wanneroo wrote:Pretty cool gun, will probably sell for $20K plus at Morphy's.
I've shot a 1972 Lithgow L1A1 that had been converted to a machine gun here in the USA. I think the FAL was probably one of the best battle rifles of it's generation.
I'd like to own a Lithgow FAL but they command high prices here in the USA and don't come up for sale much.
Blr243 wrote:Many decades ago I saw an slr advertised in the paper version of the trading post real cheap. It might have been 2 or 300 bucks. It’s not likely I drove at the speed limit to pick it up. I was very excited and thought they were worth more like 2500 bucks. Unfortunately When I arrived at the correct address the house was full of derilict bikies and it was just a semi auto Fn 8 mm Mauser But I bought it anyway ..... Probably a good thing that it was not a real slr. A couple of years later if I hand to hand in a slr in the 96 buy back I would have cried for a month ...... does any one remember, we’re the any slrs circulating in the civilian market ?
Tiger650 wrote:Cheers BR
I well recall the gun I burned through much taxpayer supplied ammo with one, do not recall any feed issues with the 30rd mag and we did not use 20rd mags.
Also the one time burned thumb, when new to the gun and familiar with the SLR I got it hot and wrapped my hand around the non existent hand guard, ouch.
A little heavy to carry but shot well off hand and awesome off the bipod.
Adjust the gas regulator up as the gun got hot/fouled and no stoppages with sustained high rates of fire, I would call it a light machine gun.
bigrich wrote:oh yes, there were civillian owned SLR's around . talking to some fellas they made money selling back some rifles . i'd like a civillian spec BAR browning . they were made up to 270 and 30-06 . i wouldn't think it'd be a issue converting one to 35 whelen . now that'd be a sambar rifle hey a semi auto 35 whelen
bladeracer wrote:bigrich wrote:oh yes, there were civillian owned SLR's around . talking to some fellas they made money selling back some rifles . i'd like a civillian spec BAR browning . they were made up to 270 and 30-06 . i wouldn't think it'd be a issue converting one to 35 whelen . now that'd be a sambar rifle hey a semi auto 35 whelen
Wow! I don't fancy lugging a BAR around in sambar country
in2anity wrote:It’s a bit before my time, but the boys reminisce about the SLR pre-Howard. I’ve heard a few say the SLR would tend to let you down a bit on the 300m prone mound, when it came to brute accuracy. A solid choice for the other positions, however. Ticks a lot of boxes.
bigrich wrote:
I read a article that the FAL was a finalist for the US military, but dodgy generals and politicians did some behind closed door deals
Woulda been a better thing than a AR in my opinion
A mates stepdad is a vet, and he reckons he had a SLR cut down by mates in the engineers, apparently the gas adjuster compensated for the shortened barrel. So he said anyway
in2anity wrote:It’s a bit before my time, but the boys reminisce about the SLR pre-Howard. I’ve heard a few say the SLR would tend to let you down a bit on the 300m prone mound, when it came to brute accuracy. A solid choice for the other positions, however. Ticks a lot of boxes.
in2anity wrote:It'd sure be cool to shoot a match with the HB L2A1 though. I bet it would generally hold a better group. I wonder if that handguard had much flex in it (when folded flat)?
wanneroo wrote:Probably would be better with that barrel as the regular barrel has quite a bit of barrel whip to it.
bigrich wrote:wanneroo wrote:Pretty cool gun, will probably sell for $20K plus at Morphy's.
I've shot a 1972 Lithgow L1A1 that had been converted to a machine gun here in the USA. I think the FAL was probably one of the best battle rifles of it's generation.
I'd like to own a Lithgow FAL but they command high prices here in the USA and don't come up for sale much.
I read a article that the FAL was a finalist for the US military, but dodgy generals and politicians did some behind closed door deals
Woulda been a better thing than a AR in my opinion
A mates stepdad is a vet, and he reckons he had a SLR cut down by mates in the engineers, apparently the gas adjuster compensated for the shortened barrel. So he said anyway
Download wrote:By the way, these are the same ****** that sabotaged the M16 when McNamara forced them to adopt it. They should have been put in front of the firing squad for that one given their actions killed something like 500 to 1000 US servicemen. McNamara got the last laugh though: he closed Springfield Armory.
in2anity wrote:It’s a bit before my time, but the boys reminisce about the SLR pre-Howard. I’ve heard a few say the SLR would tend to let you down a bit on the 300m prone mound, when it came to brute accuracy. A solid choice for the other positions, however. Ticks a lot of boxes.
