The FAL Files  

Go Back   The FAL Files > Weapons Discussion > Gunsmithing & Build It Yourself

Notices

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old January 14, 2004, 19:49   #1
Harlan at FAC
Registered
 
FALaholic #: 548
Join Date: Aug 2000
Posts: 875
Post your Century receiver reports

Please post responses here that report your experiences or issues with the current production Century FAL and L1A1 receivers. From these posts, I will distill into a report that will be forwarded to Century. Your posted images with references will be useful.

Harlan
FAC
Harlan at FAC is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 14, 2004, 20:29   #2
RKW1969
Registered
 
FALaholic #: 8918
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Oklahoma
Posts: 113
hey harlan i had 2 problems with mine. first was the bottom of the mag well on the long side is not straight. makes getting a mag in and out hard. take a straight edge and place it next to it and see.
second the gas tube nut wont screw in all the way into the reciever. lacks about 1.8 of an inch and since i dont have a tap in that size i am stuck with the gap. may try a bolt in that pitch to clean out the threads. other than that i would buy another.
__________________
Drink till she's cute
Stop before the wedding!
RKW1969 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 14, 2004, 21:44   #3
uhclem
Registered
 
FALaholic #: 12094
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: tucson
Posts: 10
Have had three main issues with the ones I've been involved with.

One, the magwells are very tight - are about 0.025" too tight in width.

Second issue is that they are not cut nearly enough for extractor clearance.

Third issue was that one receiver the barrel threads were VERY tight - barrel would go in about three turns and then stop (much tighter the the IMBELs with "tight" threads). Have chased the threads with a tap, but haven't gone beyond that yet on this one.

But so far they do seem to work pretty well for the money, once the problems are tweaked. For $108 I have no regrets.
uhclem is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 14, 2004, 22:18   #4
elbo
Registered
 
elbo's Avatar
 
FALaholic #: 8362
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: va
Posts: 2,794

Here is why the mag well is tight.
I was arfaid to try to straighten this, being a casting.

I had to take a few thousanths off of the length before it would latch with the lower. That's better than being too short.

Barrel threads were tight but worked fine.

Locking shoulder was extremely tight compared to a Coonon or IMBEL.

All other holes, cuts and threads were fine.

Add: I think it is an excellent value.
__________________
Keep your trust in God; Your government has failed you miserably.
The Lord Gives Me Grace and the Devil Gives Me Style
elbo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 14, 2004, 22:33   #5
Gumaro
Registered
 
FALaholic #: 8427
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Alvin, TX
Posts: 66
Reciever threads to tight, need to chase threads w/ die if I can find a cheap one for a one time use, also BHO screw hole and LS hole to small.
Gumaro is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 15, 2004, 22:46   #6
baten
Registered
Contributor
 
FALaholic #: 7568
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Houston
Posts: 178
uhclem,
Any chance of renting your tap to chase the threads in my CAI inch receiver? I just picked it up today from my FFL and the threads were not finished or are very tight - couldn't get a good inch barrel, a new STG barrel, or a good Imbel to screw in more than 2 - 2 1/2 threads.

Harlan,
I will give a report on this receiver and a metric I purchased in the next couple of days when I have time to check things out.

Thanks,
Bill
baten is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 16, 2004, 09:15   #7
RKW1969
Registered
 
FALaholic #: 8918
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Oklahoma
Posts: 113
i have the same gap but didnt know what it was. i thought it was just supposed to be like that. imma look mine over again.
__________________
Drink till she's cute
Stop before the wedding!
RKW1969 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 16, 2004, 11:30   #8
acr
Registered
 
FALaholic #: 3654
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Arkansas
Posts: 127
The last one I got was from you. It had the same magazine well problem that elbo showed above, but not quite as bad. I just removed metal from inside the mag well with a file and dremel untill the mags fit niceley. Actually, I had a few mags that fit fine anyway, but most would not go in or out easily. This receiver also had to have the mag catch/ bho hole enlarged a bit for the screw to fit correctly and also needed a little dremel work so that the barrel would not bottom out in the receiver before the shoulder contacted the front of the receiver. This did not take to long to fix and the rifle works 100%.
acr is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 16, 2004, 15:36   #9
jimmieZ
Registered
Contributor
 
FALaholic #: 319
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Marietta, GA, USA
Posts: 697
My "observations" from my build: (Metric Rec.)

1. BHO screw recess not large enough in ID - had to open it up with drill

2. Threads not deep enough on gas tube nut hole - had to chase with tap.

3. .050 to .10 gap between front of carrier & rec. face with bolt carrier closed all the way - looks "strange". Needs rear of rec. face to come back some & less of a cut-out on vertical ledge - compare with Coonan & you will see (compare right sides at front).

4. I had to dremel 0.020 off front of mag well for clearance to insert mags.

Altogether, it was a pretty smmoth build - above problems took about 20 min. to correct. Gap at front right of carrier (when locked in battery) is the most annoying issue now. Still good value for the money.

Jim Z

Last edited by jimmieZ; January 16, 2004 at 15:45.
jimmieZ is online now   Reply With Quote
Old January 16, 2004, 17:31   #10
Powderfinger
Registered
 
Powderfinger's Avatar
 
FALaholic #: 12897
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: WA state
Posts: 3,900
1. Same as Shlomo- .068 less than the original stub (STG-58) measured between rec. face and where barrel shoulder contacts front of rec. This sent me looking for ways to close gap in front of bolt carrier.
2 Mag well WAY too tight.
3. BHO screw hole not lined up. Had to narrow screw head OD to get it to bottom out.
4. Rec. rails inside where bolt drops down into lock position too narrow . Bolt hung up. Had to file some.
5. lock shoulder hole way tight. Had to hone out.
I've Posted on here elsewhere that I'd buy another but after second thought the extra spent on an Imbel might be well spent. My buddy also had similar problems w/ his Century build. After getting some good advice about his problems w/ Case seperation and other things on the gunsmithing thread it sounds like he has a POS now from his attempted fixes. By the way they are both metric.
Powderfinger is online now   Reply With Quote
Old January 17, 2004, 23:50   #11
JoeBud
Registered
 
