Ident: Variations- Receivers, sub-assemblies, you name it!

[MitchY]

What are is the difference between a Type I, II, or III Receiver? I've recently become interested in the FAL rifles and have not been able to find the answere.

thanks...

[tool]

I hope DSA and Entreprise do not mind me doing this. They can sue me if they don't- I'm broke anyway.

Type 1 metric- notice the lightening cuts.

http://www.dsarms.com/images/dsurcallouts_2.jpg


Type 2 metric- Rare compared to the type 1 and 3. You can see the difference in machining towards the rear above the lug.

http://www.dsarms.com/images/ds_rcvr_t2.jpg

Type 3 - cheapest to manufacture and most popular. No lightening cuts; more "block" like.

http://www.entreprise.com/Fal/images/Imbel3.jpg

These are all metric, and there is no practical difference between them so far as function. In other words, the differences are merely cosmetic. Now if you want to know inch, then ask the fellow from New Zealand.

This should go in the FAQ



[This message has been edited by tool (edited March 01, 2001).]

[tool]

Here's a pic of Entreprise's Inch:

http://www.entreprise.com/images/L1a1.jpg

Of course, it it totally different than the type 1,2 & 3 metrics and is not interchangable.

[Frohickey]

Okay,

What are the differences between Type I, Type II and Type III receivers?
Aren't FN-FAL receivers, just FN-FAL receivers?

Sorry for the newbie question.

[Blag]

====Originally posted by Frohickey:
What are the differences between Type I, Type II and Type III receivers?

Type 1 (pic credit: DSA)
http://www.dsarms.com/images/sa58type1receiver.gif

Type 2 (pic credit: DSA)
http://www.dsarms.com/images/sa58t2rec.gif

Type 3 (pic credit: Entreprise)
<IMG SRC = "http://www.entreprise.com/images/type3nch.jpg">

Inch (pic credit: Entreprise)
<IMG SRC = "http://www.entreprise.com/images/L1a1.jpg">


====Aren't FN-FAL receivers, just FN-FAL receivers?

Yes. The differences are in appearance and price, not function (presuming equal quality of manufacture.)

Type 1 is the original. It has a distinctive pattern of lightening cuts to lighten the receiver. Type 2 was introduced for extra-heavy-duty machine gun use in military service; they found that cracks would occasionally appear at the rear of the receiver in such use - they changed the cuts to leave some full-thickness steel in that area. Notice the rear scallop on the Type 2. From the civilian point of view, for semi-auto use, the difference is cosmetic. Type 3 omits the lightening cuts as a cost-saving measure. The Inch receiver has a different mag well lightening cut, but is otherwise like a Type 1. There are also differences in machining at the front sides, in the barrel thread area. That varies a little by both Type and manufacturer.

The inch/metric difference is significant - because of the difference in magazines - but otherwise choose the appearance, or price, you personally prefer.

[ September 28, 2001: Message edited by: Blag ]

[BUFF]

This question is asked many times.

Blaq, your short, concise explanation with the photos is the best, easiest to understand explanation I have seen yet. Well done!

[Gninraw]

Very Good Info. Blag You get a pat on the back from me.
:D
That ones going to the Printer.

[ September 28, 2001: Message edited by: Gninraw ]

[Blag]

Thanks, fellas.
:)

Might as well go ahead and add a note about mags since I mentioned them, and get this basic info in one place.

Metric mags have a small front lip for a locking lug. The lip is formed out of the sheet metal body.

Inch mags have a larger front lug that's brazed on (or soldered or welded - I don't know which term is technically correct.)

An inch mag can't be used in a metric receiver. The lug on the inch mag is too big.

A metric mag will fit in an inch receiver, and may be used. However, it may also be too loose and jam because the front lug does not engage.

Conversion of an inch mag to metric, or vice versa, could be done by changing the front lug, but at today's low prices it doesn't generally pay to do that with standard 20 round mags.

Also, a metric receiver could be machined to accept inch mags. Again, it generally wouldn't pay, tho.

It's best simply to buy mags that match the receiver, inch or metric.

[EMDII]

A search in FAQ would identify SEVERAL threads regarding Types, pics, etc. Including magazines. look around some, you might find the FAQ already has an answer.

Hmmm-
"Search"- what's that for?!
:D

I've created the complete R&D List. I'll see if I can make apost that shows them all. Try the "Eureka" thread, fershure.

