The FN C1 - Service Rifle of the Past (and C7A1 vs FN C1A1)

[1feral1]

This gas system is not new. back about in 1983, a company calling itself Rhino was doing custom jobs on Armalites for police and civvy use in the USA. From the info sent to me at the time, it resembled the gas system of the AR18 rifle and the L85A1 (SA80).

It is a good gas system (its even found on the 5.56 x 45mm ULTIMAX LSW from Singapore), and with the short stoke using a two piece piston, there is ZERO carbon or fowling of any nature passed thru to the bolt carrier.

However there is more moving parts (at least 3 including the spring), and thus prone to wear and tear, where direct gas has only the long term wear of a cheap gas tube and bolt carrier key. Direct gas systems have been around for more than 60 yrs now). The idea to utilise this system on a fleet wide conversion was dumped by yhe US Army over 20 yrs ago. Cost prohibitive I guess? After all there are 100s of thousands of these beasts in the national fleets of Canada, USA and Australia alone.

Cheers,

Wes

 

[48thHighlander]

Wes, the gas system has been around 100 years.   Not much drastic has happened in weapons design in 100 years.   Actually it is very similar to the Stoner AR180 which stoner borrowed from earlier designs.   The USMC and USAF are trialing the weapon starting mid march on the 2 way firing range.   They are undergoing some familiarization training in Alexandria right now.   They are primarily interested in the LW5.56K-P which is a 10.3" barreled carbine and the LW .499P - A mini 50 cal in a M16 platform.   It is awesome! As you may know the shorter you go on the barrel of a M16, the more unreliable the system gets.   At this time they do not even offer a rifle length system.   They also had a SCAR entry.   The MRS.   It is a monolithic upper receiver with the ability to quick change barrels with the release of 2 levers.   It is even caliber convertable.   The FN SCAR was chosen however because it addresses all of the shortcomings of the stoner design.   Like getting rid of that lame little ejector and lame extractor.   Replacing it with a fixed exjector, and the extractor with an AK like extractor, and replacing the complicated locking lugs and barrel extension with a simplified design.

The USMC are looking at the .499 as a checkpoint and CQB weapon.   Imagine a charging car.   You open up full auto with your .499 with API.   The car stops, the passengers are all dead, and the car is on fire.   Imagine if you will some flaky little insurgent popping up over a cinderblock wall spraying his AK at you then dropping back under cover.   Send him on his magic carpet ride to allah with the .499 right through the wall.   It is a thing of beauty.

I am not selling this to you guys, I seriously think this thing could extend the service of the M4 carbine until drastic new technology can be fielded.   Current rifles are easily retrofitted.  

This is not a Rhino system, make no mistake about that.   This was a challenge/request of colt's.   Since colt's is always on the borderline of bankruptcy, they have not yet bought the tech package so LW will market it direct to the military.  

Tess, I know you could sell snow to an eskimo.   LW is very low key on sales.   They would rather provide the weapon and let it sell itself.    I will call you when we get the export permits etc.   We will be going to Ottawa, Pet, and just because we are there (not that their budgets would allow procurement) we are going to demo to Peel Regional Tac and Metro TO ETF.   Always helps to have a guy like you who speaks CF'ese and took bullets in the melon like you did.   This is in the very early stages of planning as they have to meet the USMC and AF committment first.

If you think adding 3 more parts to the M4 is a problem, please refer to news clips from Iraq.   These guys have more bling bling on their rifles than mac daddy g.   It has become a bag of bolts and screws. The LW parts add 1oz to the M4.   The rifle no longer shits where it eats which is worth a kings ransom.  

You can ask Tess.   I mourned the day they took the C1's away.   I am no fan of the C7.   However, I believe this final evolution makes it more reliable, self regulating, and very clean.   I am confident it would never be accepted in the CF as they seem happy as pigs in crap to slap some green furniture, a triad rail, and a cadpat sling and call it revolutionary.   The main reason Diemaco has been so successful in marketing to European countries is they use hammer forged barrels which are standard fare in Europe, and they were not an American company.   So much for that.   Colt just bought them.

There is shitloads of discussion on it on AR15.COM.

