SA58, SOCOM 16, or AR in .308? - Page 2

General » General Discussion

Site Notices

[ARCHIVED THREAD] - SA58, SOCOM 16, or AR in .308? (Page 2 of 2)

Posted: 11/27/2005 7:53:32 PM EDT

[#1]

Arfomers aren't as stupid as I thought.

FAL!!!

Posted: 11/27/2005 7:59:36 PM EDT

[#2]

FAL

Posted: 11/29/2005 4:05:39 PM EDT

[#3]

Quoted:
Quoted:

#3 is the design. FALs were designed to be fully-automatic. Making them semi is accomplished by removing the hammer retarder. This results in a gun that is prone to discharge from an unlocked bolt.

1. I have never experienced this or seen it occur.

2. I have never experienced this or seen it occur.

3. Ummm, I don't think so. In fact the British FAL (the L1A1) is semi ONLY in it's design for the military. But as I've never heard of a FAL accidentally discharging under any circumstance I'm not completely famliar with the issue you are trying to raise.

The fact that you've never had your glasses scratched by one means you haven't shot one much with plastic lenses on.

I don't believe inch FALs are prone to #2, but metric FALs sure as hell are. You'd be dead if it happened in combat. I've had it happen twice and have seen it happen to a couple other people. It is not that uncommon.

#3 I do think so. (Sorry about my nomenclature, the part I'm refering to is listed by Gun Parts Corp as the "safety sear". Any idea why they might call it that?) L1A1s have the safety sear. It's just the happy switch is locked out. New US FALs are not even allowed to have the cut out for the safety sear, much less the sear itself. This sear keeps the hammer from bouncing off of the main sear before it fully resets in the trigger and firing the weapon out of battery.

Posted: 11/29/2005 4:15:29 PM EDT

[#4]

Thanks for all the votes fellas! (Nov. 29th/8:15pm EST = 188 votes) The DSA SA58 Fal is just running away with this.

Can anyone loan me $1,500?

Posted: 11/29/2005 4:31:22 PM EDT

[#5]

Quoted:
My SOCOM-16 has been very disappointing so far.

I bought it on 9/11/05 and the first time I shot it, it had extraction issues. Went back to SA and got the gun back in about a week.
When the gun came back I noticed the extractor was replaced, no problem. I shot it at the range and it worked fine. 20 mags worth of ammo and not a single hiccup. Temp 55-60F.

On Saturday I went to the Princeton, MN shoot and the temps were in the teens to low 20's.
The first round fired, extracted but nothing happened when I squeezed the trigger again, WTF?
I pulled back on the operating handle and instead of a bullet being extracted I see a un-fired bullet in the chamber. The "replaced" extractor had failed again and came apart.
After much bitching I put the gun in the bag and would deal with it later.

I bring it to the store and show it to the guy and he is not pleased nor am I. We field strip it and a spring and the firing pin fell out.
I like shooting this gun and will give it one more chance. He swapped it immediately with another brand new SOCOM and I will proceed to shoot the shit out of it on a cold day when I get a chance.
However if it has any malfunctions I will be getting a complete refund and gun store guy has no problems with this at all.

ETA: Even though I am giving this gun it's final chance to please me, I say to stay the hell away from the SOCOM.

Put a $5 USGI extractor in it and you won't have that problem anymore.

Posted: 11/29/2005 4:40:46 PM EDT

[#6]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:

#3 is the design. FALs were designed to be fully-automatic. Making them semi is accomplished by removing the hammer retarder. This results in a gun that is prone to discharge from an unlocked bolt.

1. I have never experienced this or seen it occur.

2. I have never experienced this or seen it occur.

3. Ummm, I don't think so. In fact the British FAL (the L1A1) is semi ONLY in it's design for the military. But as I've never heard of a FAL accidentally discharging under any circumstance I'm not completely famliar with the issue you are trying to raise.

The fact that you've never had your glasses scratched by one means you haven't shot one much with plastic lenses on.

I don't believe inch FALs are prone to #2, but metric FALs sure as hell are. You'd be dead if it happened in combat. I've had it happen twice and have seen it happen to a couple other people. It is not that uncommon.

