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

[axeman]

FACT: The breech blocks for the C1's and C2s were kept separate (policy at the time), and were issued at random, so you never got the same breech block twice. Normally there were no serial numbers on the breech blocks, but the odd time one would have one acid etched by hand, and they would never match. The same method for the C7A1 is used or was when I left in 1994. Unserialised bolts and bolt carriers, issued at random. Thats just how it was/is.

In the ADF all bolt carriers match for the F88 and M16 FOWs. Its done for accountability. Same goes for the bolts for the F89 Minimi too. All serialised. The Cdn C9 does not have a serialised bolt either (again when I left in 1994).

Another funky CF fact.

Cheers,


well its changed now any GOOD  storesman will be able to tell you . i had a bolt box made where each bolt / carrier was put in a numbered slot . box isnt big and it make the well this isnt my old bolt /carrier  and its dirty /.inacurate etc. but in other places it may still be that way if you want directions on this box to get to your stores  PM me and i will send you directions .
Wes

 

[1feral1]

As an ex Armourer in British Army, this fact is still quite scary to me.
Apparently no-one has heard of Cartridge Head Space (CHS), or maybe CHS was just another case of the old
adage "BS baffles brains."


H

All weapons were/are 100% head spaced using the correct gauge for the weapon type during ATIs at the unit level conducted by the appropiate EME cell. Never a problem.

If the C1 rifle failed HS, the locking shoulder was changed.

All FN C1 breech blocks were all made to one standard to eleiviate any problems, hence no serialised blocks. The breech blocks were also inspected for firing pin hole ovality. If the gauge failed, it was replaced.

As for Axeman's comment on how his unit kept the bolts for their weapons. Nice idea, but at the end of the day, if the weapons are tasked for the summer fo example, do you really think you'd be getting the same bolts back upon return to the unit??? I don't think so.

Also during cleaning etc, especially in groups, parts can get  mixed, as when there is lesson on strip and assemply, etc, and this does happen.

Bolts for the C7 FOWs are not serialised, and anyone will do (they are all the same. Thats one of the advantages of the type of weapon. Thats just how the CF does things. Here in Australia only the bolt carriers on M16 FOWs are serialsed, the bolts are not. if the HS fails, replace the bolt, if it still fails, replace the barrel. Easy.

The 9mm T series Inglis Browning HP has matching serial numbers on the barrel, slide, and lower.

So, ther never was a serious threat to life and limb either on the C1s or the C7s, and C9 for that matter too.

Hope this clears the misconception up ???

Cheers,

Wes

 

[Highland Lad]

1 aspect of the old C1 that I miss - the "quick reload" feature (half the breech cover removed to allow for a set of rails to guid a 5-rd stripper clip into place so that you could quickly get an extra 5 in place without changing mags). This made the weapon into a bit of a dirt sucker, but never enough to really bother me... I also preferred the butt storage for the pull-through, as opposed to keeping the tinkertoy cleaning rod in a pack (I keep meaning to get my hands on a string pull-through for 5.56, but never follow through for some reason).

Of course, there were the fabled 11 different ways one could use a C1 as a bottle opener (now I'm dating myself... pre-twist off! ;D) I just wish I could remember them...

As for the whole argument - weight per man didn't make a whole lot of diff, but being able to carry a dozen extra boxes of ammo for the C9s in the section more than made up for all the "stopping power vs weight" (etc. etc. etc.) arguments.

 

[CH1]

    I think the biggest pitfal of the C1/C2 was the gas piston.  Dont clean it and you could end with your B/B jammed 1/2 back.  Really nasty as you can't even break the wpn.  Also if you used the local sand pit or other abuse on the piston, you lost too much gas past & could end up with feed jams.  If I remember right, the reason for switching was NATO compatibilityof ammo, and the switch from Main Battle Rifles to assualt rifles.  More bang for the same scale weight of ammo with .556.  Oh yeah, Shilo and other sandy places played havoc in the trigger group.  Had to dust off both and do IA's to remember some of the weird & wonderful parts of the FN's.  My own preference is the FN over C7.  Use an A/P round & drill through 10 inches of concrete.  Or at least let them know you were knocking!  Over all the FN still serves pretty well across the globe.  Still see them in news clips.  Wesley, what did I miss?

