feedind and ejection issues.

---

Like Peter says, try a correct mag, but what was your gas setting? If you have ejection issues then adjust gas. Were you using reloads? As Brian asks, what ammo? Was the rifle completely disassembled before shooting it? Was the gas cylinder out of it? There's much more to this, I carried them for 15 years and they just aren't problematic...

If it's a Century Arms build with an Imbel receiver, it can be easily remedied I'd think. Some Imbel receivers were milled for the inch pattern magazine so definitely get some of those. I've seen Century builds on a variety of different upper receivers and quality control was all over the place. I've encountered problems usually from tired parts kits used for the builds like gas cylinders, springs, etc. Nothing to worry about. You just need to go through it and give it a little love.

Looks like I have been barking up the wrong tree.......... With a name like 'NEWCASTLE' I was thinking the bleedin' obvious that Newcastle was from the obvious Newcastle, up there in Geordieland, England! And therefore we're not allowed things like gas cylinders, pistons and gas plugs!!!!!!!! But the comments on mags and spring technology still hold good. We can still own magazines!

I'd guess he is from Newcastle Peter but he's now displaced to the Peoples Republic of California. I met him once at a show in Reno and I could tell from his accent that he ain't from around here! What say you Charlie? :madsmile:

I own an L1A1 as issued and it eats anything and everything in 7.62*, however it appears to prefer German military ammo. I know other club members who own either L1A1s or the FAL, none of them have feed problems. Ejection problems can almost always be solved by altering the gas setting. If I remember rightly we were instructed to change the setting by 2 numbers. I leave mine on 5 all the time.

As has already been said, if your SUIT works and doesn't fall off (like mine does) then you really have hit the jackpot.

* means British RG ammo, Prvi Partizan, Lake City, some gash Portuguese stuff, German military ammo plus a selection of reloads.

[QUOTE We can still own magazines![/QUOTE]

Yeah, Like Tractor weekly, & Scrap Metal Monthly!.........................:lol:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ex Crab

I own an L1A1 as issued and it eats anything and everything in 7.62*, however it appears to prefer German military ammo. I know other club members who own either L1A1s or the FAL, none of them have feed problems. Ejection problems can almost always be solved by altering the gas setting. If I remember rightly we were instructed to change the setting by 2 numbers. I leave mine on 5 all the time.

As has already been said, if your SUIT works and doesn't fall off (like mine does) then you really have hit the jackpot.

* means British RG ammo, Prvi Partizan, Lake City, some gash Portuguese stuff, German military ammo plus a selection of reloads.

---

Our UK spec Straight pulls like different brands, both of mine enjoy a healthy full grain diet of NATO spec GGG, giving great extraction and accurate groups, but Partizan (in fact all thin wall civvy stuff) is terrible in mine, that said ex German surp MEN ammo is also terrible!

Is the MEN stuff thin cased I wonder, I would have thought that all NATO ammo was of a similar spec, or is that not correct??

I wonder if our resident ammo technical men could comment on the specs of what we call '....NATO standard'. Are you there Bombdoc or Ensci? We were using a varied selection of 7.62mm until recently

Nato Standard is something of a joke in this context. I can't remember which web site it was but I once read through the entire list of Nato 7,62 manufacturers and their ammo specs, which varied quite a bit. The bottom line was that whoever made it, the ammo had to work in all Nato 7,62 rifles. mrclarks303s comment is interesting because the Prvi Partisan that I used is Berdan primed, there is however also Prvi 308 Win which is Boxer primed. Apart from the primer I have no idea what the difference is. Suffice it to say the Berdan stuff works but is a real b1tch to reload. The German DAG ammo is very easy despite being Berdan.
For Peter Laidler, I know where Bombdoc also lurks. I could either ask direct or start a thread and see what happens.

I'll speak to bombdoc. We were both at XXXX together with Ensci. But the point about NATO standard was always a bit of a myustery......... as was STANAG! Mind you some of the 7.62 stuff we has was dire...... I remember some 762 blank in the early 80's that came in wood boxes with green/white/green lines along the outside (Pakistan? Kenya? at a rip-off trade deal) was so powerful it ejected so hard from the old Brens we were still using, it was churning up the ground and shaking the guns to bits. And that's saying something for a Bren/L4!

Hi Folks,

NATO STANAG calls for two symbol markings on small arms ammunition.. The "Cross in circle" mark is the NATO Design mark, meaning that the ammunition design conforms to a STANAG.. 2310 for 7.62x51. This is a pretty general agreement, which is just a conformation to a design standard, with no testing of interoperability..

The "Quadrefoil" mark - a sort of four bladed propeller is the NATO Interoperability mark. Ammunition bearing this mark is supposed to be able to safely fire in guns conforming to the standard.

The amount of variation in ammunition is however difficult to control across a range of propellants and bullet designs. To obtain true ballistic compatibility via NATO STANAG is probably as possible as producing NATO standard tea and coffee - drinkable (with care...) but definitely not the same... :)

...as with many things in NATO, good in theory, but falls a bit short in practice!

Does this help?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bombdoc

Does this help?

---

It's exactly what we were asking.