#3 I do think so. (Sorry about my nomenclature, the part I'm refering to is listed by Gun Parts Corp as the "safety sear". Any idea why they might call it that?) L1A1s have the safety sear. It's just the happy switch is locked out. New US FALs are not even allowed to have the cut out for the safety sear, much less the sear itself. This sear keeps the hammer from bouncing off of the main sear before it fully resets in the trigger and firing the weapon out of battery.

1. Nose-to handle doesn't apply to the FAL, with an appropriate cheekweld this won't happen, and I have glasses/face structure that puts the lenses way out there.

2, it may not be that uncommon, but then neither are out of spec off-brand receivers or poorly assembled FALs. Ever had it happen on an imbel or DSA?

3. Might be possible if things were worn out of spec, but if everything is fitted right it shouldn't happen, I've never seen it happen, and when looking my imbel over I can't imagine how I could even induce this failure, the hammer cant strike the pin unless it's in battery.

All the platforms have advantages and disadvantages, tough to go too far wrong buying a quality build on any of them.

Posted: 11/29/2005 5:02:20 PM EDT

[#7]

Quoted:
Quoted:
My SOCOM-16 has been very disappointing so far.

I bought it on 9/11/05 and the first time I shot it, it had extraction issues. Went back to SA and got the gun back in about a week.
When the gun came back I noticed the extractor was replaced, no problem. I shot it at the range and it worked fine. 20 mags worth of ammo and not a single hiccup. Temp 55-60F.

On Saturday I went to the Princeton, MN shoot and the temps were in the teens to low 20's.
The first round fired, extracted but nothing happened when I squeezed the trigger again, WTF?
I pulled back on the operating handle and instead of a bullet being extracted I see a un-fired bullet in the chamber. The "replaced" extractor had failed again and came apart.
After much bitching I put the gun in the bag and would deal with it later.

I bring it to the store and show it to the guy and he is not pleased nor am I. We field strip it and a spring and the firing pin fell out.
I like shooting this gun and will give it one more chance. He swapped it immediately with another brand new SOCOM and I will proceed to shoot the shit out of it on a cold day when I get a chance.
However if it has any malfunctions I will be getting a complete refund and gun store guy has no problems with this at all.

ETA: Even though I am giving this gun it's final chance to please me, I say to stay the hell away from the SOCOM.

Put a $5 USGI extractor in it and you won't have that problem anymore.

It's the bolt that fell apart but you would think a brand new rifle from the factory would stay in one piece

Posted: 11/29/2005 5:05:15 PM EDT

[#8]

Fal, no contest. I love all my children.

Posted: 11/29/2005 5:08:06 PM EDT

[#9]

Quoted:
Another vote for the AR-10!

I can put rounds out of my AR-10 20" chrome barrel into a dinner plate size target all day long at 550meters. GET ARMALITE!

Posted: 11/29/2005 5:13:30 PM EDT

[#10]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Another vote for the AR-10!

I can put rounds out of my AR-10 20" chrome barrel into a dinner plate size target all day long at 550meters. GET ARMALITE!

Got pics?

Posted: 11/30/2005 6:07:37 PM EDT

[#11]

Quoted:
Quoted:
I don't believe inch FALs are prone to #2, but metric FALs sure as hell are. You'd be dead if it happened in combat. I've had it happen twice and have seen it happen to a couple other people. It is not that uncommon.

1. Nose-to handle doesn't apply to the FAL, with an appropriate cheekweld this won't happen, and I have glasses/face structure that puts the lenses way out there.

Craning your neck way to the back of the stock feels uncomfortable.
The AR is designed better for avoiding this problem.

2, it may not be that uncommon, but then neither are out of spec off-brand receivers or poorly assembled FALs. Ever had it happen on an imbel or DSA?

Only seen it with Imbel and DSA! (But I haven't shot anything else and my friends don't have anything else)

Posted: 12/14/2005 7:04:35 AM EDT

[#12]

BTT 4 more votes!

Posted: 12/14/2005 7:46:19 AM EDT

[#13]

I vote with my wallet.
Although an FAL would fit on the next stephttp://img.photobucket.com/albums/v498/usacivpol/december%20guns%20sized/3guns_resize.jpg

NOI

Posted: 12/14/2005 7:52:50 AM EDT

[#14]

1. I hate Armalite so I'd say Knights SR-25
2. Full size M1A.
3. FAL

Posted: 12/14/2005 10:04:45 AM EDT

[#15]

Looks like I got those M1A mags from Armilite for nothing....

