PDA

View Full Version : Aussie L1A1 kits at Sarges


adam6955
December 15, 2016, 22:09
Couldn't find a thread on these. Don't know if this is a good deal or not.

Looks like they have 23 in stock.

https://www.sargesmilitarysurplus.com/product/l1a1-aussie-fal/

Thorack
December 15, 2016, 22:14
Well,

Price is good. First and most important question is who made the barrel?

Thorack

def90
December 15, 2016, 22:15
Wow.. wonder where those came from? All depends on the barrel. Wish I would have bout a few more for $300 a few years back, may have even been $249 if I remember right.

Lee Carpentieri
December 16, 2016, 18:20
Most likely someone at Sarge had them squirreled away and now started a internet business. Happens all the time. Just takes time and allot of MONEY.It's how I started my Gun Parts business.

baker72
December 16, 2016, 19:10
I just emailed them about the barrel? that's the big question, hope to hear back monday

sgt.stinky
December 28, 2016, 19:09
any feedback from sarges?

Artigas
December 31, 2016, 16:30
Also wondering about the barrel.

baker72
January 02, 2017, 13:09
never got a response I was going to buy one but the barrel is a concern still a decent price without the barrel info I guess

embatp
January 02, 2017, 16:36
Ad says new chrome lined barrel.....that plus the flash hider being off makes me think us made......my guess is green mountain or whoever century used....just a guess....

jam762
January 02, 2017, 18:13
Or maybe they bought some of those US L1 bbl

satori
January 02, 2017, 21:42
wow , 675 with a new barrel. I have a inch kit with original barrel if anyones interested, I need to dig it out

L/FN
January 10, 2017, 15:21
Due to the heavy shoulder behind the gasblock and large diameter of bbl in same area, I would say GM bbl. Don't think they chrome lined them though.
Timing and LS size could be a issue.

I sold a complete New Zealand kit w/ proper NZ maranyl h-grd and carry handle and had a hard time getting $600.00 for it. That was about a yr ago.

gunplumber
January 10, 2017, 15:32
No response to my inquiry either.

I sold 2x L1A1 kits, refinished w/plastic at $750 at SAR, and a wood for $800. There were two other kits at the show for $850, original finish.

djfin
January 12, 2017, 11:51
I called them and asked who made the barrels. I was told that they are not releasing that information at the owners direction. I was also told not to worry about the barrel as it was made using a Lithgow factory blueprint. When I questioned that statement based on the profile of the barrel I was told that the owner would get back to me next week as he was out of the county. I will update if that does happen

ActionYobbo
January 12, 2017, 13:46
Must be the same print Pat used.
The sling swivel must be installed upside down on those barrels too

The upside down sling swivel business is a dead give away

DakTo
January 12, 2017, 15:34
For my edification how is the Pat Jones sling swivel installed upside down?
Thanks.

Top: DSA inch barrel with sling swivel cut incorrectly on left side of barrel. Will work without a sling swivel collar stop.
Bottom: Pat Jones barrel.

http://i254.photobucket.com/albums/hh83/RedlegFN/001_zpszh0rfai2.jpg (http://s254.photobucket.com/user/RedlegFN/media/001_zpszh0rfai2.jpg.html)

msnyder
January 12, 2017, 15:39
Must be the same print Pat used.
The sling swivel must be installed upside down on those barrels too

The upside down sling swivel business is a dead give away

Pat had the correct print and his barrels had correct sling swivel cuts. The story is he modified his print to prevent it being stolen by companies that were considering buying it.

nwobhm
January 14, 2017, 12:36
I called them and asked who made the barrels. I was told that they are not releasing that information at the owners direction. I was also told not to worry about the barrel as it was made using a Lithgow factory blueprint. When I questioned that statement based on the profile of the barrel I was told that the owner would get back to me next week as he was out of the county. I will update if that does happen

Sounds like a fantastic company to do business with.....:rofl:

gunplumber
January 14, 2017, 13:37
Pat had the correct print and his barrels had correct sling swivel cuts. The story is he modified his print to prevent it being stolen by companies that were considering buying it.

That is "the story" although some have called bullshit on it.

