Nav wrote:





All that stuff about making a semi into a fully automatic by filing a
little off the sear, or some other simple change one might make in
one's garage, is nonsense.


Well it's hard to file hardened steel, grinding is better I've not
seen the modification but it was certainly talked about. What is the
difference between the semi-automatic sear and the automatic one?

Nav and Doug, I may be a little late getting in here but I've beeen out sailing;
The Canadian version of the FN-FAL was also semi-auto only, the emphasis being on
marksmenship rather than volume. Our FNs could be modified to full auto by the simply placing a strip of
thick paper made by folding a paper match book cover under one end of a leaf spring located under
the breach block, (and yes Nav, a court-martial offence in the Canadian armmy).

Cheers
Marty

Martin Baxter wrote:
Nav and Doug, I may be a little late getting in here but I've beeen out
sailing;

Good! I have spent most of the past week traveling the interstates.


The Canadian version of the FN-FAL was also semi-auto only, the emphasis
being on
marksmenship rather than volume. Our FNs could be modified to full auto
by the simply placing a strip of
thick paper made by folding a paper match book cover under one end of a
leaf spring located under
the breach block, (and yes Nav, a court-martial offence in the Canadian
armmy).

Hmmm... how long would this work? Does this mean that you could "file
(or grind) a little off the sear" and make it full auto? It sounds like
it would be fun but a bit less functional, possibly damage the weapon.
It also sounds a far cry from converting a semi-auto to a selectable
full or semi-auto.

Here's an example of synchronicity for those who believe in it... I had
a close parallel of this same conversation... "can you make a full auto
weapon out of a semi-auto SLR with a very simple modification" just the
other day.

The ones I've seen claimed are a Chinese copy of an AK-47, which
requires filing or grinding away part of both the sear *and* the feed
lever, then adding a new easily fabricated part and a different
spring... and a recoil operated .22 (Arm-A-Lite's wonderful AR-7) that
required fabricating a slightly different sear and changing the hammer
springs... I used to have a book that detailed this and gave part
numbers for the spring and machine specs for the "improved" sear.

However my favorite home-brew machine gun was a kit that mounted two
Ruger Mini-14s on a tripod with a spade handle and small crank to work
both triggers. I assume the same kit was (may still be) available for
other military style SLRs. Should I tell Joe about this? It'd be perfect
for discouraging those 3rd-world (ie texas) pirates!

DSK

"DSK" wrote in message

The ones I've seen claimed are a Chinese copy of an AK-47, which requires
filing or grinding away snip

Don't do it Doug... I speak from experience. It turns the AK into a self
firing auto that requires no input from the bearer to activate.

The FN FAL I owned was an excellent weapon. It can fire so fast that
automatic is not really required. Really... you only have a standard 20
round clip or modified 40 round.

BTW - FN made a wide variety of weapons Doug. It's a Belgian Company.

Wind is howling here at 80 miles an hour outside. Great day to watch the
ocean from the safety of shore. I saw a big wooden picnic table fly off into
the woods a half hour ago... what a sight that was.

CM

The ones I've seen claimed are a Chinese copy of an AK-47, which requires
filing or grinding away snip


Capt. Mooron wrote:
Don't do it Doug... I speak from experience. It turns the AK into a self
firing auto that requires no input from the bearer to activate.

Oh, *I* wasn't about to do anything of the kind. For one, I can afford
better than a cheapo Chinese copy AK-47, for another, I was debunking
Navvie's claim that any SLR can be made fully auto "by grinding away a
little bit off the sear" (an old wives tale).


The FN FAL I owned was an excellent weapon.

Same here. I'm not sure why Martin B was saying it was too powerful, too
heavy, and too klunky... of the gas-operated SLRs I know of, it's among
the smoothest (Marty, try one of those cheapo AK-47s in the same
caliber!). I thought it was a lot of fun.


... It can fire so fast that
automatic is not really required.

Not really a plus for an SLR IMHO.


BTW - FN made a wide variety of weapons Doug. It's a Belgian Company.

Yep, I was trying to point that out to Navvie a couple of posts ago.


Wind is howling here at 80 miles an hour outside. Great day to watch the
ocean from the safety of shore. I saw a big wooden picnic table fly off into
the woods a half hour ago... what a sight that was.

Blowing the dogs off their chains? Man you need to get a Laser or
something similar and get out there!

Actually, 80 is a bit too much. And isn't H. Nicole on her way to you? I
really hope the hurricane season is over.

Fresh Breezes- Doug King

DSK wrote:



Same here. I'm not sure why Martin B was saying it was too powerful, too
heavy, and too klunky... of the gas-operated SLRs I know of, it's among
the smoothest (Marty, try one of those cheapo AK-47s in the same
caliber!). I thought it was a lot of fun.

Don't get me wrong, the weapon is a dream to shoot, but the average grunt just doesn't shoot well enough to know the difference, nor does he need a
weapon that costs over a grand. Better to give him something light, cheap to manufacture, and lots of ammo, accuracy won't matter. Further having a
round capable of going right through a 350 Chevy block is rather unnecessary for an infantry man, instead give him a weapon that the rifling wears
out rapidly in and hope the tumbling lower powered round will produce much nastier wounds. As for the AK-47 I wasn't aware that you could get one in
7.62mm, if you did the power of the NATO round might do some serious damage to both the weapon and the rifleman, that said you are correct, they're
pigs to shoot, however I've seen films of Pakistanis making them out of scrap metal and rebar with foot powered lathes.