 

[1feral1]

Intersting.

Although I am a long time member of AR15.com (1feral1 is what I go by on there), I'll have to take a look.

If you are not a M16 fan, just imagine how I feel about the AUG.

Cheers,

Wes

 

[48thHighlander]

AR15.com can be an unpleasant place whether or not you like the AR.  Try not to drown in the BS! 

 

[48thHighlander]

Let me help.  http://www.ar15.com/forums/topic.html?b=3&f=118&t=216563

 

[Spr.Earl]

Give me the F.N. C.1 any day.
Even though it is heavier but at least I know I have that punch.
7.62 is is of the best rounds if applied right and if the end user is trained corectly.

 

[JimmyPeeOn]

Intersting.

Although I am a long time member of AR15.com (1feral1 is what I go by on there), I'll have to take a look.

If you are not a M16 fan, just imagine how I feel about the AUG.

Cheers,

Wes

What's wrong with the AUG? It looks mean enough haha.  Bullpup isnt my fav configuration though.

 

[Ex-Dragoon]

What's wrong with the AUG? It looks mean enough haha.  Bullpup isnt my fav configuration though.

I hope you don't judge a weapon about how it looks... :

 

[JimmyPeeOn]

I hope you don't judge a weapon about how it looks... :

Hell no, but thats about all I know about it.  Well that and the "see through" mags are useless after the 1st 17 rds.  But weapons intimidation factor does play a have its purpose in a stand-off situation.  Just curious about its deficiencies.

Cheers

 

[1feral1]

Although I am confident to use the F88 and variants anywhere anytime in any theartre, I just dont like the weapon. The only advantage is its overall SMG length with a 508mm bbl.

The Australians have spent millions over engineering this rifle, and still are doing that.

I am not happy with the exception of pins and springs, having an ENTIRE hammer mech, including its body totally plastic, and having no way for water to escape the recoil spring tubes. Thats nuts, a military rifle which is not recommended to submerging in water!

As for the mags, well, they are olive drab see thru, but so waht. No one really uses this feature, and it is not even mentioned in the pam, but I will say they are quite robust, never loose their colour, absorb shock, and are not expensive.

Cheers,

Wes

 

[CH1]

Being as we are straying from "old faithful", my next choice is the HK 91, 93, G3 series.  they are heavier & the bolt carrier & bolt head require tlc.  But accuracy is great.  As with every combat arm there is pro,s & cons.  I still like 7.62x51 vs 556.  Guess I,m old fashioned.  From here I would go the AK family.  The 7.62x39 is a potent little rnd.  I still don,t mind some extra rifle.  Guess it depends on the tasking you are saddled with.  I was still working with old faithful well into the mid 90,s in both C1 & C2 configs, as well as a light barrel C2.

 

[48thHighlander]

And you will need a salesman to help you promote your wares, especially one that has pulled a trigger in his lifetime.  Not like those mamby pamby yanks you hang out with.

If anyone is Nambi Pambi, its me.  Nambi pambi they are not.  Charlton is USMC Active Duty, former Harrier Pilot and is now in a command position with SERE school.  The rest of them have at least 2 wars under their belts, and some of them wont even divulge what they do in the military.  Allthough as an example, when they are attending language school learning Farsi with the diplomatic corps people, it isn't that hard to figure out.  You don't have to shake a stick very far to find combat veterans in the US anymore.  Not sure if this is a good thing or not.  As for my business partner, he has no military experience but grew up in South San Antonio, so he has combat experience on me. 

What ever happened to the Core colors Tess?  You know the ones with with battle honors such as the 25th Service Battallion MP party?  Or Younge and Dundas?  Do those colors still exist?

Anyway, I am pretty stoked about the ARM-R (RAS) that 4th MEB is trialing.  I hope to one day report back here "Canadian boy awarded multi-million dollar sole source contract with USMC."  The chances are excellent.  How I will be able to fill the contract is a problem I would like to have.

 

[the 48th regulator]

What ever happened to the Core colors Tess?  You know the ones with with battle honors such as the 25th Service Battallion MP party?  Or Younge and Dundas?  Do those colors still exist?

