Current state of DSA SA58/FALs? [Archive]

Sensei

05-30-13, 11:30

My understanding is that LV gives them a thumbs up. This is from his website (http://vickerstactical.com/tactical-tips/battle-rifles/):

I frequently get asked which battle rifle is my choice for a preferred 7.62mm weapon. I have one of about every type ever made in my personal reference collection, and some are better than others in a given area, but the one I have always liked the best is the FAL. The M14 can be tuned to a higher degree of accuracy and the G3 I would consider the most rugged, but all things considered the FAL as a 7.62mm battle rifle or carbine is, in my opinion, the all around best choice.

I currently own 14 FAL style rifles of different flavors, mostly original Belgian made guns, but I would recommend a buyer look hard at DS Arms offerings if you find yourself shopping for a 7.62mm rifle or carbine vs paying the high price for a pre ban Belgian FAL. In addition DS Arms deserves the lions share of credit of keeping the FAL viable in this day and age and offering more options and varieties than Fabrique Nationale ever dreamed of. I own 3 DS Arms FAL style rifles and I find them well made, more than adequately accurate, and reliable if you know how to treat an FAL. Make no mistake the FAL is not an AK; you cannot abuse it like an AK and expect it to work. If you treat it with the respect it deserves however it will serve you quite well. Jeff Cooper said it well; “The AK is the rifle for the masses and the FAL is the rifle for the classes”. As he so often did Jeff summed up the situation perfectly; and make no mistake the FAL is the rifle for the classes.

Featuring excellent engineering the FAL has always been a weapon that holds a special place in my heart. In addition it features attention to detail and quality construction throughout. I find serious firearms enthusiasts almost always love the FAL for the sake of the remarkable design characteristics. For a serious use FAL my favorite is the tactical carbine offered by DS Arms. With an aluminum alloy lower receiver and 16.25 inch barrel it makes for a very handy 7.62mm carbine. For my particular version I used an Israeli mag release, a Norwegian AK4 style modified FAL bolt carrier with forward assist scallop, and DSA scope mount. I also mounted a Surefire flashlight with a Vltor clamp to a short piece of picatinny rail to the handguard. I topped it off with an excellent Schmidt & Bender Short Dot II scope with a 7.62 mm M118LR BDC. The S&B scope is heavy duty so to keep the weight down I opted against a DSA modular rail system. After I did a radiusing of all sharp edges DSA black Duracoated all the metal and I installed one of my VCAS slings. The end result is a superb general purpose battle carbine. It would be my first choice in a .30 caliber carbine to take into harms way.

There are countless spare parts and accessories available for the FAL on the market. Many of the parts interchange with other FAL variants so customizing your 7.62mm rifle is easier than with any other long gun save the AR family. DS Arms not surprisingly is an excellent source for FAL parts and a simple Google search will reveal several others also.

A few end user tips on the FAL: keep it reasonably clean and well lubed, learn how the gas regulator functions and how to adjust it, and only load 18 rds in the magazine. In my experience if you abide by these rules the FAL will serve you well.

I can recommend the FAL as a weapon and DS Arms as a vendor of guns, parts, and accessories for the FAL. If you are in the market for a serious 7.62mm rifle or carbine, give them a call.

train of abuses

05-30-13, 14:59

I used to be big time into FAL rifles a couple years ago, and the consensus I received at the time from actual FAL gunsmiths and legit FAL experts was to pass on the new DSA FALs in favor of either imported rifles like the SAR48 by Imbel or just getting an imported kit and receiver from Imbel or Steyr and having a gunsmith build one.

The reasons I was given include the fact that LMT no longer made receivers and a number of gunsmiths like gunplumber reported the dimensions being off on the receivers and the quality nowhere near as high, some instances of bolts breaking (which is extremely rare on FALs) because of improper heat treating, etc.

The biggest reason I was told to avoid the new ones is that DSA had finally run out of the Steyr surplus parts that they had used for years to build FALs, and where the reputation of DSA had largely been built. So all of the other parts are no longer top of the line military surplus Steyr, but DSA or some other third party built. From how it was explained to me, DSA FALs sort of became like the Springfield M1A in going from a mil parts based rifle to a commercial one. Still probably good enough for most people and most situations, but for the type of people who run their rifles hard and shoot a lot like on this site, I am not so sure it would hold up like how a Steyr parts based gun like the older DSA FALs or a SAR48 would most certainly hold up.

