Armory Sponsor
Posted: 11/28/2025 10:26:56 PM EDT
[Last Edit: kmad2001][Edited]
I’ve had this beautiful DSA Soldier Grade Izzy for years and barely spent time with it at the range. I can’t shoot irons any more, 60 year old eyes, so all I shoot has some form of glass on it. Years ago, I tried putting an Israeli SUIT on it (yes, I know, not “correct”), But, I thought, a nice pairing to have the two together. That scope kept popping off, as it turns out, probably b/c the little tips as part of the latching mechanism were shorn off. Never noticed this and probably why it was originally sold (I got suckered?) or maybe the impulse of my rifle broke it(?). See below. Pretty poor design if you ask me.  A couple months ago I put a TA11 ACOG on it and started walking the reticle to “zero”. As I adjusted the elevation, I noticed the reticle moving not only up/down but side to side. I wrote Trijicon to send it in. They asked for the s/n and (palm slaps forehead) it’s a fake (no s/n). Definitely got suckered on that one. Pretty sure it was an EE purchase on ARF.com years ago (oh well). A few weeks ago, I put a TA01 on it and after a few shots fired, same thing. Reticle wiggling upon elevation adjustment. That one (legit) went in to Trijicon. Soooo last weekend I pulled out another TA11 (legit) that’s been on the shelf since 2017 after having gone to Trijicon for service (found the old repair rpt). SAME EXACT THING !!! Few shots fired and the reticle is wiggling. I get the fake one crapping out but the other two? I do have it gassed down to toss brass a few feet out at about 2-3 o'clock. Recoil springs? Haven't thought of that. It does have a hard impulse, perhaps more so than my other FALs (I'd have to compare side by side) And it sure gets my attention feeling like the optic is thrusting back millimeters from my eyebrow every shot. Always makes me a skootch nervous every time I pull the trigger. I do have other lesser pedigree optics I can try but, on rings, are going to push me up to a chin-weld. We're talking ACOGs here. Aren't these some of the best-in-class military grade optics ? They're sure proud of their price points. I would think a "traditional" scope would be more moving parts and more vulnerable to extreme recoil. I don’t know what to say or ask except: W in The actual F |
| FALs are like SCAR-17s to a lesser degree, in that they experience a strong forward shock upon returning to battery. With the exception of airgun scopes and Leupold scopes, most optics are not rated for that type of motion. It sounds like your rifle is not cycling too violently; does it feed unusually smoothly from the magazine? |
|
I’d try replacing three springs, the inner and outer recoil springs in the butt and the gas piston spring. Or at least take down and measure them and check what minimum lengths they should be. Heck maybe someone even left out one of the buttstock’s recoil springs. |
The only hyphenated names I like are cartridge names......30-06, 30-40, 38-55 etc.
|
ACOG's will "wander" after making adjustments. After any windage or elevation adjustment you really need to shoot 2 or 3 rounds to let the prism settle in before making any further adjustments. Some people tap the scope by lightly hitting it with their hand. The POI after an adjustment can be randomly off by a few inches at 100 yds. It's bad enough that I cycle the bolt on an empty chamber a few times to jar the scope, then ignore the first 2 or 3 rounds after any adjustment. I've seen people at the range using an ACOG, make an adjustment, shoot one round and then try to adjust again. It usually ends up being a futile effort with them chasing the POI all over the place. I noticed it seemed to be worse on the earlier ACOG's which had 4 clicks per inch adjustment. It doesn't seem as bad on the ones with 3 clicks per inch adjustment. |
|
I guess I am lucky with my old Leopuld Mk4 scope. Bloke on the Range did a good explanation on the Trilux scope. The scope design and locking system is not a robust design. So, failure is going to happen. I am surprised that the second TA01 and the TA11 had failed. |
|
Originally Posted By JAG2955: What mount for the ACOG to the DSA top cover? How many round groupings are you doing, and at what range? Neither of these questions are really germane to the problem. BUT All ACOGs have been direct screwed onto the DSA top cover from underneath including a dab of blue Loctite. Never really got to shooting groups because when I get to adjusting the elevation turret the reticle is wiggling side to side as per described in the OP. |
|