Do a search, there was a particularly heated thread on the subject.

adam6955
January 14, 2017, 13:48
Sounds like a fantastic company to do business with.....:rofl:

Ya I will pass. Sounds like a company trying to pawn their shit barrels off.

hkshooter
January 14, 2017, 13:49
Sounds like a fantastic company to do business with.....:rofl:

Yeah, gives one the warm and fuzzies, doesn't it? :rofl:

4markk
January 14, 2017, 16:32
Pat had the correct print and his barrels had correct sling swivel cuts. The story is he modified his print to prevent it being stolen by companies that were considering buying it.

All the physical evidence shows that story is a lie. In fact nothing has been found to support it. If you have evidence supporting it, please post it.

Time to put this false story to bed again. Here is my earlier post on the subject.....

[] Iíd like to clear the air on the aforementioned story.

This is lengthy and should be of interest to those who quest for the truth.

I dunno. My point is, there are a lot of wild, true stories out there in FAL land. I've lived a bit of it in the last ten years. Try to be a little more open minded. You'll learn a lot.

To be open minded means to be able to evaluate the evidence independent of emotion or feelings for the people involved. Although it is honorable to stick up for a friend, one should not crucify another based on a story, when all the physical evidence proves that story is false.

Iíll admit that when I first heard the story I believed it, but then DakTo challenged Pat as to the profile of the breech area. Pat didnít respond. DakTo also mentioned the difference in the gasblock journal area. Pat didnít respond. So I decided to examine the physical evidence and learned that the story is contradictory to all the physical evidence. In fact, I could not find a shred of evidence that the story was true.

Letís put this myth to rest once and for all by examining the physical evidenceÖÖÖ

Allow me to use you as a proxy for the defense. Iíll lay out my case and cross examinations of the facts. I will welcome your evidence and cross examinations rebutting my facts and your evidence supporting the story as presented.

Why don't you go to Knob Creek and ask Dave himself in the fall?
Wonít Dave say the same thing Pat said that he said?
ďI looked at a sample of their barrels and confirmed that they had indeed stolen my prints, I confronted them on it and they denied it.Ē Pat Jones (September 23, 2011, 15:02 hrs EDT)
I agree with Pat, I believe Dave will deny using Pat/Georgeís print. Or are you implying that Dave said something else?

Letís now examine the physical characteristics of the two barrels in question. Letís see how close they are:
Here are the two barrels side-by-side. The DSA Barrel in the black and the DEZ (Patís barrel) in the white. From this angle there doesnít appear to be anything similar between the two:
http://i745.photobucket.com/albums/xx93/4markk/Barrels/01%20Pat%20v%20DSA%20-%202_zpszqthhyln.jpg
Letís look closer from breech to muzzle:
http://i745.photobucket.com/albums/xx93/4markk/Barrels/02%20Pat%20v%20DSA%20-%20Breech%20area-1n_zpsqv9qsyxv.jpg
http://i745.photobucket.com/albums/xx93/4markk/Barrels/03%20Pat%20v%20DSA%20-%20Ext%20Chamber%20area-2n_zpsjf1aneyg.jpg
http://i745.photobucket.com/albums/xx93/4markk/Barrels/04%20Pat%20v%20DSA%20-%20Gasblock%20area-3n_zpsnarthnjt.jpg
http://i745.photobucket.com/albums/xx93/4markk/Barrels/05%20Pat%20v%20DSA%20-%20Muzzle%20area-2n_zpscyh3wrtg.jpg
http://i745.photobucket.com/albums/xx93/4markk/Barrels/06%20Pat%20v%20DSA%20-%20Muzzle%20Crown%20area-1_zpsj7c67zu1.jpg
Even an apprentice machinist can tell that these two barrels have absolutely nothing in common. As an expert machinist, can you explain which scenario is more reasonable:

SCENARIO A: DSA stole the print as alleged than changed EVERY dimension in that stolen print, BUT kept the misaligned British style delimiter notch on the sling band.