Ahhh my young friend, I have them!!!!  All rolled up and waiting for your return to the great white north!!  I will unfurl them when your up mate!

BTW where should I e-mail you my resume, I think I want in on some of that million dollar pay out, you will need someone to at least drive forks to move the crates.

tess

 

[C1A1insert]

Hello. I was under the impression when I  was using the FNC1A1 1979-1983, that the C1A2 reffered to the 0.22cal insert kit used mostly by the Roal Canadian Army Cadets and OPP. This is one set up I waould love to have again.

 

[1feral1]

Hello. I was under the impression when I  was using the FNC1A1 1979-1983, that the C1A2 reffered to the 0.22cal insert kit used mostly by the Roal Canadian Army Cadets and OPP. This is one set up I waould love to have again.

The C1A2 never existed, although the nomenclature was considered for the CAL 8L C1's of 1968. The basic differences was the gas block was copied from the C2 and the upper reciever had a removeable ejection block (as did the C2 also). There was also a slight difference in some milling marks on the upper too. If you wanna know more, try R. Blake Steven's book The North American FAL. Good info in there, and this has been part of my tech library since 1979, along with the Commonwealth and FN FAL books by the same author. Yes, that sub cal is even covered too.

The HK West German made sub cal in .22 was not called the C1A2 either. It ws simply an off the shelf buy and identical to the UK and Australian ones. The NSN for this kit even had a West German country code identifier (12), not 21 as Canada still has. This was noted on the OD wooden box, and the kit had an 'L' in its designation. They were still around a few yrs back, but I do beleive now Australia has destroyed along with the majority of it's war stock L1A1 SLRs.

The CF used the .22 sub cal force wide, and mostly on indoor ranges for training purposes by Cadets, Militia, and the Regular Force. I do remember it on those two indoor ranges at the Regina Armouries on Tuesday nights back in another life.

Cheers,

Wes

 

[Centurian1985]

Hey pal, save some space!

Ah the old FN; what a face-grinder!

For those of us who fired that weapon a lot, not more than others but much much more than others, there were times when you wanted to scream because your cheek hurt like a ***** if you held it improperly too many times.  Fortunately after a few thousand rounds the nerves in your cheek just die (I still have a numb spot there to this day!) other guys I knew ended up with permanent scars due to having to keep firing without letting a raw spot heal.   It was also good for improvised grenade launching with flash bangs and blanks, although using US blanks resulted in blowing out pieces of assembly if you didnt turn down the gas assembly.

There was only one dangerous problem with the weapon; if you didnt close the assembly properly, the force of the gas from the fired round would cause the assembly to open and the sliding cover would blow backwards as the round was fired (yes, seen it happen! - can you say 'required several stitches'?)

While the new C7 is lighter and easier to clean and use, it just doesnt have the stopping power of the old FN series. Like someone said earleir, we changed not because the FN weapon was no good but because the US led the way by demanding everyone switch to 5.56 ammo as part of a NATP logistics issue.  The big advantage of the C7 was that even a child can hold and fire it.  Far less recoil and easy to hold in the aiming position.  When the weapon was introduced it required a re-evaluation of shooting practices across the forces (the most important one was in 1987 due to a young reserves ranker who beat a lot of old-timers in competition that year).

However, there was one last comment reference to the fact that most of our work is in distances less than 200 meters.  That tends to be true for BUAs we worked in and for that kind of work you cannot beat the MP5! For those lucky enough to have used them they are unbelieveably sweet, and use teh same ammo as our pistols, but not very effective at long ranges over 100m. 

 

[1feral1]

Hey pal, save some space!

Ah the old FN; what a face-grinder!

For those of us who fired that weapon a lot, not more than others but much much more than others, there were times when you wanted to scream because your cheek hurt like a ***** if you held it improperly too many times/

There was only one dangerous problem with the weapon; if you didnt close the assembly properly, the force of the gas from the fired round would cause the assembly to open and the sliding cover would blow backwards as the round was fired (yes, seen it happen! - can you say 'required several stitches'?)

