Printable View
Photos show an original 20rd H&R T-48 Rifle magazine in original condition, I got some of these magazines some years ago when I wrote an article on the T48 rifle. Next to the HRA magazine is a metric FAL magazineAttachment 115696Attachment 115694Attachment 115695Attachment 115697
As impossible and improbable as it may sound, I had one of these rifles in a small arms collection when I was in the Small Arms school in Gagetown New Brunswick. The one I had was from FN I think, not one of the 500 H&R made. I forget for sure where this one came from, I think it was the R22er museum, not sure. It had no breechblock but our FN C1A1 breechblock fit and functioned perfectly. I had no correct magazine but used a metric magazine I think, which fit and functioned. The only damage to this rare and beautifully made rifle was the odd forestock, which had been cracked badly right through and barely held. I took it home one night and used Brownell's microbed to repair the fault, which held up nicely. I don't have record of the serial number but remember it came near the end of the series, some 3200(?) and test rifles didn't usually survive, they were tested to destruction...
Jim-- While I like the M14 rifle, I think the FN FAL was a better rifle. If it was not for the desk borne US Ordnance Department it would have been our primary service rifle.
I too believe it was a US loyalty thing..."Made in USA". Nothing wrong with that either. I carried the FN for 15 years, always loved the way the M14 handled.Quote:
Originally Posted by fjruple
The M-14 is just a repeat of JC's original M1 Rifle design that had a 20 round mag. It was adopted for political reasons. The FN beat it in the tests in everything but accuracy. However, since it was a NIH issue, the U.S. government said, "Thou shalt adopt the American rifle." And it's still being argued about.
Shot FAL's while in The Queen's Service and own a semi'd Winchester M-14 with the issue fiberglass stock. If I was given a choice and had to lug the thing around, it'd be the 14. The C1A1 is heavy and kind of awkward. If I was given a choice for fighting, it'd be a C2(That's a heavy barrel, select fire, box mag, LMG) and wouldn't care about the weight.
Oh about 10 years after the M-14 and 7.62 was jammed down NATO's throat(there were other cartridges being developed), Secretary of Defense McNamara decided it would be replaced with the sexy M-16. That nobody at all wanted. And the 5.56 was jammed down NATO's throat.
Not at all. You're just clumsy.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sunray
I always liked the look of the T48, with its unique trigger guard...
How many T48's survive I wonder?
There are about two dozen complete HRA T-48 rifles at the USMC weapons collection at Quantico, VA but not open for public view. There are others around too.
When I wrote an article for Digest Books years ago on the T48 variations a man sent me a letter from north west Illinois stating he had a complete
HRA T48 and registered it during the 1968 amnsty.
Besides 7,62 caliber, there was a dozen HRA T48 rifles sent to Springfield Armory in 1956 and were rebarreled to 22/7,62mm and sent to
Fort Benning for testing (that would be rare to find) this information came from Springfield Research records
Cheers RCS, I remember seeing pictures of still in the wrap L1A1's in Quantico, love to have a browse around that collection!Quote:
Originally Posted by RCS
I could never find out if any High Standard T48 rifles are still around ? nor could I ever find out which magazine the HS T48 used.
The current data states there were only 12 High Standand T48 rifles manufactured but I have seen serial number HS 13 which
was a special lightweight model. High Standard rifles were marked T48 while HRA rifles were marked T-48, FN were marked T.48
Also not all the HRA T-48 rifles were selective fire, some were semi auto only