FALaholic #: 7300
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Arkansas
Posts: 31
With Acr's guidance I am attempting my first build. The mag well on mine is tight on some mags, fine on others. BHO screw hole was fine. I also noticed the gap between receiver and carrier face. The gap seems to be caused by that "ear" that sticks out the bottom of the carrier hitting the ejector block preventing it from coming all the way forward. It is a very noticable gap. Not very attractive. Gas tube nut doesn't screw all the way down, but the barrel threads were not tight. Hand screwed on with no problems. So far that seems to be it.
JoeBud is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 18, 2004, 00:02   #12
pointman762
Registered
 
pointman762's Avatar
 
FALaholic #: 7827
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Indiana
Posts: 483
Each of 3 metrics recently acquired had slightly varying problems. One was flat out exceptional to build, not as good as a Coonan but it was all basically drop in with a G1 kit.

The other 2 were different stories each. Problems included:

The hole for the mag catch screw head being out of alignment. More accurately the ejector blocks were out of alignment as witnessed by the gaps around them.

Mag catch screw pin hole had to be drilled out.

Mag well very tight

Mag catch slot not square

Hinge pin hole slightly off square

Barrel threads needed chased (JB compound works too)

Piston hole slightly off center and undersized

In one, the flats where the bolt rests when closed were too high for the bolt to close on a round but strangely would close on headspace gauges.

2 required shortening at the rear before they would clear the lower and close/latch.

All told I enjoyed the challenge and wouldn't hesitate to use them again for shooters.
__________________
"Oh bother" Said Pooh, as the tripwire clicked.

"There are two things that are infinite; Human stupidity and the
universe... and I'm not sure about the universe." - Albert Einstein
pointman762 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 18, 2004, 02:28   #13
Orion 762
Registered
 
Orion 762's Avatar
 
FALaholic #: 3964
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Mississippi
Posts: 433
CAI metric receiver:

1. BHO/mag catch screw pin hole - not aligned with hole in ejector block.

2. Very tight mag well, with bowed "inward" walls as shown earlier

3. LS hole was tight, but LS installled with a vise OK. Can't get it out though!

4. Ejector block was made from a modified FA block. Looked like bead-welds were added so it's only SemiAuto, but looks weird.

5. Ejector block, though tight, does not fully contact receiver walls on one side.


Most of the other problems were typical "heavy park" issues, little filing and polishing and she went together OK.

Shoot great on an Imbel Grade III kit.

Orioon 762
__________________

"When, in the course of human events, . . . "
Orion 762 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 27, 2004, 10:29   #14
Harlan at FAC
Registered
 
FALaholic #: 548
Join Date: Aug 2000
Posts: 875
I had a discussion concerning the Century FAL and L1A1 receivers with a senior Century manager who is closely involved in the manufacturing and assembly process of firearms. We discussed the issues of tight mag well, ejector block installation, and forward receiver section specs.
All issues were understood.
The Century manager stated that the receivers have been subjected to systematic improvement and that the receivers coming off the production line now are "better" than before. Because we (FAC) are selling out of previous production runs, this improved receiver will first be seen on the latest FAL rifles that Century is assembling.
The "bow" seen in the right mag well wall is a result from the casting and heat treat processes. If need be, this can be cold straightened without intregral damage caused to the entire receiver.
The receiver design is based on FN factory specs, which I was told are different from IMBEL specs. The forward section gap reported by some posters in this thread will be looked at again, but it may be a result from the collection of parts from various countries of manufacture. The gap is cosmetic and does not affect function.


Harlan
FAC
Harlan at FAC is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 27, 2004, 14:23   #15
spiny_norman
Registered
 
spiny_norman's Avatar
 
FALaholic #: 8110
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 35
The gap is cosmetic and does not affect function.

That said, has anyone come up with a solution?




Would it be safe to The gap seems to be caused by that "ear" that sticks out the bottom of the carrier hitting the ejector block preventing it from coming all the way forward. It is a very noticable gap.

Bearing in mind I am a total newbie, dangerously armed with a dremel and a desire to not have that cosmetic flaw? Would it be safe to try and adjust this or should I leave well enough alone and build another one (he said looking for an excuse to spend more money
)
__________________
After a shooting spree, they always want to take the guns away from the people who didn't do it. I sure as hell wouldn't want to live in a society where the only people allowed guns are the police and the military.

--William S. Burroughs
spiny_norman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 28, 2004, 14:38   #16
ce
Registered
 
ce's Avatar
 
FALaholic #: 373
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: New Mexico
Posts: 6,243
Shlomo, what I noticed was an improvement in group size from adjusting the dwell of the gas piston by shortening it until there was gap from the carrier when closed.

On some of these a standard piston is too long and it holds off the carrier, but more worrisome, the carrier smacks the piston when returning into battery, which in turn bangs into the gas plug.
There should be no contact between the piston and carrier until the piston moves rearward, and I'm sure there is an optimum gap, I just don't know what that is.
ce is online now   Reply With Quote
Old January 29, 2004, 15:15   #17
Scott S
Registered
 
FALaholic #: 355
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Austin, Texas
Posts: 3,509
Oops. Shoulda posted in this thread instead of here:
Century receiver tight magwell issue thread
Scott S is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 30, 2004, 22:37   #18
RetVet
Registered
 
RetVet's Avatar
 
FALaholic #: 7197
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: WV
Posts: 153
Ditto most of what's already been said.

Overall appearance was ok. A few scratches to the parked finish, probably by the second party vendor. The parked finish is not good as some I've seen, but ok. Overall machining looked pretty good.

The hinge pin joint fits tightly to the lower. I tried both metric and inch lowers on it with the same results. This is ok by me.

The mag well is very tight. I can get a metric mag in there, but not to the point of locking in place. Lot's of work needed here.

I slipped on 3 different barrels to see how they'd hand time. A new Argentine barrel timed to about 10:30, A used G1 barrel timed perfectly to 11:00, and a used Imbel barrel timed to about 9:30 and appeared to have bottomed out. Each barrel spun on with little effort.