We used to call that 'rifle cheek or chipmunk cheek', and although sometimes I even sufferred from it mildly, it was manily the girls who copped it bad with some minor swelling and maybe a bruise with tears too on occasion. I had never heard of anyone being scarred by it or being stitched (afterall its cheek vs smooth surface of a wooden butt stock, nothing to cut ones self on). Maybe he caught is face on the rear sight somehow?

As for the rifle opening up on occasion, when fired, the problem there is simply the BLLC (body locking leaver catch) was not modified when replaced (later ones had the mod done at CAL and later Diemaco during rebuilds- yes Diemaco was doing C1 rebuilds in the 1970s), as recoil (yes its all the same whether the gas reg was set at 12 or 0, Newtons law, remember - Recoil and the amount of gas used to cycle the action are two different things)  would literally move the BLLC rearwards as the BLLC would bind on the upper reciever edge just mm's away. When this happened, yes the rifle could open up all by itself, although I never heard of the body cover sliding off during the process.

I did almost 19yrs in the CF, and that from 17 yrs as an Armourer, so I know what I am talking about. Plus for sometime here in Australia I was involved in L1A1 and L2A1 factory level rebuilds (FTRs), which including breeching of bbl's and other things I had only read about in the CF.

As for the unauthorised use of US blanks (US M60 GPMG and M14 rifle easily identified as they were not crimped at the ends, but were rounded and had a red waxed paper plug in the hole at the tip) in the C1, this should have at a mininum, copped a warning or even a charge, you or your mates were lucky the rifle was not damaged, or no one was injured (split gas block - blown gas plug - blown gas reg - and damage to the ejector- ya, they will actually bend and sometimes snap with continued abuse - I have seen that!) or that you or your mates did not launch off a BFA at someone, as the use of such US blank ammo was prohibited in the use of the weapon. and thats in print in many CF regs for over 25 yrs! The rifle was designed to be fired on zero with a C1 BFA, using Canadian DA and later IVI 7.62mm blanks for the C1, C2 and C1/C5 GPMG. Nothing more.

Cheers,

Wes

PS as for using space, well for reasons unknown the post did that all by itself.

 

[Centurian1985]

Hey i was kidding about the use of space  ;D

Reference the chipmunk cheek, if you were on a rifle team shooting day in and day out, you'd have to watch for it too. Two guys had scarring (1985-87). I wonder if that is VA claimable?  :warstory:

Reference the blowback, Ive never heard it described that way before, but I'll take your word for it, Im not an armourer.  We just assumed it was from not reassembling the weapon properly.  Happened to a guy named White during a 3 PPCLI C Coy annual qualification in 1986.  When the weapon broke back open, the plate slid backward and sliced open his left cheek (he was a southpaw like me  ;D).  The staff figured that he automatically jerked his head up or he could have lost his eye.  Heard of other cases but they were all second-hand claims, this was the only one I saw in person.

About the blanks, you are right, it was unauthorized!  A lot of things were unauthorized that soldiers did anyway, e.g. breaking down the forestocks of a C7 weapon, disassembling firing mechanisms, altering firing sites,  using metal mags instead of plastic mags, but thats what a lot of soldiers do.  At that time I was a first year private and didnt know any better when a higher rank said to do something.  After I scrambled around getting the pieces of my weapon back together, one of them informed me that I should reset my gas block on the lowest setting as the US blanks were too  powerful! - gee thanks for telling me! 

Note to all : kids, dont try this at home!  :skull:

 

[TCBF]

My stock of 8L s is now down to one.  I just sold the other for $1200.  I will keep the remaining C1, and flog my L1A1s.  A good program to fund my next gopher-getter.

 

[mainerjohnthomas]

Anyone else have a chance to see an FN BFA's penetrating power against soft targets?  We lost one embedded so far in a tree that it really made us OPFOR types happy the firkin recruits couldn't hit the target any better than they could attach a BFA.  Still and all, I miss old 3L8378, that FN may have weighed a ton, but it had true stopping power.  When a target ducked behind cover, you had confidence that you could shoot through and either the round, or spall fragments would take care of business.  The sight/sound of 5.56 ricocheting off into space like so many deranged bee's just didn't give you the same assurance your target would stay suppressed.