[Blag]

Here's an earlier thread with almost the identical pics, except it shows the IMBEL Type 3.

http://www.l1a1.com/cgi-bin/forums/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=10&t=000159

Yep, Search is good, no question. :)

[Frohickey]

Blag, thanks a bunch.

I had thought that the Types had something to do with the various models that FN came out with, 50.63, 50.64, etc.

I had been doing searches on FAQs with the keyword 'type' but that was not yielding any answers, hence the quesition on FAL files.

Thanks a bunch.

[CJF]

Was checking out the angry beaver's den and found an interesting page w/ pictures and text describing difference between inch and metric FALs. Decent pics showing difference in mag wells, mags, cocking slides and cut outs at rear of receiver for tabs on top cover.
http://www.centuryarms.com/receivers.htm

[ February 13, 2002: Message edited by: EMDII ]

[EMDII]

Nice find. I'll move this to the FAQ Forum, if you don't mind.

[syfr]

Thanks for the pointers, but that's not the link I saw. This page had about a dozen detailed pictures showing all of the different machining differences between Inch and Metric receivers.

When and if I find it again, I'll post it!
(that'll teach me not to bookmark it!!!)

John

[TapperMan]

syfr, here's the inch/metric link (http://www.centuryarms.com/receivers.htm) I think you were looking for.

[xIA]

One more difference on the original FN manufactured receivers:

The Type I and Type II were Forged, the Type III was cast. This seems to matter more to some folks (like me..) than others.

[Falfegnügen]

There are other detial differences which might be important depending on the intended use, or the desire for authenticity.

Functional Differences:

Most all Type I, Type II, and L1A1 receivers have sand cuts inside the receiver which are very important for clearing sand, dirt and debris from the action in adverse conditions. Most Type-III receivers do not have these cuts. It is notable that the popular Imbel receivers, (and Imbel bolt/carriers for that matter) have no sand cuts whatsover.

Type-III receivers are notably heavier than all other types. Primarily because they have no lightening or sand cuts. This is probably necessary to insure adaquate strength due to the cast nature of most Type-III receivers.


Aesthetic/authenticity differences:

There are 2 basic types of L1A1 recievers: British/Indian, and Australian/Canadian. The British/Indian receiver has significantly different lightening cuts.

L1A1 receivers also take a folding charging handle, the other receivers won't unless modified, or unless they are a special modified design such as the popular Imbel "Inch" receivers.


There are also other less encountered differences. For example original Israeli, Indian, and early FN made receivers have a metric Barrel thread, 25mm-1.5tpmm, instead of the standard imperial 1"-16tpi thread.

I guess these differences are part of what makes this rifle so fascinating.

We need a really good, comprehensive FAQ on FAL receivers. Ok, who volunteers???

[ April 07, 2002: Message edited by: Falophile ]

[Blag]

Originally posted by Falophile:
... We need a really good, comprehensive FAQ on FAL receivers. Ok, who volunteers???

We can all volunteer, here. Just keep adding info to this thread.

[MWDG3]

http://mwdg3.homestead.com/files/3_FAL.jpg

[ultravista]

What type of receiver is this? This novice thinks it's a type 1 but also looks like a type 2.

The confusing part to me is the beveled edges on the rear portion of the receiver which looks like a type 1 BUT the mag well is a slab side, not recessed like a type 3.

Here's the picture.

http://www.ultravista.com/images/IMAGE009.jpg

[EMDII]

The SBL is an after-market (not Contract) rifle. It appears they took the Type 3 and milled it to look like the Type 1. This is consistent w/ the 'SBL got forgings from FN' stories I've heard. The upper notch (at the back edge) is very interesting: SUIT cover adapted.

PS- can you resize that pic to about 650 pixels wide. It is WAY too big for us 17" guys! Thanks for the pic: VERY clear what you have.
:wink:

[ultravista]

I'll have to delete the files as I don't have anything at the moment to resize. The pictures were sent to me, I didn't take them. Please let me know if you would like them removed.

[Brian in MN]

Ted, are you referring to the 1/2 inch cut out up and to the rear of the Star of David? That is just to aid in sliding on the body cover. If you page up to the pic ripped off from the Steven's book showing FN manufactured receivers without body covers you can see the cut out in all three types.

[EMDII]

This grasshopper has undergone a learning experience! Hadn't looked that closely at my Stevens' book!

