FAL Review: Entréprise Arms Inc. 2009 L1A1 ReceiverFAL Review: Entréprise Arms Inc. 2009 L1A1 ReceiverFAL Review: Entréprise Arms Inc. 2009 L1A1 Receiverars-website-header-perpixel
  • Home
  • Armory
    • FAL & L1A1 Armory
    • FAL & L1A1 Price List
    • What’s this 922 stuff?
    • Refinishing
    • METACOL Tech Specs
  • Store
    • Custom Work
    • FAL
      • FAL Barrel Group
      • FAL Receiver Group
      • FAL Lower Group
      • Parts Kits & Receivers
    • L1A1
      • L1A1 Barrel Group
      • L1A1 Receiver Group
      • L1A1 Lower Group
      • Parts Kits & Receivers
    • FAL Israel
      • FAL Israel Barrel Group
      • FAL Israel Receiver Group
      • FAL Israel Lower Group
    • FAL India
      • FAL Indian Barrel Group
      • FAL Indian Receiver Group
      • FAL Indian Lower Group
    • FAL Paratrooper
    • FAL Misc Tools and Parts
    • Bargain Bin
      • Misc Guns, Parts, Closeouts
    • Misc
      • Books, T-Shirts, Promos
      • Pay Invoice
  • Resources
    • FAL
      • Aust. L1A1 Serial Number Lookup
      • FAL Reviews – Receivers
        • CAI L1A1 Receiver
        • FAC FAL Receiver
        • Coonan FAL Receiver 2009
        • WAC FAL Receiver – Steel
        • WAC FAL Receiver – Aluminum
        • EAI FAL Receiver
        • EAI FAL Receiver 2007-2008
        • EAI L1A1 Receiver 2009
        • Olympic Arms FAL Receiver
      • FAL Reviews – DSA
        • Defective DSA Barrels
      • FAL Tutorials
        • Rhodesian Pattern Camouflage
        • CAI L1A1 Thumbhole Restoration
        • FNC Handguards on FAL
        • Fake Wood L1A1 Handguards
        • Convert Type A Lower to Type B
        • FAL Magazine Repair
        • FAL Tutorial: Installing FAL Israel Gas Block
      • FAL Reviews – Misc
        • FAL India Parts ID
        • Gas Block Drilling Fixture
    • AK
      • ORF Gen 2 Galil Receiver
      • ORF Gen 1 Galil Receiver
      • PKM Tripod A&D
      • RPD A&D
      • AK Pistol Build
      • IMI Galil Build
      • Saiga Sporter AK Conversion
      • Arsenal AK Trigger Adjustment
      • TAPCO G2 AK Trigger Adjustment
    • HK
      • HK vs POF Parts Comparison
      • Special Weapons SW5
      • PTR-91 HK Build
      • SW3 HK Build
    • SCAR
      • SCAR Review: FN SCAR-16S & SCAR-17S.
      • SCAR 20 Initial Impressions
    • Refinishing
      • Firearm Metal Finishing
      • Firearm Wood Finishing
    • Tools
      • East German AK Armorer Tools
      • East German Makarov Tools
      • Chinese Armorer Tools
      • ARS Armorer Tools
      • Gunsmith Tool Holder
      • Gunsmith Workbench
    • Misc Tutorials
      • Beretta AR-70 Build
      • Browning 1919 Build
    • Misc Reviews
      • Gunplumber Makes Spears
      • Individual Combat Load
      • Czech Vz52 Rifle A&D
      • 20g Shotgun for Home Defense
      • Fine Scale Models
      • ARS Ghillie Suits
      • Best Gun Evaluation
  • FAQ
  • Contact
  • About ARS
    • Gunplumber
    • The Shop
    • ARS on Facebook
    • ARS on YouTube
    • FAL/L1A1 FaceBook User Group
Account0
FAL Review: Williams Arms Company Steel FAL Receiver
2016-09-20
FAL Review: Entréprise Arms Inc. 2007/2008 FAL Receiver
2016-09-20

FAL Review: Entréprise Arms Inc. 2009 L1A1 Receiver

(updated 04-09-2020)
Introduction
Entréprise Arms sent me pre-production L1A1 receivers for review and comment. Over several months I evaluated their changes and recently received a fourth production receiver. It is of the British pattern, which makes it unique, as no other companies have released a British pattern receiver. (Update: Coonan Now offers UK cut). Entréprise Arms had previously released an Australian Pattern.

