got a Rhodesian kit...

thebufenator · May 29, 2012, 10:39

Well I just bought a Rhodesian R1 kit locally. Pics up later when I am home from work.

Now here is the question, type 1 or 2 receiver? Coonan appears to have both types, what was the most dominant kind? Also, were type 3's ever used on an r1?

HighRatMaster · May 29, 2012, 10:57

A Rhodie could have any type, I, II or III. The origin of many of the Rhodesian rifles was the government of South Africa and they had type I 50:00s they bought from FN as well as type IIs they manufactured themselves known as R1s. Somewhere along the line the Rhodesians or maybe the later mugabeites, aquired type III 50:00s from probably a south american source. If your kit is a true R1 it will be a type II.

Short answer: Post a pic and we'll identify which type you have and then you can decide if you want to match it or go rouge.

101ABN327 · May 29, 2012, 13:06

NOPE! No type 3's in Rhodesian Service. Some Imbel Type 3's were bounght by Mugabe for the Zimbo Army, post 1980 but nothing in Rhodesia. If you have photographic evidence I would very much like to see it! I have been asking for a pic or parts (RA Numbered) for a T3 Service FN since I've been on this forum. Nothing...

**Hoot G** · May 29, 2012, 13:11

If it's truly an R1, it would have been a Republic of South Africa built FAL. R1 was an RSA designation, not Rhodesia's. They used a Type 2 trigger housing and a hybrid Type 1-2 receiver. The cutter they used was Type 2, but the lightening cuts were a Type 1, without the extra lug at the rear. There's a post about RSA and Rhodie FAL's here; at the top of the forum. See post #39 for an original RSA built R1 that was used in Rhodesia.

However, Rhodesia used many FAL's from many sources. As HighRatMaster says, photos would be a big help.

crcksht · May 29, 2012, 13:33

Quote:

Originally Posted by thebufenator

Well I just bought a Rhodesian R1 kit locally. Pics up later when I am home from work.

Now here is the question, type 1 or 2 receiver? Coonan appears to have both types, what was the most dominant kind? Also, were type 3's ever used on an r1?

Regarding which is correct, it seems to me the more important criteria would be having a receiver made by either FN or a FN licensed company(such as Imbel) rather than worrying about the purely cosmetic differences between Type 1, 2 and 3 uppers.

Calling a DSA or Coonan receiver of any "type" correct for any FAL build is like saying a 350 cu. inch internal combustion engine produced in China is correct for a 1978 Corvette. Think about it for a second...Would you really try to sell your Corvette as being "correct" after installing a Chinese engine?

Buy the first Imbel (Type 3) you can find.

BC · May 29, 2012, 13:47

I bet you have a Type 2 lower (the trigger housing by some people) in the parts kit - like most of them do. Have your pick of the upper. It's your call.

If you are building a Rhodie clone, the Type 3 receiver will stick out like a sore thumb. No matter if it's a real Belgian FN Type 3 or a POS Century Type 3. IMHO, a FN Type 3 receiver will be a waste on a worn parts kit. Luckily they are rare and expensive. Whoever has it knows what to built on it.

If you want a shooter, anything goes.

crcksht · May 29, 2012, 13:56

The Type 3 sticks out like a sore thumb on my StG on Imbel, just like it stuck out like a sore thumb when the Austrians used them. I wasn't suggesting to actually use a virgin FN upper as there are plenty of much cheaper Imbels out there.

Just poking fun at all of the correctness silliness.

101ABN327 · May 29, 2012, 14:14

Well, I guess it's up to the OP, whether or not he wants his Rhodesian build to look like it's original. Yeah you can put a type three receiver on it and it will shoot. It will just look like it was half assed. As far as "correctness" restori8ng an FAL to as close to it's original issue configuration isn't being petty. If you like franken FALs, knock yourself out! I like my rifles to look like they did when they were in military service. I restore my kits and bguild when I have all the right parts.

101

**Hoot G** · May 29, 2012, 14:19

My house gun is an 18" para, mostly DSA parts (StG barrel). My RSA and Rhodie FAL's I want to be as original as possible.

One man's silliness is another man's obsession.

Plastic car? Really? Complete with all the HP robbing pollution crap?