I fitted Inch spec BHO and mag release parts, so I can't say how their metric counterparts would have worked. The Inch type mag release just need a few strokes on one surface to fit nicely. The BHO needed to be reduced in diameter a bit to fit well.

I'm still a ways off from putting this thing together, so I've yet to encounter the problems others have already noted.

Imbels, Coonans, and the DSA receivers are in a different class from this one, but for the $120 delivered I paid for it, I'd say it's a pretty good deal for a low $$ shooter.
RetVet is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 31, 2004, 01:25   #19
Orion 762
Registered
 
Orion 762's Avatar
 
FALaholic #: 3964
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Mississippi
Posts: 433
I'm a bit confused on "where" the carrier is "supposed" to stop on it's forward motion as the bolt moves into battery and lockup on the LS:

a. carrier hits the rear side of the receiver breach area, or
b. carrier hits the right-side "ear" sticking up on the ejector block, or
c. carrier bottoms out on the rear of the bolt.

Which of these is the "designed" surface for stopping the bolt?

I looked at the bolt-carrier setup on two other Imbel/Imbel builds, and it looks like the back of the bolt is regularly "contacted" by the carrier on both of these (nice wear spot is visible just above the firing pin on back of the bolt). But this may just be caused when the bolt "drops into battery" as the carrier moves on forward.

I always "thought" that the carrier was "designed" to stop at the receiver breach (a), but then what function does the "ear" on the ejector block serve?

Thoughts . . . . ??

Orion 762
__________________

"When, in the course of human events, . . . "
Orion 762 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 01, 2004, 02:17   #20
Orion 762
Registered
 
Orion 762's Avatar
 
FALaholic #: 3964
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Mississippi
Posts: 433
shlomo . . . you've made some very good observations and point. As I suspected, the carrier "should" contact the front wall of the receiver. On my Century metric, the carrier was initially "stopping" on the right-side carrier guide rail . . . right near the breach. The radiused cutout there was not "long enough" toward the breach. I Dremelled this out for clearance, and NOW the carrier is hitting/stopping on the "ear" sticking up from the ejector bock.

I suspect that if I "relieve" the ear enough to let the carrier go further forward to "stop on the receiver wall", then I may have the "bolt contact" problem you mentioned earlier. Right now the carrier "stops" on the ejector-block-ear, leaving a "gap" of about 0.030" between the carrier "contact pad" and the receiver wall.

Any suggestions?
__________________

"When, in the course of human events, . . . "
Orion 762 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 03, 2004, 17:04   #21
jb573
Registered User
 
FALaholic #: 11551
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 84
Century receiver

I tend to disagree with Harlan or what Century is telling him, the missing material on the receiver at the breech face is very wrong....As in the preceeding posts , a very dangerous headspace condition may result from the carrier forcing the cartridge deeper into the chamber and creating a gap between the rear of the bolt and locking shoulder, common sense would indicate that when the cartridge is fired the bolt and case would recoil to the rear slamming against the locking shoulder, if nothing else would not that greatly shorten the life of the receiver , and possibly cause case rupture.. I have one of those receivers and have the problem described in the above posts..Had All the problems as described in All the above posts..lucky I have a machine shop at my disposal so I could REMACHINE most of the receiver.. Cannot see how Century can sell these as a completed receiver,80% maybe , but not completed.. Not sure how I`m going to fix the carrier to bolt gap now,,sure do not like welding on the carrier !! jb
jb573 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 03, 2004, 19:49   #22
gsmart
Registered
 
FALaholic #: 904
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Corpus Christi, TX
Posts: 769
The carrier doesnt "force the cartridge" anywhere; you headspace the BOLT to the barrel. The carrier only CARRIES the bolt (hence the clever name "carrier") to the point that it travels forward and drops to lock on the locking shoulder. If you have properly headspaced, the bolt or cartridge cant be forced any farther than lockup and it certainly wont be "slamming back" anywhere. Now if you DONT properly headspace, then I suggest a good Hospitalization Policy... Or a Will.

Harlan - Why dont you give Century the contents of my previous "fix em up" posting, that we had discussed before. BTW, the newer metrics are a little better than the old ones. I finally got my hands on one recently. They still suffer the off center/undersize gas piston hole, though. Someone needs to buy those boys a piloted counterbore...

Cheers!
gsmart is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 03, 2004, 22:14   #23
gsmart
Registered
 
FALaholic #: 904
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Corpus Christi, TX
Posts: 769
You obviously dont understand how a FAL works. The bolt cant travel any farther forward than the cartridge will allow based on its contact with the chamber and the bolt face. The carrier doesnt affect this whatsoever. This relation is called the headspace and is a controlled dimension. No matter what amount of material is there or not there on the reciever face, the headspace is ALWAYS controlled by the position of the chamber , the bolt length to the locking lug and the position of the locking shoulder. How the carrier contacts the reciever is irrelevant, unless there is EXTRA material, which would stop the carrier from travelling forward far enough to carry the bolt into battery. THIS condition does exist on some Century recievers.

AND FYI - I have been around here for quite some time myself.
gsmart is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 04, 2004, 05:29   #24
jb573
Registered User
 
FALaholic #: 11551
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 84
receiver

Give it some thought gsmart, shlomo is correct. It is absolutely possible for the force of the carrier and recoil assembly to cause the case to deform as in collapsing the shoulder ,albeit slightly but only a few tho and you have an excessive headspace situation.. The FAL is not an open bolt weapon, no unnecessary pressure should be applied to the cartridge case.Nuff said..Now how in the Hell do I fix the problem..Shlomo thanks for pointing out the problem to begin with, I have built a few , and have never seen this before, but have never built with a Century reject before neither.. Thanks,, jb
jb573 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 06, 2004, 11:01   #25
Scott S
Registered
 