The funny thing about that LAV article on the FAL is I remember seeing that on his site at least three or maybe even four years ago. That was actually what made me interested in the path of FAL rifles and eventually owning a DSA FAL, and as mentioned above, it was done in a time when AR 308s weren't considered reliable and before the SCAR 17 was released, so the FAL vs HK vs M1A debate was the most practical for those wanting a reliable, affordable rifle. I think LAV was completely right, as usual, at the time, and I would still take a DSA FAL over the US commercial versions of the HK and M1A. But I think the new crop of 308 ARs and SCAR 17 really have changed the game. I would love to read what LAV's current thoughts are on this issue!

Moose-Knuckle

05-30-13, 15:34

I used to be big time into FAL rifles a couple years ago, and the consensus I received at the time from actual FAL gunsmiths and legit FAL experts was to pass on the new DSA FALs in favor of either imported rifles like the SAR48 by Imbel or just getting an imported kit and receiver from Imbel or Steyr and having a gunsmith build one.

The reasons I was given include the fact that LMT no longer made receivers and a number of gunsmiths like gunplumber reported the dimensions being off on the receivers and the quality nowhere near as high, some instances of bolts breaking (which is extremely rare on FALs) because of improper heat treating, etc.

The biggest reason I was told to avoid the new ones is that DSA had finally run out of the Steyr surplus parts that they had used for years to build FALs, and where the reputation of DSA had largely been built. So all of the other parts are no longer top of the line military surplus Steyr, but DSA or some other third party built. From how it was explained to me, DSA FALs sort of became like the Springfield M1A in going from a mil parts based rifle to a commercial one. Still probably good enough for most people and most situations, but for the type of people who run their rifles hard and shoot a lot like on this site, I am not so sure it would hold up like how a Steyr parts based gun like the older DSA FALs or a SAR48 would most certainly hold up.

That is pretty much what I've been reading. As an owner of a 99% USGI SA M1A I would like to have a 100% mil-spec FAL varient.

The funny thing about that LAV article on the FAL is I remember seeing that on his site at least three or maybe even four years ago. That was actually what made me interested in the path of FAL rifles and eventually owning a DSA FAL, and as mentioned above, it was done in a time when AR 308s weren't considered reliable and before the SCAR 17 was released, so the FAL vs HK vs M1A debate was the most practical for those wanting a reliable, affordable rifle. I think LAV was completely right, as usual, at the time, and I would still take a DSA FAL over the US commercial versions of the HK and M1A. But I think the new crop of 308 ARs and SCAR 17 really have changed the game. I would love to read what LAV's current thoughts are on this issue!

From his SME sub-forum (and you posed the question :p):

Are FALs still your favorite battle rifle . . .

Good question - I still have a soft spot for the FAL but with all the new Battle Rifles on the market I would have to pick one of the new ones over it- ergonomics alone dictate that

Honestly I have a bunch of them but haven't really shook them out to see which one is top dog - if I had to choose one right now it would probably be the SCAR H based on use ( and testing) by the military. The MR762 is coming soon so we will see how it shakes out

Interesting times we live in - I plan on doing some stuff on my show about the re birth of the battle rifle - should be cool

Cheers

LAV
https://www.m4carbine.net/showthread.php?t=95957

train of abuses

05-30-13, 15:50

Yeah - I remember asking the question :) I meant if he still views DSA as being high quality. Sorry, should have clarified, and I didn't word my post all that well.

And if you want a mil spec level FAL, I believe the most affordable factory rifles are the SAR 48 imbel imports that pop up from time to time on sites like gunbroker and gun forums for sale. The great FAL gunsmith gunplumber out of AZ has one as his personal FAL, or he did the last time I remember reading him talk about it. He also really liked the SCAR 17 after buying one from what I remember, too.

Moose-Knuckle

05-30-13, 16:04

Peshawar

05-30-13, 16:07

I had two Imbel receivers here, and the parts to put together two paras. Sold em. Don't regret it. I would get the SCAR.

train of abuses

05-30-13, 16:19

mooseknuckle and peshawar, I completely agree. It took me a while to get over my emotional attachment to the FAL, but I eventually sold them both with a plan to buy a SCAR 17. I can't really think of any area where FALs are better than just buying a SCAR 17 except maybe cost, but then again the good imported factory rifles aren't too far off in price from the SCAR, and some even cost more. Maybe parts availability is better for the FAL, but that is probably about it.