 

[the 48th regulator]

http://grenadierprecision.com/

Here is a great site, dedicated to the wonderful weapon.  A company dedicated to excellent workmanship by Canadians living in the U.S.

tess

 

[TCBF]

I can forget my wife's birthday, yet still remember the serial number of the FN C2 I carried in Germany (3LA 510), or the FN C1 I once fired competition with (3L 8424).  I own two 8Ls, and three Aussie L1A1s.

When we changed from C1/C2/SMG to C7/C8/C9 in 4CMBG, we did it on a Friday night at 1700.  The whole Brigade had to do it at once, and being on two hours notice to move, had to change the "Snowball" ammo outloads in one go. 

When I was coaching shooting for the Cdn Boeselager Team, I noticed that we had way too many stoppages with the C7s.  Why?  Well, with the C1/C2 the hardest part to clean was the gas system, and you didn't much care about the bolt, because even if you drew a dirty one next time, you could clean it in thirty seconds.  With the C7/8, the dirty parts are in the bolt, and the boys soon figured it was not worth it to spend ten minutes on a bolt, then end up drawing a new dirty one next week.  So, I went to the Lahr AMU and got a bunch of baggage tags.  I had the team tag their bolts. "As you clean - so shall you draw!" I said.  The SQMS didn't like my tags cluttering up his vault, but saw my point.  Stoppages soon dropped to 1 or 2 per thousand rounds once they sorted out the sub-standard ejector springs and bad mags as well.

Yeah, I miss the FN, but the AR-10 would have made a good battle rifle too.  I think the whole C1 "fleet" was pretty beat up by the time we replaced them, perhaps other than the 8Ls.  The weapons tech in Cornwallis in 86 was starting to talk of matching bolts to rifles because or the problem with stacking tolerances.  He wanted to get the C7s sooner rather than later.

 

[NCRCrow]

2L1 135

I remember being a C2 Gunner on Battalion exercise and having this Bra to wear and have everybody give me extra ammo. (yeah thanks, Cpl)

Then I figured out that from the arrowhead formation to the extended line, I had the farthest to run.
(Boy did the section commander followed by the 2 i/c--scream)

I prayed to be the Fire Base on Platoon attacks!

Anyway, just a   rookie quick story!

2 LMG -Delta Team

 

[1feral1]

OLA003 (BTW...the 3rd ever C2 to be issued to the CF), 2L4525, and 5L3686 are number after in excess of 29 yrs are still embedded in my brain.

Cheers,

Wes

 

[TCBF]

Hey, good point - I still have my "Case, ammo, Mag, 1964"  (C2 Bra)

Anybody remember the Ex 1?  This was the first batch of FNs made up for the Army.  They were relegated to being used at CABC on Basic Para couses.  They were in bad shape.  Here is one reason why: One cold winter day in 1974, mine dropped several hundred feet.  The top four inches of the muzzle was sticking out of the snow, and the lowering rope hit so hard, I had to dig into the zig-zag hole it made to grab it.

"Pretty Cool !" I thought.  I was nineteen.

Do I want the Ex 1 back? 

No. 

But I want nineteen back.

Tom

 

[1feral1]

Ya the EX1's were used during training while jumping. Usually all were in pretty rough shape, with handguards held togther with gun tape, missing carrying handles etc.

If I remember right, the7.62mm   EX1 rifle was a Cdn made 'under licesnce' copy (pre 1956)
of the early prototype of the FAL, and this is what the C1 was later taken off of (of course with heaps of mods and changes, etc).