Maybe better a 1970 450HP 454ci if you're gonna go that way...

crcksht · May 29, 2012, 15:21

Since the Austrians also used the Type 3, as evidenced by a recent post by a member in Austria, I don't feel I've half-assed my StG at all. In fact it's more correct with it's FN licensed Type 3 than anything built with a commercial reverse engineered DSA or Coonan upper. If you care more about looks than functionality or durability, then knock yourself out and use that weaker, less than correct Type 1 or 2.

shootist87122 · May 29, 2012, 15:25

IIRC, per the "The FAL Rifle" (or possibly from Peter Wells), in house Rhodie's had a Type I upper and a Type II lower. Look at your lower and see if it's radiused. I no longer have the one below, but seems like the lower was radiused.

http://www.falfiles.com/forums/showthread.php?t=89594

shootist87122 · May 29, 2012, 16:28

I just dug an R1 lower out of the parts bin (RA4230 stamped on the right side and 30292...something under the locking lever) - it's a Type II as show in the pics below. Also found a long Rhodie wood stock (arsenal repaired it looks like) that I refinished once upon a time. I could probably part with these....

enbloc8 · May 29, 2012, 17:48

Sharp-looking wood stock, even with the patch!!

**Hoot G** · May 29, 2012, 17:53

I'm not sure what an "in house Rhodie" is, but Rhodesia never manufactured any receivers or trigger housings. Most of their FAL's came from South Africa, but they had others that were captured, or owned before UDI.

The FAL Rifle by Stevens makes more than a couple of incorrect references about the South African FAL's. Peter Wells is the person that came up with the first evidence that the R1 receiver was, what we call, the Type 1.5, for lack of a better name.

All this has been addressed again and again in other threads. Search is your friend. There's a lot of incorrect speculation in the threads, so I caution anyone looking for correct information to read the whole thread(s), and especially to look at photos of actual, original, not-clone, FAL's.

Also, since it seems like there is some confusion, it might be useful for folks interested in these FAL's to read about the Republic of South Africa, and Rhodesia. They are not the same.

LKY_13 · May 29, 2012, 17:57

Maybe this question would be better in a new thread, but in lieu of the above discussion: Has anyone ever machined the lightening cuts on an Imbel GL converting it to a type I or II?

**Hoot G** · May 29, 2012, 18:28

Quote:

Originally Posted by crcksht

Since the Austrians also used the Type 3, as evidenced by a recent post by a member in Austria, I don't feel I've half-assed my StG at all. In fact it's more correct with it's FN licensed Type 3 than anything built with a commercial reverse engineered DSA or Coonan upper. If you care more about looks than functionality or durability, then knock yourself out and use that weaker, less than correct Type 1 or 2.

As I remember, the OP was asking about "the most correct" receiver for a Rhodesian build. While your StG may be "sort of correct" with a foreign made (aka not FN) Type 3, his most likely wouldn't. We don't even know who made the lower, at this point. An FMAP Hi Power is not an FN Hi Power, and never will be, no matter how "good" they are.

I'd really like to read any empirical evidence that shows that a 35 year old cast receiver (FN) is stronger than a newly made forged (DSA) or cast (Coonan) receiver. There have been lots of metallurgical improvements in the last three+ decades. As far as functionality, I've built on DSA, Coonan, and Imbel receivers. All functioned just fine, and none took more than a little bit of massaging to go together.

That Century I helped a guy with is a different story.

But even that one worked after some welding and grinding.

RPBII · May 29, 2012, 19:25

Someone posted a pic of an IMBEL that had type1 cuts. The script and the logo were not centered and just didn't look good.

thebufenator · May 30, 2012, 09:11

Haven't been able to take a picture yet, but it has the same cuts as the one pictured.

warsteiner_1970 · May 30, 2012, 09:25

The Gear logo Imbels look like crap milled out to another type like RPBII said. The markings are almost on the cut line. If you can find one of the non Gear logo ones, the markings are often very shallow and have seen these milled out to a type 2. The importer etc can be blasted and sanded away, but when you go to cut lightening cut on mag well, your going to have to deepen the serial numbers, as I'm pretty sure it's verbotten to remove or move them....But why bother is my question ? DSA and Coonan both offer exc receivers.

NHBandit · May 30, 2012, 09:25

Quote:

Originally Posted by crcksht

In fact it's more correct with it's FN licensed Type 3 than anything built with a commercial reverse engineered DSA or Coonan upper. If you care more about looks than functionality or durability, then knock yourself out and use that weaker, less than correct Type 1 or 2.