MountainRaven

05-30-13, 19:03

I had two Imbel receivers here, and the parts to put together two paras. Sold em. Don't regret it. I would get the SCAR.

If I could afford the SCAR, I wouldn't be asking about the FAL.

;)

Peshawar

05-30-13, 19:06

If I could afford the SCAR, I wouldn't be asking about the FAL.

;)

Haha, touché. :D They're out of my price range too.

Kchen986

05-30-13, 23:12

In the end I may just go with the SCAR 17 with all things considered.

Recommend this as your best course of action.

On a whim, I purchased an Imbel FAL--I was so impressed that I saved up and purchased a DSA Para FAL. However, the DSA's so heavy, cumbersome, and prone to early bolt-lock, that I don't consider it a viable fighting weapon. It's also sensitive to ammo--.308 tends to cause issues, and the weapon definitely prefers 7.62 milsurp.

I ended up purchasing a SCAR 17S right after the election. It's leaps and bounds ahead of the FAL. Lighter, easier to reload, easier to point, easier to disengage the safety, more accurate, better length of pull--the list goes on.

Save up and go with the SCAR.

https://lh5.googleusercontent.com/-3NtsfCLyRrU/UQGhz90rIwI/AAAAAAAAD3M/rLYRJ7goVmM/w765-h510-no/DSC_0129.JPG

Gutshot John

05-31-13, 10:07

It should be noted that for the price of a SCAR 17. You can get a complete DSA FAL, and enough surplus parts, kits to keep it running for several lifetimes.

Yes newer DSA FALs aren't what they used to be, customer service also sucks (always has) but gunplumber is indeed right.

For the most part they're perfectly good guns, and I would rate them far better than Springfield's M1A. Often internet reputations are overwrought and half-baked. Legitimate but comparatively rare problems, receive disproportionate attention, and suddenly it's a POS (Glock reliability and M&P accuracy) come to mind.

The issues with .308/7.62 usually result from being undergassed, my problems have typically been that .308 runs fine and 7.62 is what has the problem but YMMV. The gassing problem is easily fixed either with the regulator or by increasing the port size (not hard, done it). Another problem is that sometimes the chambers are a bit tight. I've fixed this with some polishing.

The FAL is a great gun, and it lends itself to the home gunsmith. I'd have no trouble taking my dremel to the FAL...I'd be waaaaay more hesitant with a SCAR but yes older model DSArms (more than 2 years), and Imbel is what would get my money these days.

It should also be noted that FALs are one of the more reasonably priced transferable NFA battle rifles.

JPB

05-31-13, 18:29

Yeah, I'm gonna be in the minority here, but I shoot my FAL way better than my SCAR. To be fair I've got a lot more rounds through the FAL and am more comfortable behind it. Compared to the FAL, everything else, including the SCAR, just feels bulky. The FAL is a really sleek streamlined rifle. Every time I shoot it I have to ask myself why I have strayed from it.

shootist~

06-01-13, 10:26

...
The FAL is a great gun, and it lends itself to the home gunsmith.
...

Building your own was the way to go, but the days of getting excellent quality kits or using two or more inexpensive kits for a build are a decade+ behind us now. Not to mention chasing down a NIB lower or barrel to replace worn or poor fitting parts or doing some accuracy enhancement.

There are some great kit guns out there, but unless you can range test one, you could be taking a huge chance on getting a POS. I've seen a couple of DSA built guns (/w US barrels) that fall in the POS category as well. [This was in years past so take it with a grain of salt relative to current production guns.]

With several of my best (and personally built) FALs still in inventory - and one SCAR H - I can honestly say the SCAR is worth the extra money - for me.

If nothing else, you know what you are getting up front: Less weight, superior ergonomics; ease of optic mounting; and twice the accuracy, if not more.

All easily proved (to myself anyway) after I switched from an excellent 2+/- MOA FAL to the SCAR H in our longer range three gun matches.

Gutshot John

06-01-13, 10:50

Building your own was the way to go, but the days of getting excellent quality kits or using two or more inexpensive kits for a build are a decade+ behind us now. Not to mention chasing down a NIB lower or barrel to replace worn or poor fitting parts or doing some accuracy enhancement.