Instead of destroying them all, many were saved for 'training purposes' so that soldiers had a rifle to jump with, and that real C1s would not be used and be damaged. I do beleive they were still being used in the early to mid 1980s.

There was alo a 'plastic/rubber" version of the C1 which had a metal barrel, correct weight, and the only real C1 part on it was the carrying handle. This too was used for jumping at the School.

Cheers,

Wes

 

[JimmyPeeOn]

Well here goes a Pte's 2 cents.

FN - My dad has one and I've fired it on the civy range so I'm not totally "right out of 'er" about the firing aspect.  It puts a good hole in things with more range and is a longer distance weapon.  I think with a 6X scope on it, it would be an excellent section weapon for the troops with great shots.  However I've never used it in the field/carried it for anything more than 200M @ a time.

C2 - Never fired it or carried it, but 30 rd mag?!?!? COME ON!!!

C7 - Ive used this a lot, carried it farther than I can count ( yeah I know some of you guys carried it  A LOT more, whatever)
      The sight is a POS and if you dont care for it you are gonna be spending all your time carrying out IA's.
      But if you take a look at the recent conflicts and PSOs that Canada is involved in 90% of the time its in built up areas.
      there for i can sum up in 2 words an FLA and a saying.  FULL AUTO, FIBUA and "Spray and pray".

C9 - Used this a lot too.  200 rds...full auto only...that pretty much sums it up.  And yes the C79 has NO place on an lmg.


Cheerz

Oh by the way, russm you might wanna watch the news.  There are no front lines anymore, all the truckers, sigs and REMF's  are getting into it too.  It's not just a high and mighty infantry thing.  (no offence, just telling it how it is, like sigs do)

 

[axeman]

    :warstory:    0L0001 i had the first one issued and used in the CF its still in my reserve regiment on display not to me but hey 
                        it  shot well and then i got the retro fit C2 site on it and wow did it help. but now its a museum piece,, such is progress...
                        i sure do miss it some times ... 

 

[BernDawg]

Amen to that Axeman. Some times I miss them too.  I don't mind the lighter weight of the C7 but I really didn't like being told to "take it easy" on the bayonet assault crse cause we were were breaking the new rifles and bayonets!

 

[Highland Lad]

Amen to that!

I remember - first weekend's trg (in garrison) after we got the C7s, we were doing bayonet drills with the 8ft rattan canes... busted 3 handguards and 2 bayonets before lunch!

First outdoor range shoot, we were loading wpns into an MLVW in the time-honoured fashion (grab 4 rifles at a time by the carry handles, put 'em on the bed of the truck, slide them forward, go get more)... busted 2 more handguards and a butt. Moral of the story: if you take plastic out in -40 ° range shoots, you have to treat the bangsticks gentle.

I do prefer the lighter weight, and missing the FN only makes me sound like an old fart, but... ah well.

 

[mainerjohnthomas]

3L8378-that was the serial number of the FN I had until they gave me some plastic 5.56 tinkertoy to play with.  When we first were issued the thing and did familiarization training with the C-7 all we could talk about was how cool this was, and how much it would be easier to patrol with.  After the first Range-ex we all wanted our C1A1 back.  The FN needed care and cleaning, but in the infantry that has been true since long before Wellington.  The FN had range, stopping power, and translated our higher level of training into actual combat power.  The M-16 is great for our southern bretheren who rely on crew served weapons, armour, and airstrikes for their combat power, its just a submachine gun with delusions of granduer.  If your troops can't hit anything past 100m, then give them an automatic to spray enough rounds downrange to keep the enemy suppressed.  If your infantry are expected to engage and destroy the enemy, then the FN had the range to do it (especially if coupled with modern sights like the C7 gets), and the ability to penetrate light armour, walls, vehicles, concrete and other urban cover is turning out to be a real  selling point.  The FNC1A1 was a good weapon for fighting with.  I remember my old FN so clearly I could draw the stains around the screws on the pistol grip, mine never jammed on me, and shot true to about 600m.  The C7 shot faster, was lighter, and could be shot like a pistol (wierd to watch, but true), but the round it shot was lighter, and wandered more.  It could lay down higher levels of fire, and at close range was deadly, but at longer ranges, I never stopped wishing for my FN back.  The FNC1A1 will remain the favorite weapon of mine.  If this was the states then at least I could buy the old girl, and not let her waste away in warstocks, ciao 3L8378, I still miss you.