FALaholic #: 355
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Austin, Texas
Posts: 3,509
I have one of the newer Centurys that exhibits the same carrier/receiver gap at the front breech wall of the receiver. Gave this issue some thought last night. Could one install an inch-type breeching washer of adequate thickness to effectively move the entire front end far enough forward to allow the carrier to contact the receiver? I think the ejector would present a problem, though--might still prevent the carrier from moving far enough forward, as Orion 762 reported. I suppose one could notch the ejector...
Scott S is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 06, 2004, 11:48   #26
elbo
Registered
 
elbo's Avatar
 
FALaholic #: 8362
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: va
Posts: 2,794
Quote:
Originally posted by Scott S
I have one of the newer Centurys that exhibits the same carrier/receiver gap at the front breech wall of the receiver. Gave this issue some thought last night. Could one install an inch-type breeching washer of adequate thickness to effectively move the entire front end far enough forward to allow the carrier to contact the receiver? I think the ejector would present a problem, though--might still prevent the carrier from moving far enough forward, as Orion 762 reported. I suppose one could notch the ejector...
Except for the half inch locking shoulder.
__________________
Keep your trust in God; Your government has failed you miserably.
The Lord Gives Me Grace and the Devil Gives Me Style
elbo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 06, 2004, 12:11   #27
Orion 762
Registered
 
Orion 762's Avatar
 
FALaholic #: 3964
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Mississippi
Posts: 433
I gave this some thought as well . . . .

Tried 3 different bolt/carriers from 2 other "Imbel receivered" FAL's, in a 6-way rotation of bolt/receiver combinations . . . measuring the clearance between the "back of the bolt" and the "inside back of the carrier" as Shlomo suggested.

The "Imbel" setups all showed "no contact" between the bolt/carrier when in battery (clearance gap of between 0.030" and 0.040"). But on the Century reciever, they all showed "no clearance" if the carrier is allowed to come fully forward and make receiver contact on the carrier "contact pad" (on the front of the carrier).

(To get the carrier on my Century setup to go fully forward, I first had to relieve the "ejector ear" contact point on the carrier about 0.040". Now that the carrier comes "fully forward" to contact the receiver at the "contact pad", there is "no clearance" between the back of the bolt and the inside back of the carrier.)

To fix this, I suggest simply removing some metal from the "inside back" of the carrier. This way I''ll have only-modified-my-carrier to fit this particular receiver. These same modifications should also NOT AFFECT using this carrier in other receivers (assuming the carrier contact-pad actually makes contact with the receiver). Or as Shlomo mentioned, "adding metal" to the contact-pad would work fine as well.

What do ya'll think??

Orion 762
__________________

"When, in the course of human events, . . . "
Orion 762 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 06, 2004, 23:29   #28
baten
Registered
Contributor
 
FALaholic #: 7568
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Houston
Posts: 178
I don't know Bruce, I am anal enough I would have a problem doing any filing or WECSOGing (removing material) on the bolt or bolt carrier to "make it work". I pulled out my FALs to look over the problem you guys have been talking about, and compared what I found with the metric and inch Century receivers I received recently.

I have three Imbel receivered FALs (a Imbel kit, a STG kit, and a Argy para kit) - all bolt carriers fit up tight against the breach face with a dummy round loaded (one of these is a para). I checked my one DSA receivered FAL - the FN bolt carrier fit tight against the face. I checked my two DCI receivered FALs - the bolt carriers had a gap of 0.030 to about 0.045" to the breach face. The CAI receiver with an Imbel barrel and bolt carrier had a gap of about 0.080". I am assuming you need to remove the firing pin to measure the distance from the back of the bolt to the back of the bolt carrier when everything is locked up. I was too lazy to do that - I'm tired.

Both CAI receivers I received have major problems. I need to take a few pics of them and add to this thread. I will probably send both of them back instead of monkey around with them. I just cannot believe the crappy quality control on the CAI receivers. It makes me wonder if Century is dumping all their "seconds" on the market and building their own guns on the better receivers.

Good luck working out the problems on your project. My inch build will have to wait a little longer.

Bill
baten is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 07, 2004, 13:18   #29
ratas calientes
Registered
 
ratas calientes's Avatar
 
FALaholic #: 1841
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: New Mexico
Posts: 8,160
Great thread, folks.
I did manage to spend a little time looking at my metric Century build. I thought that I would offer up some photos and some of what I have observed.

On my build, I had the usual issues:
1) I used a tap on the receiver to clear out the heavy park and some metal from the barrel threads.
2) I still had to run a die down the barrel threads to get the barrel to hand time.
3) Hand timing was just fine, no material removed from the barrel shoulder.
4) Lower fit was tight. I cleaned up the radii on the upper with a sanding disk on the Dremel.
5) BHO screw was tight - I drilled out the thru hole slightly.
6) Mags fit too tight on the magazine latch - I will file a few thou' off eventually.
7) The receiver rails near the breach were too narrow - again a common problem. I removed the barrel so I could properly file back the one on the left side. Previosly, it would close on the GO gauge, but not on a cartridge.
8) I also filed back a small "bump" on the left side of the rails near the breach - I could feel the bolt carrier hitting it as it closed.

Now the real problem. The bolt carrier was closing against the gas piston. When I removed the gas piston, I could then feel the bolt carrier close against the rear of the ejector block. Just not right.

Here are some photos of how a FAL bolt carrier should close. (G-1 kit on Entreprise Type 1.) The first is the front of a bolt carrier, the arrow indicates the surface that should impact the front/inside face ot the receiver:



A matching photo showing the front/inside of a receiver (Entreprise Type 1) showing where the bolt carrier hits:



This is another view of the front/inside of a receiver (Entreprise Type 1) that has the proper relationships between parts. The gas piston is 0.058" below flush. Note the depth of the face:



My metric Century receiver. The gas piston protrudes 0.055" beyond the face of the receiver. Note the excessive depth of the front face. The area outlined is where I an considering a fix. I will probably pull the receiver, and have this area welded up to add material, then machine it back to the correct height so that the bolt carrier contacts here:




edited to add that this is for a metric receiver.
__________________
Ratas Calientes (Hot Rats)
Rats are people too!