I wanted to determine if it was suitable for the typical home builder, or if it would require significant adjustment, best left for the professional or experienced home-builder. If there are flaws, what will it take to correct them? I started with initial observations, then test fitted parts to the receiver. Then I did a complete build and testfire. When I found issues, I determined what the most appropriate fix would be and the level of complexity. I hope this commentary is of value in making your buying decision.


I used a 1958 pattern British rear receiver section, an Australian front receiver section, and original blueprints as a guide. While the lightening cuts are different on the Australian and British, the critical dimensions are the same. I acquired four inch pattern parts kits for the evaluation, with most parts Australian. If a part didn’t fit as expected, I tried to duplicate the problem with other samples of the same part – thereby determining if the receiver or the part was at fault.
Initial Inspection

The first receiver came with a dark gray manganese phosphate finish. I found that removing the phosphate finish and using a fine bead-blast made it easier to photograph different aspects for my long discussions with Matt at EAI. After mentioning this to EAI, I received subsequent receivers in the white, and bead-blasted them to accentuate the detail. Receivers shipped to the customer will be phosphated.

The receiver is machined from a casting. Hardness test marks on the underside of the receiver suggest it was hardness-tested after heat treatment.


Arizona Response Systems EAI L1A1 receiver review
Left side view.

Arizona Response Systems EAI L1A1 receiver review
Right Side view.

Arizona Response Systems EAI L1A1 receiver review
Top view.

Arizona Response Systems EAI L1A1 receiver review
Bottom view.

Arizona Response Systems EAI L1A1 receiver review
Close-up, left side engraving. The engraving on my last receiver was not as nice as the previous 3. It appears they attempted a new engraving style that made the letters too wide, and then went back over it with the old style, leaving a shadow around the letters.

Arizona Response Systems EAI L1A1 receiver review
Close-up, right side engraving.

Arizona Response Systems EAI L1A1 receiver review
Close-up, comparing internal rear cuts with original. Very nice.

Arizona Response Systems EAI L1A1 receiver review
Comparing right side internal lightening cuts to original. Very nice.

Arizona Response Systems EAI L1A1 receiver review
Comparing left side internal lightening cuts to original. Very nice.

Arizona Response Systems EAI L1A1 receiver review
External radius cut. This compound radius is a difficult cut to make. The cosmetics are a little rough (top). More on that later. The magazine well difference is correct for the year of the blueprint – a little different than the Australian version.

Arizona Response Systems EAI L1A1 receiver review
Front comparison.

Arizona Response Systems EAI L1A1 receiver review
Inside front comparison. This was the area of greatest disappointment. More on this later.

Arizona Response Systems EAI L1A1 receiver review
Center underside comparison.

Arizona Response Systems EAI L1A1 receiver review
Close-up, center right side.

Arizona Response Systems EAI L1A1 receiver review
Locking lug comparison, right side close-up.

Arizona Response Systems EAI L1A1 receiver review
Close-up, underside rear. Note small relief cut missing. Not essential, but helps guide the upper and lower together.

Arizona Response Systems EAI L1A1 receiver review
Magazine well comparison.
Test Fitting

Arizona Response Systems EAI L1A1 receiver review
Test fit, cocking handle. No issues.

Arizona Response Systems EAI L1A1 receiver review
Test fit, cop cover front. Fits. Earlier ones needed a slight relief. The cosmetics still upset me.

Arizona Response Systems EAI L1A1 receiver review
Test-fit, top cover, right side view.

Arizona Response Systems EAI L1A1 receiver review
Test fit, top cover, rear. Alignment is good. Clearance slots well done.

