PDA

View Full Version : CAI L1A1 Receivers


jojom89
June 06, 2017, 23:26
hey guys, I found a few of the Inch Receivers on GB. Yes I know as a general rule of thumb everyone says stay away from CAI. But I have had 2 CAI Metric Fals in the past and no issues. Im looking to start putting parts together for L1A1 and I just wondering if anyone has had experience with these receivers.

http://www.gunbroker.com/item/654243131

Thanks for info in advance!

~Joe

embatp
June 06, 2017, 23:28
I had one....the expense of what needed to be done to make it run outweighed its value....sold it for less than it was worth....

jojom89
June 06, 2017, 23:59
Got it, that's what I was thinking. Just wanted to be sure before I pass up on them. Thanks for the insight!

OLDMANPBK
June 07, 2017, 02:08
http://i.imgur.com/9ohVWSDl.jpg

I cursed myself a few years ago with one of these. The ICL at the beginning of the serial # is reported to mean that it was made for Century by Coonan. It looks like a Coonan. Same ugly bolt gap. This one has a really low ejector block and uneven rails. On a positive note, the mag well is the right size. I keep telling myself that I'm going to fix it someday. :facepalm: Unless you can get one for free and are a machinist with a lot of time on your hands, don't do it.

embatp
June 07, 2017, 10:32
For an inch cut receiver my inch mags wouldn't fit but metrics fit perfectly....

OLDMANPBK
June 07, 2017, 10:53
That's funny. I haven't tried it but mine probably won't take metric mags. It seems like Coonan was having problems with consistency even back then.

Hammer63
June 07, 2017, 12:04
I saw these also. Whats the thought on the lightening cut so close to the Locking shoulder? peen it in or lock tight or knurl the dog leg edges of the darn thing? At the current gb price it seems hardly worth the hastle.

embatp
June 08, 2017, 00:32
Were these made by Coonan or were they left over FAC inventory? Or maybe Coonan castings that got finished by century?

OLDMANPBK
June 08, 2017, 01:28
Don't really know. My money would be on Coonan castings finished by Century.

OLDMANPBK
June 08, 2017, 01:57
A quick search found me this: http://www.militaryfirearm.com/Forum/showthread.php?23055-Cer

mp
June 08, 2017, 08:29
Were these made by Coonan or were they left over FAC inventory? Or maybe Coonan castings that got finished by century?

My research indicates these were made from the FAC molds, who was partnered with Coonan way back in the day. This was a metric Type 1 mold for the investment cast receivers, and it disappeared when FAC went away. Some time later, Century started producing inch type 1 receivers that appeared to be modified from the old FAC/Coonan mold, and are hit and miss on quality and function. Who is actually casting and machining for Century is unknown, and they do not appear to currently be in production.

gunplumber
June 08, 2017, 08:32
I don't buy the ICL early Coonan. The dot matric markings are very late. Prior to that they had the CAI cast in and just the serial number engraved.

The Coonan FAC receivers were nothing like that. Just look a the locking shoulder dogleg!

Also his claim of some being IMBELs is wrong.

It is possible that CAI bought the molds from the FAC bankruptcy. I understand from Dan (or maybe it was Harlan) that DCI did not own the molds. But there does not to me seem any similarity between any of the CAI catings and the FAC castings, except for the locating hole on the bottom of some - which was also on the WAC and Oly. Have to check my notes. I can't find an image of the DCI/FAC floor to remind myself if it too had the hole.

WAC Steel
https://www.arizonaresponsesystems.com/notes/notes-fal-rev-wac-s/notes-fal-rev-wac-s-03.jpg

WAC Aluminum
https://www.arizonaresponsesystems.com/notes/notes-fal-rev-oly/notes-fal-rev-oly-12.jpg

Oly
https://www.arizonaresponsesystems.com/notes/notes-fal-rev-oly/notes-fal-rev-oly-11.jpg

4markk
June 09, 2017, 12:10
A quick search found me this: http://www.militaryfirearm.com/Forum/showthread.php?23055-Cer

This is someone's speculation. Century switched job shops a few times. And there is evidence, that even known prefixes are not exclusive to the company identified.

