Armory Sponsor
[ARCHIVED THREAD] - Most reliable FAL (Page 1 of 2)
Posted: 1/7/2005 5:20:23 PM EDT
| DSA? |
| I don't mean to flame you but I have built FAL's on all the recievers but interprise and DSA, all I have built have been 100% RELIABLE or else I would make it so or just not keep it. DSA are nice and good, but very costly, I would bet that my FAC FAL reciever is just as or equally reliable. If you have the money I would get a DSA, I just like a challenge and to tinker with what I have, once it works I get bored with it and it sits in the safe. I'm just one of those likes the ugly guns and misfit weapons. I biult a STG-58 on a Dac Coonan reciever, my wife went shopping and 35min later when she got home I was done, took it to the range and 400 rnds and no problems. B-O-RING, I looked at it and said come on, theres got to be some problem, but no it was the best one I've built. In my opinion the FAL has been battle tested in many nasty places, I think the design in general is reliable otherwise I would build something else. Its like the 1911, how many wars does it have to go through before you believe it is a good design. |
Since I was considering buying a DSA FAL, I was asking if they are indeed the most reliable FAL rifle out there, compared with Enterprise, Ohio Rapid Fire, ARS, Azexarms, etc. I ask because I am trying to get information, which is what internet gun boards are good for. If making rude comments like this makes you feel more like a man, then you are one pathetic individual indeed. |
Fit, finish, quality of components (most new as opposed to kits)... DSA receivers (instead of imports) warranty, and overhead. Why dont all AR's cost the same? Why do BMW's 3 seiries cost more than civics? They both look like small cars. |
| Take a look at this one. ar15.com/forums/topic.html?b=7&f=93&t=245901 |
|
What does it matter to you if I write a book, DSA's are for the most part put together on used or unissued STG-58 parts kits. The difference in price is the reciever, and maybe if it has U.S parts like thier lower and barrel etc... I was only making the point that, most FAL's no matter who builds them or makes whatever part can be put together to be reliable. Obviuosly if there are broken or inferior parts (problems in the Forging or cast of the alloys)then you may run a risk of having an unreliable weapon. Talking of being a man now thats just plain childish, no, I don't need any education on being a man from you or anyone. Frankly I thought your original question to be vague and quite stupid, nest time add some specifics and I won't write a book. Here is reliable for you Stg-58 on an Imbel reciever. http://www.falfiles.com/forums/showthread.php?s=10008294adb6c2b3516d71953628f8d8&threadid=68486&perpage=30&pagenumber=1 |
Dear god man.... I was talking to Clean_Cut.... not you.
Most I have seen we on new production barrels they made. I think the kits ran out a long time ago.
Oh jeez... your post was great! I was just jacking with CC.  It aint all about you. 
|
|
Falark, My bad I thought you addressing that my way, the whole man comment CC made I thought once agian was thrown at me. Hey but if what I said fits where it Lastly DSA are probably the cream of the crop right now, after some of the custom guy's stuff. The recievers I believe are hammer forged, not investment cast and I believe the DSA recievers are made by LMT. I maybe wrong on that, but forged recievers are going to be stronger. |
|
DSA SA-58's are the finest factory produced FAL ever made. This is a fact...not an opinion. Anyone who'd claim FN's, Austians or any other factory produced FAL is a better quality weapon simply doesn't have the facts or is biased from ownership of a non-DSA SA-58 type FAL. That's not to say you can't have an exceptional quality FAL that isn't DSA. There are a LOT of great builders out there. FN's are great guns, STG's are even better and the Israelis made nice FAL's too. Side by side with an SA-58, there is little to debate however. |
|
Since you made this universal statement how do you know they are the "best ever made" what scientific process did you go through to achieve this knowlegde. You maybe right, it might be a fact, but I would like to see the data to support this "fact". I have not owned a DSA weapon but I have fired one. I noticed no significant difference in them, not enough to make me want to pay the price to buy one. It may just be me but, the question was reliability. There is no doubt that a DSA battle rifle is reliable and for the money better be reliable. I was suggesting that the FAL design as a whole is reliable, quality is another matter. |
|
Guess what fellas....I'm not here to sell you guys on anything. Buy/shoot/talk-up any FAL you like....lots of good ones out there. The materials, building process, attention to detail, techlology, machinery...everything at DSA...is flat out superior to any of the other factory FAL's. Fact, like it or not. Do your own research....arrive at whatever conclusion you care to arrive at. If your going to suggest otherwise, your full of shit, what can I say. And as for the nit wit with the Soldier of Fortune comment  ....always amused at those who offer nothing but speculation as to what someone else knows....contributing nothing themselves. I guess it's satisfying on some stunted level for them? |
|
