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.




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



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



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:



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

[MWDG3]

[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)


Type 2 (pic credit: DSA)


Type 3 (pic credit: Entreprise)


Inch (pic credit: Entreprise)



====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.

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?!


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/u...&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.

[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 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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

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

[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