 

[big bad john]

I know how you feel.  I've been using an Sa80 a2 and an M16a3 for years now...but I do miss my SLR!  I found the L1A1 very reliable and strangely comforting.  Oh well...

 

[1feral1]

  ...... and not let her waste away in warstocks, ciao 3L8378, I still miss you.

A sad note.... between Nov and Dec 2004, 27,500 of the 30,000 Australia L1A1 SLR rifles in war stock (the Aussie version of the C1A1) were destroyed by smelt. They have kept 2,500 for heritage and other reasons.

I bet the Cdn government if it has not discreetly done this already, will be doing it to their warstocks of the C1A1 rifle.

Cheers,

Wes

 

[big bad john]

Thank God the UK has retained theirs in War Stocks.

 

[48thHighlander]

Thanks Tess for the plug!!!

For you C1 detractors here is a link to an old page on our site with information on Ol'Dirty.

http://grenadierprecision.com/oldirty.html

We do however think the C7, M16, M4 is reliable as most require, but is unsat when it comes to going the extra mile.  We are making the RAS for the LW5.56K-P being trialed in Iraq by the USMC 4th MEB Counter Terrorist Force in March.  The Leitner-Wise rifle is for all intents and purposes an M4 with the replacement of the direct impingement gas system with a short stroke piston system similar to, but IMO better than the HKG36.  One of the rifles has gone 50,000 rounds without cleaning.  They had some stoppages related to worn extractor and ejector springs, once replaced, the little sewing machine went on running, and hopefully will go another 50K. 

Check it out at http://leitner-wise.com

This product was developed at the request of colt who were getting complaints from the US Army about reliability, premature wear and controllability of the M4 and shorter 10.5 and 11.5" carbines.  It corrects ROF in short carbines, is truely self regulating.  The piston protrusion scrapes the piston cup of carbon with each stroke and no carbon is introduced into the receiver.  It corrects the problem of gas pressure curves and gas hole sizes in short carbines as well. 

I will be accompanying Leitner-Wise to Canada later in the year to demo to a special unit in Canada.

 

[the 48th regulator]

Thanks Tess for the plug!!!

For you C1 detractors here is a link to an old page on our site with information on Ol'Dirty.

http://grenadierprecision.com/oldirty.html

We do however think the C7, M16, M4 is reliable as most require, but is unsat when it comes to going the extra mile. We are making the RAS for the LW5.56K-P being trialed in Iraq by the USMC 4th MEB Counter Terrorist Force in March. The Leitner-Wise rifle is for all intents and purposes an M4 with the replacement of the direct impingement gas system with a short stroke piston system similar to, but IMO better than the HKG36. One of the rifles has gone 50,000 rounds without cleaning. They had some stoppages related to worn extractor and ejector springs, once replaced, the little sewing machine went on running, and hopefully will go another 50K.

Check it out at http://leitner-wise.com

This product was developed at the request of colt who were getting complaints from the US Army about reliability, premature wear and controllability of the M4 and shorter 10.5 and 11.5" carbines. It corrects ROF in short carbines, is truely self regulating. The piston protrusion scrapes the piston cup of carbon with each stroke and no carbon is introduced into the receiver. It corrects the problem of gas pressure curves and gas hole sizes in short carbines as well.

I will be accompanying Leitner-Wise to Canada later in the year to demo to a special unit in Canada.

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.

Call me or yer dead!

tess