Originally Posted By 1P29: ACOG's will "wander" after making adjustments. After any windage or elevation adjustment you really need to shoot 2 or 3 rounds to let the prism settle in before making any further adjustments. Some people tap the scope by lightly hitting it with their hand. The POI after an adjustment can be randomly off by a few inches at 100 yds. It's bad enough that I cycle the bolt on an empty chamber a few times to jar the scope, then ignore the first 2 or 3 rounds after any adjustment. I've seen people at the range using an ACOG, make an adjustment, shoot one round and then try to adjust again. It usually ends up being a futile effort with them chasing the POI all over the place. I noticed it seemed to be worse on the earlier ACOG's which had 4 clicks per inch adjustment. It doesn't seem as bad on the ones with 3 clicks per inch adjustment. I'm not specifically saying I don't believe this , but the notion is astounding (to me). If perhaps this is actually "a thing" with ACOGs, well, that to me would be the byproduct/feature of an extraordinarily cheap, unserious, "toy" grade scope. After all we're talking about military grade equipment, here, ranging about $1,500 MSRP price points. Surely an issues such as this would never pass military trials let alone basic QC for a premium commercial product (?). And, for what it's worth, I have some other ACOGs that have never exhibited such reticle looseness. Including another TA11 that's been riding, direct mount, on another DSA railed cover, on an Argy FAL for over a decade. |
|
Originally Posted By RS39: I have a surp hensoldt z24 4x on an ARMS adapter. The scope was made for G3 duty so the recoil mass is similar. The arms mount requires sneaking up on the set screws across/back/forth to be sure it is square straight on the receiver Yup, got one of these on my STG58. Wonderful scope. Can't believe what they've shot up to $$$ lately. |
|
I just got back to back emails from Triji that they are repairing the TA11 at no charge (2nd time BTW) and replacing the TA01 at no charge ! Now THAT'S customer service ! Especially considering the TA11 is a very old four-digit s/n model. Pretty sure both came from the ARF.com Equipment Exchange ages ago. |
|
Originally Posted By kmad2001: Neither of these questions are really germane to the problem. BUT All ACOGs have been direct screwed onto the DSA top cover from underneath including a dab of blue Loctite. Never really got to shooting groups because when I get to adjusting the elevation turret the reticle is wiggling side to side as per described in the OP. You didn't "mechanically zero", your ACOG, did you? |
|
Originally Posted By Frens: It means centering the prism exactly to the center of the scope housing by counting the max available adjustment clicks then dividing them by 2 That's what I thought. Wouldn't that be a prudent measure when moving optics between platforms or pulling out of storage to have a baseline known "center" point to work from? I have done this previously. |
|
Originally Posted By kmad2001: I'm not specifically saying I don't believe this , but the notion is astounding (to me). If perhaps this is actually "a thing" with ACOGs, well, that to me would be the byproduct/feature of an extraordinarily cheap, unserious, "toy" grade scope. After all we're talking about military grade equipment, here, ranging about $1,500 MSRP price points. Surely an issues such as this would never pass military trials let alone basic QC for a premium commercial product (?). And, for what it's worth, I have some other ACOGs that have never exhibited such reticle looseness. Including another TA11 that's been riding, direct mount, on another DSA railed cover, on an Argy FAL for over a decade. ACOGs have proven their durability many times over, this phenomenon is just an artifact of the design. Here's a video from a few years back of the then 2nd Marine Division Gunner demonstrating the need to settle the reticle after making adjustments: https://www.military.com/video/guns-weapons/rifles/this-marine-will-show-you-how-to-zero-a-rifle/5471532119001 |
|
Originally Posted By SSeric02: ACOGs have proven their durability many times over, this phenomenon is just an artifact of the design. Here's a video from a few years back of the then 2nd Marine Division Gunner demonstrating the need to settle the reticle after making adjustments: https://www.military.com/video/guns-weapons/rifles/this-marine-will-show-you-how-to-zero-a-rifle/5471532119001 Huh, so you find zero, lightly tap the top reticle a few times with a rubber mallet , double check zero, adjust if needed, tap again and that's it. I'm going to send this to Trijicon and see what they say. |
|
Originally Posted By kmad2001: That's what I thought. Wouldn't that be a prudent measure when moving optics between platforms or pulling out of storage to have a baseline known "center" point to work from? I have done this previously. Originally Posted By kmad2001: Originally Posted By Frens: It means centering the prism exactly to the center of the scope housing by counting the max available adjustment clicks then dividing them by 2 That's what I thought. Wouldn't that be a prudent measure when moving optics between platforms or pulling out of storage to have a baseline known "center" point to work from? I have done this previously. |
