Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Site Notices
Posted: 8/7/2003 5:57:12 PM EDT
The regular top cover is one piece.

Every Scope Rail I have seen has screws and all other type rails and crap.

Why cant somebody make a rail, that is all one piece a part of the top cover. All one damn piece, no screws, no bs, slide it in an BLAM!?!?!?
Link Posted: 8/7/2003 7:15:54 PM EDT
Ummmm maybe because without the screws and locking plate it wouldn't be stable? I have one of those screwey ones and it rocks.
Link Posted: 8/8/2003 4:31:10 AM EDT
ARMS makes one. I have it and it works as advertised. I like it better than my screw affixed DSA and Tapco mounts. The DSA is rock-solid, though. Tapco sells the ARMS mount and their own mount.

Jim
Link Posted: 8/8/2003 6:41:22 AM EDT
Get The ARMS mount
Link Posted: 8/8/2003 12:38:01 PM EDT
Leapers also makes one. Its a bit cheesy though. It is a weaver rail riveted to a standard top cover. It is a good bit more trim than the Tapco or DSA though. Cost is $40.
Link Posted: 8/8/2003 12:52:30 PM EDT
Yes, get the ARMS mount. My Tapco 3rd Gen. mount has an out of spec rail that needed shims to securely mount an ARMS 22M68(throw lever mount).
Link Posted: 8/8/2003 4:01:37 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 8/8/2003 4:03:24 PM EDT by raf]
Link Posted: 8/8/2003 10:37:25 PM EDT

Originally Posted By raf:
Can't speak to the ARMS mount, but once the DSA mount is properly affixed, one can just forget about the screws. etc.. It's not necessary, or even desirable to remove it for cleaning.
One thing I like about the DSA mount is that you can order it (at extra cost) with a slick quick detach brass-catcher.
Also, IIRC, DSA will mill out the rear center of the mount to accept a SUIT scope mount.




I concur. The DSA extreme scope mount is rock solid.
AB
Link Posted: 8/13/2003 3:41:38 PM EDT
I recently ordered the Swan (A.R.M.S.) #3 mount for my FAL. I ordered it through www.mountingsolution.com ... I haven't seen the arms mount for sale through Tapco....just the various Tapco mounts... I'll have to see if I paid too much. I have heard very little negative press about the arms #3 so my expectations are high...once I get to the range, I'll post a review
Link Posted: 8/21/2003 1:04:20 PM EDT
I know I'll get flamed for this but....
No, nobody makes a good scope mount for the FAL, because the rifle was never intended to be scoped (in my opinion). The fact that an AR could be "flattoped" and thus a scope added was a fluke and just dumb luck. Hence the old Colt 4x scopes that mount through the whole in the carry handle.
Rifles like the FAL and the AK just weren't designed to be scoped, and therefore the scope mounts are always going to be lacking in some way.

I must admit though, the idea of havind a scout scope on an FAL kind of intrigues me.

I prefer irons though, and have just never seen a scope mount for the FAL that didn't have major shortcomings in my mind.
Link Posted: 8/21/2003 7:45:52 PM EDT
Point well taken.

However I didnt know there was a regular cover, that had a rail attached, without screws.

Its the damn screws I dont like. The normal cover fits just fine. Nice & tight...Attach a regular rail and voila!
Link Posted: 8/22/2003 10:17:17 AM EDT
hmm, the regular receiver cover on my DSA FAL was a flimsy lightweight stamped piece that frankly doesn't feel any sturdier than a paper cllip. I recently mounte my ARMS #3 mount and I can assure you that the difference is substantial. The ARMS 3 mount is a MUCH heavier and more solid unit. While installation takes a little bit of effort, this mount does not use any receiver marring screws or plates and mine appears to be absolutely rock solid. As soon as my ACOG comes in I'll be able to mount it and test it. The only shortcoming I really foresee is that the overall mount height with the ACOG will be greater than I care for... It would be nice if the mount could be custom machined to allow an ACOG to mount directly thereby avoiding the need for a mount height increasing adapter.
Link Posted: 8/22/2003 4:28:42 PM EDT
Link Posted: 8/26/2003 4:45:56 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 8/26/2003 4:54:33 PM EDT by StarPD]
I have one of each of the DSA standard rail type cover, DSA "Para" rail type cover, and the A.R.M.S. "Para" rail type cover. DSA only recently actually delivered the long awaited "Para" cover. Until then, the A.R.M.S. cover was the only practical way to have a rail on a FAL "Para". That's why I had the A.R.M.S. cover. Then, when DSA shipped their new Para rail type cover, I bought one. As good as the A.R.M.S. is, the new DSA is MUCH better. Both of their locked-in-place rail type covers are rock solid and utterly dependable.

I like the A.R.M.S., but any time you can just slide any sight mount into and out of place, the risk of play enters, as does wear of the grooves and grove inserts, exacerbating the situation. Don't forget, recoil has a distinct effect on these components and their engaging/mating surfaces, especially when the weight of the scope, rings, and and bases is considered.

Now that I have DSA's new locked-in-place Para dust cover with machine screwed locking plates, I am much more confidant that the sight will retain zero under any and all conditions. My SA 58 has the similar standard model. Neither has budged in the slightest despite a number of rough field trips and lots of shooting.

Like others here, I cannot grasp why anyone would specifically WANT to have to remove the dust cover, since it's not necessary for cleaning, either routine or detailed. To me, that's like being disappointed because the buttstock and pistol grip don't just slip off.

Are there VALID complaints about the generally superb FAL? Damned straight. But that's a subject for another thread.
Link Posted: 8/26/2003 8:34:49 PM EDT
Top Top