[Falfegnügen]

What Brian said. That cutout really won't help with a SUIT, but it sure helps getting the topcover on, especially if it's that thick Israeli one. Plus, you'll never get a SUIT on without removing that tall rear sight.

[Brian in MN]

Originally posted by EMDII
This grasshopper has undergone a learning experience! Hadn't looked that closely at my Stevens' book!

That's what we're all here for. :wink:

[DakTo]

Have a few questions on the 3 types of metric receivers.

Why was the decision made by FN to put lighting cuts on the first production FAL receiver instead of squaring off the lower section as shown in the third receiver. (No cuts)

Is there any documentation of Type #1 or #2 receivers stress cracking while on full auto in the field?

How many trial rounds were fired in the FAL to produce a stress crack?

Thanks

[HawaiiFALer]

Originally posted by DakTo
Have a few questions on the 3 types of metric receivers.

Why was the decision made by FN to put lighting cuts on the first production FAL receiver instead of squaring off the lower section as shown in the third receiver. (No cuts)

Is there any documentation of Type #1 or #2 receivers stress cracking while on full auto in the field?

How many trial rounds were fired in the FAL to produce a stress crack?

Thanks
The reason FN decided to put lightening cuts on the original is that the designer, Dieudonne Saive, included all of these in the original specifications to keep the weight to design levels. Years later, Type 3 was the way to lower manufacturing costs, by eliminating many steps.

The militaries found the stress cracking. Don't know what records remain.

In typical weapons trials, a large number of rounds are planned between complete tear-down thorough inspections. Don't see any old records remaining, or particularly available for review.:) :fal:

[glazer1972]

Which is lighter weight a DSA Type 1 or DSA Type 2?

[shootist87122]

Originally posted by glazer1972
Which is lighter weight a DSA Type 1 or DSA Type 2?

The weight difference should be negligible - maybe an ounce more for the Type 2.

[EMDII]

Originally posted by DakTo
Have a few questions on the 3 types of metric receivers.

Why was the decision made by FN to put lighting cuts on the first production FAL receiver instead of squaring off the lower section as shown in the third receiver. (No cuts)

Is there any documentation of Type #1 or #2 receivers stress cracking while on full auto in the field?

How many trial rounds were fired in the FAL to produce a stress crack?

Thanks

FN wanted lower weight, and an artisan's touch on the appearance. Hence, the lightening cuts of the Type 1. The Type 3 was made blocky as a cost-cutting measure: sheet-metal had begun to replace forgings & castings, and the FAL was made non-competitive.

Early Type 1 receivers on some FN FALO (sort of an HB SAW) rifles did exhibit cracking at the locking lug join to the body (delamination). There was no consistent story we can find, but FN built the Type 2 w/ the reinforce as a response.

No data on how many, but the problem appeared to be prolonged firing for many thousands of rounds in Full Auto. FN began producing the Type 2 in 1962, and did not change to the Type 3 until 1973. Contemporary contract pictures as late as 1965 show FN still building 'rifles' (not FALO) with the type 1 receiver. In 1967, they built Competition models on Type 1 receivers.

There appears to be no inherent risk w/ the Type 1 when used on a semi-auto rifle.

[cliffy109]

So you happen to have a picture of a type 2 lower? I'm still a bit shaky on the difference in the lower between the type 1 and type 2. I've read a few descriptions of it but can't quite figure out what they mean.

[EMDII]

See post #19 directly above. The Type 2 has the curled down reinforce right above the back edge of the PG.
:wink:

[cliffy109]

Originally posted by EMDII
See post #19 directly above. The Type 2 has the curled down reinforce right above the back eedge of the PG.
:wink:

Call me blind, but I can't discern a difference in the lowers in those shots. I know what the difference is in the uppers--I just ordered a type 2 from DSA becasue that's the only thing I don't have, but I can't figure out what makes a type 2 lower.

[shootist87122]

The difference in the lower is minute and is just on the bottom edge of the recoil plate. The II is radius cut and the I has a 90* angle. Here's a pic of an StG Type II:

[EMDII]

Dammit, you said LOWER. DOOH! on me!

As shootist IDs, there a slight radius difference in the two recoil shields.

[cliffy109]

Thanks Shootist and EMDII. I've done searches over the last several months for that. I'm not sure how it hasn't been posted in this topic before.

[EMDII]

If you have a pic that is a direct comparison between parts/characterisitics of Inch-v-Metric-v-Israeli-v-whatever, post it here. Maybe it'll help sort out our Franken-FALs.