Last edited by ratas calientes; February 10, 2004 at 17:56.
ratas calientes is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 08, 2004, 02:29   #30
Orion 762
Registered
 
Orion 762's Avatar
 
FALaholic #: 3964
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Mississippi
Posts: 433
Ratas, Shlomo, and Baten . . . you guys are clearly on-target that the correct solution would be:

a. (easiest) add some metal to the contact pad on the carrier

b. (best) add some metal to the receiver breach.

"b" is best because you would then be able "swap out" other carrieres without modifying them. "a" would allow this particular carrier to "work" with this particular receiver, but it would "stop short" if later swapped to another (Imbel) receiver. However, both "a and b" leave an apparent GAP visible where the carrier mates up to the receiver when in battery.

Since I had already "relieved" my carrier where it contacts the "ejector ear", I went ahead and removed about 0.020" from the inside-rear of the carrier (where it was contacting the rear of the bolt in battery). Now, when my carrier slams forward (making contact on the carrier's "contact pad" as it should), I have about 0.020" clearance between the rear of the bolt and the inside-rear of the carrier. (The Imbels I had checked earlier had about 0.030" or so of clearance when in battery, but I didn't want to take off too much so stopped at 0.020".)

This "particular carrier" is now custom fitted to the particular Century receiver. Other "normal" carriers will still work, but they will make contact at the "ejector ear" and leave about .050" or so of GAP between the carrier and the receiver breach (I really don't like this gap). I also think that my "modified" or relieved carrier will still work in a "normal" Imbel receiver . . . it will still fly forward and bottom-out at the contact pad.

From studying the design of the "working surfaces" between the bolt and the inside of the carrier, it "seems to me" that removing the 0.020" from the rear/inside/back of the carrier should have no affect on bolt motion or lockup into battery. The bolt itself if either "dragged backwards" (during ejection) or "pushed forward" (during chambering into battery) by different surfaces, but NONE of these involve the "rear inside" of the carrier.

I took this Century receivered FAL "shooting" today, and noticed remarkably less "vertical stringing". Using "10 round groups" and "gas-off" single shot mode, I got:

1. Black Hills 168 grain Moly coated HP (2 MOA)
2. Aussie surplus (3 MOA)

Then in semiauto mode with Aussie ammo, I got consistent 4-5 MOA 10 shot groups. This was all done with a Leupold 2-7X33 scope on an ARMS mount. (With the iron-sights, I'm not quite this good!).

Not a sniper rifle, Indeed! But at least the vertical stringing has been reduced. I suspect (as Shlomo" pointed out), that "carrier contact on the rear of the bolt" was the cause of the "stringing" I had with this rifle earlier.

Summary of main Century reciever challenges (without adding metal which would be the best approach, as noted earlier):

1. tight mag well (lots of grinding to get easy mag insertion)
2. removed about 0.050" from length of the gas piston (on the receiver end)
3. relieved about 0.020" from the carrier "ear contact ledge" and about 0.020" from the inside/rear of the carrier.

Seems to shoot OK, and I no longer have the "GAP" beteen the carrier and receiver breach.

BTW - - what is the puirpose of the "ejector ear" and the mating ledge on the carrier? If the carrier hits-first on the forward contact-pad, then why do we need the "ejector ear"?? Any Hints?

Orion 762
__________________

"When, in the course of human events, . . . "
Orion 762 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 09, 2004, 15:14   #31
Scott S
Registered
 
FALaholic #: 355
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Austin, Texas
Posts: 3,509
Quote:
Originally posted by elbo
Except for the half inch locking shoulder.
Doh!

Looked at this beast again and had a couple more thoughts. One, what about soldering, gluing, or using some other method to affix a shim at the front of the receiver where the carrier should make contact? Perhaps jury rig the dust cover to hold said shim in place. Wouldn't be pretty, but it oughta work.

Two, on the bottom rear of the carrier you'll find a couple tabs. The left side tab is longer than the right one. Looking inside the receiver, there are corresponding spots, at the ejector block, where I assume the tabs either come in contact or come very close to contacting. The left side "stop" is actually the rear termination of the left side feed lip. The right side "stop" is a piece that protrudes up from the ejector block. What purpose do these tabs serve? Could either of these spots, particularly the one on the right, be used to provide a solid stop for the forward travel of the carrier?

Damn, wish I had a digital camera...
Scott S is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 09, 2004, 22:18   #32
tac-40
Moderator
Armed Curmudgeon
 
tac-40's Avatar
 
FALaholic #: 12090
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: SC-Low Country
Posts: 5,476
I just got my century metric from FAC and started the build. Found as ratas calientes photos showed, the very deep cuts on the receiver breech face and protruding gas piston. Op check showed the piston does not contact the bolt carrier. Took a small india stone to the various contact areas prior to assemble to remove burrs and bumps. No problems noticed. The mag well is very tight and will take metal removal to correct, just gotta figure out where. BHO screw hole was drilled out to 1/8" so it would fit. Barrel (G1) handtimed to 11:30, so I peened the shoulder 360 degrees to ensure proper torque (before peening ~80 ft/lbs, after peening ~125 ft/lbs).

Looking at what was described above, I have the same problem, the BC doesn't go all the way forward. Contact is on the rear of the sear block ear (right side) and on the rear of the rail by the ejector(left side). I have ~.016" clearance between the rear of the bolt and the bolt carrier when in battery. As a check, I placed a .055" shim on the receiver breech face where the BC contact pad is and the results were great. The Bolt just goes to maximum lock on the LS when the BC hits the shim (receiver face). There was no detectable side play in the BC or Bolt with the shim in place as opposed to a "sloppy feeling" without the shim.

Just like above (ratas calientes photos), I will TIG up a "contact pad" on the receiver breech face, in the same location noted in the photos, to give me about a .08" bead. Because I don't have access to machine shop equipment, I will have to Dremel the pad into spec and shape.

So thanks to the FalFilers, I have been able to trouble shoot a problem that I didn't know existed and may even be able to get some WECSOG points.

Yeehaaa
__________________
Only 2 defining forces have ever offered to die for you.....Jesus Christ and the American Soldier. One died for your soul, the other for your freedom.