Arizona Response Systems EAI L1A1 receiver review
Bolt hold-open did not fit. I initially assumed EAI had used a metric ejector block. One must enlarge the channel to 19/64″ (0.2969″) and magazine catch spring recess #19 (0.1660″) when using a metric ejector block on an inch receiver. I opened the hole and the BHO fit. Only then did I note the broad arrow proof mark indicating this e-block was indeed inch pattern. I speculate that the e-block had been squeezed slightly during install, compressing the bolt-hold-open channel. I am working with EAI to devise a cost-effective means of test-fitting receivers prior to shipping. I had no problems with magazine catch or BHO fit on the earlier prototype receivers.

Arizona Response Systems EAI L1A1 receiver review
Magazine catch did not fit.

Arizona Response Systems EAI L1A1 receiver review
The magazine catch did fit the slot from the inside, indicating it was only the bottom of the slot that was constricted. I opened it with a tiny 3-corner file.

Arizona Response Systems EAI L1A1 receiver review
After opening the slot with a file, the magazine catch fit the slot, but stopped on the side of the receiver.

Arizona Response Systems EAI L1A1 receiver review
At this point, I noticed one wall of the receiver was wider than the other, although the overall width was the same as my UK sample. I suspect that the receiver was offset slightly during a fixture change. Combined with a possibly bad ejector block, this could account for the difficulty I was having.

Arizona Response Systems EAI L1A1 receiver review
While I could have altered the magazine catch, my goal is to make the receiver fit standard parts. I narrowed the the outside of the receiver by a small amount.

Arizona Response Systems EAI L1A1 receiver review
After correcting the magazine catch slot, I discovered the magazine catch axle screw did not fit either. This supported my idea that there was something wrong with this ejector block.

Arizona Response Systems EAI L1A1 receiver review
After I chased the threads, the magazine catch axle screw fit correctly. The magazine then locked in place correctly.

Arizona Response Systems EAI L1A1 receiver review
Bolt & bolt carrier fit fine.

Arizona Response Systems EAI L1A1 receiver review
Hinge pin wouldn’t fit in hole. Edge of hole had a sharp burr.

Arizona Response Systems EAI L1A1 receiver review
I reamed the hole to get rid of the burr.

Arizona Response Systems EAI L1A1 receiver review
After reaming the hole, the hinge pin fit the hole, but only slid in part of the way.

Arizona Response Systems EAI L1A1 receiver review
Heavy burrs prevented the hinge pin from seating and from ears of lower sliding all the way over the receiver.

Arizona Response Systems EAI L1A1 receiver review
I cleaned up the burrs.

Arizona Response Systems EAI L1A1 receiver review
After cleaning up the burrs, the lower fit and locked securely.

Arizona Response Systems EAI L1A1 receiver review
The rear gas tube support fit fine, as did the carry handle. On one of the earlier receiver prototypes, the threads for the rear gas tube support were tight and I chased the threads on both the part and the receiver with a 9/16×24 RH tap and die. I did this automatically, before remembering to test other rear handguard supports. I therefore was unable to determine if it was the part, or the receiver, or both, that had tight threads.

Arizona Response Systems EAI L1A1 receiver review
With a mid-range breeching washer (#4, 0.052″), the barrel timed to 10:00-10:30.

Arizona Response Systems EAI L1A1 receiver review
I had already refinished the parts kits, so I headspaced accounting for short barrel timing. This way I could refinish the receiver by itself, with the locking shoulder installed, and not have to refinish the barrel and receiver together.
Final Assembly & Testing

Arizona Response Systems EAI L1A1 receiver review
I really didn’t like the jagged cuts on the inside rear face so I cleaned them up the best I could. Matt at EAI says they are working on cleaning this hard-to-reach area up in future units.

Arizona Response Systems EAI L1A1 receiver review
Here is my cobbled together scraper with pilot and drill extension.

Arizona Response Systems EAI L1A1 receiver review
In use.

Arizona Response Systems EAI L1A1 receiver review
I realize this compound radius is very difficult to cut, I still wasn’t pleased with the step.