[EMDII]

Bolt Carriers
- Australian
- British
- FN-built Israeli HB

[EMDII]

BC side views:
- Australian
- British
- FN-built Israeli HB

[EMDII]

Combination Devices
- IMBEL
- Belgian

Note the position of the tool ring. This is NOT a consistent difference.

[EMDII]

Bolts
- British sand-cut
- Metric StG w/o cuts and w/ 1-piece extractor

[EMDII]

Bolt undersides
- British sand-cut
- Metric StG

[EMDII]

Same bolts

[EMDII]

Metric foresight pins
(L-R)
4-dot
3-dot
Israeli
http://www.falfiles.com/forums/attachment.php?s=&postid=860026

[EMDII]

Foresights
T- Metric
B- Inch

[EMDII]

Mag catches
(L-R)
Inch L1A1
Canadian C1
Metric Israeli

[EMDII]

Two Inch-variant body-catch levers
- Canadian 2d Pattern
- ABC 1st pattern

[EMDII]

BHO
(T-B)
Metric
Inch (x3)

[EMDII]

BHO at different angles

[NZ L1A1 Collector]

.

[NZ L1A1 Collector]

.
http://www.falfiles.com/forums/attachment.php?s=&postid=538113

[NZ L1A1 Collector]

.

[762minigun]

How about gas plugas next??:tongue:

[cliffy109]

Left to right: South African, unknown (I think L1A1), unknown (I think Imbel), STG, Izzy.

http://www.falfiles.com/forums/attachment.php?s=&postid=874674

[elbo]

Cliffy, I think it's (L2R)
Izzy, StG, G1(Belgium), IMBEL, SA
I believe inch will be short like Israeli.
I can post pic tonite of inch.
Also have Izzy, metric and inch hinge pins.




Need your flip view posted here too, Cliffy.

[cliffy109]

Thanks elbo. I seem to have forgotten which picture I had posted and went the wrong direction. I swear... I've got to clean my counter before I do that again. That egg yoke is really bothering me.

[davidp14]

hehe if you squint your eyes the SA plug reminds me of a cicadia bug.

uh.....sorry.....i'll go now

what? you thought i had something useful to say?

[bykerhd]

Here are a couple more.

Gas plugs are Imbel & Inch
Gas tube nuts are Israeli(I think) and Imbel
Mag releases are stg58(parked) and Imbel. stg looks to have a part number or something.
Bolt hold opens ar Israeli( ? ) and Inch ( Australian)

[elbo]

Hinge pins.
Israeli, metric, ABC.
Female parts of metric and ABC appear to be identical, I had heard that ABCs' shafts were slightly larger diameter but these are the same.

[elbo]

Hinge pins, same order.

[elbo]

Gas blocks:

You can see why the Izzy may need a longer piston tube.
Plug cuts in the front are different. Argie is standard metric. Izzy plug has symmetric lugs so the block has the same notch top and bottom. I think the Izzy plug is the only one that will go in either way.

Argentine & Israeli

[Muggzy]

This was a great idea! keep 'em comin'

Glad Teds wife got that new camera:D Nice clear/sharp pic there

[renaissance_warrior]

Apoligies to 'Wayne's World" :bow: I've been into quality guns for about 35 years and obviously couldn't get a StG 58 at the time, ahem :bigangel: But now that I can get a 'NFA sanctioned cut-replace-headspace-n-build' I'm a pretty happy camper. I chose the all matching austrian steyer version for $338 delivered, matching numbers and nra excellent from FAC aka gunsnstuff. sure hope it's what I think it is, I've heard some great things about the latest parts. Seen some anazing 'out-of-the-box' pics from forum members also. I must confess, after being a Mercedes mechanic professionally for many years, this is the Mercedes of all longarms. I've had H&K's, new preban one I'd bought and was less than impressed at the metallurgy and the fragile nature of the gas roller system. I had a breechbolck on a P-9s pistol crack on me after 300 rounds right at the roller. It was german police surplus. You can have the rest FN is the best. Why do you think Belgian Brownings sell for so much? I rest my case :fal: :whiskey:

[NZ L1A1 Collector]

Backsights and foresights for the L1A1, L2A1, C1, C1A1, C2, C2A1 & 1A

[NZ L1A1 Collector]

SUIT and SUSAT sights and mounts

[NZ L1A1 Collector]

Night Vision Sights and mounts

[Rooster]

There have been several questions about the diffences bewteen lowers and I have yet to find a good set of pictures to point them out so I made my own. One easy way to distinguish between lowers is by looking at the radius cut (or lack thereof) at the bottom of the recoil plate the bottom of the recoil plate on each.