OR

SCENARIO B: DSA used their copy of an StG 58 print and reversed engineered the front end and breech. But misaligned the CNC code by 90 degrees for the delimiter notch.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Now we found no physical likeness between the two barrels, letís examine the statements themselves:
ďI had 3 options;
1- suck it up and take it like all the others who had thier ideas ripped off by them.
2- take legal action and not get anywhere except to make the lawyers rich.
3- before I sent out the blueprints for quotes I could change them in minor ways so as not to raise suspission but using them would produce a f_cked up barrel.

I chose or should I say pre-chose #3 and DSA pissed away $20-30K.Ē Pat Jones (September 23, 2011, 15:02 hrs EDT)

My next question Adam is, since you probably knew Pat the best, did he have the ability to redraw blueprints to make the above claimed change?

Here are some more statements:

ďThe profile of my barrels is Australian while DSA is British.Ē Pat Jones (September 23, 2011, 15:43 hrs EDT)

From the above photos, does that statement appear to be true?
As an expert machinist, is it common to use a print of Design A, to make a barrel based on Design B? Did the Australian barrel have the notch for the sling delimiter? Again, as you can see from the above pictures, that the two barrels have absolutely nothing in common. So, there is good chance, Patís design was not Australian as he claimed. What else was he wrong about?

Back in 2008, I was an investor in his endeavor to get the barrels produced and I pre-purchased a few barrels and a couple included the repro Canadian gasblocks. Pat sent me the below picture to show me what to expect.

http://i745.photobucket.com/albums/xx93/4markk/Barrels/07%20Pats%20print_zpsbc52b1q8.jpg

I was told this was from the sheets he used to get the barrels produced. Interestingly, the notch is in the correct position. More interestingly, this is obviously NOT an Australian design as Pat stated. So either Pat was telling a little lie about the design, or he had no clue what design his barrel followed.

In conclusion, I believe that through the physical evidence and accompanying testimony I have proved beyond a reasonable doubt, that there is no truth to the story that DSA used Patís design to create their barrels.

If you or anyone else has evidence to the contrary please present it here so that we may all know the truth.

gunplumber
January 15, 2017, 09:35
I have those prints, I reproduced them in my workbook. They are Armament Research & Development Estst. M. of S., which my sources tell me is Enfield. I understand the assumption of them being Aussie, because of the cut for the tab on the Aussie sling mount. But they clearly state the 96- catalog number in the markings annex, which is UK, not Aussie.

http://www.arizonaresponsesystems.com/wp/fal/l1a1-print-barrel-02-data.jpg

http://www.arizonaresponsesystems.com/wp/fal/l1a1-print-receiver-01-data.jpg

You will note that pat's print is not of the gas block dimensions, but only the barrel assembly, identifying part numbers within the assembly; and the relationship of the gas block to the barrel. The "Block" is part P3/15419/306.

It is normal in military blueprints to have a print for each piece of a component, then a new print with the pieces of the component in the assembled position, and then another print of the component installed.

The one above is the latter. Cool, but the most technically useless when it comes to reproduction parts.

This is the useful part

http://www.arizonaresponsesystems.com/wp/fal/l1a1-print-barrel-crop sling.jpg

djfin
January 18, 2017, 11:39
Just got an email from Sarges about the barrel. The New claim is that they have an original Lithgow barrel print and that the manufacture used it to make the barrels. The first time I contacted them they claimed to have sent a factory barrel to the manufacture to be copied. Their expert gun smith also claims that the barrel picture on this thread showing Pat's barrel is a Canadian made barrel.

JonnyP
January 18, 2017, 11:59
I have those prints, I reproduced them in my workbook. They are Armament Research & Development Estst. M. of S., which my sources tell me is Enfield. I understand the assumption of them being Aussie, because of the cut for the tab on the Aussie sling mount. But they clearly state the 96- catalog number in the markings annex, which is UK, not Aussie.

I think you meant 99 for the UK NSN stock number (which it has on the prints)
I agree - these are Brit prints, also it is captioned at the top as drafted for M of S - Ministry of Supply as you pointed out. Australia had a Department of Supply, not a Ministry and the Aus NSN is 66.

gunplumber
January 18, 2017, 13:47
I think you meant 99 for the UK NSN stock number (which it has on the prints)
I agree - these are Brit prints, also it is captioned at the top as drafted for M of S - Ministry of Supply as you pointed out. Australia had a Department of Supply, not a Ministry and the Aus NSN is 66.