There are some great kit guns out there, but unless you can range test one, you could be taking a huge chance on getting a POS. I've seen a couple of DSA built guns (/w US barrels) that fall in the POS category as well. [This was in years past so take it with a grain of salt relative to current production guns.]

With several of my best (and personally built) FALs still in inventory - and one SCAR H - I can honestly say the SCAR is worth the extra money - for me.

If nothing else, you know what you are getting up front: Less weight, superior ergonomics; ease of optic mounting; and twice the accuracy, if not more.

All easily proved (to myself anyway) after I switched from an excellent 2+/- MOA FAL to the SCAR H in our longer range three gun matches.

The question posed is whether the DSA FAL is still a decent gun. Not SCAR vs. FAL. I'm sure there are lots of guns that people chose for a variety of good reasons, relevant to them. My only intention was to dispell some of the commonly spouted internet "wisdom."

I honestly don't see what the SCAR does that the FAL doesn't but it's not my money. Sure I really like it's lighter weight, but the ones I've tried don't seem to yield any significant accuracy advantage but hey that's your call, and in the end it's not that much weight.

Finding quality parts kits to do a build is problematic, but finding parts kits to use as spare/replacement parts is not.

Finding other FAL parts isn't as easy as it used to be, but it's a damn site easier than finding SCAR components...cheaper too.

SCAR is an excellent weapon, but not without its detractors, and the idea that DSA FALs are suddenly POS, or otherwise is somewhat overdone.

Honestly if I was looking to change from the FAL, and I had $3500 (SCAR money) to buy something new, I'd be looking at LaRue PredatAR or other quality AR .308.

Essentially for the price of one SCAR you can get at least two (new or used) FALs. Mags are at least half the price, parts are readily available if you know where to look.

Kchen986

06-01-13, 10:57

Essentially for the price of one SCAR you can get at least two (new or used) FALs. Mags are at least half the price, parts are readily available if you know where to look.

It's going to depend on what you're looking for. For what I consider a "modernized" FAL (16-18" bbl, Para style, railed foregrip), you'll be paying in the vicinity of $1,800-$2,000. Another $800 and you will have reached pre-craze SCAR prices. ($2,600).

To me, that $800 is without question, better spent on the SCAR.

Gutshot John

06-01-13, 11:14

It's going to depend on what you're looking for. For what I consider a "modernized" FAL (16-18" bbl, Para style, railed foregrip), you'll be paying in the vicinity of $1,800-$2,000. Another $800 and you will have reached pre-craze SCAR prices. ($2,600).

To me, that $800 is without question, better spent on the SCAR.

Well I'm not seeing SCARs for pre-craze prices, whereas FALs never really were affected by the craze.

You can easily get a modernized FAL 16-18" para in the $1500 range, especially if you go factory direct (which is what I do), including a DSA mount.

Railed fore ends are a waste on a FAL, you can achieve the same thing with rail sections if you want to add a light.

Base model para fal = $1800 (regular FAL and you're talking $1400)
Base model SCAR = $3500

That's easily twice as much.

shootist~

06-01-13, 12:21

The question posed is whether the DSA FAL is still a decent gun. Not SCAR vs. FAL. I'm sure there are lots of guns that people chose for a variety of good reasons, relevant to them. My only intention was to dispell some of the commonly spouted internet "wisdom."

I honestly don't see what the SCAR does that the FAL doesn't but it's not my money. Sure I really like it's lighter weight, but the ones I've tried don't seem to yield any significant accuracy advantage but hey that's your call, and in the end it's not that much weight.

Finding quality parts kits to do a build is problematic, but finding parts kits to use as spare/replacement parts is not.

Finding other FAL parts isn't as easy as it used to be, but it's a damn site easier than finding SCAR components...cheaper too.

SCAR is an excellent weapon, but not without its detractors, and the idea that DSA FALs are suddenly POS, or otherwise is somewhat overdone.

Honestly if I was looking to change from the FAL, and I had $3500 (SCAR money) to buy something new, I'd be looking at LaRue PredatAR or other quality AR .308.

Essentially for the price of one SCAR you can get at least two (new or used) FALs. Mags are at least half the price, parts are readily available if you know where to look.

Yet your post is much about your personal perceptions ;SCAR Vs FAL. :)

Sure, you can get two basic FALs for about the price of a new SCAR, and then potentially spend considerably more getting one up to more modern specs with a rail and scope base. But that doesn't' mean either of the FALs will be a good one, DSA or not.