Real nice.. insulting the thousands of members who use anything other than your personal choice of Imbels.. Pssst.. Imbels haven't even been imported in several years now and probably won't ever be again. The ONE vendor who has any is getting way too much for them and when his are gone they are all gone. Do you suggest that we all sell our FAL building tools & parts kits to the local scrap metal buyer and throw in the towel ? Please post pics or links to threads that show cracked, worn out or blown up "weaker" DSA & Coonan recievers. In the 10 years I've been hanging around this joint & with the members here building tens of thousands of rifles using these "inferior" recievers I can think of ONE pic that was posted of an upper that had suffered a really bad KB. I honestly don't remember what brand. For all I know it might have been an Imbel. If you can't back up your crap posts with PROOF don't post it. All you're doing is spreading missinformation to the newbies. The fact that you "prefer" Imbel recievers for your builds is cool. Justifying it with bad info concerning other brands is not. Posting that Century, Hesse, Entreprise, have serious issues is one thing. Those guys have a long history of producing out of spec parts and there are thousands of threads here documenting those issues. Even so I can't remember ever reading about one failing due to being a cast part. They suck because of poor machining QC for the most part. They begin with a good casting & then ruin it in the machine shop. DSA is currently having some issues with needing small locking shoulders & barrel timing problems. That dosn't make them dangerous though. Just a bit of a hassle to build on. To the OP.. if it was me I'd build your Rhodie kit on a Coonan type 1 but that's just me. Especially if you're building it yourself. I think it's too late to get one of the Coonan "Rhodie style" recievers. The first build for a newbie is always a little bit of a challenge. Having to "fix" a brand new out of spec reciever just adds to the frustration.

LKY_13 · May 30, 2012, 13:15

Quote:

Originally Posted by warsteiner_1970

But why bother is my question ? DSA and Coonan both offer exc receivers.

I completely 100% agree. In fact my preference goes to the beautiful machining of a Coonan or early DSA over the GL I purchased (and sold). The Imbel may be built from the original blueprints, but the machining was nothing like the U.S. made receivers I've handled from LMT, or Coonan. I was just throwing the idea out there for those above that stated they 'must have' an Imbel rec. I'm actually kind of surprised we don't support the U.S. manufacturers with a passion here. Or, at least more than we do. I guess the days of pride in ownership and "Made in the USA" are pretty much dead and gone. But, I expected more from this site and it's demographic. Granted were talking about imported rifles, but the above red herring, comparing receivers to a "Chinese imported engine" had me tasting bile.

**Hoot G** · May 30, 2012, 13:26

Quote:

Originally Posted by LKY_13

I completely 100% agree. In fact my preference goes to the beautiful machining of a Coonan or early DSA over the GL I purchased (and sold). The Imbel may be built from the original blueprints, but the machining was nothing like the U.S. made receivers I've handled from LMT, or Coonan. I was just throwing the idea out there for those above that stated they 'must have' an Imbel rec. I'm actually kind of surprised we don't support the U.S. manufacturers with a passion here. Or, at least more than we do. I guess the days of pride in ownership and "Made in the USA" are pretty much dead and gone. But, I expected more from this site and it's demographic. Granted were talking about imported rifles, but the above red herring, comparing receivers to a "Chinese imported engine" had me tasting bile.

**Hoot G** · May 30, 2012, 13:28

Quote:

Originally Posted by thebufenator

Haven't been able to take a picture yet, but it has the same cuts as the one pictured.

A pic would help a lot, but what are the markings on the side(s) of the trigger housing, and the serial number?

Topbanana · May 30, 2012, 13:47

I thought the Rhodie R1's were the 1.5 cut uppers.

I thought this mystery had been solved.

I have yet to find a pic of an R1 or any rifle for that matter with a type II upper in use during the bush war.

MistWolf · May 30, 2012, 14:33

The R1s sent to Rhodesia were made with what we call the Type 1.5 upper. DSA is making R1 type uppers. For more information about Rhodies, check this thread
http://www.falfiles.com/forums/showthread.php?t=301362

There is also this thread stickied at the top of this forum
http://www.falfiles.com/forums/showthread.php?t=325323

**Hoot G** · May 30, 2012, 14:37

Quote:

Originally Posted by Topbanana

I thought the Rhodie R1's were the 1.5 cut uppers.

I thought this mystery had been solved.

I have yet to find a pic of an R1 or any rifle for that matter with a type II upper in use during the bush war.

Rhodie; Used by the Rhodesians. They used FAL's from different sources.

R1; Standard FAL manufactured by and for the Republic of South Africa. There were also FAL's made for RSA by FN, and they are not R1's.

All Rhodie FAL's are not R1's. All R1's are not Rhodie.

There is a thread on this forum about a captured Belgian Congo (ANC) Type 2 para that was in use by the Rhodiesians, and many more examples of other FAL's that were bought on the black market or captured by Rhodesia.

REAL RHODESIAN BUSH WAR PARA FAL

neil0841 · May 30, 2012, 15:53

There are several well-known period images of FNs in Rhodesian Army use with Type 2 receivers. for example...

There is also a classic one during the bush war period of General Peter Walls getting kitted up for a parachute training jump and the FN he is carrying has a Type 2 receiver.

