Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Site Notices
1/25/2018 7:38:29 AM
Posted: 11/17/2001 11:20:07 PM EST
[Last Edit: 11/17/2001 11:40:21 PM EST by Who_Me]
Link Posted: 11/17/2001 11:24:24 PM EST
Link Posted: 11/19/2001 11:33:52 PM EST
[Last Edit: 11/19/2001 11:32:33 PM EST by Who_Me]
Link Posted: 11/20/2001 5:33:39 AM EST
I'm with DSA on this one: William's response didn't impress me!

Only rebuttal is for Williams to send several rifles to White Labs for destructive testing. A rifle should not blow up or get lengthened headspace by simple shooting and should be able to withstand a proof load after 100 rounds of ball ammo.

The SAAMI proof load is well in excess of the military proof load.

Williams complaint about no lot numbered surplus ammo ignores what everyone shoots from these rifles.

-- Chuck
Link Posted: 3/2/2002 4:22:49 PM EST
[Last Edit: 3/2/2002 4:25:17 PM EST by stator]
I think Williams has a redesigned aluminum receiver that has more material for strength. Basically, the cover is integrated into the receiver with a machined cut-out for the brass ejection. I still don't like it, never have, and never will for .308 winchester or 7.56 NATO. Maybe for a .22 short or long rifle though. The FAL proponents have often pointed out the the receiver of the AR rifle is aluminum to. However, they fail to mention that the locking lugs are all steel and do not relie on aluminum for support. I'd say stay away from this and go with steel. 223 would be nice in a FAL. Actuall 22-250 necked up to 6mm, 260 remington, or something similar should be better. If you are going to carry that weight around, you should have a cartridge with a bigger bullet... say up to 7mm but no bigger (which was, I believe, the original intent for the FAL until US forced .30 on NATO).
Link Posted: 3/2/2002 5:51:48 PM EST

55,000 PSI of pressure on the bolt that's being held in place by ALUMINUM?

I hate to defend WAC, but the bolt is not held in place by aluminium. It is held in place by a hardened piece of steel inserted into the aluminium called a locking shoulder. Of course, you can argue the aluminium that holds the locking shoulder isn't strong enough or is weakened when you hammer the locking shoulder in place, but it is steel that holds the bolt in place on a FAL, even with the WAC receiver.z
Link Posted: 3/2/2002 6:26:07 PM EST
I have every known .308 mic, and have tracked headspace growth religously on two target only FAL's, and can tell you that as the locking shoulder seats in the receiver it will grow in headspace by .003" within the first 100 rnds. The receivers that I've used are Imbel. I have a headspacing bolt that I have cut down for this purpose .003" in the locking shoulder. I then install a new bolt after 100 rnds. This rifle may require removing the locking shoulder in mid-life, or whenever. Taking a shoulder back out of aluminum after its seated scares me! I run a load of H380 at 50.0 grains, which is pretty heavy, but for aluminum I think I would be in a folding stock rifle with a light load, maybe 46 grains or less. I would't like the confusion of having a rifle that could explode if I accidentally used the wrong box of ammo.
Weight is the friend of a target rifle, so I'm passing on this idea. For a carry firearm the FAL folder is the whip. Get one. I don't know if a few ounces will change it much. Its heavier than an AR, but the weight comes in handy when you're hacking with it.
Link Posted: 3/8/2002 9:58:15 PM EST
Do not use a WAC for 7.62 nato, some smiths are building them in .223 and the consensus is that they are safe for that. If you question this go to the falfiles and look at some of those threads. Kyle
Link Posted: 3/9/2002 5:34:37 AM EST
Here's a recent thread to another WAC customer testemonial. Read it and decide for yourself.



If Williams has a redesigned alloy FAL receiver, no one else has heard of it. And from accounts of the growing number of refused returns, no one is getting any replacements either.
Link Posted: 3/9/2002 8:53:45 AM EST
Link Posted: 3/9/2002 9:00:10 AM EST
As I posted there only use WAC Elite receivers if your up to playing a modern version of Russian Roulette !
Link Posted: 3/9/2002 10:19:51 AM EST
That bit about growth in FAL headspace isn't well known. I knew a guy who went to Rhodesia when it still was. They used FALs and had to put a lot of effort into maintaining them. They weren't that good. As I recall the locking lug is made in different thicknesses and has to be replaced as the rifle ages. That's not practical for an individual and one of the reasons I don't like to shoot my FALs.

The rifle that impressed him was the G-3. They're ugly and fit bad, recoil harshly, etc, but they always worked and didn't break down.

Modern aluminums should stand the bolt thrust of 7.62 if the receiver is enlarged to suit the material. The idea just doesn't appeal to me though.

Even DSA has experimented with aluminum receivers. They've shown a lot of iniative in aluminum before, like in the base of their para rear sight instead of steel. This is an area that deserves a good look.
Top Top