Lt. Col. Grant L. Rosensteel, Jr. USAF


______________________________

If you do in fact have a problem, you have the rest of your life to solve it. How long your life lasts only depends on how well you solve it.
tac-40 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old February 10, 2004, 01:10   #33
Bruce Allen
Registered
 
FALaholic #: 186
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: SC
Posts: 5,702
Quote:
Originally posted by Scott S
...Two, on the bottom rear of the carrier you'll find a couple tabs. The left side tab is longer than the right one. Looking inside the receiver, there are corresponding spots, at the ejector block, where I assume the tabs either come in contact or come very close to contacting. The left side "stop" is actually the rear termination of the left side feed lip. The right side "stop" is a piece that protrudes up from the ejector block. What purpose do these tabs serve? Could either of these spots, particularly the one on the right, be used to provide a solid stop for the forward travel of the carrier?

Damn, wish I had a digital camera...
That "tab" is there to contact the safety sear in an original configuration FAL.
It no longer serves a purpose. I grind mine back to the length of the one on the right side.
__________________
You cannot post 'Thou Shalt Not Steal,' 'Thou Shalt Not Commit Adultery,' and 'Thou Shall Not Lie' in a building full of lawyers, judges and politicians. It creates a hostile work environment.
Bruce Allen is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 10, 2004, 11:25   #34
ratas calientes
Registered
 
ratas calientes's Avatar
 
FALaholic #: 1841
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: New Mexico
Posts: 8,160
Quote:
Originally posted by tac-40
... Op check showed the piston does not contact the bolt carrier. ...
How close does yours come to contacting the gas piston? Mine was barely contacting. I placed my fingers on the gas plug, and just as the bolt stopped forward motion, I could feel the gas piston push on the gas plug. I would them remove the gas piston, and it felt nearly the same as it stopped. It seems to contact the gas piston and the ejector block at nearly the same time.

Quote:
Originally posted by tac-40
... I will TIG up a "contact pad" on the receiver breech face, in the same location noted in the photos, to give me about a .08" bead. Because I don't have access to machine shop equipment, I will have to Dremel the pad into spec and shape.
...
Be sure and post some photos of your permanent fix. I won't have a chance for a few weeks, minimum, to get back to work on mine. Plus, I won't be welding my own, but I have a reference for a good welder - and I hear he also likes to shoot. My hopes are he can help me out on the cheap. ( <----typical gun owner. )
__________________
Ratas Calientes (Hot Rats)
Rats are people too!
ratas calientes is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 10, 2004, 16:30   #35
FAL4ME2
Registered
 
FAL4ME2's Avatar
 
FALaholic #: 10625
Join Date: May 2003
Location: SW MO.
Posts: 102
Are these problems on just the METRIC Rec. ?
Are there pooblems with the INCH Rec. also ?

/
FAL4ME2 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 10, 2004, 17:58   #36
tac-40
Moderator
Armed Curmudgeon
 
tac-40's Avatar
 
FALaholic #: 12090
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: SC-Low Country
Posts: 5,476
Quote:
How close does yours come to contacting the gas piston? Mine was barely contacting. I placed my fingers on the gas plug, and just as the bolt stopped forward motion, I could feel the gas piston push on the gas plug. I would them remove the gas piston, and it felt nearly the same as it stopped. It seems to contact the gas piston and the ejector block at nearly the same time.
Ratas, although hard to measure because everything moves, it appears that I have .008 to .010 clearance before the piston hits the BC. Took my spring and gas tube nut off and moved the piston back and forth to verify measurements. Definitely some clearance.

Hope to get the welding done tomorrow and will be taking pics of each step.

Quote:
Are these Problems on just METRIC Rec.?
Or are their problems with the INCH Rec. to ?
fal4me2, this is my first attempt with a CIA and it is metric. I don't have any experience with their INCH receiver. My next kit is an Aussie L1A1 and it WILL NOT get a Century Receiver because of the dificulties I have noted here.
__________________
Only 2 defining forces have ever offered to die for you.....Jesus Christ and the American Soldier. One died for your soul, the other for your freedom.

Lt. Col. Grant L. Rosensteel, Jr. USAF


______________________________

If you do in fact have a problem, you have the rest of your life to solve it. How long your life lasts only depends on how well you solve it.
tac-40 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old February 11, 2004, 12:06   #37
rynich
Registered
 
rynich's Avatar
 
FALaholic #: 10692
Join Date: May 2003
Location: INDIANA
Posts: 483
I just jumped on this thread, I built an Inch and test fired last night. I had the gas adjust closed all the way and no eject, I made my own gas tube based on an Imbel thick from Gunthings, I had the inside electro plated, I changed the the Gas tube it rocked and rolled but still the gas adjust was closed up all the way. It was also, 25 degrees out I don't know how much effect the cold has on these. Anyway, back to the Inch Century Reciever, I bought this a few months ago I read some of the threads on these, and got it through Harlan. I don't have it in front of me right now but after doing the modifications that were suggested here, before barrel up.
I have had no problems with the Inch reciever. Mine came together in about 35 min. after the Mods were done. All, I had to do on mine was file and polish the gas piston hole to the right, so the gas piston would not bind, I cleared some of the reciever metal to make room for the ejector, filed the rear end of the reciever for good tight lock up with lower, and ran an old barrel in the reciever first because I don't have a tap to clean the threads with before I barreled it. One other thing My inch mags (I only have 2) will fit into the mag well but will not lock in place. They are very tight front to rear, my metric mags work great. I also, turned down my own SS gas piston, but I might just buy a US one it took alot of work to do the gas piston and it may be why my inch shoots closed up tight. Like I said my inch kicked butt last knight, If Harlan would be nice enough to give me another one, I would do a photo essay on the critter.
rynich is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 13, 2004, 18:40   #38
tac-40
Moderator
Armed Curmudgeon
 