KBAR04 · May 30, 2012, 17:07

Castle! I drank my share of it and Lion Lager....

JKJ1911 · May 30, 2012, 17:49

The type 2 is closer by far than a type 3, and closer than a type 1 for the 1.5 lowers, I wouldn't use an Imbel on a Rhody unless I already had one on hand, was broke, and had no means of getting one that was closer to right for my rifle.
Think about this, a FAL built on an Imbel receiver will bring no more than one built on a Coonan type 3, how many STGs have you seen built on a gear logo receiver going for 8-900? This isn't because it's not a solid gun, it is because it has a definate half-assed look to it, I personally prefer the Coonan receivers to all else if for no other reason than ease of assembly, oh, and did I forget the part where they are proudly made in the USA and contribute to the US parts count? Just my .002, goodluck, and congrats on the Rhody.
JKJ

Dirt1042 · May 30, 2012, 23:43

This one looks half assed as well...

http://www.gunbroker.com/Auction/Vie...=288502546#PIC

**GMB74** · May 31, 2012, 05:14

Lotsa pix here:

http://www.falfiles.com/forums/showthread.php?t=233953

The fellow in post # 48 has an Inch FAL with metric handguards.
The guy in post # 55 has a rifle with a type 2 reciever.
At the bottom of post #5, the troopie on the right appears to have a solid-butt rifle with a shortened barrel.
It has been noted that G1's had the barrels threaded for the standard 22mm flashhider and the bipods removed. If they were used much on full-auto, I bet the troopie got rid of the metal handguards if he had a chance.

Once the sanctions were imposed and the war got heated up, the Rhodesians were not concerned with how the rifles were originally configured, they just needed them to work. As a result, they took whatever spare parts they had available and fixed up the damaged ones. They also used whatever .308 rifles came their way by whatever means- legally purchased, smuggled, captured in battle. As a result, it is difficult to say any configuration is not "correct". At one time, somebody may have cobbed one together just like it to get one more rifle back in action.

JKJ1911 · May 31, 2012, 09:00

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dirt1042

This one looks half assed as well...

http://www.gunbroker.com/Auction/Vie...=288502546#PIC

Sadly so, if we had never known the difference, maybe it wouldn't be so bad

KBAR04 · May 31, 2012, 09:04

Quote:

Originally Posted by JKJ1911

Sadly so, if we had never known the difference, maybe it wouldn't be so bad

What am I missing here? That is a pretty nice sear cut type III Belgian FN. It's not a Rhodesian rifle but it's not claimed to be..apples and oranges.

JKJ1911 · May 31, 2012, 09:13

Quote:

Originally Posted by GMB74

Lotsa pix here:

http://www.falfiles.com/forums/showthread.php?t=233953

The fellow in post # 48 has an Inch FAL with metric handguards.
The guy in post # 55 has a rifle with a type 2 reciever.
At the bottom of post #5, the troopie on the right appears to have a solid-butt rifle with a shortened barrel.
It has been noted that G1's had the barrels threaded for the standard 22mm flashhider and the bipods removed. If they were used much on full-auto, I bet the troopie got rid of the metal handguards if he had a chance.

Once the sanctions were imposed and the war got heated up, the Rhodesians were not concerned with how the rifles were originally configured, they just needed them to work. As a result, they took whatever spare parts they had available and fixed up the damaged ones. They also used whatever .308 rifles came their way by whatever means- legally purchased, smuggled, captured in battle. As a result, it is difficult to say any configuration is not "correct". At one time, somebody may have cobbed one together just like it to get one more rifle back in action.

Love the cavalry pics.

KBAR04 · May 31, 2012, 09:16

Quote:

Originally Posted by JKJ1911

Love the cavalry pics.

Grey's Scouts for the most part. They were not really cavalry, they were used as mounted infantry.

JKJ1911 · May 31, 2012, 09:45

Quote:

Originally Posted by KBAR04

Grey's Scouts for the most part. They were not really cavalry, they were used as mounted infantry.

I may have to get a horse to match my Rhodie FAL, it's the best excuse I have sofar.

Dirt1042 · May 31, 2012, 23:44

Quote:

Originally Posted by KBAR04

What am I missing here? That is a pretty nice sear cut type III Belgian FN. It's not a Rhodesian rifle but it's not claimed to be..apples and oranges.

No, the gripe was putting type 3s on type 1 or 2 lowers. That what kind of my point to the people complaining. Even FN did it.

**def90** · May 31, 2012, 23:54

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hoot G

Rhodie; Used by the Rhodesians. They used FAL's from different sources.

R1; Standard FAL manufactured by and for the Republic of South Africa. There were also FAL's made for RSA by FN, and they are not R1's.

