FAL Receiver - Inch or Metric???
I have a parts kit and I am looking for a FAL Receiver. I have been warned against Century, but I can't find much out there. Looks like DSA makes some nice ones.
What is the difference in INCH or Metric? Just the mags?
Any place to find IMBEL's or are they not made anymore?
MY KIT......... Don't know who made it, several extra parts.
What is the difference in INCH or Metric? Just the mags?
Any place to find IMBEL's or are they not made anymore?
MY KIT......... Don't know who made it, several extra parts.
0
-
You can maybe still find an imbel, but it is not US made.
INch vs. Metric - charging handle cut, mag well cut.
What kind of parts kit do you have?
All answers on buildign a FAL on falfiles.com0 -
I don't know the type of kit. I can take a photo tonight it was $200 and in really good shape so I thought it was a deal.
There is NO NAME on the Receiver that I can see.0 -
Probably 80% of the FAL's of the world are metric, the rest, made for the British Empire, are inch-based. Spare parts interchangability should be considered. 0 -
If you know who you are going to use to assemble the rifle I would suggest that you take the kit to the riflesmith and get him to help you pick the reciever. I had my L1A1 assembled by Enterprise Arms of Irwindale 10yrs or so back on one of their reicevers. Never had a problem of any sort. Several of my friends liked it so much that when the STG58 kits became available they did the same thing with the same results. Imbel and DSA receivers are supposed to be very good, but remember the FAL series of rifle kits are not like the AR series. You don't just assemble one at home yourself you need special tools and parts. Good luck with it.......... 0 -
quote:Originally posted by moreammoplz
I don't know the type of kit. I can take a photo tonight it was $200 and in really good shape so I thought it was a deal.
200 for either inch or pattern is a very good deal. I hope you got all the parts with it, as they are currently selling for 300 and up.
As for century, the common complaint is cast vs. forged/ weak receivers.
It is my opinion that most of the people doing the complaining are parroting the complaint without any significant knowledge of it's validity.
I see comments of this nature:
firingline forum
quote:
Thanks for the info. That was the part that was confusing me. I
had read on the Internet to stay away from the Century Arms Model.
PAFAO.org
quote:
Cent has a deserved rep for a bad past, but supposedly they have gotten better.
Now a factual statement
http://www.rawles.to/FAL_FAQ.html
quote:
To clear up the perennial confusion on inch versus metric magazines: If your rifle is an *early* Century International ("CAI") Sporter, then it can accept only METRIC magazines, not inch pattern. The early Century Sporters were basically an inch pattern parts kit built on a metric receiver--not a C1A1 inch pattern receiver. The latest CAI receivers have an "inch" magazine cut and the cut for the side-folding cocking handle, as well as the grooves
for the legs on the rear of the dust-cover.
That gentlemen reflects my own research. It is; I suspect, also the root of most of the rumors.
I've purchased 5 of the R1A1's. 1 of which I cut, performed macro's,
rockwell C hardness test, tensile test, charpy impact test, x ray diffraction positive material identification, and every other metallurgical exam I know to perform. No problems, no bad findings.
Yet these parroted comments persisted.
I came across a deal on one of the c1a stripped receiver at a gunshow. I have to caveat this with I don't know if it had been rebuilt before or not, but I bought it to test it.
Dimensionally that receiver was out of tolerance.
now to re-quote the specific comment:
quote:
The early Century Sporters were basically an inch pattern parts kit built on a metric receiver
After testing the C1A receiver, I have come to believe this is the source of the nasty rep century got for their receivers.
After some testing the receive ring showed all the signs of having a barrel torqued on with the wrong threads.
That was only the C1A.
I heard the weak receiver argument, and therein I found a basis for it. Unnecessary torque can screw up any receiver.
There is a reason there are torque specs for things like that. Over torque is bad all the way around, be it for your Imbel, DSA, Century arms or whomever else makes your receiver.
For someone just starting who has never bought a receiver, I suggest you buy a virgin receiver or a whole rifle. If you buy a century whole rifle, buy the R1A1.
I don't know the extent of the C1A problem, but finding what I did on one of them and not finding anything even remotely related on all the others I've purchased, I am lead to believe the problem can be bound within the C1A's.
A lot more sampling would be required to definitively state that, but what I found was enough to explain the rumors, and debunk the over all quality comments.
If every manufacture of a firearm was held to their quality of the first year production for a life long reputation, their would not be many left considered "good".
My take for what its worth.0 -
My Century is all metric anyway
Your kit is an Inch pattern. You'll want the charging handle cut (CHC) receiver so the charging handle folds properly.
Don't forget your US parts count !!
Also don't forget that what you have receiver wise is the lower receiver. Opposite of ARs, the Upper Receiver is the registered gun part of a FAL ....0 -
Your parts look like my Enterprise inch pattern FAL.
Is there any name at all on your reciever?0 -
quote:Originally posted by cwi555
After some testing the receive ring showed all the signs of having a barrel torqued on with the wrong threads.
Huh? Both the Metric and Inch guns use a 1"-16TPI barrel shank thread. The Israeli guns are teh only ones that use a Metric barrel shank.
You kit has some metric features(charging handle, dustcover, bayonet, one set of handguards) but has an inch lower, and inch front sight base. It has been previously built by someone and torn apart(probably Hesse, as that looks like one of his muzzle breaks, which actually seem to make recoil harsher).0 -
Final question...
So I can get an Enterprise or DSA INCH Upper Receiver with CHC and should be good to go? Anything else to watch for???
I am figuring $400-$450 for the Receiver and $200 to put humpty back together. So I figured no more than $900 with a couple of mags. I didn't think that was a bad deal if it shoots. [:D]
I bought it from a smith so I was going to have him put it together. He thought it was a British kit, but didn't know for sure. It seems to be in really good shape and the bore looks good.
AS for Parts I plan on putting a Railed Top Cover and having the smith update the other parts to up Compliant.
Good to know that I can use a METRIC Receiver.0 -
quote:Originally posted by moreammoplz
Final question...
So I can get an Enterprise or DSA INCH Upper Receiver with CHC and should be good to go? Anything else to watch for???
I am figuring $400-$450 for the Receiver and $200 to put humpty back together. So I figured no more than $900 with a couple of mags. I didn't think that was a bad deal if it shoots. [:D]
I bought it from a smith so I was going to have him put it together. He thought it was a British kit, but didn't know for sure. It seems to be in really good shape and the bore looks good.
I reccomend a Metric receiver, your charging handle is Metric, as is your top cover. Metric mags are much cheaper.
Metric receivers are sorta available.
Last I checked DSA and Entreprises' inch receivers are vaporware.
you still need US made compliance parts to satisfy 922R, the only parts I see you have is the brake. The receiver would be 1 more. You still need 5. There might be others mixed in there, but your pictures aren't good enough to tell for sure( close up of the hammer, trigger and sear. Your stock set might be USA, but again, your pictures are fuzzy).0
Please sign in to leave a comment.
Comments
10 comments