|
Originally Posted By SSeric02: ACOGs have proven their durability many times over, this phenomenon is just an artifact of the design. Here's a video from a few years back of the then 2nd Marine Division Gunner demonstrating the need to settle the reticle after making adjustments: https://www.military.com/video/guns-weapons/rifles/this-marine-will-show-you-how-to-zero-a-rifle/5471532119001 |
|
Originally Posted By JAG2955: With respect to Gunner Wade, dumb Marines will smack the shit out of them with a hammer. We (me, others including Gunner Wade's contemporaries) found it's better to rack the bolt a few times. If you still believe it's an issue, your first shot should definitely seat it.  Yep, I remember racking the bolt three times after making adjustments being the way it was taught, and that's what I've always done. |
|
I have mounted optics on an FAL several times over the years. Based on your post I suspect your mount is moving around. I'm not a fan of the DSA mounts or any other mount involving screws and plates. Double check all the screws and plates. Re-torque to spec with blue loctite and give it another try. I really don't think it's your optic. Especially in the case of the ACOG. The old ARMS mounts, if they fit real snug on your receiver, are a better option in my experience. Just don't remove/re-install them once they are on there so they stay nice and tight. Even then mounting any kind of optic on a FAL can be frustrating. FALs have a harmonic that destroys cheap optics. Worn out kit gun barrels often don't live up to expectations as far as accuracy is concerned. And then there's the surplus ammo that groups all over the place. With the exception of the SUIT on my L1A1 I won't even attempt it any longer. I was lucky to score a re-built SUIT top cover and the optic fits on it nice and tight. Rifle optic combo holds zero. |
|
Originally Posted By EMSflyer: I have mounted optics on an FAL several times over the years. Based on your post I suspect your mount is moving around. I'm not a fan of the DSA mounts or any other mount involving screws and plates. Double check all the screws and plates. Re-torque to spec with blue loctite and give it another try. I really don't think it's your optic. Especially in the case of the ACOG. The old ARMS mounts, if they fit real snug on your receiver, are a better option in my experience. Just don't remove/re-install them once they are on there so they stay nice and tight. Even then mounting any kind of optic on a FAL can be frustrating. FALs have a harmonic that destroys cheap optics. Worn out kit gun barrels often don't live up to expectations as far as accuracy is concerned. And then there's the surplus ammo that groups all over the place. With the exception of the SUIT on my L1A1 I won't even attempt it any longer. I was lucky to score a re-built SUIT top cover and the optic fits on it nice and tight. Rifle optic combo holds zero. The DSA railed top-cover is absolutely solid as tho welded. With all due respect did you see my notification that reported: I just got back to back emails from Triji that they are repairing the TA11 at no charge (2nd time BTW) and replacing the TA01 at no charge ! Now THAT'S customer service ! Especially considering the TA11 is a very old four-digit s/n model. Pretty sure both came from the ARF.com Equipment Exchange ages ago. |
|
The DSA mounts just need better grade and proper length bolts...ground to length, and they'll stay put. Still sucks, turning a FAL into a G3. I have a solution...complicated...so it will have to wait until I get bored in retirement. |
Happiness=UPS+ORMD
See my youtube page at https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCvx8dT3bnLFUvuEQ-N3Z6rg
See my youtube page at https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCvx8dT3bnLFUvuEQ-N3Z6rg
|
Originally Posted By stimpsonjcat: The DSA mounts just need better grade and proper length bolts...ground to length, and they'll stay put. Still sucks, turning a FAL into a G3. I have a solution...complicated...so it will have to wait until I get bored in retirement. You mean the screws that go into those bracket/plates? Yeah they're soft. Have stripped in the past and they've sent me out replacements free of charge. Those screws definitely need to be more hardened. Not sure what you mean by FAL versus G3. I've got a PTR91 who's mount and scope are Rock Solid. |
|
Originally Posted By kmad2001: Not sure what you mean by FAL versus G3. I've got a PTR91 who's mount and scope are Rock Solid. When you put a scope mount on a FAL you turn it into the same kind of 'difficult to clean' tunnel that a G3 is. |
Happiness=UPS+ORMD
See my youtube page at https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCvx8dT3bnLFUvuEQ-N3Z6rg
See my youtube page at https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCvx8dT3bnLFUvuEQ-N3Z6rg
|