All Rhodie FAL's are not R1's. All R1's are not Rhodie.

There is a thread on this forum about a captured Belgian Congo (ANC) Type 2 para that was in use by the Rhodiesians, and many more examples of other FAL's that were bought on the black market or captured by Rhodesia.

REAL RHODESIAN BUSH WAR PARA FAL

And don't forget the Rhodie L1A1s and the Rhodie G1s..

to the OP.. we cannot say what the appropriate receiver is to use without seeing the kit...

BC · June 01, 2012, 10:04

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dirt1042

No, the gripe was putting type 3s on type 1 or 2 lowers. That what kind of my point to the people complaining. Even FN did it.

No, it's not that. The Type 3 receiver on Type 1, 2, or 3 lower is fine - for a FAL. But, it doesn't make a convincing Rhodesian clone.

In a movie, you need to cast the right people. In a clone, you need to select the right parts. The Type 3 receiver is just not right for the Rhodesian part. Clone is all about looks.

For just a FAL, anything goes. I love mutts!

JKJ1911 · June 01, 2012, 12:06

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dirt1042

No, the gripe was putting type 3s on type 1 or 2 lowers. That what kind of my point to the people complaining. Even FN did it.

Yes, they did, not that they should have, the type 3 was a cost cutting measure, and fortunately we now have other options, my personal opinion is that the OP will be happier building it right the first time, than looking at it later considering tearing it down and doing it over, ask me how I know.

thebufenator · June 01, 2012, 19:46

PICS!!

HighRatMaster · June 01, 2012, 19:50

Type II South African built, and a nice one!

**Thorack** · June 01, 2012, 20:01

Yep,

A nice DSA Type II and it will look the bomb again.

Thorack

thebufenator · June 01, 2012, 20:14

Check out the charging handle knob, looks like a repaired one.

BC · June 02, 2012, 05:22

This is the nicest looking recoil plate for a Rhodie parts kit. Some StG-58 have been worse.

**Hoot G** · June 02, 2012, 10:29

Nice kit! South African made for export (no M in U mark).

I'd use a Type 1.5 receiver if you can get one. Otherwise, I'd go with a Type 1. The Type 2 will match the recoil shield cuts, but SA never used a Type 2. Very few people will know the difference, whichever way you go.

In the spirit of history, I'd use that field repair charging handle too! That just screams Rhodesia under the UN ban.

Good score!

**Hoot G** · June 02, 2012, 10:31

Quote:

Originally Posted by def90

And don't forget the Rhodie L1A1s and the Rhodie G1s..

Man, just look at all those weird looking R1's!

May 29, 2012, 10:39	#1
thebufenator Registered FALaholic #: 29115 Join Date: May 2007 Posts: 103	got a Rhodesian kit... Well I just bought a Rhodesian R1 kit locally. Pics up later when I am home from work. Now here is the question, type 1 or 2 receiver? Coonan appears to have both types, what was the most dominant kind? Also, were type 3's ever used on an r1?

May 29, 2012, 10:57	#2
HighRatMaster Registered Bronze Contributor FALaholic #: 19296 Join Date: Feb 2006 Location: Oleta CA USA Posts: 1,186	A Rhodie could have any type, I, II or III. The origin of many of the Rhodesian rifles was the government of South Africa and they had type I 50:00s they bought from FN as well as type IIs they manufactured themselves known as R1s. Somewhere along the line the Rhodesians or maybe the later mugabeites, aquired type III 50:00s from probably a south american source. If your kit is a true R1 it will be a type II. Short answer: Post a pic and we'll identify which type you have and then you can decide if you want to match it or go rouge. __________________ It doesn't matter what you miss them with. Don't bother burying your guns because that's the time they need to be dug up. "You in or out?" "I'll take his legs."

May 29, 2012, 13:11	#4
Hoot G What, me worry? Bronze Contributor FALaholic #: 23207 Join Date: Dec 2006 Location: South MS Posts: 2,076	If it's truly an R1, it would have been a Republic of South Africa built FAL. R1 was an RSA designation, not Rhodesia's. They used a Type 2 trigger housing and a hybrid Type 1-2 receiver. The cutter they used was Type 2, but the lightening cuts were a Type 1, without the extra lug at the rear. There's a post about RSA and Rhodie FAL's here; at the top of the forum. See post #39 for an original RSA built R1 that was used in Rhodesia. However, Rhodesia used many FAL's from many sources. As HighRatMaster says, photos would be a big help. __________________ Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy. Its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery. Winston Churchill Always have a go-to-hell plan.

