Hey - We are hearing that Canada is/are DESTROYING over 67,000 FNC1 and FNC2s
- Thread starter 1feral1
- Start date
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 210
I finally got around to checking, and yes, there is an layer of asbestos under the metal plate at the business end of the inside of the forestocks. It is present under both the old and the new stock patterns.
An FN C1A1 in a museum? Well, it is much better than cutting them up. They were a great service rifle and I am still quite pleased with mine.
An FN C1A1 in a museum? Well, it is much better than cutting them up. They were a great service rifle and I am still quite pleased with mine.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 410
Under the metal fitting where the screw fastening is?
yeah - I guess it would make sense there.... it's the only place the forestock is in contact with the barrel and the gas chamber.... there really can't be that much of it there though - really small place.
yeah - I guess it would make sense there.... it's the only place the forestock is in contact with the barrel and the gas chamber.... there really can't be that much of it there though - really small place.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 210
Yes, that's the piece tiny though it is.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 110
I had to look for a quick replacement 4 years ago for the Navy's 44mag line throwing gun. Gary offered me a 1000 of the warstock C1's as an option to look at. While it was very tempting offer, the logistics for securing the weapons on board, developing a suitable blank, as well as teaching everyone that joined after '90 this "new" weapon, it was decided to convert a couple of hundred C7's to do the job.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 110
TCBF said:
The Navy needed a single shot line throwing gun. Originally the project needed 181 weapons and I was allocated $540k for the entire project. We went out to industry, and after all the proposals had been reviewed, we were short of funds by almost $300k. That's when I went to Gary. We looked at the 7.62 sniper rifle, but it would not have survived in a marine environment. The FN was our next choice but the logistics of re-introducing it into the Navy was too much effort. The C7 became the most viable choice as the US already had an M16 line throwing version in service. The hardest part of adopting the C7 as a maritime line throwing gun was the re-worked ammunition. We needed a lot more punch to the current in service blanks. It took almost 2 years to get the project done, but if you talk to any other LCMM, 2 years from start to operational use is not a bad timeline.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 110
geo said:
The cartridge was not available to us. When this was pushed through we were just post 9/11. The restrictions on procuring small arms ammunition from the US was so prohibitive that we contracted a Canadian company to produce 10k rounds. As there was a standing offer the process went a bit quicker.
- Reaction score
- 213
- Points
- 880
I assume none of these can be bought deactivated? The weapon holds sentimental value for some of my family.
:crybaby:
:crybaby:
"The cartridge was not available to us. When this was pushed through we were just post 9/11. The restrictions on procuring small arms ammunition from the US was so prohibitive that we contracted a Canadian company to produce 10k rounds. As there was a standing offer the process went a bit quicker."
- Didn't slow Winchester, Remington-Peters, Federal, etc. from shipping 20,000,000 12 GA cartridges, pluss millions more pistol and rifle rimfire and center fire cartridges a year into Canada from the USA. or Libec ('Challenger') from shipping the stuff south from Quebec.
what kind of line thrower ammo do the Yanks and Kippers use?
Tom
- Didn't slow Winchester, Remington-Peters, Federal, etc. from shipping 20,000,000 12 GA cartridges, pluss millions more pistol and rifle rimfire and center fire cartridges a year into Canada from the USA. or Libec ('Challenger') from shipping the stuff south from Quebec.
what kind of line thrower ammo do the Yanks and Kippers use?
Tom
I have fond memories of my FNCI. We had a great time in Ottawa in '84 at the Cannaught Ranges. I'll always remember that summer with a great sense of nostalgia. We won that year! I still remember the serial number and year of manufacture, 4L2404 made in 1956. She never jammed and always shot as straight as I could manage. We also used to fire .22 cal with the help of a conversion kit on the indoor range located in the basement of the parade building. Excellent groupings and lots of fun! 
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 60
Hi:
From 1967 to 1970, I was post to the 3rd RCHA, “G” Battery, CFB, Fort Osborne Barracks, Winnipeg and CFB, Shilo, Manitoba. Needless to say, I was part of the old arm and enjoy many memories of that time.
It is so sad to see the FNC-1 and FNC-2 destroyed in this way with little regard to the history of this fine equipment. Personally, I would gladly give my right arm and my left testicle to own one of these rifles and have it as a part of my collection; however, there always seems to be a “dickhead” that makes this not happen.
It is like anything else in the military, the ones holding the reins at this point of time think that equipment being used now are all important and that what was used thirty or forty years ago is too old and outdate and therefore serve no further use. This is a sad attitude to have because things like these rifles played such an important part in our military history.
At least the veterans and past soldiers should have had a chance to purchase them before putting them up for destruction. This would have kept at least a few in circulation.
Oh well, I guess this generation will begin to understand this point thirty or forty years from now, when the military at that time does the same thing to them.
Bob
From 1967 to 1970, I was post to the 3rd RCHA, “G” Battery, CFB, Fort Osborne Barracks, Winnipeg and CFB, Shilo, Manitoba. Needless to say, I was part of the old arm and enjoy many memories of that time.
It is so sad to see the FNC-1 and FNC-2 destroyed in this way with little regard to the history of this fine equipment. Personally, I would gladly give my right arm and my left testicle to own one of these rifles and have it as a part of my collection; however, there always seems to be a “dickhead” that makes this not happen.
It is like anything else in the military, the ones holding the reins at this point of time think that equipment being used now are all important and that what was used thirty or forty years ago is too old and outdate and therefore serve no further use. This is a sad attitude to have because things like these rifles played such an important part in our military history.
At least the veterans and past soldiers should have had a chance to purchase them before putting them up for destruction. This would have kept at least a few in circulation.
Oh well, I guess this generation will begin to understand this point thirty or forty years from now, when the military at that time does the same thing to them.
Bob
daftandbarmy
Army.ca Dinosaur
- Reaction score
- 32,047
- Points
- 1,160
GunnerGleadall said:
... and what about all those bayonets? At least they didn't break when you looked at them....
- Reaction score
- 1
- Points
- 410
daftandbarmy said:
Well they did break but you really had to work at.
I remember the Guard of Honour for Prince Charles and Lady Di in 1983 at St John's aiprort. For the Dress rehearsal we were inspected by then Commodore Fred Mifflin (POS) and he was pissed that several of the FN bayonets were chipped and tips broken off. When the Guard Comd noted on the tarmac in front of 100 troopies and the CFS St John's CO, the LFAA Deputy Comd and other assorted high priced help that all requests for replacments had been denied by MARCOM/LFAA and that a request for spares from CFS St John's weapons lock up was also denied, well lets say it was entertaining for this right marker. 8)
- Reaction score
- 4,152
- Points
- 1,120
A VERY few of us still own C1's. Mine is an ex-OPP rifle.
NS
NS
Similar threads