Cheers
Marty

Same here. I'm not sure why Martin B was saying it was too powerful,
too heavy, and too klunky... of the gas-operated SLRs I know of, it's
among the smoothest (Marty, try one of those cheapo AK-47s in the same
caliber!). I thought it was a lot of fun.


Martin Baxter wrote:
Don't get me wrong, the weapon is a dream to shoot, but the average
grunt just doesn't shoot well enough to know the difference, nor does he
need a weapon that costs over a grand.

Probably true, but then next to training costs the weapon itself isn't
that big a deal.

... Better to give him something
light, cheap to manufacture, and lots of ammo, accuracy won't matter.

Reliability & ease of maintenance are big issues too. It does no good to
outfit infantrymen with magnificent battle rifles if they get jammed or
broken under field conditions.

Further having a round capable of going right through a 350 Chevy block
is rather unnecessary for an infantry man

I think that somewhat depends on how you expect them to fight. Power =
range, too. But shooting through an engine block is hyperbole. If one
were to shoot up an old Chevy with a NATO battle rifle, one could
probably knock some chunks off it but not punch through the engine
block. For that, one needs at least a 30-06. Ask me how I know

... instead give him a weapon
that the rifling wears out rapidly in and hope the tumbling lower
powered round will produce much nastier wounds.

And dip the bullets in salt so they hurt more...


... As for the AK-47 I
wasn't aware that you could get one in 7.62mm

AFAIK you can get those cheapo Chinese copies in any of several
chamberings including .308 (which I've always thought of as the same as
7mm NATO)

... if you did the power of
the NATO round might do some serious damage to both the weapon and the
rifleman, that said you are correct, they're pigs to shoot, however I've
seen films of Pakistanis making them out of scrap metal and rebar with
foot powered lathes.

Yep, they are very resourceful. I understand that they use old bicycle
frames, too. But the key point here is not that this is a great weapon,
but that a bunch of guys with scrap-heap AKs rule the roost when nobody
else around the countryside has any weaponry or training.

All this makes me want to go and punch some expensive holes in paper.
When I get home I'm going to root around up in the attic and see what's
there...

Regards
Doug King

DSK wrote in message et...
Same here. I'm not sure why Martin B was saying it was too powerful,
too heavy, and too klunky... of the gas-operated SLRs I know of, it's
among the smoothest (Marty, try one of those cheapo AK-47s in the same
caliber!). I thought it was a lot of fun.


Martin Baxter wrote:
Don't get me wrong, the weapon is a dream to shoot, but the average
grunt just doesn't shoot well enough to know the difference, nor does he
need a weapon that costs over a grand.

Probably true, but then next to training costs the weapon itself isn't
that big a deal.

... Better to give him something
light, cheap to manufacture, and lots of ammo, accuracy won't matter.

Reliability & ease of maintenance are big issues too. It does no good to
outfit infantrymen with magnificent battle rifles if they get jammed or
broken under field conditions.

Further having a round capable of going right through a 350 Chevy block
is rather unnecessary for an infantry man

I think that somewhat depends on how you expect them to fight. Power =
range, too. But shooting through an engine block is hyperbole. If one
were to shoot up an old Chevy with a NATO battle rifle, one could
probably knock some chunks off it but not punch through the engine
block. For that, one needs at least a 30-06. Ask me how I know

... instead give him a weapon
that the rifling wears out rapidly in and hope the tumbling lower
powered round will produce much nastier wounds.

And dip the bullets in salt so they hurt more...


... As for the AK-47 I
wasn't aware that you could get one in 7.62mm

AFAIK you can get those cheapo Chinese copies in any of several
chamberings including .308 (which I've always thought of as the same as
7mm NATO)

7.62 NATO is what I expect you meant. And you'd be correct.

PDW

DSK wrote:

The ones I've seen claimed are a Chinese copy of an AK-47, which
requires filing or grinding away snip



Capt. Mooron wrote:

Don't do it Doug... I speak from experience. It turns the AK into a
self firing auto that requires no input from the bearer to activate.


Oh, *I* wasn't about to do anything of the kind. For one, I can afford
better than a cheapo Chinese copy AK-47, for another, I was debunking
Navvie's claim that any SLR can be made fully auto "by grinding away a
little bit off the sear" (an old wives tale).


So now you claim that an FN-FAL can't be sear modified to full auto? You
have first hand knowlege of the selector mechanism? Was that the same
selector that allowed a 3 round burst? Bwhahhahahaha. You are such a loser.

Cheers

DSK wrote:



BTW - FN made a wide variety of weapons Doug. It's a Belgian Company.


Yep, I was trying to point that out to Navvie a couple of posts ago.


Duh. Like I never knew that! But you are right that I never knew that an
FN-FAL fires a 3 round burst Doug!

Bwhahahahahha

Cheers

DSK wrote:



Same here. I'm not sure why Martin B was saying it was too powerful, too
heavy, and too klunky... of the gas-operated SLRs I know of, it's among
the smoothest

Doug the weapons expert speaks! It must be true! Can it fire a 3 round
burst too -that what we all want to know!

Cheers