Indian parts on a BSA L1A1

[Brian Dick]

I had a matching RFI 1A1 rifle many years ago as imported and sold in the USA to Law Enforcement Agencies. I cleaned, inspected, gauged and test fired it but sold it on. I agree that the quality of fit and finish was definitely "post independence" Indian but it functioned, fired flawlessly and was not a bad looking rifle with it's original, (mahogany?), woodwork.

[mrclark303]

I do remember, unlike the Fal or L1's interchangeable top covers, the 1A1 was a different size and its top cover won't interchange with the other family members..

[browningautorifle]

(mahogany?)

Yes...it was.

I had one I changed over to look FN C1A1. It was hard, it wound up being partly changed and the rest all bead blasted and parked. It looked good after and functioned flawlessly, there were some that were F/A and some that were complete junk. They all came in together too. To put on our half body cover, I had to grind away the rear of the body at the top corners so the little folded lugs would fit.

[Brian Dick]

I think they were purposely designed as a "half-breed" with both inch and metric features so they could beat both Enfield and FN out of royalties. Clever eh?

[browningautorifle]

"half-breed"

Yes they were. I used to be able to quote you which parts were which, back when it mattered.

[mrclark303]

Its hilarious that they thought they could announce "A new indigenously designed service rifle" and show the world what was obviously a Fal....and try and get away with it!

[browningautorifle]

"A new indigenously designed service rifle"

It was sad, looked like many pieces were made by monkeys. Then you look at the beautiful Metric guns, listen to them ring when you drop the breechblock and carrier on the action...European walnut stocks...clear black finish...I could go on. Then the Ishapore offering...thin blue, stove paint, crude rough parts. Flat smack when you drop the BBC. An old properly made FN just looks well used. These look like junk after they've been abused a bit.

[Peter Laidler]

The Indian arms problem is down to the fact that they have back-engineered their designs in the past. Your average production engineer will breathe a weary almost suicidal sigh if anyone even utters the words '... can you back-engineer this xyz for me'. Because by definition you don;t know where the starting point of datum points commence - plus many other things. As a result you are always encountering small hiccups until it all comes right................ eventually*.

Add to that their shoddy approach to the finished article and there you have it. The Sterling was a good example of this. They woprked fropm the original drawings so generally speaking parts were fully interchangeable, albeit with a bit of hand fitting and fettling. But the finish was not up to Sterlings standards

This back engineering also plagued the INSAS rifle. Which is a back-engineered AK47 style 5.56 rifle that was plagued with teething troubles until it came right - eventually. And the finish is good now too.

*George Lanchester......., remember him? He back engineered the MP28 to produce a simplified gun which became the Lanchester. As we know, some parts will interchange but......

[mrclark303]

When you take into account the huge engineering challenge of re-inventing the Fal, plus when they did finally get it all working properly having to pay Fn the royalties anyway and agreeing to buy rifles from Fn, the UK and Australia as part of that settlement ...

I bet they wish they just joined the inch pattern club in the first place!

A very, very, expensive lesson indeed !

[enbloc8]

Ah, but that was the age of the Bandung Conference, the era when the Non-Aligned Nations were going to prove they had overcome their colonial masters and could stand on their own!!!!

(You can stop laughing any time now....)