No - I meant 96.

The print says
Mark on where indicated:
0/ manufacturer code mark
Y year of manufacture
B Catalog number "9602006"
A Batch mark.

JonnyP
January 18, 2017, 14:42
I perhaps misunderstood what you were saying. When I look at any NATO stock number, I recognize '99' as the NATO code for national codification assigned by the NCB. In this case '99' is the United Kingdom.

The '9602006' obviously refers to the computer assigned catalogue number for what is actually a British barrel, but the '99' is actually the number that identifies it as a British item within the Nato Codification System.

celtickevin
January 18, 2017, 15:17
With the question of the barrels in mind is this still a good kit ?
If you are new to the FAL scene like I am known what you all know now
Would you buy one of theses kits?

embatp
January 18, 2017, 15:54
I think you could find original kits for close to that....give or take....

y18376
January 18, 2017, 16:13
I have those prints, I reproduced them in my workbook. They are Armament Research & Development Estst. M. of S., which my sources tell me is Enfield. I understand the assumption of them being Aussie, because of the cut for the tab on the Aussie sling mount. But they clearly state the 96- catalog number in the markings annex, which is UK, not Aussie.

http://www.arizonaresponsesystems.com/wp/fal/l1a1-print-barrel-02-data.jpg

http://www.arizonaresponsesystems.com/wp/fal/l1a1-print-receiver-01-data.jpg

You will note that pat's print is not of the gas block dimensions, but only the barrel assembly, identifying part numbers within the assembly; and the relationship of the gas block to the barrel. The "Block" is part P3/15419/306.

It is normal in military blueprints to have a print for each piece of a component, then a new print with the pieces of the component in the assembled position, and then another print of the component installed.

The one above is the latter. Cool, but the most technically useless when it comes to reproduction parts.

This is the useful part

http://www.arizonaresponsesystems.com/wp/fal/l1a1-print-barrel-crop sling.jpg

Hi, '96' is obviously a typographical error and should read '99, There are some NOS parts in original packaging with '49' prefix but that is an old Nation Code possibly Belgian, UK or Australian. :)

djfin
January 18, 2017, 17:02
With the question of the barrels in mind is this still a good kit ?
If you are new to the FAL scene like I am known what you all know now
Would you buy one of theses kits?

Yes I would and did buy one. While an original barrel would be best these appear to be good. When it arrives I will update.

JonnyP
January 18, 2017, 18:08
Hi, '96' is obviously a typographical error and should read '99, There are some NOS parts in original packaging with '49' prefix but that is an old Nation Code possibly Belgian, UK or Australian. :)

http://i.imgur.com/kJuqMKp.jpg

The NSN is present and correct (below quoted from NATO):

The first 4 digits are the NATO Supply Classification Code and relate the IoS to the group and class of similar Items of Supply (1005 in this case)

The next 2 digits indicate the NCB (National Codification Bureau) assigning the NSN. (99 being the country identifier for the UK)

The final 7 digits of a NSN are computer allocated and have no inherent significance other than to uniquely identify the IoS to which they are allocated. In practice, this means that no inference should be drawn by the logistician or other data user based on any apparent serial progression. These 7 digits are assigned to one IoS within the originating nation's codification database. (960-2006 in this case)

The '96' is not in anyway a country identifier. You may infer that is a British/Aus/whatever part, by being familiar with the 7 digit identifier, but this is *not* the pertinent code that tells you country of origin. In the case of the part referenced in the picture, it is 99, which is the UK.

It's interesting because for those who are less familiar with NATO serial numbers, they can help you quickly determine whether a part is correct /relevant for an L1A1. You'll see a lot of 'Aussie' rifles come up for sale where, say, the gas block has a serial with a '99' on it. This tells you it is an incorrect Brit part, vs. an original Aussie part.

gunplumber
January 18, 2017, 18:17
Except Commonwealth manufacturers traded parts with frequency, so having an Aussie part on a UK gun is not "incorrect" as to its original configuration - changing it back would be. The REME UK standards even identify subtle differences, such as the receiver lock, and specifically state it is acceptable and interchangeable. Also FN pistons are specifically listed as interchangeable, despite their subtle difference in length, and the fact that they are not even a commonwealth part.