Posted: 12/14/2005 10:24:03 AM EDT

[#16]

Quoted:
1. I hate Armalite so I'd say Knights SR-25 Ooooohhh, that's a good reason.
2. Full size M1A.
3. FAL

Posted: 12/14/2005 11:55:09 AM EDT

[#17]

MBR, go FAL. Accuracy, go DPMS .308 or Scout/Squad M1A. G-3, and all copies, DESTROYS BRASS. Looks cool, HK mystique, but case damage is a design flaw in my book. FAL is a 2 MOA battle rifle, not a semi-auto sniper weapon.

Posted: 12/14/2005 12:03:28 PM EDT

[#18]

SA58, no contest.

Posted: 12/14/2005 12:10:27 PM EDT

[#19]

Quoted:
Quoted:
1. I hate Armalite so I'd say Knights SR-25 Ooooohhh, that's a good reason.
2. Full size M1A.
3. FAL

Owned both-
Hated the AR10. Fit and finish was crap, mags were crap, ran like a Yugo.
SR25 was a work art. Shot under .5 MOA never so much as a failure to feed.
You Armalite guys are so sensitive...sheesh.

Happy now?

Posted: 12/14/2005 1:35:23 PM EDT

[#20]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
1. I hate Armalite so I'd say Knights SR-25 Ooooohhh, that's a good reason.
2. Full size M1A.
3. FAL

Owned both-
Hated the AR10. Fit and finish was crap, mags were crap, ran like a Yugo.
SR25 was a work art. Shot under .5 MOA never so much as a failure to feed.
You Armalite guys are so sensitive...sheesh.

Happy now?

Well, I have 4 AR10s that run like Porsches. Finish on all is excellent, mags are all excellent. I can shoot .5 MOA with the A4 with S/S barrel and with the 10T carbine.

SR25 costs at least twice as much.

It is not a matter of being sensitive, just that "I hate ArmaLite" isn't a reason, it's a feeling.

Posted: 12/14/2005 2:02:32 PM EDT

[#21]

SA58 variant would be my choice.
Nice carbine Steyr.

Posted: 12/14/2005 2:33:59 PM EDT

[#22]

AR-10

b/c FALs dont come w/ CHOME-LINED bbl/bores for the price

Posted: 12/14/2005 4:11:33 PM EDT

[#23]

Quoted:
AR-10

b/c FALs dont come w/ CHOME-LINED bbl/bores for the price

Whoa. Come to think of it, DSA doesn't state what the Barrel specifics are. Not even the magazine articles say. So is it just a plain steel barrel or what?

Posted: 12/14/2005 6:34:53 PM EDT

[#24]

all four!!!!!!!!!

Posted: 12/15/2005 3:40:03 AM EDT

[#25]

My DSA has been working out quite nicely.

Posted: 12/15/2005 4:11:31 AM EDT

[#26]

AR-10.

Posted: 12/15/2005 4:13:14 AM EDT

[#27]

Gotta go with the Armalite 308 much more versatile and accurate.

Posted: 12/15/2005 6:35:18 AM EDT

[#28]

Over on the FAL Files someone posted that DSA will offer chrome lined barrels in the near future.

That being said, if you can find an FAL built on a nice Imbel kit you will have a chrome lined FAL

barrel, like mine is. Mine is Imbel receiver with an Imbel parts kit, except for the needed US parts

and those are DSA.

I voted for FAL....

Flyer

Posted: 12/19/2005 8:08:36 PM EDT

[#29]

Because you can get authentic unfired Austrian STG58 parts kit with Steyer hammer forged barrels put on an excellent Imbel or DSA receiver for around 1K, or the cost of a decent AR15, I pick FAL.

Posted: 12/19/2005 8:12:05 PM EDT

[#30]

What's ya' gonna' do with it?

[ARCHIVED THREAD] - SA58, SOCOM 16, or AR in .308? (Page 2 of 2)

General » General Discussion

Warning

Confirm Action

About AR15.COM

Stay Connected

Newsletter

Contact Us