Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Site Notices
9/22/2017 12:11:25 AM
Posted: 9/30/2005 5:16:38 PM EDT
Which is better and why? I realize this is a personal preference, but I am trying to decide which one to purchase.
Link Posted: 9/30/2005 7:11:49 PM EDT
Personally I think the type 2 looks the best but like you said it stops at what you like. Both made by DSA and are of equal quality.
Link Posted: 9/30/2005 7:15:55 PM EDT
I think one is just a good as the other but I too agree the type II looks better.
Link Posted: 10/3/2005 5:16:16 PM EDT
I do agree the type II looks better. I order a rifle from DSA last month and this bit of info my help you make up your mind. The type I can be had with or with out the carry handle cut. The Type II only comes with the carry handle cut. I order the Type II but no handle and they said the put a spacer washer in the handle cut out. At least this way I would always have the option of added it later if I want or need it.
Link Posted: 10/3/2005 5:25:57 PM EDT
For me it was the carry handle that got me interested in FAL's in the first place. Something about the way they look made me want to get one.
Link Posted: 10/4/2005 12:22:19 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 10/4/2005 12:23:49 PM EDT by Maddogkiller]
The purpose for the type II ( in military service) was to correct a cracking problem that the type 1s were having. Sustained full automatic fire cause the receivers to crack in the area where the type 11 has additional steel.

For semi auto rifles, it is merely a matter of cosmetics.


type 3s were introduced as a cost saving measure. leaving the steel there cost less than machining it away.
Link Posted: 10/5/2005 7:52:19 AM EDT
There is no functional or durability difference between any of DSA's receivers. Its a matter of asthetics...nothing more.
Top Top