For example, Century's later (2010+ timeframe) NC prefixed were identified by Century themselves as being manufactured by North Country Engineering (not Machine like in that link). But there are much earlier ones marked NC that appear different in quality and style. Maybe an earlier run by the same company than they perfected the code, but known only to Century.

I don't buy the ICL early Coonan. The dot matric markings are very late. Prior to that they had the CAI cast in and just the serial number engraved.

The Coonan FAC receivers were nothing like that. Just look a the locking shoulder dogleg!

Also his claim of some being IMBELs is wrong.

It is possible that CAI bought the molds from the FAC bankruptcy. I understand from Dan (or maybe it was Harlan) that DCI did not own the molds. But there does not to me seem any similarity between any of the CAI catings and the FAC castings, except for the locating hole on the bottom of some - which was also on the WAC and Oly. Have to check my notes. I can't find an image of the DCI/FAC floor to remind myself if it too had the hole.


I was one of the ones who Previously stated those were FAC/DCI made receiver. I agree that appears to be false. It was however Century itself that did dump them on market for $125 ea several years ago.

I had heard that Century did own the FAC molds and specs to the FAL receivers and took them back after FAC failed. I'll have to check my notes where I heard that (may be FAL lore).

To the OP, these are grossly out of spec. They can be made to function, BUT it aint a beginners project.

raubvogel
June 22, 2017, 05:13
Since the place selling those receivers at gunbroker are within driving distance of me, I went there. I brought a few things like my British lower and some mags and the "test" barrel I used in http://falfiles.com/forums/showthread.php?t=416149. They let me play with one of the receivers, so my findings may not be indicative of the other 4. Thing is I thought I took lots of pictures but I was wrong. This is the only one I took:
http://falfiles.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=85492&stc=1&d=1498125616
As you can see, there is a bit of a gap between the rear of the receiver and the trigger housing. Don't know how bad is that besides being unsightly though.

Other things I noticed were it would not take an inch magazine but had no issues with any of the metric ones I brought; I guess that means the cutout for the mag tab was not deep enough or something. Talking about the magazine, the mag release screw would only go as far as the opening for the magazine release lever; it seems the hole after that was smaller.

I want to say the barrel timed to something like this, but once again I forgot to take a picture.
http://falfiles.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=85490&stc=1&d=1498125387

The unibrow was a bit of a vertical wall: when I put a round in the magazine and tried to feed it with the bolt+carrier, its nose smacked right onto the unibrow.

I will try to go there again and this time take proper pictures.

NHBandit
June 22, 2017, 10:04
It's my understanding if my fuzzy memory is correct, that CAI bought much of the inventory including the FAL receiver molds and tooling when FAC went tits up. I remember Harlan on here talking about how he was attempting to help them correct some issues they were having. I built several FALs using the old DCI/FAC receivers and they were among the best available at that time. It was a sad day when they stopped being available. Nearly everything Century has put their hands on is shit. Stay away unless you feel the need to spend many hours fixing a brand new part before being able to use it. Century could take brand new Daisy BB guns out of the box, add a scope, and when they got done the gun wouldn't work...

4markk
June 22, 2017, 10:24
Since the place selling those receivers at gunbroker are within driving distance of me, I went there. I brought a few things like my British lower and some mags and the "test" barrel I used in http://falfiles.com/forums/showthread.php?t=416149. They let me play with one of the receivers, so my findings may not be indicative of the other 4. Thing is I thought I took lots of pictures but I was wrong. This is the only one I took:
http://falfiles.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=85492&stc=1&d=1498125616
As you can see, there is a bit of a gap between the rear of the receiver and the trigger housing. Don't know how bad is that besides being unsightly though.

Other things I noticed were it would not take an inch magazine but had no issues with any of the metric ones I brought; I guess that means the cutout for the mag tab was not deep enough or something. Talking about the magazine, the mag release screw would only go as far as the opening for the magazine release lever; it seems the hole after that was smaller.

I want to say the barrel timed to something like this, but once again I forgot to take a picture.
http://falfiles.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=85490&stc=1&d=1498125387

The unibrow was a bit of a vertical wall: when I put a round in the magazine and tried to feed it with the bolt+carrier, its nose smacked right onto the unibrow.