Then when things die down, the FAL will again be worth the sum of it's parts - around $800-$900. The SCARs value will likely hold at ~3x that.

FWIW, most decent FALs are in the 3 MOA range at best, with a very few averaging closer to 2 MOA (even for 5 shots). This is the real pisser for me, and I have a couple that will sometimes print 1.5 MOA at 100 - just not on demand. The SCAR (for me) will generally do 1.5 MOA; often better, at 3 times the distance. (Anyone's mileage may vary of course.)

MountainRaven

06-01-13, 12:57

Gutshot John

06-01-13, 13:31

Yet your post is much about your personal perceptions ;SCAR Vs FAL. :)

Sure, you can get two basic FALs for about the price of a new SCAR, and then potentially spend considerably more getting one up to more modern specs with a rail and scope base. But that doesn't' mean either of the FALs will be a good one, DSA or not.

Huh? I've been shooting FALs for almost 15 years, and I'm not sure I'm familiar with wide-spread problems with FALs built on quality receivers. I've owned 4 DSAs over the years, they all run fine. I did have to make some tweaks (gas system primarily) initially, but it's easily done and then they run great.

If you have a shitty barrel, buy a new one, replace it. Easily done on a FAL.

I didn't actually didn't introduce the SCAR to the debate, and the only negative comparison I made was cost/availability. If you can quantify an improvement in performance that justifies twice the cost, that's your call.

Then when things die down, the FAL will again be worth the sum of it's parts - around $800-$900. The SCARs value will likely hold at ~3x that.

Things die down? Prices for FALs haven't gone up really that much, maybe 10% tops. I was thinking of making the switch at the height of the craze, was going to sell my G1 and get a LaRue, going price was about what I paid for it, during the Bush Administration. I kept it.

When things die down, the FAL purchases made during the craze will hold their value much better than the SCAR.

FWIW, most decent FALs are in the 3 MOA range at best, with a very few averaging closer to 2 MOA (even for 5 shots). This is the real pisser for me, and I have a couple that will sometimes print 1.5 MOA at 100 - just not on demand. The SCAR (for me) will generally do 1.5 MOA; often better, at 3 times the distance. (Anyone's mileage may vary of course.)

That's incorrect. A "good" FAL is certainly capable of better than that,especially with match ammo, but I'd concede that 3MOA is probably the average capability of FALs and perfectly adequate for battle rifle accuracy. If accuracy is your game, than both the FAL and the SCAR fall short.

The FAL is not a tack driver, and never has been but I get about 1.5 with match ammo and medium contour barrels. My G1 barrel is actually the most accurate of the bunch. Then again neither is the SCAR, I've only seen one SCAR, but ~2 with .308 commercial was what that experience was with that. I'd imagine it may do better with match ammo. You must have gotten a "good" one.

I concede that the SCAR is a more accurate gun, but not by much. If I cared about a difference in 1moa, I wouldn't buy either gun. Is 1 moa worth $1600?

You tell me. For that kind of money, I can buy a .5-1MOA semi AR .308.

Gutshot John

06-01-13, 13:42

I believe it is a well-established fact that the FAL is rendered obsolescent by the SCAR and KAC's current crop of SR-25s (and variants). Arguing the relative value of that obsolescence seems a mite off-topic, when the question is, "Are current production FALs any good?"

Yes just as the 1911 has been rendered obsolete by the Glock. Just like the AK-47 has been made obsolete by....Really? Please.

There is plenty of functionality in an old FAL. And so I reject your premise that the 'relative value of obsolescence is off topic'.

If you just want to talk absolute qualitative differences...I'm not sure I get where a 1MOA improvement in accuracy, renders anything obsolete.

At this point, it seems like we're having a Saiga versus SR-15 debate. The first one, with a bit of work, will be useful. The latter is better in practically every way out of the box (even after you've done the work on the former), but you can buy a couple Saigas and a bucket full of parts for them for the price of one SR-15.

Huh? Saiga? Really? It would actually be more akin to the AK-47 vs. AK-101 or something. We're talking about the most proven battle-rifle design in the history of western-warfare. Is the SCAR an improvement? Yes absolutely. Does the improvement justify the cost? That depends on you, but there are plenty of legitimate arguments that would disagree, but let's not pretend that $1600 (training, ammo, parts, scopes, accessories) in opportunity cost is "saiga versus SR-15". I'm not sure you've got enough gasoline for that straw man.

