Century Arms L1a1 Serial Numbers

Another issue discovered on initial test fitting was the front receiver face was not square on one of the receivers. One rear gas tube support screwed in fine, the other as you can see in the picture, does not contact the receiver face evenly. While flush at 6 o’clock, there is a noticeable gap at 12 o’clock. This is a cosmetic rather than a functional issue.It is interesting to note also that this second receiver required a spanner wrench for the last 4 turns. I could have chased the threads (9/16×24 RH) but wanted to see how much effort was going to be required. The front of the Type I has the correct radius and lightening cuts. The machining on the inside receiver face and the receiver bridge is very rough.

A total of 158 rifles were imported and serial numbers range from SAF83005 (which I kept) to SAF830166. Though the receivers for early production Century L1A1. Lithgow SLR L1A1 Serial # question. I recently acquired a de-banned Century L1A1 sporter built on an Imbel receiver. Proshivka bios so slic 21. We have a couple in the arms room at work.

While machine marks themselves are of little consequence, the pattern here seems to indicate either non-homogenous steel or badly worn or damaged tooling. You will also note the non-concentricity of the gas piston hole and the relief cut around it. It seems to be the relief cut, not the hole, that is off. The depth is too shallow as well, as demonstrated by the dustcover fit. (followup: Lawrence claims this is not a problem as it does not affect function and he claims to have fixed it).

The extractor relief cut had rough serrations, as was the cut on the opposite side. The receiver the bridge is wavy. I couldn’t photograph the underside of the bridge, but it too was off. It is supposed to be flat – it cams the front of the bolt down.

These had an irregular double-bevel. There is supposed to be a radius on the right side for the extractor to cam outward, and a smaller one on the left, but you can see the center section is not flat either. This does not appear to affect operation. The photograph that did not turn out well was a closeup of the feedramps. The radii are either too deep or too close together, as the ridge in the middle is smaller than on an FN receiver. This does not seem to have an adverse effect on operation. The same closeup showed the front recess for the tab on the front of the magazine.

It is taller and wider than an FN, but works. Internet archives free books. One gun fit all magazines loosely.

It still cycled fine, and perhaps its simply a stacking of errors with a worn mag catch and a pile of used magazines, but it also could be this notch was a bit too low. The Type 1 hand-timed a little short of the “golden triangle” target, but this is fine. Both guns headspaced in what I consider an average range, that is.256″.260″ locking shoulder.The Type III hand-timed even shorter, but this is not unusual and a lot better than over-timing. I am concerned about the thread engagement, as there was considerable lateral play prior to snugging against the shoulder. I do not consider it a safety issue. Both guns headspaced in what I consider an average range, that is.256″.260″ locking shoulder.