tac-40's Avatar
 
FALaholic #: 12090
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: SC-Low Country
Posts: 5,476
Used a TIG welder to build up a pad area on the breech face of the receiver. Unfortunately, my camera does not do macro shots very well and they didn't turn out. However Ratas posted some excellent pix above. Where he circled the area in yellow, is where I built up the pad. Receiver material wanted to flow really easy, don't know if that is because of the base metal (high carbon steel) or because I didn't get all of the park off before welding. Built up the pad, then ground it to shape and depth using the DREADED DREMEL TOOL (+WECSOG POINTS). Once to the desired shape(outline), started smoothing it out flat and true. Checked often with the BC and Bolt to make sure they went fully forward and the bolt locked into position. Ended up with a pad about .025 high off the face. BC cycled smoothly and properly after all the weld area was wire brushed off. The Bolt cammed down properly and the BC moved forward past the max camming point to contact with the breech face. The head space was not affected by this fix. Care was taken to insure the receiver did not get overly hot, and the heat was contained within the weld area. Hopefully I will be able to get it together and test fire it this weekend. Will post those results also. Oh yeah - No Blood. Damn, more - WECSOG points.
__________________
Only 2 defining forces have ever offered to die for you.....Jesus Christ and the American Soldier. One died for your soul, the other for your freedom.

Lt. Col. Grant L. Rosensteel, Jr. USAF


______________________________

If you do in fact have a problem, you have the rest of your life to solve it. How long your life lasts only depends on how well you solve it.
tac-40 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old February 14, 2004, 12:42   #39
ratas calientes
Registered
 
ratas calientes's Avatar
 
FALaholic #: 1841
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: New Mexico
Posts: 8,160
tac-40

You know we'd all love to see photos. Think you can get some taken and posted? Borrow another camera or something?
__________________
Ratas Calientes (Hot Rats)
Rats are people too!
ratas calientes is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 14, 2004, 21:40   #40
tac-40
Moderator
Armed Curmudgeon
 
tac-40's Avatar
 
FALaholic #: 12090
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: SC-Low Country
Posts: 5,476
It took a while to get everything right. An old saying from my Navy days. If at first you don't succeed, get a bigger hammer. If that don't work try reading the F#$%%^ instructions. So, after reading the manual for my camera, I now have some photos available to show my handi work. The finished product is in fact still rough. I am not going to dress everything up until the test firing and any adjustments that might be needed, made. Standard Dremel tool bits worked but were very tight. The next time I am going to try using some diamond point bits I have seen in the catalogs. Maybe some finer control. The first couple of shots show the receiver just after welding and the brown area indicated the heat zone. Very hard to keep it any smaller than that. Went very slow in metal removal to make sure I didn't take too much off anywhere. While finishing up, I used a wire brush and craytex wheel to polish the feed lips and rails. Final fitup was a dream, BC slid easily and contacted the pad I built up. Even though the gas piston sticks out the back of the receiver, it doesn't hit the BC when closed. Oh yeah, the gas piston was installed to gauge my metal removal. I removed it when grinding. Barrel was installed during final grinding to allow for final fitup with BC and BOLT in place.

Here is the link to the pixs:

PIX of the FIX
__________________
Only 2 defining forces have ever offered to die for you.....Jesus Christ and the American Soldier. One died for your soul, the other for your freedom.

Lt. Col. Grant L. Rosensteel, Jr. USAF


______________________________

If you do in fact have a problem, you have the rest of your life to solve it. How long your life lasts only depends on how well you solve it.

Last edited by tac-40; February 15, 2004 at 16:09.
tac-40 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old February 15, 2004, 14:12   #41
ratas calientes
Registered
 
ratas calientes's Avatar
 
FALaholic #: 1841
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: New Mexico
Posts: 8,160
Looked spooky at first, but the final product looks pretty good. Be sure to throw some cold blue on that bad boy. Sounds like you did the welding yourself. You should be proud.

I plan on using a friend of a friend - supposed to be a darn good welder. Guy has his own shop, and does all of the welding for my machine shop buddy.

Be sure and let us know how she shoots.

My next question is - how many of these receivers have been sold, and how many have actually been fixed this way? And what about the rest? Kinda makes me worry a little.
__________________
Ratas Calientes (Hot Rats)
Rats are people too!
ratas calientes is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 15, 2004, 16:05   #42
tac-40
Moderator
Armed Curmudgeon
 
tac-40's Avatar
 
FALaholic #: 12090
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: SC-Low Country
Posts: 5,476
Thank you R.C.,

I was cleaning my first build after a short and very wet range period today and looked closely at the receiver. It is a Dan Coonan Type I that gave absolutely no problems during assembly. Coonan kept a BC contact pad on the inside breech face portion during their machining process to take care of this issue we have talking about. I have included a picture of the Coonan with my other Century pix linked above.

Harlan, maybe Century could do the same as Coonan in reference to the pad. As an Oh-by-the-way, I bought the Coonan from FAC also.
__________________
Only 2 defining forces have ever offered to die for you.....Jesus Christ and the American Soldier. One died for your soul, the other for your freedom.

Lt. Col. Grant L. Rosensteel, Jr. USAF


______________________________

If you do in fact have a problem, you have the rest of your life to solve it. How long your life lasts only depends on how well you solve it.
tac-40 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old February 16, 2004, 00:33   #43
Powderfinger
Registered
 
Powderfinger's Avatar
 
FALaholic #: 12897
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: WA state
Posts: 3,900
Schlomo
You are experiencing same problems me and my buddy had w/ Century rec.
He was cramming rounds in so tight the brass was seperating at the shoulder when fired and extracted.... Not a headspace problem like some of the experts thought. I described the problem earlier on a post in "gunsmithing" to maybe get some advice.What I mostly got was a bunch of crap from people unwilling to consider the problem I was trying to describe. What my friend(an accomplished machinist and gunsmith for 30 some years) ended up doing was shortening the bolt .020 so carrier would stop with that raised pad on carrier against reciever. We also had to shorten piston where it protruded out of rec. I would avoid welding on heat treated parts, you'll probably ruin them.Thanks for all the effort you have put into this post and hanging in there.
Powderfinger is online now   Reply With Quote
Old February 16, 2004, 08:49   #44
Orion 762
Registered
 
Orion 762's Avatar
 
FALaholic #: 3964
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Mississippi
Posts: 433
Let me see if I can summarize the "fixes":

CRUDE WECSOG (w/out welding)
1. Relieve carrier where it contacts the "ejector ear" on Right Rail
2. Relieve carrier where it contact Left Rail (if needed)
3. Relieve "inside rear of carrier" for bolt clearance in-battery
4. Shorten gas piston on reciever end.
(all these require removing about 0.020" from these contact points. You end up with a modified carrier and a short gas piston specific to this one rifle.)