May 29, 2012, 13:56	#7
crcksht Registered FALaholic #: 15315 Join Date: Sep 2004 Location: Volunteer State Posts: 1,159	The Type 3 sticks out like a sore thumb on my StG on Imbel, just like it stuck out like a sore thumb when the Austrians used them. I wasn't suggesting to actually use a virgin FN upper as there are plenty of much cheaper Imbels out there. Just poking fun at all of the correctness silliness. __________________ "Government is not reason; it is not eloquent; it is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master." -- George Washington "A militia, when properly formed, are in fact the people themselves ... and include all men capable of bearing arms." "To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of people always possess arms..." -- Richard Henry Lee - Senator, First Congress "I ask you sir, who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people." (Elliott, Debates, 425-426) --George Mason

May 29, 2012, 14:19	#9
Hoot G What, me worry? Bronze Contributor FALaholic #: 23207 Join Date: Dec 2006 Location: South MS Posts: 2,076	My house gun is an 18" para, mostly DSA parts (StG barrel). My RSA and Rhodie FAL's I want to be as original as possible. One man's silliness is another man's obsession. Plastic car? Really? Complete with all the HP robbing pollution crap? Maybe better a 1970 450HP 454ci if you're gonna go that way... __________________ Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy. Its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery. Winston Churchill Always have a go-to-hell plan.

May 29, 2012, 13:06	#3
101ABN327 Registered FALaholic #: 19486 Join Date: Mar 2006 Location: OKLAHOMA Posts: 5,989	NOPE! No type 3's in Rhodesian Service. Some Imbel Type 3's were bounght by Mugabe for the Zimbo Army, post 1980 but nothing in Rhodesia. If you have photographic evidence I would very much like to see it! I have been asking for a pic or parts (RA Numbered) for a T3 Service FN since I've been on this forum. Nothing...

May 29, 2012, 13:47	#6
BC Registered FALaholic #: 752 Join Date: Aug 2000 Location: cc Posts: 2,304	I bet you have a Type 2 lower (the trigger housing by some people) in the parts kit - like most of them do. Have your pick of the upper. It's your call. If you are building a Rhodie clone, the Type 3 receiver will stick out like a sore thumb. No matter if it's a real Belgian FN Type 3 or a POS Century Type 3. IMHO, a FN Type 3 receiver will be a waste on a worn parts kit. Luckily they are rare and expensive. Whoever has it knows what to built on it. If you want a shooter, anything goes.

May 29, 2012, 14:14	#8
101ABN327 Registered FALaholic #: 19486 Join Date: Mar 2006 Location: OKLAHOMA Posts: 5,989	Well, I guess it's up to the OP, whether or not he wants his Rhodesian build to look like it's original. Yeah you can put a type three receiver on it and it will shoot. It will just look like it was half assed. As far as "correctness" restori8ng an FAL to as close to it's original issue configuration isn't being petty. If you like franken FALs, knock yourself out! I like my rifles to look like they did when they were in military service. I restore my kits and bguild when I have all the right parts. 101

May 29, 2012, 15:21	#10
crcksht Registered FALaholic #: 15315 Join Date: Sep 2004 Location: Volunteer State Posts: 1,159	Since the Austrians also used the Type 3, as evidenced by a recent post by a member in Austria, I don't feel I've half-assed my StG at all. In fact it's more correct with it's FN licensed Type 3 than anything built with a commercial reverse engineered DSA or Coonan upper. If you care more about looks than functionality or durability, then knock yourself out and use that weaker, less than correct Type 1 or 2. __________________ "Government is not reason; it is not eloquent; it is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master." -- George Washington "A militia, when properly formed, are in fact the people themselves ... and include all men capable of bearing arms." "To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of people always possess arms..." -- Richard Henry Lee - Senator, First Congress "I ask you sir, who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people." (Elliott, Debates, 425-426) --George Mason

May 29, 2012, 15:25	#11
shootist87122 Registered FALaholic #: 7202 Join Date: Aug 2002 Location: NM Posts: 5,126	IIRC, per the "The FAL Rifle" (or possibly from Peter Wells), in house Rhodie's had a Type I upper and a Type II lower. Look at your lower and see if it's radiused. I no longer have the one below, but seems like the lower was radiused. http://www.falfiles.com/forums/showthread.php?t=89594 __________________ "So in the Libyan Fable it is told, That once an eagle, stricken with a dart, said, when he saw the fashion of the shaft, it is by our own feathers, not others hands, are we now smitten." -Aeschylus Last edited by shootist87122; May 29, 2012 at 15:37. Reason: Yes

May 29, 2012, 16:28	#12
shootist87122 Registered FALaholic #: 7202 Join Date: Aug 2002 Location: NM Posts: 5,126	I just dug an R1 lower out of the parts bin (RA4230 stamped on the right side and 30292...something under the locking lever) - it's a Type II as show in the pics below. Also found a long Rhodie wood stock (arsenal repaired it looks like) that I refinished once upon a time. I could probably part with these.... __________________ "So in the Libyan Fable it is told, That once an eagle, stricken with a dart, said, when he saw the fashion of the shaft, it is by our own feathers, not others hands, are we now smitten." -Aeschylus

May 29, 2012, 17:48	#13
enbloc8 Registered FALaholic #: 51665 Join Date: Feb 2010 Location: Illinois Posts: 818	Sharp-looking wood stock, even with the patch!!

