View Full Version : Ident/Aussie: Eden L1A1- Batch Marks

October 08, 2002, 20:33
I have misplaced my Skennerton/SLR. Will someone please tell me the year for body batch ABN?

October 08, 2002, 20:56

Pg. 94 lists the following:

ABA 1969
ABB-ABG 1970
ABH-ABM 1971
ABO 1973-1985

Hope this helps.


October 08, 2002, 21:02

I find no reference to body batch ABN. ABM is 1971. ABOstarts in 1973.

Was there an ABN batch? Maybe 1972?

October 08, 2002, 21:33
Mark , don't let Ted see this or he'll tell you to use the "SEARCH" feature.

Upon plugging in the words (ABN body batch ) the most recent thread contains Kevin(NZ L1A1 opinions about this batch mark.

The FAL Files Forums - Eden L1A1 rifles?

October 08, 2002, 22:02
I am examining an Eden Receiver. It looks bogus. The Eden writing is correct, but there are several problems that make me suspicious of its origin.

1. Its not a true inch cut mag well - it looks like a modified metric

2. The heat treat batch number seems odd (reference the thread lined above)

3. The engraving is wrong. It is SUPPOSED to be "RIFLE 7.62MM. L1A1. A" in an ariel/helvitica font, and the A an overstamp. the A is lighter, but is engraved, not an overstamp. the writing is L1.A1. which is correct for british guns and possibly some aussies, but the character spacing is incorrect. the "1" come to a point at the bottom - looks like a pantograph "lifting" at the end of the character. The side of the receiver has been wiped. it is .0020 thinner than it should be and the blanchard marks do not cross under the engravin, nor do they match the verticle striations that start at the end of the cocking handle slot and get finer, disappearing under the "RI" of Rifle.

The lightening cut is the wrong depth, width, and contour, and was ground, not machined.

The contour of the longitudal lightening cuts is wrong. The "Eden" is 45 degree chamfer. An australian is a 90 degree step transitioning to a 45 degree. Th end of the cocking handle rail is wrong too.

But the tool marks from the blanchard type cut on some areas are perfect. The flats are simply too smooth. They were not machined at the same time or with the same machine as the recessed flats, such as the left side mag well.

It has me confused. There are aenough points that indicate is was australian in origin, but an equal number of points that say "this has been tampered with" I wonder if Lithgow USA had some 80% receivers?

My conclusions so far are

1. receiver was NEVER sear cut
2. Flats have been machined after manufacture
3. Writing L1A1 ets was not done in australia
4. Some or all the lightening cuts were done retroactively
5. Receiver did not start with an inch cut mag notch.

October 08, 2002, 22:27






October 08, 2002, 22:35
Links don't work for me. Pretty elaborate forgery you have there!

October 08, 2002, 22:38
gee - give me 5 minutes to actually finish uploading <grin>

October 08, 2002, 23:32
Hey! Ya got 7 minutes by the looks of things!:redface: :uhoh: :biggrin:

I must be becoming a FALaholic, I have no idea about what you're talking about but I looked at all the pics and can't wait to see what comes of this:rolleyes:

Onward men! Onward!:bow:

October 09, 2002, 00:23

Go to http://www.lisp.com.au/~samuseum/

I forget the curators name but he has helped me quite a bit with Aussie SMLE and SLR tech questions. Their email is listed on the opening page.

Hope this helps you.

NZ L1A1 Collector
October 09, 2002, 00:37
First I thought it was a converted India 1A rifle body, but the machining of the 'lightening cuts' is different to that shown.

It is definitly not a Lithgow manufactured body, the machining is poor and not as per Lithgow manufacture. It could be one of the unfinished 'forgings' that were reportably sold off after lithgow sold all it's L1A1 spares and parts? Maybe this was finished in the US and hence the very poor machining?

Mark could you send me the serial number of this 'beast' and I'll add it to the list with an apropriate note. :)

FAL Hawaii
October 09, 2002, 00:56
The year 1972 is missing from the marks report posted. Possibly they had a bad year and want to forget about it. I arrived in australia in 73. Goof Whitlam I believe was the labor party leader of the country. Possibly the machinist union guys at the shop were doing their own thing during a long strike. Goof was pretty much a hard working mans hero. His picture exiting his limo at night falling down drunk on the first step didn't phase anyone. At any rate there was something to cause the year gap of manufacturing and the N not being used. There could of been another country manufacturing a test batch under the ABN model reference. Possibly Russian for my first guess. World trade and all that stuff. Somebody has to do a history of the FAL in Australia. I'll write an aussie friend who hunted/chased off roo's allot who might know.

October 09, 2002, 00:59
I have 10 Lithgow chopped receivers sitting in front of me and several exibit the deep machinemarks (same radius of cutter) that are on the mag well of the eden one. I realise that it isn't as "pretty" as other Lithgow receivers, but its kindof hard to miss.



October 09, 2002, 08:32
Machining looks WAY too sharp/edgy (or dished) on the barrel-to-receiver mate. I'm no markings expert, but that doesn't look like anything I've seen in Skennerton.

Batch markings are discussed in FAQ, but the title is obscure. I've modified it to help searchers. ABN in particular appears to be a forgery.

Brian in MN
October 09, 2002, 08:45
ABN is correct, Mark. Every Aussie I have ever seen pics of or handled has this body batch mark. This includes Poyer, Eden and Onyx guns.

I thought about buying that rifle but decided that it was just too rough. The font used for the markings is the same as those on my Eden which is different than those on the Onyx and Poyer. Like yours, my Eden is also not proofed.

My Eden, however, is machined much nicer and a good deal more consistent with the Onyx. Mine is highly polished and shows far too few machine marks to look like an original Lithgow. I discussed this stuff via e-mail with Ian Skennerton and it was he who suggested to me that some Lithgow receivers were imported in the white and without complete machine work and as such will show various fonts and different levels of polish and what not. The SAF Australia and # markings look original but the L1A1A markings were probably applied here. My .02 says that the receiver is a genuine L1A1A, just a rough one.

In contrast, the Onyx I have handled is marked and machined just like a military/Poyer Lithgow L1A1A.

October 09, 2002, 22:15
According to the Skennerton book, all of the Lithgow rifles were serial numbered in the SAF 830004 through SAF 830200 range.

October 09, 2002, 22:23
Why the wiped right side tho? No SN? Or the 80% theory holds true.

October 09, 2002, 22:34
I have corresponded with a mr White (?) at the SAFL Museum who mentioned that Mr. skinnerton's book is good, but far from complete. I personally have had many L1A1A rifles (gosh I wish I kept them) from the 85-86. Fred from National Match Armory was training there before poyer knew what a FAL was and brough back several transferrable L2A1s and L1As, as well as a bunch of receivers - as did lithgow USA. They were perfect and matching the military rifles in every respect except they said "SAF Australia 8600xx instead of "AD xxxxxx" came with SA eB installed and machined with receiver.

I wish I knew enough then to check for batch marks

Brian in MN
October 09, 2002, 23:17
You might check out this thread, Mark. Might be a tidbit or two that is useful. The "8" marking in kinda wierd.