I will try to go there again and this time take proper pictures.

Most of the issues are in the feedramp/rails and the locking lug (which affects bore plane).

http://www.falfiles.com/forums/showthread.php?t=361192

You are not going to observe those on a bare receiver without instruments.

DakTo
June 22, 2017, 12:26
I actually considered buying a couple of those 6 receivers and building them for sale on a couple of old inch part kits. But, the Type 1 receiver cuts were just too incorrect and plus the possible tweaking may have been time consuming.

If the planner would have taken more time to research and use the proper size cutter the receivers would have a much better appeal.

Receiver cuts by DSA on some of their early 1990 FMAP SAC import receivers.

http://i254.photobucket.com/albums/hh83/RedlegFN/118_1895-3.jpg (http://s254.photobucket.com/user/RedlegFN/media/118_1895-3.jpg.html)

G3isMe
June 22, 2017, 20:09
I don't buy the ICL early Coonan. The dot matric markings are very late. Prior to that they had the CAI cast in and just the serial number engraved.

The Coonan FAC receivers were nothing like that. Just look a the locking shoulder dogleg!

.....except for the locating hole on the bottom of some - which was also on the WAC and Oly. Have to check my notes. I can't find an image of the DCI/FAC floor to remind myself if it too had the hole.....


^^^This^^^

The old DCI-FAC receivers do not have the locating hole.


.
http://www.falfiles.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=85500&stc=1&d=1498180231
http://www.falfiles.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=85498&stc=1&d=1498180094

http://www.falfiles.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=85499&stc=1&d=1498180102
.

raubvogel
June 24, 2017, 08:15
Most of the issues are in the feedramp/rails and the locking lug (which affects bore plane).

http://www.falfiles.com/forums/showthread.php?t=361192

You are not going to observe those on a bare receiver without instruments.

Understood. Oh well, I was trying to make this as a service to other members here without having to spend any money besides fuel. All I can do is measure thingies with my caliper and take pictures of how parts fit it.

If anyone wants me to go back there, give me a list of what I should check for given what I have.

Not trying to convince anyone to buy them but want to help those who are thinking to make their own decisions (get it or run away).

raubvogel
June 25, 2017, 22:58
So I stopped by that LGS today since I was near that area. And brought some white packing paper so it is easier for me to take pictures (the glass on their counters was not helping). I will post those pictures later since I am lazy.

4markk, I read your thread (http://www.falfiles.com/forums/showthread.php?t=361192) on making one of those work. I think the receiver I saw there has the very same issues. One I would like to mention is the overhang you mentioned with this picture:
http://i745.photobucket.com/albums/xx93/4markk/L1A1-7/DCIReceiveroverhangwings_zpsad238a70.jpg
They look like little steps that raise the rear of the receiver some 1mm high. That would explain the gap between it and the trigger I took a picture of last week. If it must be there for a reason, and I expect it to be related to how the centerline of the barrel threads were cut into the receiver issue you mentioned.

I also have some brand new mag lugs to put on the front of a magazine so it would work with an inch receiver (want to put them on the inch magazines I have that were converted to metric, but that is for another thread). By themselves they fit nicely in the hole but the magazine doesn't. And yet a metric one does. Then I saw a nice thread comparing metric vs inch receivers (http://m14forum.com/foreign/36787-fal-inch-vs-metric.html) with pretty pictures, two of which I found very interesting. The first one,
http://cnr-ffl.us/FAL/inchVmetricCHslot.jpg
seems to imply there is more meat ahead of the magazine well in an inch receiver compared to the metric one. And the second one,
http://cnr-ffl.us/FAL/inchVmetricstubs.jpg
shows the front of the inch mag well is further forward than the metric one, specially when we compare it to the feed ramps. Now, the CAI receiver is not cut like that. When you fixed your inch mag problem (8.a), did you extend the hole a bit forward?

Not trying to convince anyone to buy them but want to help those who are thinking to make their own decisions (get it or run away).

I promised myself I would not post my opinion about this (CAI) receiver, but what I can say is that if you have one or was thinking on getting one you should look at 4markk's thread (http://www.falfiles.com/forums/showthread.php?t=361192) to see how much work will it require to make it work. And then decide if it worth it.