SCJ429 wrote:in2anity wrote:It’s a bit before my time, but the boys reminisce about the SLR pre-Howard. I’ve heard a few say the SLR would tend to let you down a bit on the 300m prone mound, when it came to brute accuracy. A solid choice for the other positions, however. Ticks a lot of boxes.
You are not wrong about the poor accuracy, the front sight is on the barrel and the rear sight on the action. These rifle broke open and a well used one had plenty of slop at the pivot. I remember my Warrent Officer going on about how well he shot with his brand spanking SLR while diggers like me had one with about a million rounds though them. Complete pieces of rubbish, would much rather carry a Mauser 98.
The L2A1 was a heavy piece of junk and even the Pig was a better thing to shoot.
in2anity wrote:
I read a chilling autobiographical recount from a Vietnam vet a while back. He described his first firefight after his platoon switched to the original m16 (from the venerable m14). His fire team were out on the extremities of a flank with a support weapon, but the VC made a number of hits forcing the entire platoon to withdraw and regroup. This guy ultimately had to dash to form up again. As he ran past the line, he described seeing numerous friendly KIAs, all with cleaning rods sticking out of their muzzles, all attempting to clear stoppages after failure to extract. An absolute cluster f**k, that rollout was. Shameful.
Tiger650 wrote:
Good luck with the Mauser 98, that worked out well for the Wehrmacht.
The fore sight on the SLR is mounted just aft of the gas block not on the barrel.
Maybe your WO was more skilled, you having been been a cadet and all.
The F4 7.62 round used a 144gn projectile, a little light for the 7.62 but relatively fast at 2600 fps, good for Communist way out past 300 yds as indicated by the increased stated effective range of the AR [the "gun"]
I shot some very high mileage SLRs and they were good, RAEME armourers would check them with feeler gauges at rear of receiver and tag some out of tolerance, the tags got thrown away and the rifles still shot well.
Do not look at the rifle or the gun in isolation but consider the system, the SLR was designed by FN for European battle, 300 yds was too damn close given that Air and Arty [including mortars] should have thinned out the opposition prior.
wanneroo wrote:in2anity wrote:
I read a chilling autobiographical recount from a Vietnam vet a while back. He described his first firefight after his platoon switched to the original m16 (from the venerable m14). His fire team were out on the extremities of a flank with a support weapon, but the VC made a number of hits forcing the entire platoon to withdraw and regroup. This guy ultimately had to dash to form up again. As he ran past the line, he described seeing numerous friendly KIAs, all with cleaning rods sticking out of their muzzles, all attempting to clear stoppages after failure to extract. An absolute cluster f**k, that rollout was. Shameful.
You must have had the worst SLR in the nation for that to happen. I was a armourer and I would suggest that you may be exaggerating a little. They locked up pretty good and even when they failed the clearance test using a feeler gauge they would still shoot fine at 300. I spent a lot of time on the mound at 300. They were no MOA rifle but you could hit FIG11 targets ( man size) and put them all in the 5 ring with practice. I have a very big soft spot for those big bangers. As a young bloke they were a man cannon. It was a rifle well respected.SCJ429 wrote:Tiger650 wrote:
Good luck with the Mauser 98, that worked out well for the Wehrmacht.
The fore sight on the SLR is mounted just aft of the gas block not on the barrel.
Maybe your WO was more skilled, you having been been a cadet and all.
The F4 7.62 round used a 144gn projectile, a little light for the 7.62 but relatively fast at 2600 fps, good for Communist way out past 300 yds as indicated by the increased stated effective range of the AR [the "gun"]
I shot some very high mileage SLRs and they were good, RAEME armourers would check them with feeler gauges at rear of receiver and tag some out of tolerance, the tags got thrown away and the rifles still shot well.
Do not look at the rifle or the gun in isolation but consider the system, the SLR was designed by FN for European battle, 300 yds was too damn close given that Air and Arty [including mortars] should have thinned out the opposition prior.
There was considerable play in the SLR which you could see the change in the sight picture when you twisted the pistol grip away from the fore end. This is not conducive to accuracy. The WO2 may have had some skills but I was shooting 3P at the time and was graded AAA so I was no mug. If I had been given the pick of every rifle in the Armoury, I think I would have done better.