Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login

Site Notices
Posted: 4/14/2006 2:08:33 PM EST
Okay, I have read the warnings from DSA's website on the aluminum upper receiver. Does this apply to aluminum lowers as well such as the one from Kaiserworks?

I thought a Kaiserworks VLOPSI lower would greatly increase my stock options.

I am concerned about the safety though. Any clarity would be greatly appreciated.
Link Posted: 4/14/2006 2:22:49 PM EST
If you could find one they are fine but stay away from the upper. IMHO they are not much lighter and are way expensive, I have only seen a few and that was quite a while back.
Link Posted: 4/14/2006 3:20:00 PM EST
As stated the aluminum lowers are fine. The aluminum uppers are prone to catastrophic failure when barrelled in 7.62. I mean really, really bad kersplosions.

But the same receivers, last I heard, were okay for 5.56 using a Galil barrel.
Link Posted: 4/14/2006 3:28:25 PM EST
Aluminum lowers are great, 2000+ rounds thru mine. Balances well with my 16" barrel.

Bill
Link Posted: 4/14/2006 3:36:11 PM EST

Originally Posted By operatorerror:
As stated the aluminum lowers are fine. The aluminum uppers are prone to catastrophic failure when barrelled in 7.62. I mean really, really bad kersplosions.

But the same receivers, last I heard, were okay for 5.56 using a Galil barrel.



Uhhh how would that work? I am pretty sure Galil barrels are pressed into a trunion and then rivited to a receiver. Just asking cuz I could be way wrong on this one.
Link Posted: 4/14/2006 4:23:15 PM EST
Your correct, but they can be threaded. I believe Meeper used to build these on the FALfiles.

Bill
Link Posted: 4/14/2006 4:27:24 PM EST

Originally Posted By whatnow:
Your correct, but they can be threaded. I believe Meeper used to build these on the FALfiles.

Bill



Meeper, that dude is amazing, he can build anything.
Link Posted: 4/14/2006 4:40:59 PM EST

Originally Posted By NoHarmNoFAL-01:

Originally Posted By whatnow:
Your correct, but they can be threaded. I believe Meeper used to build these on the FALfiles.

Bill



Meeper, that dude is amazing, he can build anything.



Those rifles were pretty nice. Never saw one in person though. Just on the Files.
Link Posted: 4/14/2006 5:57:01 PM EST
Galil barrels are threaded, not pressed.
Link Posted: 4/15/2006 5:02:34 PM EST
DSArms sells their new FALs with aluminum lowers.
Link Posted: 4/16/2006 12:09:54 PM EST

Originally Posted By NoHarmNoFAL-01:

Originally Posted By operatorerror:
As stated the aluminum lowers are fine. The aluminum uppers are prone to catastrophic failure when barrelled in 7.62. I mean really, really bad kersplosions.

But the same receivers, last I heard, were okay for 5.56 using a Galil barrel.



Uhhh how would that work? I am pretty sure Galil barrels are pressed into a trunion and then rivited to a receiver. Just asking cuz I could be way wrong on this one.




7.62 is a much greater chamber pressure than 5.56. ALL M16 uppers are aluminum. Aluminum FAL lowers are more than safe, but a waste of money. It's a .30 battle rifle, it's supposed to be hefty.

I'm a Carpenter. Come work with us for a day, your FAL will seem very light
Link Posted: 4/16/2006 2:25:51 PM EST

Originally Posted By patriot73:

7.62 is a much greater chamber pressure than 5.56.



Incorrect



Link Posted: 4/16/2006 2:27:14 PM EST

Originally Posted By NoHarmNoFAL-01:

Originally Posted By operatorerror:
As stated the aluminum lowers are fine. The aluminum uppers are prone to catastrophic failure when barrelled in 7.62. I mean really, really bad kersplosions.

But the same receivers, last I heard, were okay for 5.56 using a Galil barrel.



Uhhh how would that work? I am pretty sure Galil barrels are pressed into a trunion and then rivited to a receiver. Just asking cuz I could be way wrong on this one.