SIMPLEST (w/welding)
1. Add "contact pad" to front of carrier
(You end up with a modified carrier with small gap visible on RHS between carrier and receiver.)

BEST (w/welding)
1. Add new "contact pad" to receiver.
(You still have an apparent gap between receiver and carrier.)

Since I'm not a "welder", and don't have the tools or experience, I went the CRUDE WECSOG route. No apparent "gap", but the piston is probably too short to use in another FAL. I think that the carrier would still work fine in another FAL.

I agree with Shlomo, that a "clearance gap" between the gas piston and carrier should be 0.005"-0.020", with 0.010" being a good medium target to shoot for.

Orion 762
__________________

"When, in the course of human events, . . . "
Orion 762 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 16, 2004, 19:30   #45
v188
Registered
 
v188's Avatar
 
FALaholic #: 1154
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Huskerland
Posts: 715
I helped my buddy put his first Fal together. (My 7-8th). Anyway, the holes did n't line up for mag catch. It was drilled off set.

He bought it from you Harlan. I told him to send it back for repair/replacement, but he didn't want to mess with it. Long story short, he has a single shot Fal. If he pulls real hard on the mag, he can get more than single shots.

All in all pretty sad. That said, I've built several and not had any problems.
__________________
At All times preach the Gospel, use words if necessary!
v188 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 17, 2004, 11:27   #46
amdburner
Registered
 
amdburner's Avatar
 
FALaholic #: 13002
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Vermont
Posts: 477
I have been following this thread for a while and would like to add to it that the inch version has the same issue. I have a CAI built L1A1 that has the excessive gap between the bolt carrier and the breech face and the piston also protrudes and contacts the carrier. When fired the shots are all over the place. I'm thinking of creating some kind of shim that can be used to take up this excess gap. When I can find some time to do so I will give it a try. Until then I think I will discontinue shooting it to avoid any possible failure.
amdburner is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 17, 2004, 23:27   #47
amdburner
Registered
 
amdburner's Avatar
 
FALaholic #: 13002
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Vermont
Posts: 477
Well, upon a closer look I decided to take the WECSOG route. The amount of clearancing needed to get the carrier to seat against the breech wall was not great enough to be concerned about the material that would have to be removed from inside the bolt carrier. I clearanced the carrier about .020 and relieved the right hand stop that contacts the ejector block the same amount. The carrier now seats fully without contacting the bolt or ejector block. I then file fitted the piston until I had .005+ clearance. Too bad the gap between the cover and the receiver can't easily be fixed.
amdburner is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 17, 2004, 23:29   #48
uhclem
Registered
 
FALaholic #: 12094
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: tucson
Posts: 10
Angry

I've been following this discussion with some interest and would like to add some additional opinion and experience since my earlier post.

First, what went into the build:
Left over $89 tapco imbel kit part set - basically the picked over remains after using the better parts on other builds. Barrel kind of frosty. Was going to be "spare" parts, but with a receiver for $108, WTH.

Century metric furniture set - again, cheap leftovers.
Century HTS set - why start spending any real money at this point?
DSA short STG style fake FH/brake, trade from a friend that didn't like it - blind pinned on.

Slight barrel bottom out, very tight mag well, minor piston drag thru receiver opening, all corrected per approved WECSOG procedures.

After examining the carrier gap issue, I partially corrected the gap; trimmed carrier to ejector block ear ~.040", shortened piston ~.020". Any additional would have required trimming bolt/carrier interference. Still about .015" gap between carrier/receiver face

Bigger issue was lower to upper sloppy fit; ended up spreading the "ears" on the lower with a brass drift until lower width at the ears matched the upper receiver. Also filed the catch a bit for tighter lockup.

Range test results using iron sights (and my old eyes) with surplus SA ball at 100 yards from bench: less than 2.5" group, centered in the black, with no vertical stringing.

It does seem to be a more magazine sensitive; a mag I thought was good would frequently BOB, but one that looked worse - with a dented lip - fed 100%.

At this point I could continue tampering with it, but why bother? The parts were reparked and molycoated, so for a really cheap build it looks and works great.

A friend's Century built concurrently - using REALLY picked over G1 parts - doesn't work nearly as well. Won't hold a zero. But that one hasn't had much effort put into it as yet.

One last opinion about the concern for potential excess headspace resulting from "carrier gap" - it seems likely that after the bolt and carrier strip a round from the mag, force it into the chamber, engage the rim with the extractor, and cam the bolt into the locking shoulder, that the majority of the carrier momentum has been dissipated. I suppose if one round were repeatedly chambered and extracted there might be some cumulative shoulder set-back, but would it be enough to create a hazard? Doubtful.

But I agree that welding a pad on the carrier or receiver would eliminate the issue. Pity I don't have TIG resources.
uhclem is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 19, 2004, 22:31   #49
baten
Registered
Contributor
 
FALaholic #: 7568
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Houston
Posts: 178
I bought a CAI metric and inch receiver recently. My inch receiver has a number of problems including barrel threads and gas tube hole being way off-center.

The metric receiver has a number of problems - most of which could be handled adequately. However, the rails up close to the chamber were screwed up. I will be sending this upper back. A pic of what I am talking about starting with the left rail from the top...............
baten is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 19, 2004, 22:43   #50
baten
Registered
Contributor
 
FALaholic #: 7568
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Houston
Posts: 178
A shot of the right rail from the top...........sorry for the poor quality.
baten is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 05:29.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
©1998-2012 The FAL Files