Thanks for that Bombdoc. Hope you and yours are well. Now a quick question...... How does some of the dire stuff ever get past the Ammo Depots in-inspections to the units? How do you get to know about it and withdraw it - as was the case of the foreign blank we were required to back-load. Word of mouth or from a feed back form (never seen one.....)

Talking of NATO standard tea and coffee, there seems to have been a strictly controlled STANAG at the REME end of the Army. NATO standard was heaped spoon of coffee of whatever strength it came in or size of mug it was going into, two spoons of sugar, regardless of spoon size or size of mug and a slosh of whatever milk was available at the time, regardless of whether it was fresh, tinned/carnation/condensed or squeezed from a tube/sweetened. As for the tea they sloshed up..............

Peter,
Yes it was Pakistan and the contracted stuff that caused us loads of dramas too, but included 9mm:rolleyes:

I thought that the 9mm problem was Indian stuff. Full of curry powder while a good % of it was full of dynamite! Mind you some of the vidaloo they serve up at The Prince of India feels like dynamite in the mornings

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bombdoc

The "Quadrefoil" mark - a sort of four bladed propeller is the NATO Interoperability mark. Ammunition bearing this mark is supposed to be able to safely fire in guns conforming to the standard.

---

Is this mark found on the ammunition itself, or only on the packaging? It sounds familiar but I can't recall ever seeing any ammunition with this mark. Plenty with the circle-in-cross though.

Thanks for all the other good information!

Peter,
I stand corrected it was India, all the same once, before we stuck our noses in. Well the curries are the same as you say in the morning:red face:

Hello all - sorry ve been away form teh old interweb. Answers to a few quetsions.
1. yes i"m from Newcastle England - have a season ticket for St James Park but I now live in Kalifornia. I remember meetin Brina at teh show in Rneo he was selling a fully functions Vickers MG whihc i would have loved to buy, except for the CA laws (and the cash needed).
2. Appreciate the feedback on the feeding. Pretty certain that its the Magazine that was the glitch and I'll try it next week with teh corrcet mag, and note down gas setting and any problems and report back.

Newcastle,
My monies on that, its always one of the first IA's!;)

And all the 9mm Was considered so 'Unstable' to use. Obviously, the breech pressures varied enourmously! It was recommended for Training use only. And also ONLY to be used in Browning 9mm Pistols. As it was deemed 'safer' to use in a locked breech weapon. Than a Blowback SMG of that time period!......:madsmile:

Even this practice was curtailed, & I heard the remainder of the stocks we had. Were Sea Dumped, as was the usual disposal method use for MANY Years!......(Could you imagine that happening these Day's?...........:eek:

Morning Mike,

Talking about MOD disposal of unwanted material, I think a massive amount of gear went into the sea years ago, or into the ground ... Just up the road from me is a former RAF airfield, I worked with a guy for many years who was stationed there with a resident MU, well the "environmentally unsound" methods of disposal there (and I guess all round the country) were very much out of sight, out of mind, unwanted/obsolete parts/engines/ all types of fuels/ammo/ ANYTHING ... dig a big hole, bury it!

Going back 15 years ago when the MOD sold the site, the contractors had quite a job clearing out the buried dump and removing tons of heavily contaminated soil, job done ... or so you might think, when I bumped into the same chap a few years back and told him the dump had been cleared, he just looked at me with a rye smile and said which one!?:runaway:

Like so many former airfields around the country, this site is due for development, so wait for the brown sticky stuff to hit the fan when the ground works starts!

Hope he doesn't mention there were also 48 crated Spitfires buried there to keep the myth alive on a differewnt continent:lol::lol:

Hello John,
Yes, it was common practice to bury 'buckshee'/ unwanted equipment. that would have been an 'embarrasment' if found to be unaccounted for when found!........:ugh:

My Father tells Me of the Hundreds & Hunderds of Stens & Bren's found in the normally unaccessable Roof rooms of Martinique Barracks in Hampshire after the candians went back home.
He had the task of stripping them all out for parts. & then getting a bulldozer to dig a LONG trench. 'Somwhere' in the woods around Bordon Garrison. Laying the weapons in a line, & the dozer pushing the soil over them all!........:eek:

Obviously, I have quizzed him over the location of this little treasure location. But He will only say, that after all these years. He cannot remember the location!!!.........:mad:

I will state with total confidence, that any Major Base or Airfield Location of former Military Occupation. will DEFINATELY yield 'Treasures' of a Military Nature, of some sort.
Due to similar 'Practices' of the time!.......;)

The REAL problem with back-loading excess 'warlike stores' (as it's called) lies with the Ordnance system itself. The jumps and hurdles you have to go through to get rid of it back into the Ord system is mind numbing in its complexity. With a series of forms that are simple enough but then it's the questions and more questions and 'other' associated paperwork that is called in the further it all goes on and along! Additionally, if it's been hanging around unaccounted for for years and years and is obsolescent or obsolete and the old VAOS part number has been changed twice OR the part number has fallen off the VAOS system, it's an additional round of grief - as I know from first hand experience.

There are a few shortcuts BUT......... Like I have said to others on one or two occasions, just make sure it is disposed of TOTALLY so that it can NEVER come back to bite you. Because if it can, then as sure as god made little green apples, then it WILL

Good 'ol bureaucracy Peter.