In any case, I appreciate the digression; I take it, then, that the current offerings from DSA are not good quality firearms and that, if one desires a quality battle rifle, available new from the factory, that there are no truly good options (when weight is a concern) short of the SR-25 and SCAR?

If that's what you got from this, you walked a long way to miss the point. LaRue? LMT? Certainly others. An SR-25 Match is about the same weight as a FAL. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SR-25 - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FN_FAL)

When the SCAR has been in production for at least another 10 years and has been fielded by at least one professional army, then we can start making some meaningful comparisons.

Why do you think FAL parts are widely available, even in a period of "shortage"? You don't see a qualitative advantage in that?

MountainRaven

06-01-13, 15:09

Yes just as the 1911 has been rendered obsolete by the Glock. Just like the AK-47 has been made obsolete by....Really? Please.

There is plenty of functionality in an old FAL. And so I reject your premise that the 'relative value of obsolescence is off topic'.

If you just want to talk absolute qualitative differences...I'm not sure I get where a 1MOA improvement in accuracy, renders anything obsolete.

Uh, but they are.

The Colt Single-Action Army was rendered obsolescent by the Smith & Wesson No.3. Which was rendered obsolescent by the hand ejectors from Colt and S&W. Which was rendered obsolescent by the 1911. Which was rendered obsolescent by the Hi-Power.

None of which stopped a young Lieutenant George S. Patton from strapping a SAA to his hip and using it with great success to kill Villistas. And then carrying it through the First World War (and a S&W hand ejector in 357 Mag through the Second World War).

The 1911 is obsolescent. The AK is obsolescent. Just because the M1903A4 is obsolescent compared to, say, the XM2010, doesn't mean that a skilled sniper armed with the obsolescent arm cannot be a deadly threat. It's simply a less capable arm.

And I say that as a huge fan of both platforms. They have been superseded in virtually every aspect by later weapon systems.

Huh? Saiga? Really? It would actually be more akin to the AK-47 vs. AK-101 or something. We're talking about the most proven battle-rifle design in the history of western-warfare. Is the SCAR an improvement? Yes absolutely. Does the improvement justify the cost? That depends on you, but there are plenty of legitimate arguments that would disagree, but let's not pretend that $1600 (training, ammo, parts, scopes, accessories) in opportunity cost is "saiga versus SR-15". I'm not sure you've got enough gasoline for that straw man.

I thought we were comparing a 70-year old design built in your garage with surplus parts with a brand new, latest-and-greatest weapon system.

So, I suppose you might be right about the AK-47 versus the AK-101. But are we building an AK-47 in your garage with a parts kit (or several parts kits) and then comparing it to a factory AK-101? Or are we comparing a Russian-made, factory assembled AK-47 with an AK-101?

Is your contention via metaphor that DSA FALs are good quality weapons from the factory, built with comparable quality to the original FN-built FALs?

If that's what you got from this, you walked a long way to miss the point. LaRue? LMT? Certainly others. An SR-25 Match is about the same weight as a FAL. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SR-25 - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FN_FAL)

The FAL with an aluminum receiver is my standard for a light-weight battle rifle.

The LMT is much heavier. That knocks it out of the running. LaRues, while stupifyingly accurate, are not what I would call available. (I cannot walk into a store anywhere, at any time, let alone today, and see a LaRue on the shelf, brand new. It's simply not going to happen. If I want one, I have to order one myself, and then wait. And wait. And wait.) And the only DI AR-pattern rifle to have proven itself reliable enough for LAV is the SR-25... which to me is a clue. But I had hoped that there might be other options available that aren't as unavailable as a LaRue or as heavy as an LMT.

When the SCAR has been in production for at least another 10 years and has been fielded by at least one professional army, then we can start making some meaningful comparisons.

LAV has already made meaningful comparisons, remember?

Why do you think FAL parts are widely available, even in a period of "shortage"? You don't see a qualitative advantage in that?

I do.

But this is not (supposed to be) about whether the comparisons are apt. Whether the SCAR is a better rifle (or not) or by how much.

It is supposed to be whether or not the FALs rolling off of DSA's factory today are stake-your-life-on-it-dependable. Are they LE6920s of the FAL or are they Bushmasters?

shootist~

06-01-13, 15:59

Yes newer DSA FALs aren't what they used to be, customer service also sucks (always has) but gunplumber is indeed right.