Type 1 (from G1 Kit)
http://www.falfiles.com/forums/attachment.php?s=&postid=822689

Type 2 (from Argentine Para Kit)
http://www.falfiles.com/forums/attachment.php?s=&postid=822692

Type 3 (from ZA marked Imbel Kit)
http://www.falfiles.com/forums/attachment.php?s=&postid=822693

[EMDII]

This keeps getting better! THanks to all the contributors: aren't digital macro-capable cameras wonderful!

[mojo_matic]

Lets see some pics of internal lightening cuts?! Were the G1 lowers the ones to have these?

[James87]

Maybe we could use some pics of different wood furniture? Metric & Inch.
How do you know if wood handguards or buttstocks are A, B, or C?
I'd also like to know the difference between Turk, Belgian, STG, & Izzy wood stocks.

Just a suggestion.

[SLR-5000]

Some Canadian buttstocks, late style(left) and early styel(right)
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v286/pioneerparts/100_3487.jpg
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v286/pioneerparts/100_3486.jpg
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v286/pioneerparts/100_3488.jpg
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v286/pioneerparts/100_1778.jpg
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v286/pioneerparts/Canadianbuttplates.bmp

[James87]

Some Inch handguards top to bottom. ABC first pattern, NZ synthetic, Australian MA72 laminate.
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v424/Jmolden87/7ecbe258.jpg

[James87]

Some Inch stocks, left to right. British synthetic; Aussie(?) Normal length; Aussie Short length; unknown.
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v424/Jmolden87/cdfc1193.jpg

[rigormootis]

oldie but goodie thread resurrection. Lots of stuff I was looking for here. Thanks.
:fal:

[SLR-5000]

These are British buttstocks, note the short comb that was unique to all the Brits.
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v286/pioneerparts/Picture2812.jpg
Brit L1A1's were used extensively throughout the African continent, this has the Rhodie camo.
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v286/pioneerparts/Picture2815.jpg
Canadian and British buttstock production were changed to prevent cracking by inserting wedges, also Canadian handguards had the same treatment.
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v286/pioneerparts/Picture2814.jpg
Aussie buttstocks had the comb cut straight back except for a few which were cut up and out at the back. The length of the stock was altered at the front for the different sizes.
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v286/pioneerparts/Picture2813.jpg

[Onyx Arms]

I imported SBL, which stands for “Stuchner Brothers Limited” they were made on FN Belgium forging in Israel in 1987 and 88, I contracted SBL to make type 1,2 and 3 and also afew test inch L1a1a’s, they were not type 3 re-milled,


The SBL is an after-market (not Contract) rifle. It appears they took the Type 3 and milled it to look like the Type 1. This is consistent w/ the 'SBL got forgings from FN' stories I've heard. The upper notch (at the back edge) is very interesting: SUIT cover adapted.

[pakmc]

Hey EDM11, Thank you for the pictures you've just educated in the gun I just brought at the Houston gun show. I"ve got a CETME coming Next friday and I took a little trading materal with me just on case. I got a #3 Imbel receiver. it's a ban one. with the funny stock. I'm not the biggest fan of the funny stock. I did pick up a parts kit and I'm going to build my next FAL. (If I can find a receiver) I found a century reciever at the gun show but I met "SLOW" here on the forum at the gun show. he gave me my first education on the FAL I had just gotten.
No I'm not new to semi-auto's(I've got an M-1 garand(school trained), Mini-14, SVT-40, a couple of SKS's Russian, and yugos. and other mis. things.
But, this is my first FAL.
But, your pictures are great, sharp and with good light.
out standing work.
Pat

[FALCarbine]

How about para rear sights?
I saw some "early FN manufacture license" one for sale and wasn't sure how they differ from the rest. Primarily, I want them to be adjustable.

[OHHHDEN]

Just wanted to thank you all for taking the time to answer questions etc.

[ssleeper]

This is my first post on falfiles & I want to say thanks (EDMII, Shootist, elbo & SLR-5000) for such an informative breakdown (with pics) of these great rifles. I'm currently looking for one & this thread has been a big help.