Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Posted: 2/3/2006 11:08:35 AM EDT
Well, looking to add a scope mount to my FAL, and have been doing some homework. I thought initially that I was going to go with the DSA mount, but it seems that the ARMS mount seems like a better product. ARMS returns to zero, and can be easily removed for cleaning. DSA cannot. So why is it that everybody uses DSA then? I rarely ever hear of anyone using the ARMS mount, and in fact didn't know they made one until recently. So is there a reason? Is the ARMS mount that bad? I've read one or two accounts of it not fitting tight, but the supplier I would get it through is very good about returns, so not concerned if one doesn't fit tight, I'm sure another one will.

Anyway, any input on the subject would be appreciated.
Link Posted: 2/3/2006 12:06:02 PM EDT
I bounced back and forth as well.

DSA is cheaper, in the $60 neighborhood
DSA is somewhat heavier
DSA mounts with a half dozen screws that can gouge the receiver

ARMS is more expensive, a bit over $100
ARMS is lighter
ARMS simply slides in in place of the normal dust cover

I have an ARMS mount, and I'm quite happy with it. The slide portion is spring tensioned so there's no wiggle at all.

For cleaning, you simply push the mount, scope and all, straight back and pull it out of the upper. The bolt carrier won't come out with the mount in place otherwise. I use a short piece of broomstick to catch the grooves in the rail -- saves my fingertips and doesn't damage the grooves.

What tipped the decision for me was not having to fiddle with set screws.

my $.02
Link Posted: 2/3/2006 12:26:41 PM EDT
How does that ARMS work after removed and reinstalled? You have to re zero?

Link Posted: 2/3/2006 12:54:21 PM EDT

How does that ARMS work after removed and reinstalled? You have to re zero?


No change in point of impact. I make sure to use a toothbrush and clean the grooves carefully so there's no grit there. One drop of oil in each groove so the surfaces don't gall. On my FAL, there's absolutely no wiggle at all. It's a very tight fit, I have to whack it with a wooden dowel to get it started.

Link Posted: 2/3/2006 1:49:06 PM EDT
Link Posted: 2/3/2006 2:36:21 PM EDT



There is no problem removing the bolt/carrier assembly with the DSA mount fixed in place, and cleaning is easily done.



Good point. That is the one mild objection I have with the ARMS. I may change my tune after pulling that on and off hundreds of times!

Honestly, I liked the looks a bit better was the main reason I went with the ARMS. Discovering that you had to disassemble was a "feature" I didn't figure out til after my first outing.

It's just the nature of the mount, the back end of it has a stiff steel tab that point straight down, behind the bolt carrier, so it blocks the carrier from being pulled. I thought about getting out my dremmel, but then figured it was there for a reason. When you close the upper and lower, the aformentioned tab firmly pushes against the back of the lower receiver, takes up any slack and prevents the mount from sliding back and forth...which the DSA does with set screws instead.

By comparison, the standard steel dust cover will move back and forth.
Link Posted: 2/3/2006 2:39:10 PM EDT
Link Posted: 2/4/2006 6:44:24 AM EDT
I recently mounted an Aimpoint M2 on my FAL using an ARMS mount. It seems to be very tight
so I would imagine that it will hold zero as advertised.

I've only had time to zero at 50 yds. Maybe next week I'll be able to go to the range and shoot it at 200 yds, remove and re-install the mount and see if it really does hold zero.

I had a gen II tapco mount on another FAL and it really took the finish off the upper receiver. I understand that the DSA will do the same thing. My current FAL has a very nice finish and I didn't want to screw it up.

That being said, the DSA mount I've looked at does seem to be more heavy duty and so it might be the best choice if mounting heavier optics or if trying for some kind of a FAL "DMR" or sniper type set up.

I'm sure both the DSA and the ARMS are good choices. The ARMS seems to be working out for me.

Be safe,

Flyer
Link Posted: 2/4/2006 7:10:41 AM EDT
I have both. The ARMS will indeed hold zero after repeated removals. However, I think the DSA mount is superior, and it really doesn't need to be removed for cleaning. Yes, the DSA will slightly mark the reciever, but a couple of swipes with Oxpho Blue from Brownells and it is impossible to see the marks. That is if you want to swap it to another rifle or whatever. There really is no need to remove it. I usually take a piece of plastic bag and rubber band it to the scope ends, pull the bolt and scrub the rifle innards down with a toothbrush etc. By the way, the DSA Para mount is better by a whole bunch than the ARMS. The DSA spring release makes for a quick field strip, while the ARMS has to be removed everytime.
Link Posted: 2/4/2006 9:18:54 AM EDT
I started with a DSA and after experiencing the well documented idiosyncracies went with the ARMS #3 & #4 mounts. I've been very happy with the 5 I have. However, I am going to try the Grenadier QR-CQB mount for my last FAL.
Top Top