Armory Sponsor
Posted: 12/14/2005 8:00:16 PM EDT
|
When people refer to an M1A with "GI" parts, its value and worth jumps dramatically---it turns into some kind of Holy Grail. But the same people will refer to a DSA STG58A as a "parts gun" or "parts kit" gun--yet its built with new to like new "GOVT"(just not US) parts. Same with any other professional builds (ARS, AZEX, etc.) I've heard some goobers say they would buy a DSA SA58, because "its all new parts" (commercial)but not a STG58A because they're built from "parts"---go figure I have 2 M1A's (with GI barrels)  and 3 FAL's and would take ANY of the FAL's over eitherM1A---I would sure rather have like new GOV parts than brand new commercial parts in any gun. Just an observation---anyone else hear this kind of drival? |
|
I guess my point is that on several occassions I have listened to guys talk shit about MOST of the FAL's on the market as being from "parts"---but just about all the parts---new or used, are MIL SPEC from govt. storage somewhere, which I see as a bonus. They will defend a DSA all commercial though. And at the same time, they will tell you to quickly replace commercial parts on an M1A with MIL SPEC---my 2 M1A's have have run flawlessly, even though the only GI part on both is the barrel. Guess i'm just lucky. In other words, I would rather have GI(govt.) parts in any rifle if I have a choice---but admonishing one design for having them and then PRAISING another for the same thing makes me 
|
| Look at it this way. Its a military rifle. GI parts regardless of which G, are orginal. Commercial parts are just another knock off. The only exception on FAL receivers would be Imbel or Argie which are legitimate government arsenals licensed by FN. I figure my FN rhodesian on an Imbel is about as close to OEM as I can get in this country. |
Armory Sponsor