M4, Tell me what the alloy make up of the DSA reciever, in other words the metalergy contents of it. Then tell me the same for the FN produced recievers, then I will get the opinion of some scientific types to find out which is superior. I don't you can get this informatiion mainly because I would think it would be a trade secret. Superior, you maybe right I would like to think that US companies can beat the pants off these foriegn companies. Your statement of "Fact" you have presented no proof. I like DSA but like I said a muddobber FAL can be just as or equal to in reliability as a DSA produced rifle. |
|
Hello clean_cut, I think to get the most reliable FAL you need to start with a builder who has experience in building FAL's. There are a lot of people who fall into that category. Then you need to use a quality receiver, Imbel, DSA and D.C. Industries (Coonan) are the best I have found. Then you need a nice parts kit that has not been abused and shot out. A like new STG-58 kit would be my first choice. A very good Imbel kit would work also. Some of the G1's and R1's have seen hard use but will still build into a good gun, it's just more likely the parts will not be in as good shape. FAC just got in another shipment of STG kits. They are about $295.00. And then you will need a few US made parts to be legal. To be the most reliable FAL I would try to use the factory hammer , trigger and sear. So I would use a US made receiver, buttstock, pistol grip, handguards, gas piston, cocking handle, muzzle device. And then buy very good or NEW magazines for this gun. Court .223 (AKA Court in FL.) |
Nit wit hugh? I guess you can't take a joke. Notice the smart ass face? |
It is because of the name BMW on the hood but the Civic would be more reliable and cost a heck of a lot less money.  It just doesn't have the "Bling" factor of a Bimmer. Glazer1972 |
LOL....more money couldn't mean better quality....ever...we all know that. If you want the best of something, buy the cheapest version of it....of course...makes perfect sense. DSA = BLING? LOL...please. |
|
Here is a link to the post about FAC getting in a shipment of STG kits. www.falfiles.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=130053 Court .223 |
|
I bought a DSA STG58 carbine and loved it. Best deal around, I believe. It is a kit that DSA builds and warrantees like new but is about half the cost of new. Only way I could tell it was a kit and not new was the Austrian ser.no. on the lower and the selector had the FA position (that couldn't be selected, of course). I've read advertisements that DSA doesn't reverse engineer their products... perhaps that is why they're more expensive? |
i think the biggest reason for that is the vast majority have never held one. from the few i've seen and from what i've read the standards of finish at FN may have suffered a bit in late production. inferior? i doubt that.
think those guys nailed it. matter of fact, MDK that sounds like a great sigline! |
That is what I am getting at. Clean Cut asks about reliable. We then get into all this crap about fit and finish. Fit and Finish don't make reliable. My FAL has parts on it from Brazil, Austria, Australia, India, Belgium, South Africa, and the US. It also still has baby shit colored paint on it from Zimbabwe, looks like shit and has mismatched #s but it is still 100% reliable and stacks 'em in tight. You DSA snobs are just like any other snob. My whatever is the best there is....blah, blah, blah!  
|
|
I am by no means an expert. I have had my FAL for but a short time. So far I am very impressed with what I have. Todd Grove at ORF made mine. I have already run lots of rounds through it and so far nary a problemo of any kind. Solid. For 600.00 and dealing with very prompt, nice folks you can't beat it. If you wish to spend more you can check out Arizona Response and Rich Banks at Front Line Armory. I have heard naught but good things about both of those fellers and their products. Good luck. Man, you won't be sorry to own a FAL. I think I like it more than my AR. |
|
The sarcasm and bitching really hurts the forum. And it is like this all over this forum, General and Armory are great ideas and sources, but my Hometown is the only place without this crap…at least so far. DSA has a great reputation. I have built mine from a DSA STG 58 kit and put it on an Imbel receiver, and took time to fit and make everything perfect. It is a solid weapon. I wanted to build it myself. If you have the money I would recommend a DSA, but well built rifle with good parts can be an excellent rifle also. Check this out Torture Test Remember it is a massed produced infantry battle rifle. Reliability, accuracy and durability can be very good for a battle rifle. |
| Talk about redundant, The issue of reliability was first stated by CC, maybe I went the wrong way about it but I was attemting to show that a well built FAL should always be reliable. Then someone decides to make an inclusive and universal statement that is just absolutley false and claims it to be fact. I was attempting and maybe wrongly to give CC more info not degrade DSA's product. But when you put things in perspective and look at "Old Dirty" then it just doesn't matter. |
|
Sorry I'm late, but whatever happened to build it yourself? Built mine and enjoy it. Just like the AMD, 1911, and a few more projects I've got my eye on. Why pay somebody else, when building the piece is at least half the fun? Just a personal observation, and not subject to the jack-ass or book clauses. |
[ARCHIVED THREAD] - Most reliable FAL (Page 1 of 2)
Armory Sponsor