I was not arguing that the 96 should not be a 99. I'm merely relating what is on the print, and that I copied it as written.

But now I will argue that it is correct. Because I just pulled a handful of Enfield bolt carriers, flash hiders, bayonets, etc - all are Manufacture + Year + 96xxxxx. Not 99.

Here's a nice, clear stock image from my India/Commonwealth comparison

http://i1077.photobucket.com/albums/w470/Huss6634/Mobile%20Uploads/2017-01/7994EA1C-28A5-4FE9-A12D-4A21290050F8_zpspxjpt9tl.jpg

JonnyP
January 18, 2017, 19:24
I will agree with your argument it is correct pre-1974 (which this drawing is not and the part number is not)

That's because the NATO stock system was introduced in 1974. As for interchange of parts, I get it and obviously you are correct.

The point is a '960' prefix is *not* in of itself a guarantee that the part is British. The NSN post 1975 prefix of '99' shows that it is a British item, or country of origin is Britain. So, for the drawing you posted, the 1005-99 prefix shows that it was classified, post 1974, as such.

For example, I am sitting here looking at a NOS pistol grip, in original armory packaging with the original classification label on it as 960-0068
GRIP, PISTOL WITH PERMANENT FITTINGS
QTY. 1
British, yes?
Except looking through the clear packaging the grip is marked MA, which, as we all know is Australian. That's not a fluke, I have two that are identical. I actually purchased these on the basis that it was *960-0068* hence must be for a Brit L1A1 and wood grips NOS are rare as hens teeth. Lesson learned (by me)

gunplumber
January 19, 2017, 07:55
I will agree with your argument it is correct pre-1974 (which this drawing is not and the part number is not)

That's because the NATO stock system was introduced in 1974. As for interchange of parts, I get it and obviously you are correct.

The point is a '960' prefix is *not* in of itself a guarantee that the part is British. The NSN post 1975 prefix of '99' shows that it is a British item, or country of origin is Britain. So, for the drawing you posted, the 1005-99 prefix shows that it was classified, post 1974, as such.

For example, I am sitting here looking at a NOS pistol grip, in original armory packaging with the original classification label on it as 960-0068
GRIP, PISTOL WITH PERMANENT FITTINGS
QTY. 1
British, yes?
Except looking through the clear packaging the grip is marked MA, which, as we all know is Australian. That's not a fluke, I have two that are identical. I actually purchased these on the basis that it was *960-0068* hence must be for a Brit L1A1 and wood grips NOS are rare as hens teeth. Lesson learned (by me)

In going through a thousand stocks and grips, I came across a lot of stocks that looked to me like they were reworked, with the old stamp sanded off and MA restamped.

I also noticed that many of the MA marked grips do not appear to be coachwood as the SLAZ marked ones are - which is why I had previously sorted them with the UK walnut "B" etc. "D"

While I'm sure new UK walnut is rare, I have around 150 complete Aussie NOS grip assemblies with hardware. Hardest part of putting those assemblies together was the grip plate screw.

Here's about half of the walnut grips after cleaning. Yeah, there are a couple Aussie mixed in.

http://www.arizonaresponsesystems.com/wp/eai/eai-l1a1-stock-wood-uk-strip-02.jpg

http://www.arizonaresponsesystems.com/wp/eai/eai-l1a1-stock-wood-uk-strip-03.jpg

some failed selection.
http://www.arizonaresponsesystems.com/wp/eai/eai-l1a1-stock-wood-burn.jpg

NOS grips after assembling components. $50, btw.

http://www.arizonaresponsesystems.com/wp/eai/eai-l1a1-grip-wood-01.jpg

gordonm1
January 24, 2017, 20:18
I'm tempted to get one I have extra Tapco wood and FSE HTS and USA stock parts if I want to sell it.

What receiver should be bought?


Coonan with a deluxe Dremel kit?:D