Originally Posted By stimpsonjcat: When you put a scope mount on a FAL you turn it into the same kind of 'difficult to clean' tunnel that a G3 is. Ah, hasn't been a problem for me. A 12g bronze shotgun brush wrapped in one or a few patches or a variety of swabs seems to do well for "tunnel" cleaning . Frankly what's a bit of a PITA is the square chamber cleaning of the PTR91 (G3). |
|
Originally Posted By stimpsonjcat: When you put a scope mount on a FAL you turn it into the same kind of 'difficult to clean' tunnel that a G3 is. Well the HK/PTR/G3 sorta blasts itself clean, no? Easier to pull the dust-cover off for thorough cleaning than when you put the DSA railed dustcover on an FAL. That's more of a bitch if you really wanna get into the chamber and detail-clean (I think). |
|
Originally Posted By kmad2001: Well the HK/PTR/G3 sorta blasts itself clean, no? Easier to pull the dust-cover off for thorough cleaning than when you put the DSA railed dustcover on an FAL. That's more of a bitch if you really wanna get into the chamber and detail-clean (I think). Originally Posted By kmad2001: Originally Posted By stimpsonjcat: When you put a scope mount on a FAL you turn it into the same kind of 'difficult to clean' tunnel that a G3 is. Well the HK/PTR/G3 sorta blasts itself clean, no? Easier to pull the dust-cover off for thorough cleaning than when you put the DSA railed dustcover on an FAL. That's more of a bitch if you really wanna get into the chamber and detail-clean (I think). This is why I went to the A.R.M.S. Railed topcovers. Always been really tight and slides on/off with some effort but at least removable. |
AcidGambit, I’ve always wanted to milk a lactating chick... Like make her get on her knees, milk her tits, and make her moooo.
|
I like the FAL. I don't like the scope mounting options. That clamp the cover to the receiver to mount the scope on just doesn't "feel" robust/permanent to me. I had issues with mine early on (SUIT cover/mount) with the rivets working loose. Tried to have the mount spot welded to the cover and the guy was afraid to try it. Said it might burn through the cover or make the mount brittle. He tightened up the rivets (again after I'd done it) and they just worked loose again. I bought some very thin headed screws and thin nuts to try to attach the mount to the cover and then swapped the SUIT to my AR15 where it still sits. Bought a scope and mount/cover that attaches with those clamps and after awhile the scope died. Gave up on scoping the FAL and into the safe it went. I've heard the old Bushnell scopes (made by Bauch & Lomb) are great scopes and very resistent to the banging around they get on rough acting semi autos. I've had one on my M1A since 1979 or 1980 and it's got thousands of rounds on it. Zero issues. You can pick those things up on ebay now and then. Used of course, but still awesome scopes. I bought a couple a few years back. One just like my 4X12 with BDC and a 10X with BDE. The 4x12 is now on another M1A and the 10X is on the bench waiting for an opportunity. New is okay but some old stuff just lasts forever. |
How you live your life is important. Just be sure the memory of how you died doesn't overshadow the tales of how you lived your life.
|
Originally Posted By M1A4ME: I like the FAL. I don't like the scope mounting options. That clamp the cover to the receiver to mount the scope on just doesn't "feel" robust/permanent to me. I had issues with mine early on (SUIT cover/mount) with the rivets working loose. Tried to have the mount spot welded to the cover and the guy was afraid to try it. Said it might burn through the cover or make the mount brittle. He tightened up the rivets (again after I'd done it) and they just worked loose again. I bought some very thin headed screws and thin nuts to try to attach the mount to the cover and then swapped the SUIT to my AR15 where it still sits. Bought a scope and mount/cover that attaches with those clamps and after awhile the scope died. Gave up on scoping the FAL and into the safe it went. I've heard the old Bushnell scopes (made by Bauch & Lomb) are great scopes and very resistent to the banging around they get on rough acting semi autos. I've had one on my M1A since 1979 or 1980 and it's got thousands of rounds on it. Zero issues. You can pick those things up on ebay now and then. Used of course, but still awesome scopes. I bought a couple a few years back. One just like my 4X12 with BDC and a 10X with BDE. The 4x12 is now on another M1A and the 10X is on the bench waiting for an opportunity. New is okay but some old stuff just lasts forever. I have a receiver in the closet I intend to build with a welded on rail up top and keeping the stock dust-cover for cleaning. Maybe when I retire. |
Happiness=UPS+ORMD
See my youtube page at https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCvx8dT3bnLFUvuEQ-N3Z6rg
See my youtube page at https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCvx8dT3bnLFUvuEQ-N3Z6rg
Armory Sponsor