Arizona Response Systems EAI L1A1 receiver review
Close-up of the transition.

Arizona Response Systems EAI L1A1 receiver review
I used a Dremel tool with a 3/4″ diameter stone, followed by a fine sanding drum, followed by a Scotchbrite abrasive wheel to clean up the transitions here.
Summary
Any new product will require some field testing, feedback, improvement and retesting. This is normal and expected. It is not fair to draw conclusions about the quality of a production unit based on the prototypes. Since the first three receivers I examined (one returned with comments) were pre-production models, including them here is only to track improvements. Since the issues I had with them were mostly cosmetic, I made the corrections myself on the prototype receivers.

Receiver #46 (kit = wood furniture, 18″ barrel), was a production unit, but had some issues with the magazine catch & bolt hold-open fit that I had not seen on earlier receivers. I suspected that it was a glitch unique to that one receiver and not a pattern that would be repeated on an entire production run. Once I identified the problem, it was easy to correct. While a novice builder would not have much trouble correcting the problem, without a little experience, it might be difficult to correctly identify the problem. I recommend thorough test-fitting of all parts and careful analysis of anything that doesn’t fit or fits tightly, before cutting or filing on the receiver. The rife test-fired fine.

Test-fitting the parts on prototype #45 (kit = plastic furniture, 21″ barrel) showed a looseness to the magazine fit that was not in the earlier receivers, nor the subsequent. I had seen this same problem in years past. Essentially, the distance from the front of the magazine well to the ejector block (which holds the magazine catch) was too long. Since the magazine catch attaches to the ejector block, this allowed the rear of the magazine to droop slightly. This could result in “bolt over base” where the bolt passes over the cartridge rim. Test-firing confirmed this problem. The “fix”was to weld a slight extension on the magazine catch – about .040”, which holds the magazine all the way up against the rails. I have not determined if the ejector block position is too far to the rear, or the magazine well cut is too far to the front. The same result could have been obtained by welding up the step above the magazine catch recess that contacts the front of the magazine under the tab, but getting in there to clean up the weld would have been a lot more difficult. While extending the magazine catch is addressed a symptom, rather than the problem, it fixed the problem and was much easier. Again, this was a prototype receiver.

Test-fitting the parts on prototype #37 (kit = plastic furniture, 21″ barrel) showed no problems other than the cosmetic ones identified above. The kit went together and testfired fine.

All three receivers went together with no issues other than those identified above. While not perfect, these receivers are fine for the home builder with the patience to test fit everything first. With EAI’s renewed commitment to customer satisfaction, testing everything before making any modifications will allow EAI to track any issues, and replace receivers as needed. I’ve also discussed enhanced test fitting procedures at EAI to minimize the number of receivers that make it out the door with problems.

Assuming that subsequent receivers have no greater issues than these (and hopefully less), I have no problem accepting the EAI inch pattern British cut receiver for builds.


Arizona Response Systems EAI L1A1 receiver review
EAI # 37.

Arizona Response Systems EAI L1A1 receiver review
EAI # 37.

Arizona Response Systems EAI L1A1 receiver review
EAI # 37.

Arizona Response Systems EAI L1A1 receiver review
EAI # 45.

Arizona Response Systems EAI L1A1 receiver review
EAI # 45.

Arizona Response Systems EAI L1A1 receiver review
EAI # 45.

Arizona Response Systems EAI L1A1 receiver review
EAI # 46.

Arizona Response Systems EAI L1A1 receiver review
EAI # 46.

Arizona Response Systems EAI L1A1 receiver review
EAI # 46.

Share
0
Admin
Admin

Related posts

2016-09-29

FAL Review: Coonan, Inc. 2009 FAL Receiver


Read more
2016-09-29

FAL Review: Federal Arms Corporation / DC Industries FAL Receiver


Read more
2016-09-20

FAL Review: Century Arms International L1A1 Receiver


Read more

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.


© 2018, T. Mark Graham, Arizona Response Systems, LLC. | All rights reserved. | Developed by Cole Patrick Digital Marketing | Privacy Policy

    0