May 29, 2012, 17:53	#14
Hoot G What, me worry? Bronze Contributor FALaholic #: 23207 Join Date: Dec 2006 Location: South MS Posts: 2,076	I'm not sure what an "in house Rhodie" is, but Rhodesia never manufactured any receivers or trigger housings. Most of their FAL's came from South Africa, but they had others that were captured, or owned before UDI. The FAL Rifle by Stevens makes more than a couple of incorrect references about the South African FAL's. Peter Wells is the person that came up with the first evidence that the R1 receiver was, what we call, the Type 1.5, for lack of a better name. All this has been addressed again and again in other threads. Search is your friend. There's a lot of incorrect speculation in the threads, so I caution anyone looking for correct information to read the whole thread(s), and especially to look at photos of actual, original, not-clone, FAL's. Also, since it seems like there is some confusion, it might be useful for folks interested in these FAL's to read about the Republic of South Africa, and Rhodesia. They are not the same. __________________ Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy. Its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery. Winston Churchill Always have a go-to-hell plan.

May 29, 2012, 17:57	#15
LKY_13 The Swiss Guy Contributor FALaholic #: 41000 Join Date: Dec 2008 Location: UTAH Posts: 465	Maybe this question would be better in a new thread, but in lieu of the above discussion: Has anyone ever machined the lightening cuts on an Imbel GL converting it to a type I or II? __________________ Foi Est Tout μολων λαβε

May 29, 2012, 19:25	#17
RPBII Registered FALaholic #: 19720 Join Date: Apr 2006 Location: Alabama Posts: 1,235	Someone posted a pic of an IMBEL that had type1 cuts. The script and the logo were not centered and just didn't look good.

May 30, 2012, 09:11	#18
thebufenator Registered FALaholic #: 29115 Join Date: May 2007 Posts: 103	Haven't been able to take a picture yet, but it has the same cuts as the one pictured.

May 30, 2012, 09:25	#19
warsteiner_1970 Registered FALaholic #: 54189 Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: East Tennessee Posts: 843	The Gear logo Imbels look like crap milled out to another type like RPBII said. The markings are almost on the cut line. If you can find one of the non Gear logo ones, the markings are often very shallow and have seen these milled out to a type 2. The importer etc can be blasted and sanded away, but when you go to cut lightening cut on mag well, your going to have to deepen the serial numbers, as I'm pretty sure it's verbotten to remove or move them....But why bother is my question ? DSA and Coonan both offer exc receivers. __________________ "Tyranny is defined as that which is Legal for the Government but Illegal for the citizenry" Thomas Jefferson

May 30, 2012, 13:47	#24
Topbanana Registered FALaholic #: 20443 Join Date: Jul 2006 Location: Manhattan, KS Posts: 3,262	I thought the Rhodie R1's were the 1.5 cut uppers. I thought this mystery had been solved. I have yet to find a pic of an R1 or any rifle for that matter with a type II upper in use during the bush war. __________________ God created the Earth, Mauser drew the property lines.

May 30, 2012, 14:33	#25
MistWolf Registered FALaholic #: 7435 Join Date: Sep 2002 Location: Utah Posts: 2,155	The R1s sent to Rhodesia were made with what we call the Type 1.5 upper. DSA is making R1 type uppers. For more information about Rhodies, check this thread http://www.falfiles.com/forums/showthread.php?t=301362 There is also this thread stickied at the top of this forum http://www.falfiles.com/forums/showthread.php?t=325323 __________________ "Mom! Phineas and Pherb are in the backyard building FALs!"

May 30, 2012, 15:53	#27
neil0841 Registered FALaholic #: 49501 Join Date: Sep 2009 Location: Basingstoke, UK Posts: 37	There are several well-known period images of FNs in Rhodesian Army use with Type 2 receivers. for example... There is also a classic one during the bush war period of General Peter Walls getting kitted up for a parachute training jump and the FN he is carrying has a Type 2 receiver. Last edited by neil0841; May 30, 2012 at 15:59.

