The differences between British and Australian L1A1, SLRs.

The question recently arose as to whether or not there are any differences between the Australian and British versions of the L1A1 SLR, even minor detail differences. I don,t know the answer to this and I've had a look through old threads which seem to suggest that there may be slight differences in the style of cut-outs in the flash eliminator and perhaps very slight differences to the receiver? However I am still not really sure on the answer to this and it was suggested to me recently that the 2 versions were identical in every respect even down to the smallest of detail. I realise that Australia had a full auto version of the FAL rifle but that is something I am not concerned with regarding this question.

I would be interested to hear any thoughts on this matter from other members, please, and thanks for any information.

There are hundreds (?) of subtle differences. Get ready for another 5 pages of examples..................

I'll start. The UK change levers are retained internally with a small hard-to-get-out split pin while Aust ones don't have the hole. Anyone else.

It is worth remembering that in places like Malaya during the 60's, with pooled/pro-rata Ordnance stores Australian, UK/Gurkha, NZ and Malayan attached units could have BSA/Enfield and Lithgow rifles. So it was important that while spare parts might be slightly different, they fully interchanged and functioned properly. I can only think of one example where this caused a real problem

All three were completely interchangeable...A/B/C. That was the order originally. Machining minor difference doesn't matter. Also, we were trained to strip the major parts out of the trigger mech as we discussed a couple years ago. No cotter pin for us either. We left the sear in the trigger. Would have been nice to just slosh it out with varsol though...and leave it assembled.

As Jim and Peter have said, hundreds of small differences between the three variants, though the Lithgow and Enfield /BSA product have more in common than the C1

Australian differences, thicker at the wrist Coachwood butt, slightly different profile Coachwood hand guards, (machining cuts to the receiver more closely follows the parent Fal design in profile), chromed chamber (and barrel in later rifles), basically the same but different for virtually all components, with different manufacturing and machining techniques used as suited the Lithgow factory.

As Jim and Peter also say, full interchangeability for all components no matter if they are BSA, Enfield, Lithgow or Canadian Arsenals manufactured.

The C1 was in effect the parent rifle of the three I believe.

Interchangeability was built into the specification agreed upon by the "Rifle Steering Committee" during the adoption of the L1A1 / C1. Essentially, it meant "modules" were interchangeable pretty much at any level, and gauging was, for all practical purposes, the same. Even the threads used on "inch" pattern rifles are the "nearest equivalent" to the original metric ones. For example, whilst you can swap the rear-sight assemblies, the "windage" adjustment screws are "almost" the same, but will not "go" completely. Metric vs BA. BA of course, being itself derived from the Swiss, METRIC, Thury clock-makers thread.

Here in Oz, we had a "fire-support / automatic rifle variant, the L2A1, essentially the same as the Canadian C2.

Woodwork variations occurred because different "timber" behaves differently under extremes of heat, cold and "stress". However, swapping between Imperial "patterns" was straightforward, as long as you had the correct screws, etc. for each pattern.

Brit. black plastic furniture will fit straight onto an Oz L1A1 and was issued in limited quantities during the "dying days" of the L1A1 in Oz service. Probably drop straight onto a C1

The interesting thing is that you can (usually) drop a complete L1A1 "upper" onto an FAL lower / TMH and vice-versa, and it will work. A LOT of effort seems to have gone into maintaining the mechanical dimensions of the rifle in its development. Which, of course, would make (rare) sense.

Then there are the Indian ones..........

And the biggest/ most noticeable difference of course. Was the Serial Number!

On the Aus Variants, it is on the total opposite side to a UK Spec Rifle. & noticeably MUCH Longer! ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bruce_in_Oz

Interchangeability was built into the specification agreed upon by the "Rifle Steering Committee" during the adoption of the L1A1 / C1. Essentially, it meant "modules" were interchangeable pretty much at any level, and gauging was, for all practical purposes, the same. Even the threads used on "inch" pattern rifles are the "nearest equivalent" to the original metric ones. For example, whilst you can swap the rear-sight assemblies, the "windage" adjustment screws are "almost" the same, but will not "go" completely. Metric vs BA. BA of course, being itself derived from the Swiss, METRIC, Thury clock-makers thread.

Here in Oz, we had a "fire-support / automatic rifle variant, the L2A1, essentially the same as the Canadian C2.

Woodwork variations occurred because different "timber" behaves differently under extremes of heat, cold and "stress". However, swapping between Imperial "patterns" was straightforward, as long as you had the correct screws, etc. for each pattern.

Brit. black plastic furniture will fit straight onto an Oz L1A1 and was issued in limited quantities during the "dying days" of the L1A1 in Oz service. Probably drop straight onto a C1

The interesting thing is that you can (usually) drop a complete L1A1 "upper" onto an FAL lower / TMH and vice-versa, and it will work. A LOT of effort seems to have gone into maintaining the mechanical dimensions of the rifle in its development. Which, of course, would make (rare) sense.

Then there are the Indian ones..........

---

There's always something new to learn, I didn't know the Australian's also used Brit plastics at the end Bruce?

New Zealand purchased their 15,000 rifles from Lithgow, but replacement parts from the UK, plastic furniture, cocking Handles etc, but also developed their own plastics, including the rare 8 slot forend. KtK of this parish will no doubt be along with more info at some point.

The whole project was a wonderful example of Commonwealth cooperation.

Regarding fal/inch pattern interchangeably, bolt an carrier, top cover and complete TMH will all fit without issue.

I believe the TMH working parts of either will also swap between TMH's, provided the parts are all swapped and not mixed.

Then there's the Indian crossbreed 1A1...
Well, a blend of metric and inch and made without Fn's permission (or royalty payments).. they weren't best pleased!
It took a payment, plus Indian Fn, British and Australian direct purchases to soothe Fn's anger..

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Peter Laidler

I can only think of one example where this caused a real problem

---

Do tell Peter, always interested in L1 info....

---------- Post added at 10:30 AM ---------- Previous post was at 10:27 AM ----------

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tankhunter

And the biggest/ most noticeable difference of course. Was the Serial Number!

On the Aus Variants, it is on the total opposite side to a UK Spec Rifle. & noticeably MUCH Longer!

---

morning Mike,

Lithgow serial numbers were on the left for the first year of production and transferred to the right in 1960 I think. Never seen a 59 Lithgow.

I'm quite surprised that NZ purchased their spare parts from the UK because it was MUCH cheaper for Nations to buy Australian/Lithgow rifles than to buy them from the UK. So I assume that the same might apply to spares and magazines. We had L1A1's and L2's at Papakura and in Ordnance at Ngaruawahia and Sylvia Park(?) and the spares for the L2's were always 'dues-out' (awaiting delivery!)
Does Papakura and Sylvia Park near Auckland still exist?

The reason why the UK/Aust/Can L1's were so similar and in many cases, (BinO thread 5 and MRC, thread 7 allude) interchangeable (as assemblies) is because the extremely tight licensing agreement that tied up the manufacturing licence. The same applied to the home manufacturing licence for the GPMG and the Bren. Just the slightest deviation would cost thousands of £££'s. Even when they then adopted some of the UK modifications for their own production, such as the 50 round drum fitting, top mounted butt sling, strengthened bipod struts, shorter gas cylinder/longer carrying handle nut, it was like pulling teeth to to get subsequent 'deviation royalties (or payments)' stopped. And there was no refund for those already manufactured and paid for. My old boss Major Fxxxxx and his colleague Maj Jack Cxxxxxxxxxl and could have written a book about the tough negotiations with FN! He described it as '.......no sitting down over a cup of coffee with them...........!'

The small niggling thing that affected us in Australia at the time was the fact that Australian (and Canadian ?) bayonets had a radial recess down the blade while the UK bayonets (that were developed from the No5's) had a squared-off recess. That meant that the matching square retainer part of the UK mouthpiece spring wouldn't seat into the rounded recess of the Aust bayonets when you pushed the blade into the scabbard. Just another niggling point was that when we indented for a load of new Aust springs to solve the problem........... It didn't!

Afternoon Peter,

I have always found it curios regarding the NZ purchase of UK spares, especially given the very close military cooperation between NZ and Australia and the obvious geographic advantage of buying Lithgow! Kevin will no doubt shed some light on this when he come along, but for what ever reason, they bought UK plastics and developed and issued their own in very small quantity's.

A typical NZ mod to the plastic butt is a simple wire sprung loop replacing the British sling attachment. Enfield, Faz and BSA cocking handles are commonly observed on well used NZ Lithgows.

I have also seen one example with a late 1986 manufacture Parker Hale barrel and gas block assembly, though this might possibly have been a post service civvy replacement for the original, as Kevin said he hadn't seen any others so re-fitted and that example had been Birmingham proofed.

That's very interesting regarding the bayonets, I assume they could be produced royalty free from Fn as they were a totally separate commonwealth design?

The bayonet was royalty free, but.........! FN got their pound of flesh when it came to paying for our changes in design of the flash eliminator that was to accommodate our bayonet over the the two (?) variables* of bayonets that came with their design
(* feel free to correct this anyone from the bayonet community)

Further to thread 9 above, this mixed fleet saga also gave Oz and NZ a bit of a headache because when batches of Oz bayonets went down to the big Field workshops or came up from Ordnance, they came back modified to the UK L1A3 spec - with recessed pommels and short catches! Both of which were alien and not recognised in Oz. The Australian EMEI was eventually altered by WO1 'Jock' Cunningham (another nice bloke whom we called 'sir') after it was all explained to him and he got a UK EMER from the REME/RAEME/RNZEME/FMEME inspectorate in Singapore, to the effect that where these UK type L1A3 bayonets were encountered in service (due to mixed repair/Ord etc etc) in Australia, they were to be treated as standard bayonets and where a new catch was required it could be replaced with a suitably modified (shortened) Aust made catch. So if anyone's reading that V-150 EMEI in Australia or NZ, that's the reason and he's to blame.

Don't even start to ask me how I remember all of this crxx after all this time. Sad or what.......

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Peter Laidler

Don't even start to ask me how I remember all of this crxx after all this time. Sad or what.......

---

Its all fascinating stuff to us anoraks Peter!:lol:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mrclark303

...snip...
I have also seen one example with a late 1986 manufacture Parker Hale barrel and gas block assembly, though this might possibly have been a post service civvy replacement for the original, as Kevin said he hadn't seen any others so re-fitted and that example had been Birmingham proofed.

...snip...

---

Have seen a 1959 BSA fitted with a (1989? dated) PH gas block & barrel, PH marked charging slide and cocking handle ( the PH was molded into the cocking handle, and deeply marked into the slide).

TMH was "force matched" to the upper and the original serial # was "barred out" with an engraved bar.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bruce_in_Oz

Brit. black plastic furniture will fit straight onto an Oz L1A1 and was issued in limited quantities during the "dying days" of the L1A1 in Oz service. Probably drop straight onto a C1

---

Yes, the furniture completely interchanged.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mrclark303

Regarding fal/inch pattern interchangeably, bolt an carrier, top cover and complete TMH will all fit without issue.

---

Our short body cover won't fit the rifles that don't have the cutouts at the back top of the receiver. Perhaps it's just the IAI rifles that didn't have that...I forget now.

Off subject a bit but I always wondered why our rifles had those recesses at the top rear of the body (BAR, thread14). The little knibs on the cover that fitted into those recesses/cut-outs were always snapping off due to fatigue fracturing. Eventually we just filed the sheared edges clean and carried on using them. Only much later did I realise that the Canadian rifles used a short cover and these knibs and recesses kept the cover to the rear.

Were the short covers used continuously from start to finish BAR?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lee Enfield

Have seen a 1959 BSA fitted with a (1989? dated) PH gas block & barrel, PH marked charging slide and cocking handle ( the PH was molded into the cocking handle, and deeply marked into the slide).

TMH was "force matched" to the upper and the original serial # was "barred out" with an engraved bar.

---

Thanks for that info, yep see a few "end of the line" British rebuilds using PH manufactured parts, (ex Enfield plant I think) and likewise, with replaced/renumbered salvaged TMH's.

I still have a few 1989 PH cocking handle assemblies in my spares box, NOS, always worth having spare!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Peter Laidler

the short covers used continuously

---

Yes, without the fold of steel they slid forward of course. Yours wouldn't meed them except to keep from cutting one's self on the corner or folding it during mishandling. We used them throughout.

Don't want to bump the thread as it is interesting, but the mention of bayonets, if anyone is looking for one of the trial bayonets marked X2E1, send me a PM, not looking for a kings ransom so don't be shy.

New Zealand used a mix of Australian and British Spare parts, for the majority of its service the spares were sourced from Lithgow. I have a price list somewhere from the early 80's.... owch things weren't cheap especially when you go into the tools and fixtures, no wonder New Zealand started producing its own version of Combo Tool, Pull Through and Cleaning Kit Rolls. I think the British spares came from supplies from Singapore when NZ withdrew from Singapore they were brought back to New Zealand. Certainly in the late 80's we were purchasing tools and SUIT sight Mounts from the UK.... From Manroy Engineering.

As to the differences between the rifles there are a myriad of manufacturing variations to go with the basic differences such as Furniture, Top Covers, TMH, Sights, Carrying Handles, Sling Swivels.

Top to Bottom
Australian
British (BSA)
Canadian
https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...rsLHcuts-1.jpg
https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...rsRHcuts-1.jpg

Thanks for the pics Kevin, they really illustrate the machining difference's with the three rifles.

I would think you must have one of the only C1's in NZ mate! Very nice..

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mrclark303

the machining difference's with the three rifles.

---

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.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mrclark303

Wasn't the lightning cut on the receiver more like the parent Fal in the early C1 Jim?

---

The metric style lightening cut on the mag well was gone by about 1960.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Peter Laidler

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!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mrclark303

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!

---

Johnny, Have you checked inside the trigger Mech housing. To see if the flat washer on the retaining screw, under the 'star' washer. Is Blackened, or zinc plated Mate?.....:madsmile:

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:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mrclark303

Are you asking to see my collection of inch pattern flat washers Mike, all with colour coded tags, indexed by year and manufacturer

---

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

Kev, if you ever get the time, you need to sit down and write the definitive history of the inch pattern rifle mate, your knowledge and collection are jaw dropping!

I've been telling him this since time began.......... Looking at the body locking catches is interesting as we were forever having to tack weld the axis and actuating pins. We used to wait until we had a box full and then take them to the welders shop where one of the torch-jockeys would do his thing. What spring did the little 'S' relate to? Was it the actual catch spring? We had a similar mark as I recall, but it was marked on the side of the TMH

Thanks for all the information chaps; this has been a fascinating thread.

Anyone know why Canadian c1 but plates are so hard to find? I have a consecutive numbered pair of c1s.
I also have Oz L1A1s

Ours didn't get out into general circulation. Parts for the most part weren't released. Apparently Blake Stevens bought all the parts LB had as scrap and then when Diemaco put the FNs into war reserve, he sold them all his spares at individual value. Still, those didn't make the street. Now they all went to the smelter so there go your buttplates. The odd one shows up on CGN but that's it.

I seem to recall that our butt plates were made from sintered alloy, made at Qualcast in Birmingham - part of Birmalloy I think. What was the difference between a Canadian one and a UK one? At Wetter, the big combined Can/UK Base workshop in BAOR the L1's that went through were a mixed bag of both and no mention is made of butt plates differing. I'm sure that they fitted!

https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...ttPlates-1.jpg

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Peter Laidler

What was the difference between a Canadian one and a UK one? I'm sure that they fitted!

---

There's the pics...ours were stamped steel and had one single screw holding them. UK had the same inner but you have two screws like the LE butt. It would interchange but you needed the center screw.

Yep, got that. We had a couple of Canadian C1's at work and never thought to look either! Can I assume that the butts interchanged or did the sling attachment method preclude interchangeability?

And while we're here......... You started on that book yet KtK?

The butts changed readily. Our sling swivels could just as easily been for LE, with the plate and two screws. Yours went into the wood and the buttplate screw held it...the little wood screw and the return spring tube end held ours on same as yours.

I was lucky to acquire and import quite a few C1/C1A1 parts back in the late 90's. I still have the type 1, (beehive), body lock levers and early C1 milled magazine catches in quantity, plus odds and sods. If there are any specific C1/C1A1 parts anyone is looking for, give me a shout or email. I also have some blanks for the Canadian butt and pistol grip. Unfinished and straight from the CAL auction. I had a guy who was going to finish them several years ago but he got in a car crash and the project was shelved indefinitely. I have two builds to do here, one a British L1A1 that will use a DSA receiver which are duplicates of the Australian pattern I think. The other a metric with an Imbel receiver. I'm also restoring my personal 1960 BSA which just had the body locking lug welded up. I've owned it since the late 1980's and am excited to get it back on the range. I'll get some pics of it over here when finished. Gotta love the old SLR!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by browningautorifle

Ours didn't get out into general circulation. Parts for the most part weren't released. Apparently Blake Stevens bought all the parts LB had as scrap and then when Diemaco put the FNs into war reserve, he sold them all his spares at individual value. Still, those didn't make the street. Now they all went to the smelter so there go your buttplates. The odd one shows up on CGN but that's it.

---

Tri walls of FN C1/C2 and C1 SMG spares went to numrich and sarco.

That's right, they did. I remember now that lots of stuff seemed to be available a bit ago. Wonder if any is left?

Regarding the "S" on the Oz Body Locking Catch:

WPN D 253 Para 45:

....During an unknown period of time, phosphated Locking Catch springs may have been fitted to the L1A1 and L2A1 Rifles. If the spring has been phosphated, its life has been reduced.The faulty spring is easily identifiable as it has a black phosphate coating.The serviceable spring has a bright, cold rolled finish. Weapons that have been inspected for this fault are to have the letter "S" (3mm high letter) stamped on the locking catch lever( prior to the reconditioning of the weapon) to denote the weapon has been inspected, as shown in Fig. 14.

Comment: The life of the "black" spring was "reduced" because, in order to successfully phosphate it, first it had to be grit-blasted, creating in the process, instant stress risers in the spring wire.

Thanks for the info Bruce, another question answered. Very few go unanswered on Milsurps thanks to our knowledgeable membership..

When I worked at certain weapons manufacturers post Military Service.

One of the many 'Products' we made, obviously had springs in/on them.

It is absolutely correct, that when shot blasting springs. They become very brittle & have the potential to fracture quite quickly.

This was over come by a process called 'De-Embritlling. Where springs after blasting & phosphating. Were put in an oven for 30 mins afterwards at a specified temperature.
It was not too hot, or the springs would have lost their Temper (Springiness)

This overcame the springs previous condition of being Brittle. & all springs worked very well, in the whole range of products that we manufactured. :cheers:

Similarly, all "stressed" parts that are "hard-chromed" are baked at a moderate temperature for the same reason.

During the plating process, Hydrogen migrates from the acid bath into the steel. its presence plays merry hell with the "skin" of the steel substrate, i.e., Hydrogen Embrittlement. Baking the components at a relatively low temperature for several hours cooks the Hydrogen out.

The trick with Phosphating is that the process doesn't work very well unless the surface of the metal (steel) has been "activated". The quickest and most effective way to do this is to "blast" it with an abrasive grit; the harder the surface, the harder / "sharper" the grit required. Basically this "micro-deforms" the surface and shuffles molecules around. That is also why the best Phosphating is achieved when the article is fresh out of the blasting box, with "distressed" surface molecules, and goes straight into the "bath".

This may be why one traditional spring finish was "blacking", by the same "blazing off" of a quench oil, as was done to many small Lee Enfield parts.

"Micro-deforming" a spring with a good grit-blast is a sure way to form tiny little "pits" that become stress risers. Blasting with a hard steel shot as opposed to garnet grit, will certainly create a lot less potential for these stress risers to occur.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tankhunter

when shot blasting springs. They become very brittle & have the potential to fracture quite quickly.

---

That was something that was u nknown to us many years ago when we did bead blasting and blue or parkerize. I wonder how many failures have resulted from our past work?

De-embrittling...... That's a word and process I haven't heard of for many years