Galils don't have trunnions and the barrels are threaded into the receiver.
Link Posted: 4/17/2006 4:21:16 AM EST

Originally Posted By ian187:

Originally Posted By patriot73:

7.62 is a much greater chamber pressure than 5.56.



Incorrect







I'm not going to argue with you but you are wildly incorrect. Please show me some data that confirms your statement.
Link Posted: 4/17/2006 4:28:23 AM EST

Originally Posted By ian187:

Originally Posted By patriot73:

7.62 is a much greater chamber pressure than 5.56.



Incorrect

From DSA's website:




On October 2, 2001 H.P. White Laboratories, Inc. of Street, Maryland performed an independent reliability-firing test of a Williams Arms Elite 7.62mm semi-auto FAL type receiver, serial number 15012. The proposed testing was to fire 1,000 rounds of service ammunition in 100 round increments with a SAAMI high pressure (proof) test round fired between each 100 round increment. Standard NATO Radway Green ammunition was used, headstamped RG-82, 83 and 84. This test mimics one that was performed on our own FAL type 7.62mm semi-auto receiver manufactured from 7075T6 aluminum.

The testing of the Williams Arms receiver was terminated after 189 service round firings and one proof firing when the receiver of the rifle was blown into a multiplicity of fragments. The receiver was measured before the first 100 rounds were fired, after the 100 service rounds and again after the proof round. The measurements indicate the headspacing progressively increased. While not conclusive, this is likely an indication of receiver distortion (stretching) which resulted in the catastrophic failure of the receiver after firing 189 service rounds and one proof round. H.P. White Labs also performed pressure and velocity tests on the ammunition. The copper unit of pressure average was 52,800. The velocity average was 2798 (ft/s).

Our company had the same test performed on our own experimental aluminum FAL type receiver, serial number DS10000EXP4 that was produced three years ago. H.P. White labs also conducted this test. Unlike the Williams Arms receiver, our receiver was not lightening cut to Type 1 depths, as the Williams Arms receiver is, but had a much greater volume of material, which should increase the strength potential. The first 100 rounds went without serious incident. The first proof round produced no overt damage to the rifle, but the case head separated. Firing of the second segment began with round 101of service ammunition. The case head again separated and the upper receiver cracked on both sides at the rear of the locking shoulder. The locking shoulder also cracked. Testing was terminated at this point.
This was the third of our receivers to fail in testing that started over three years ago. One of our aluminum receivers, which also had a much greater volume of material, lasted approximately 2,000 rounds fired through it before failure by cracking behind the locking shoulder



Believe me when I say the chamber pressure is much greater. 7.62 will also stretch M60 receivers. The strength of 4140 or 4150 is not needed in an M16 because of.........chamber pressure.

FAL rifles will stretch threads and headspce will change after the rifle has been fired several times. This is a result of what is going on in the chamber when the round goes bang. This for the most part, does not happen in M16's.

I have had headspace change on a FAL after several thousand rounds, not to the point of being dangerous but it happens.
Link Posted: 4/17/2006 5:23:50 AM EST
[Last Edit: 4/17/2006 5:32:32 AM EST by 1811GNR]
If you good people are interested in aluminum FAL lowers stand by for an announcement from Kaiserworks regarding an update to their VLOPSI lowers. It will be in the marketplace at FALfiles.

OT:
The reason that an AR is safe with aluminum receivers and a FAl is not:
Lockup in an AR is all contained in the bolt head interface with the barrel extension. Steel to steel lockup. The upper receiver merely holds the parts in place and provides a guide for the B/BC.
In the FAL the locking is at the rear of the bolt where it drops down in front of the locking shoulder. The entire area from the locking shoulder to the front of the receiver is stressed when a round is fired.
Link Posted: 4/17/2006 8:56:11 AM EST
[Last Edit: 4/17/2006 9:50:40 AM EST by ian187]

Originally Posted By patriot73:

Originally Posted By ian187:

Originally Posted By patriot73:

7.62 is a much greater chamber pressure than 5.56.



Incorrect

From DSA's website:




On October 2, 2001 H.P. White Laboratories, Inc. of Street, Maryland performed an independent reliability-firing test of a Williams Arms Elite 7.62mm semi-auto FAL type receiver, serial number 15012. The proposed testing was to fire 1,000 rounds of service ammunition in 100 round increments with a SAAMI high pressure (proof) test round fired between each 100 round increment. Standard NATO Radway Green ammunition was used, headstamped RG-82, 83 and 84. This test mimics one that was performed on our own FAL type 7.62mm semi-auto receiver manufactured from 7075T6 aluminum.

The testing of the Williams Arms receiver was terminated after 189 service round firings and one proof firing when the receiver of the rifle was blown into a multiplicity of fragments. The receiver was measured before the first 100 rounds were fired, after the 100 service rounds and again after the proof round. The measurements indicate the headspacing progressively increased. While not conclusive, this is likely an indication of receiver distortion (stretching) which resulted in the catastrophic failure of the receiver after firing 189 service rounds and one proof round. H.P. White Labs also performed pressure and velocity tests on the ammunition. The copper unit of pressure average was 52,800. The velocity average was 2798 (ft/s).

Our company had the same test performed on our own experimental aluminum FAL type receiver, serial number DS10000EXP4 that was produced three years ago. H.P. White labs also conducted this test. Unlike the Williams Arms receiver, our receiver was not lightening cut to Type 1 depths, as the Williams Arms receiver is, but had a much greater volume of material, which should increase the strength potential. The first 100 rounds went without serious incident. The first proof round produced no overt damage to the rifle, but the case head separated. Firing of the second segment began with round 101of service ammunition. The case head again separated and the upper receiver cracked on both sides at the rear of the locking shoulder. The locking shoulder also cracked. Testing was terminated at this point.
This was the third of our receivers to fail in testing that started over three years ago. One of our aluminum receivers, which also had a much greater volume of material, lasted approximately 2,000 rounds fired through it before failure by cracking behind the locking shoulder



Believe me when I say the chamber pressure is much greater. 7.62 will also stretch M60 receivers. The strength of 4140 or 4150 is not needed in an M16 because of.........chamber pressure.

FAL rifles will stretch threads and headspce will change after the rifle has been fired several times. This is a result of what is going on in the chamber when the round goes bang. This for the most part, does not happen in M16's.

I have had headspace change on a FAL after several thousand rounds, not to the point of being dangerous but it happens.



I love it when someone tells me I'm wrong and then proceeds to post irrelevant anecdotal drivel.

The SAAMI crusher values for .308 Win and .223 Rem is nearly identical. In fact, they are so close they are rounded off to the same value (52K).

Aluminum uppers on FALs are dangerous for all center fire applications, not just .308.

ETA: It is also worth noting that in some cases .308 Win is actually hotter than 7.62 NATO.

Link Posted: 4/17/2006 8:58:53 AM EST
[Last Edit: 4/17/2006 8:59:43 AM EST by ian187]

Originally Posted By patriot73:

Originally Posted By ian187:

Originally Posted By patriot73:

7.62 is a much greater chamber pressure than 5.56.



Incorrect







I'm not going to argue with you but you are wildly incorrect. Please show me some data that confirms your statement.



SAAMI specs: Link

Link Posted: 4/17/2006 9:16:55 AM EST
Link Posted: 4/18/2006 2:15:27 AM EST

Originally Posted By ian187:

Originally Posted By patriot73:

Originally Posted By ian187:

Originally Posted By patriot73:

7.62 is a much greater chamber pressure than 5.56.



Incorrect

From DSA's website:




On October 2, 2001 H.P. White Laboratories, Inc. of Street, Maryland performed an independent reliability-firing test of a Williams Arms Elite 7.62mm semi-auto FAL type receiver, serial number 15012. The proposed testing was to fire 1,000 rounds of service ammunition in 100 round increments with a SAAMI high pressure (proof) test round fired between each 100 round increment. Standard NATO Radway Green ammunition was used, headstamped RG-82, 83 and 84. This test mimics one that was performed on our own FAL type 7.62mm semi-auto receiver manufactured from 7075T6 aluminum.

The testing of the Williams Arms receiver was terminated after 189 service round firings and one proof firing when the receiver of the rifle was blown into a multiplicity of fragments. The receiver was measured before the first 100 rounds were fired, after the 100 service rounds and again after the proof round. The measurements indicate the headspacing progressively increased. While not conclusive, this is likely an indication of receiver distortion (stretching) which resulted in the catastrophic failure of the receiver after firing 189 service rounds and one proof round. H.P. White Labs also performed pressure and velocity tests on the ammunition. The copper unit of pressure average was 52,800. The velocity average was 2798 (ft/s).

Our company had the same test performed on our own experimental aluminum FAL type receiver, serial number DS10000EXP4 that was produced three years ago. H.P. White labs also conducted this test. Unlike the Williams Arms receiver, our receiver was not lightening cut to Type 1 depths, as the Williams Arms receiver is, but had a much greater volume of material, which should increase the strength potential. The first 100 rounds went without serious incident. The first proof round produced no overt damage to the rifle, but the case head separated. Firing of the second segment began with round 101of service ammunition. The case head again separated and the upper receiver cracked on both sides at the rear of the locking shoulder. The locking shoulder also cracked. Testing was terminated at this point.
This was the third of our receivers to fail in testing that started over three years ago. One of our aluminum receivers, which also had a much greater volume of material, lasted approximately 2,000 rounds fired through it before failure by cracking behind the locking shoulder



Believe me when I say the chamber pressure is much greater. 7.62 will also stretch M60 receivers. The strength of 4140 or 4150 is not needed in an M16 because of.........chamber pressure.

FAL rifles will stretch threads and headspce will change after the rifle has been fired several times. This is a result of what is going on in the chamber when the round goes bang. This for the most part, does not happen in M16's.

I have had headspace change on a FAL after several thousand rounds, not to the point of being dangerous but it happens.



I love it when someone tells me I'm wrong and then proceeds to post irrelevant anecdotal drivel.

The SAAMI crusher values for .308 Win and .223 Rem is nearly identical. In fact, they are so close they are rounded off to the same value (52K).

Aluminum uppers on FALs are dangerous for all center fire applications, not just .308.

ETA: It is also worth noting that in some cases .308 Win is actually hotter than 7.62 NATO.




Before I exit this post, let me just say. This site has really become a haven for BS. Let's see if you can follow along here, bigger round, bigger bang = more pressure. Kinda like how a car engine makes more compression with a higher compression ratio piston.

You are wrong. Call DSA (Which is ten mintues from me , hint, hint) and run your theory by them.

Bye guys
Link Posted: 4/18/2006 2:49:06 AM EST
Ba-bye
Link Posted: 4/18/2006 5:49:25 AM EST

Originally Posted By patriot73:

Originally Posted By ian187:

Originally Posted By patriot73:

Originally Posted By ian187:

Originally Posted By patriot73:

7.62 is a much greater chamber pressure than 5.56.



Incorrect

From DSA's website:




On October 2, 2001 H.P. White Laboratories, Inc. of Street, Maryland performed an independent reliability-firing test of a Williams Arms Elite 7.62mm semi-auto FAL type receiver, serial number 15012. The proposed testing was to fire 1,000 rounds of service ammunition in 100 round increments with a SAAMI high pressure (proof) test round fired between each 100 round increment. Standard NATO Radway Green ammunition was used, headstamped RG-82, 83 and 84. This test mimics one that was performed on our own FAL type 7.62mm semi-auto receiver manufactured from 7075T6 aluminum.