May 30, 2012, 17:07	#28
KBAR04 Registered FALaholic #: 30253 Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: Missouri, USA Posts: 481	Castle! I drank my share of it and Lion Lager.... __________________ Retired O-4 CJSOTF-S(TF KBAR) AFG Rh. Rgmt 1978-79

May 30, 2012, 17:49	#29
JKJ1911 Registered FALaholic #: 32177 Join Date: Oct 2007 Location: Missouri Posts: 259	The type 2 is closer by far than a type 3, and closer than a type 1 for the 1.5 lowers, I wouldn't use an Imbel on a Rhody unless I already had one on hand, was broke, and had no means of getting one that was closer to right for my rifle. Think about this, a FAL built on an Imbel receiver will bring no more than one built on a Coonan type 3, how many STGs have you seen built on a gear logo receiver going for 8-900? This isn't because it's not a solid gun, it is because it has a definate half-assed look to it, I personally prefer the Coonan receivers to all else if for no other reason than ease of assembly, oh, and did I forget the part where they are proudly made in the USA and contribute to the US parts count? Just my .002, goodluck, and congrats on the Rhody. JKJ

May 30, 2012, 23:43	#30
Dirt1042 Registered FALaholic #: 21859 Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: Montana Posts: 3,799	This one looks half assed as well... http://www.gunbroker.com/Auction/Vie...=288502546#PIC __________________ ORO Y PLATA! ~Pain By Steel Rain~ R 5/10 2nd Mar Div

May 31, 2012, 05:14	#31
GMB74 Member Bronze Contributor FALaholic #: 7987 Join Date: Nov 2002 Location: Vermont Posts: 319	Lotsa pix here: http://www.falfiles.com/forums/showthread.php?t=233953 The fellow in post # 48 has an Inch FAL with metric handguards. The guy in post # 55 has a rifle with a type 2 reciever. At the bottom of post #5, the troopie on the right appears to have a solid-butt rifle with a shortened barrel. It has been noted that G1's had the barrels threaded for the standard 22mm flashhider and the bipods removed. If they were used much on full-auto, I bet the troopie got rid of the metal handguards if he had a chance. Once the sanctions were imposed and the war got heated up, the Rhodesians were not concerned with how the rifles were originally configured, they just needed them to work. As a result, they took whatever spare parts they had available and fixed up the damaged ones. They also used whatever .308 rifles came their way by whatever means- legally purchased, smuggled, captured in battle. As a result, it is difficult to say any configuration is not "correct". At one time, somebody may have cobbed one together just like it to get one more rifle back in action. Last edited by GMB74; May 31, 2012 at 05:46.

June 01, 2012, 19:46	#41
thebufenator Registered FALaholic #: 29115 Join Date: May 2007 Posts: 103	PICS!!

June 01, 2012, 19:50	#42
HighRatMaster Registered Bronze Contributor FALaholic #: 19296 Join Date: Feb 2006 Location: Oleta CA USA Posts: 1,186	Type II South African built, and a nice one! __________________ It doesn't matter what you miss them with. Don't bother burying your guns because that's the time they need to be dug up. "You in or out?" "I'll take his legs."

June 01, 2012, 20:01	#43
Thorack Acquisition Corp Dude Bronze Contributor FALaholic #: 748 Join Date: Aug 2000 Location: Omaha, Nebraska, USA Posts: 5,610	Yep, A nice DSA Type II and it will look the bomb again. Thorack __________________ 1. Whenever you are talking to a woman realize this person was born insane and you will never be surprised. 2. Never let Doctors cut on you unless its life or death and ALWAYS get a second opinion.

June 01, 2012, 20:14	#44
thebufenator Registered FALaholic #: 29115 Join Date: May 2007 Posts: 103	Check out the charging handle knob, looks like a repaired one.

June 02, 2012, 05:22	#45
BC Registered FALaholic #: 752 Join Date: Aug 2000 Location: cc Posts: 2,304	This is the nicest looking recoil plate for a Rhodie parts kit. Some StG-58 have been worse.

June 02, 2012, 10:29	#46
Hoot G What, me worry? Bronze Contributor FALaholic #: 23207 Join Date: Dec 2006 Location: South MS Posts: 2,076	Nice kit! South African made for export (no M in U mark). I'd use a Type 1.5 receiver if you can get one. Otherwise, I'd go with a Type 1. The Type 2 will match the recoil shield cuts, but SA never used a Type 2. Very few people will know the difference, whichever way you go. In the spirit of history, I'd use that field repair charging handle too! That just screams Rhodesia under the UN ban. Good score! __________________ Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy. Its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery. Winston Churchill Always have a go-to-hell plan.

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode