Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login

Site Notices
Posted: 2/21/2010 9:51:27 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 2/21/2010 9:51:45 PM EDT by space_weazel]
http://www.gunbroker.com/Auction/ViewItem.aspx?Item=158577619

I thought only those FA91 POS, used the cast(forged?) receivers?

hummmmmmmmmmmmm
Link Posted: 2/21/2010 10:53:59 PM EDT
Originally Posted By space_weazel:
http://www.gunbroker.com/Auction/ViewItem.aspx?Item=158577619

I thought only those FA91 POS, used the cast(forged?) receivers?

hummmmmmmmmmmmm


I believe the Springfield's are put together better. I.E. a little more solid than epoxy.
Link Posted: 2/22/2010 2:25:03 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Madcap72:

I believe the Springfield's are put together better. I.E. a little more solid than epoxy.

There is just no 'good' way to attach a steel trunnion to an aluminum receiver. The Springfield guns use the same method (pinned and epoxied) as the Century built guns.


Link Posted: 2/22/2010 6:07:18 AM EDT
Originally Posted By osprey21:

Originally Posted By Madcap72:

I believe the Springfield's are put together better. I.E. a little more solid than epoxy.

There is just no 'good' way to attach a steel trunnion to an aluminum receiver. The Springfield guns use the same method (pinned and epoxied) as the Century built guns.




Yeah, what he said.

Link Posted: 2/22/2010 8:21:47 AM EDT
Springfield also had the FA91 pattern guns as well. They are just as bad and have the same problems. I believe they are made by the same people. The good thing about the Springfield guns is that they will warranty the guns. They basically replace them with a M1A rifle. I got one in trade and it never ran right. I sent it in to be looked at and they replaced it. This was several years ago (2004), so you may want to double check with Springfield.

Springfield originally brought in the SAR-3 which was basically a HK built in Portugal. Then they were banned from import so they reconfigured them and marked them SAR-8 rifles. The reason SAR-8 was picked is because they could over stamp the 3 and make it an 8. When that dried up, they went to the FA91 pattern guns with the aluminum reciever which aren't very good. Unfortunely, they are also marked as SAR-8 rifles. I ended up with one because I only knew of the steel stamped SAR-8 guns and made a deal without seeing it first. Fortunely, it worked out for me as Springfield warrantied the gun. They have earned my money and I have sinced owned several Springfield guns (XD45, 1911, M1A). The cast aluminum reciever guns are pretty bad. They look ugly and aren't know for their reliability. Although I have heard of a handful of people who have one and it runs fine.
Link Posted: 2/22/2010 9:04:29 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 2/22/2010 9:05:37 AM EDT by retrodog]
Originally Posted By ihon:
Springfield also had the FA91 pattern guns as well. They are just as bad and have the same problems. I believe they are made by the same people. The good thing about the Springfield guns is that they will warranty the guns. They basically replace them with a M1A rifle. I got one in trade and it never ran right. I sent it in to be looked at and they replaced it. This was several years ago (2004), so you may want to double check with Springfield.

Springfield originally brought in the SAR-3 which was basically a HK built in Portugal. Then they were banned from import so they reconfigured them and marked them SAR-8 rifles. The reason SAR-8 was picked is because they could over stamp the 3 and make it an 8. When that dried up, they went to the FA91 pattern guns with the aluminum reciever which aren't very good. Unfortunely, they are also marked as SAR-8 rifles. I ended up with one because I only knew of the steel stamped SAR-8 guns and made a deal without seeing it first. Fortunely, it worked out for me as Springfield warrantied the gun. They have earned my money and I have sinced owned several Springfield guns (XD45, 1911, M1A). The cast aluminum reciever guns are pretty bad. They look ugly and aren't know for their reliability. Although I have heard of a handful of people who have one and it runs fine.


Well thank you, Mr. History. But actually the Springfield SAR-3 was made in Greece.
Link Posted: 2/22/2010 10:34:51 AM EDT
You are correct, I mixed up countrys. The Springfields were from Greece. Sorry for the mix up, I was only going from my memory from when I had mine and did research on it. That is what I get for using my memory. The FMP rifles were made/imported from Portugal.
Link Posted: 2/22/2010 10:38:15 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 2/22/2010 10:38:53 AM EDT by COLT]
SPRINGFIELD ARMORY PUT THEIR NAME ON SOME OF THOSE ALUMINUM RECEIVER GUNS BUT NOT FOR LONG THEY WERE HORRIBLE LOOKING AND ARE JUNK!

I HAVE A SAR8 FROM GREECE POST BAN MODEL.
Link Posted: 2/22/2010 11:13:11 AM EDT
Originally Posted By COLT:
SPRINGFIELD ARMORY PUT THEIR NAME ON SOME OF THOSE ALUMINUM RECEIVER GUNS BUT NOT FOR LONG THEY WERE HORRIBLE LOOKING AND ARE JUNK!

I HAVE A SAR8 FROM GREECE POST BAN MODEL.


Yeah, and every time you shoot one... Jesus kills a puppy.
Link Posted: 2/24/2010 4:25:44 PM EDT
Originally Posted By ihon:
Springfield also had the FA91 pattern guns as well. They are just as bad and have the same problems. I believe they are made by the same people. The good thing about the Springfield guns is that they will warranty the guns. They basically replace them with a M1A rifle. I got one in trade and it never ran right. I sent it in to be looked at and they replaced it. This was several years ago (2004), so you may want to double check with Springfield.

Springfield originally brought in the SAR-3 which was basically a HK built in Portugal. Then they were banned from import so they reconfigured them and marked them SAR-8 rifles. The reason SAR-8 was picked is because they could over stamp the 3 and make it an 8. When that dried up, they went to the FA91 pattern guns with the aluminum reciever which aren't very good. Unfortunely, they are also marked as SAR-8 rifles. I ended up with one because I only knew of the steel stamped SAR-8 guns and made a deal without seeing it first. Fortunely, it worked out for me as Springfield warrantied the gun. They have earned my money and I have sinced owned several Springfield guns (XD45, 1911, M1A). The cast aluminum reciever guns are pretty bad. They look ugly and aren't know for their reliability. Although I have heard of a handful of people who have one and it runs fine.


I've heard so many good things about springfield, they never amaze me. Well, they do, but I guess I've come to expect it from them. I've had a couple of 1911's from them, and will keep buying from them for these reasons.

So they replaced a SAR-3 for you with an M1A? That would be a hell of a deal.
Link Posted: 2/24/2010 8:16:52 PM EDT
Originally Posted By damcv62:
Originally Posted By ihon:
Springfield also had the FA91 pattern guns as well. They are just as bad and have the same problems. I believe they are made by the same people. The good thing about the Springfield guns is that they will warranty the guns. They basically replace them with a M1A rifle. I got one in trade and it never ran right. I sent it in to be looked at and they replaced it. This was several years ago (2004), so you may want to double check with Springfield.

Springfield originally brought in the SAR-3 which was basically a HK built in Portugal. Then they were banned from import so they reconfigured them and marked them SAR-8 rifles. The reason SAR-8 was picked is because they could over stamp the 3 and make it an 8. When that dried up, they went to the FA91 pattern guns with the aluminum reciever which aren't very good. Unfortunely, they are also marked as SAR-8 rifles. I ended up with one because I only knew of the steel stamped SAR-8 guns and made a deal without seeing it first. Fortunely, it worked out for me as Springfield warrantied the gun. They have earned my money and I have sinced owned several Springfield guns (XD45, 1911, M1A). The cast aluminum reciever guns are pretty bad. They look ugly and aren't know for their reliability. Although I have heard of a handful of people who have one and it runs fine.


I've heard so many good things about springfield, they never amaze me. Well, they do, but I guess I've come to expect it from them. I've had a couple of 1911's from them, and will keep buying from them for these reasons.

So they replaced a SAR-3 for you with an M1A? That would be a hell of a deal.
Springfield Armory does NOT replace these rifles with new M1A rifles. I've talked to them on a few occasions and they will credit you with something like $400 if your SAR-8 has failed, but that's about it.

I have a factory SAR-8 from them and it's still in new condition. It operates fine. But I really only consider it as a functional parts kit, as the parts are worth more than $400 to me and the fact that it works fine just makes it a keeper for now. I paid $900 for it when I bought it new, so I still have all the original paperwork. I'd take it out and try to wear it out but the ammo cost would end up being more than I'd get out of it.

Link Posted: 2/25/2010 6:23:42 AM EDT
It has been some time since I did it, but they replaced mine with a M1A. I did it back in 2004, so things could definitely have changed. But if you have one that doesn't work, send it in for repair. Springfield has a lifetime warranty and they are excellent about it in my experience. They may offer a replacement M1A, they may offer the $400 or they may make another offer. But you can always ask for it back if you don't want the $400. They did mention when I sent my SAR-8 in that I could either take a M1A or they would reimburse me if I had a receipt. Since I traded into it for about $700 worth of stuff, I took the M1A. So, I wouldn't buy one with the idea that you will get a replacement M1A. But if you do have one and it doesn't work (mine was having FTE & FTF 50% of the time), send it in. Springfield has an excellent reputation of backing their products.
Link Posted: 2/25/2010 2:33:36 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 2/25/2010 2:35:08 PM EDT by Glock-Boy]
Originally Posted By retrodog:
Originally Posted By damcv62:
Originally Posted By ihon:
Springfield also had the FA91 pattern guns as well. They are just as bad and have the same problems. I believe they are made by the same people. The good thing about the Springfield guns is that they will warranty the guns. They basically replace them with a M1A rifle. I got one in trade and it never ran right. I sent it in to be looked at and they replaced it. This was several years ago (2004), so you may want to double check with Springfield.

Springfield originally brought in the SAR-3 which was basically a HK built in Portugal. Then they were banned from import so they reconfigured them and marked them SAR-8 rifles. The reason SAR-8 was picked is because they could over stamp the 3 and make it an 8. When that dried up, they went to the FA91 pattern guns with the aluminum reciever which aren't very good. Unfortunely, they are also marked as SAR-8 rifles. I ended up with one because I only knew of the steel stamped SAR-8 guns and made a deal without seeing it first. Fortunely, it worked out for me as Springfield warrantied the gun. They have earned my money and I have sinced owned several Springfield guns (XD45, 1911, M1A). The cast aluminum reciever guns are pretty bad. They look ugly and aren't know for their reliability. Although I have heard of a handful of people who have one and it runs fine.


I've heard so many good things about springfield, they never amaze me. Well, they do, but I guess I've come to expect it from them. I've had a couple of 1911's from them, and will keep buying from them for these reasons.

So they replaced a SAR-3 for you with an M1A? That would be a hell of a deal.
Springfield Armory does NOT replace these rifles with new M1A rifles. I've talked to them on a few occasions and they will credit you with something like $400 if your SAR-8 has failed, but that's about it.

I have a factory SAR-8 from them and it's still in new condition. It operates fine. But I really only consider it as a functional parts kit, as the parts are worth more than $400 to me and the fact that it works fine just makes it a keeper for now. I paid $900 for it when I bought it new, so I still have all the original paperwork. I'd take it out and try to wear it out but the ammo cost would end up being more than I'd get out of it.



That is in-correct my friend ! They most certainly will do just that ! I just sent one in for a customer 3 weeks ago and not only did they swap him out for a M1A, they upgraded it to the scout model for $100 xtra.
Link Posted: 2/25/2010 7:35:13 PM EDT
Originally Posted By Glock-Boy:
Originally Posted By retrodog:
Originally Posted By damcv62:
Originally Posted By ihon:
Springfield also had the FA91 pattern guns as well. They are just as bad and have the same problems. I believe they are made by the same people. The good thing about the Springfield guns is that they will warranty the guns. They basically replace them with a M1A rifle. I got one in trade and it never ran right. I sent it in to be looked at and they replaced it. This was several years ago (2004), so you may want to double check with Springfield.

Springfield originally brought in the SAR-3 which was basically a HK built in Portugal. Then they were banned from import so they reconfigured them and marked them SAR-8 rifles. The reason SAR-8 was picked is because they could over stamp the 3 and make it an 8. When that dried up, they went to the FA91 pattern guns with the aluminum reciever which aren't very good. Unfortunely, they are also marked as SAR-8 rifles. I ended up with one because I only knew of the steel stamped SAR-8 guns and made a deal without seeing it first. Fortunely, it worked out for me as Springfield warrantied the gun. They have earned my money and I have sinced owned several Springfield guns (XD45, 1911, M1A). The cast aluminum reciever guns are pretty bad. They look ugly and aren't know for their reliability. Although I have heard of a handful of people who have one and it runs fine.


I've heard so many good things about springfield, they never amaze me. Well, they do, but I guess I've come to expect it from them. I've had a couple of 1911's from them, and will keep buying from them for these reasons.

So they replaced a SAR-3 for you with an M1A? That would be a hell of a deal.
Springfield Armory does NOT replace these rifles with new M1A rifles. I've talked to them on a few occasions and they will credit you with something like $400 if your SAR-8 has failed, but that's about it.

I have a factory SAR-8 from them and it's still in new condition. It operates fine. But I really only consider it as a functional parts kit, as the parts are worth more than $400 to me and the fact that it works fine just makes it a keeper for now. I paid $900 for it when I bought it new, so I still have all the original paperwork. I'd take it out and try to wear it out but the ammo cost would end up being more than I'd get out of it.



That is in-correct my friend ! They most certainly will do just that ! I just sent one in for a customer 3 weeks ago and not only did they swap him out for a M1A, they upgraded it to the scout model for $100 xtra.
Well that just makes them a fickle bunch of bastards.

Link Posted: 3/8/2010 12:19:59 PM EDT
I had an FA91 for a while, and I think the whole issue with the way the barrel is mated was a non-issue. Mine was one of the more accurate 91 types I've owned over the years. I ran many rounds through it and bought it used. And when I finally got rid of it it was just as good in terms of function and accuracy as when I bought it (it was more beat up). This is one of those internet myths methinks. Good on springfield on replacing stuff tho.
Link Posted: 3/10/2010 3:59:20 PM EDT
Originally Posted By Harlikwin:
I had an FA91 for a while, and I think the whole issue with the way the barrel is mated was a non-issue. Mine was one of the more accurate 91 types I've owned over the years. I ran many rounds through it and bought it used. And when I finally got rid of it it was just as good in terms of function and accuracy as when I bought it (it was more beat up). This is one of those internet myths methinks. Good on springfield on replacing stuff tho.



It's not an internet myth I had one of the FA91 and it never ran more than a few rounds with out problems it was one of the biggest turds that I ever had. I did pick up a stamped SAR 8 and it every bit as nice as any HK that I have ever seen or had. just my .02
Link Posted: 3/10/2010 6:51:44 PM EDT
Link Posted: 3/12/2010 9:57:39 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 3/12/2010 10:03:55 AM EDT by Harlikwin]
Originally Posted By eric10mm:
Originally Posted By Harlikwin:
I had an FA91 for a while, and I think the whole issue with the way the barrel is mated was a non-issue. ..... This is one of those internet myths methinks.

Not in the least. Such a rifle absolutely will self-destruct due to improper engineering. Perhaps not today, or tomorrow, but it WILL happen. For the same reasons why aluminum receivers are a HORRIBLE idea on FAL rifles.


I have yet to see any evidence of catastrophic failures with these weapons. I remember when this issue came up as a hypothetical back when they were introduced in the late 90s/early 2000's and it appears to have moved from the realm of rumor to become cannon thats repeated over and over again without any proof. (at least that I've seen or heard of).

I'm pretty sure the issue is not the same as on the aluminum fal uppers, I've seen pics of those with assorted KBs back in the day. But I have yet to see one pic of a blown up FA91. The worst thing I can really say about mine was that the finish was fucking terrible, it stayed quite accurate throughout its life and the bolt gap didn't really change IIRC. I'd say the sprigfield built guns had much better finish and worked fine from what I've hear.

As for other "function" issues I'd say the build quality was typical century, even their later steel receiver guns had a pile of stupid issues and were somewhat hit or miss. But as far as I recall my Fa91 was generally fine. I did have one rifle back then that cocking tube carrier (the bit that holds the cocking handle) did break in a weird way but it was an easy fix and I don't recall if it was the FA91 or not.
Link Posted: 3/12/2010 10:32:17 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Harlikwin:
Originally Posted By eric10mm:
Originally Posted By Harlikwin:
I had an FA91 for a while, and I think the whole issue with the way the barrel is mated was a non-issue. ..... This is one of those internet myths methinks.

Not in the least. Such a rifle absolutely will self-destruct due to improper engineering. Perhaps not today, or tomorrow, but it WILL happen. For the same reasons why aluminum receivers are a HORRIBLE idea on FAL rifles.

I have yet to see any evidence of catastrophic failures with these weapons.

Nor have I, but I have seen three loose barrels/trunnions on guns with what I would deem very few rounds through them.



Link Posted: 3/19/2010 10:26:58 AM EDT
Originally Posted By osprey21:

Originally Posted By Harlikwin:
Originally Posted By eric10mm:
Originally Posted By Harlikwin:
I had an FA91 for a while, and I think the whole issue with the way the barrel is mated was a non-issue. ..... This is one of those internet myths methinks.

Not in the least. Such a rifle absolutely will self-destruct due to improper engineering. Perhaps not today, or tomorrow, but it WILL happen. For the same reasons why aluminum receivers are a HORRIBLE idea on FAL rifles.

I have yet to see any evidence of catastrophic failures with these weapons.

Nor have I, but I have seen three loose barrels/trunnions on guns with what I would deem very few rounds through them.





Maybe thats the famous century quality control for ya. All I can say is that the one I had worked great.
Link Posted: 3/19/2010 12:01:24 PM EDT
There aren't very many catastrophic failures on the aluminum reciever HK .308 clones. It was originally a sheet metal reciever design, so there is not alot of stress put on it. The catastrophic failure was more speculation & rumor rather than documented fact, although I don't doubt it happened rarely. It happens with all guns time to tim. It isn't the danger that is the problem with these guns, it is the reliability issues.

The guns that run right out of the box seem to be okay and stay that way. But enough of them never run right from the begining or develope problems, that they have gained a bad reputation. There is nothing wrong with the design, it is just poorly put together by a mass production company. I suspect a big part of the problem is that these are built using surplus parts kits and cheap recievers. So the parts have varying grades of wear and are made by different manufacturers. While HK originally designed and marketed the HK-91/G3, the licensed it to several different manufactures such as FMP & POF. These than saw military use before being chopped up for surplus. If these were assembled one at a time by a gun smith who paid attention to detail, I suspect it would be okay. But these were done in batches where speed of assembly is what made it profitable. These guns cost new what a good gun smith charges for labor alone.

Springfield charged a premium for these guns at the time. They were 30-50% more if I remember correctly. Part of that premium is that they were backed by a lifetime warranty. So if you have a problem gun, it was worth the extra money to get it from Springfield.
Link Posted: 4/18/2010 3:27:42 PM EDT
I had an SAR-8 SA that cracked on both sides of the reciever, they sent me a new one and I sold it as soon as it arrived.
Top Top