The testing of the Williams Arms receiver was terminated after 189 service round firings and one proof firing when the receiver of the rifle was blown into a multiplicity of fragments. The receiver was measured before the first 100 rounds were fired, after the 100 service rounds and again after the proof round. The measurements indicate the headspacing progressively increased. While not conclusive, this is likely an indication of receiver distortion (stretching) which resulted in the catastrophic failure of the receiver after firing 189 service rounds and one proof round. H.P. White Labs also performed pressure and velocity tests on the ammunition. The copper unit of pressure average was 52,800. The velocity average was 2798 (ft/s).

Our company had the same test performed on our own experimental aluminum FAL type receiver, serial number DS10000EXP4 that was produced three years ago. H.P. White labs also conducted this test. Unlike the Williams Arms receiver, our receiver was not lightening cut to Type 1 depths, as the Williams Arms receiver is, but had a much greater volume of material, which should increase the strength potential. The first 100 rounds went without serious incident. The first proof round produced no overt damage to the rifle, but the case head separated. Firing of the second segment began with round 101of service ammunition. The case head again separated and the upper receiver cracked on both sides at the rear of the locking shoulder. The locking shoulder also cracked. Testing was terminated at this point.
This was the third of our receivers to fail in testing that started over three years ago. One of our aluminum receivers, which also had a much greater volume of material, lasted approximately 2,000 rounds fired through it before failure by cracking behind the locking shoulder



Believe me when I say the chamber pressure is much greater. 7.62 will also stretch M60 receivers. The strength of 4140 or 4150 is not needed in an M16 because of.........chamber pressure.

FAL rifles will stretch threads and headspce will change after the rifle has been fired several times. This is a result of what is going on in the chamber when the round goes bang. This for the most part, does not happen in M16's.

I have had headspace change on a FAL after several thousand rounds, not to the point of being dangerous but it happens.



I love it when someone tells me I'm wrong and then proceeds to post irrelevant anecdotal drivel.

The SAAMI crusher values for .308 Win and .223 Rem is nearly identical. In fact, they are so close they are rounded off to the same value (52K).

Aluminum uppers on FALs are dangerous for all center fire applications, not just .308.

ETA: It is also worth noting that in some cases .308 Win is actually hotter than 7.62 NATO.




Before I exit this post, let me just say. This site has really become a haven for BS. Let's see if you can follow along here, bigger round, bigger bang = more pressure. Kinda like how a car engine makes more compression with a higher compression ratio piston.



My YZF-R6 had over 11:1 compression and my Jeep currently has 8.5:1 compression. The motorcycle was .6 liters and the Jeep was 4 liters. Obviously chamber (cylinder) volume does not dictate chamber (cylinder) pressure. Same applies to firearms.



Originally Posted By patriot73:
You are wrong. Call DSA (Which is ten mintues from me , hint, hint) and run your theory by them.

Bye guys



You asked for me to back it up and I did, I posted the SAAMI chamber pressure figures and a link. What else would you like? Was I not nice enough? Follow the link, it will help you get over what ever preconceived notion you are stuck on.

As far as this site being a haven for BS, that is certainly true, however, the BS in this thread is coming from your keyboard.
Link Posted: 4/18/2006 6:46:35 PM EST
It really has nothing to do with pressure, it has everything to do with energy (ft.lbs.) but I don't really want to interrupt a nice pissing match.
Link Posted: 4/18/2006 8:35:00 PM EST

Originally Posted By NoHarmNoFAL-01:
It really has nothing to do with pressure, it has everything to do with energy (ft.lbs.) but I don't really want to interrupt a nice pissing match.



I don't think that is even in question.

Link Posted: 4/18/2006 8:56:39 PM EST

Originally Posted By NoHarmNoFAL-01:
It really has nothing to do with pressure, it has everything to do with energy (ft.lbs.) but I don't really want to interrupt a nice pissing match.



it comes into what is stressed, in an FAL the bolt locks into the receiver, on an AR15/10 the bolt locks into the barrel extension. on the FAL the receiver is a load bearing structure, on an AR the receiver is just to keep everything aligned and is under relatively little stress.
Top Top