Last I saw on the FALFiles, GP was running a SCAR.

Gutshot John

06-01-13, 17:14

Last I saw on the FALFiles, GP was running a SCAR.

So? Gunplumber has done several builds for me. He's a great smith, but I don't base my choices on his, any more than I based my choice in LAV or any other TIP.

As I said, if you've identified a $1600 opportunity cost in using a SCAR, knock yourself out.

Let's not pretend though that you're not giving up something else in exchange.

Gutshot John

06-01-13, 17:27

Uh, but they are.

The Colt Single-Action Army was rendered obsolescent by the Smith & Wesson No.3. Which was rendered obsolescent by the hand ejectors from Colt and S&W. Which was rendered obsolescent by the 1911. Which was rendered obsolescent by the Hi-Power.

None of which stopped a young Lieutenant George S. Patton from strapping a SAA to his hip and using it with great success to kill Villistas. And then carrying it through the First World War (and a S&W hand ejector in 357 Mag through the Second World War).

I'm not sure what you're talking about. No one I know issues a SAA anymore. There are quite a few agencies and elite military units that still field 1911s, there are quite a few armies that still issue the AK-47.

The 1911 is obsolescent. The AK is obsolescent. Just because the M1903A4 is obsolescent compared to, say, the XM2010, doesn't mean that a skilled sniper armed with the obsolescent arm cannot be a deadly threat. It's simply a less capable arm.

That's a veritable field of straw men...

I'm sorry, you've not established where the FAL is a less capable firearm. It's comparably accurate to the same ranges, it has an equivalent rate of fire. So I'm not seeing where obsolescence is even an issue. It's an older design. Yes, but not really that much older than the M-16. Has the 416 or the G36 rendered the AR obsolete? I don't think so. A battle proven design doesn't not make a gun obsolete. As I said, 10 years and being fielded by at least one army as their primary small arm, and we'll talk. So far as I know, despite all its supposed awesomeness, the SCAR 17 isn't going to be a main small arm for anyone. I believe that there are a few armies that still field the FAL and G3.

And I say that as a huge fan of both platforms. They have been superseded in virtually every aspect by later weapon systems.

What aspects are these? Each gun has its upsides. You cannot make an honest and informed choice unless you're willing to look at the totality honestly.

You've mentioned accuracy (which is comprable). I acknowledge weight is superior on a SCAR, but not so much on a AR .308.

Magazines, parts, etc. are all far more available and affordable on a FAL.

So when you say it's been "superseded in virtually every aspect" I'm really confused by how you can make such a sweeping claim. What are these criteria? How have you quantified them?

I thought we were comparing a 70-year old design built in your garage with surplus parts with a brand new, latest-and-greatest weapon system.

I never once mentioned home builds. Nice try though in changing the rules.

Is your contention via metaphor that DSA FALs are good quality weapons from the factory, built with comparable quality to the original FN-built FALs?

I think I already stipulated that current production DSA aren't what they used to be, but outside of that...

Pretty much. Are the FN built FALs more collectible/desirable? Yes. Otherwise there is very little difference in performance/quality between Belgian FALs and Steyr FALs.

The FAL with an aluminum receiver is my standard for a light-weight battle rifle.

I'm pretty sure most FN built FALs didn't include an aluminum lower except on one model of Para. That said, I think that's a fairly reasonable standard.

The LMT is much heavier. That knocks it out of the running. LaRues, while stupifyingly accurate, are not what I would call available. (I cannot walk into a store anywhere, at any time, let alone today, and see a LaRue on the shelf, brand new. It's simply not going to happen. If I want one, I have to order one myself, and then wait. And wait. And wait.) And the only DI AR-pattern rifle to have proven itself reliable enough for LAV is the SR-25... which to me is a clue. But I had hoped that there might be other options available that aren't as unavailable as a LaRue or as heavy as an LMT.

I sooooo don't give a long, wet, fart what LAV thinks. I'm always perplexed why some people can't make up their own minds without having it validated by some internet guru. My needs are not his, your needs are not his. LAV gets free guns and all kinds of other gear. Neither one of us are him. People make these decisions all the time keeping cost in mind, so do Armies when they pick their main battle weapon. I think if it were that much of a qualitative improvement in the SCAR design, many countries would be adopting it, irrespective of cost.

That said, I'm not advocating for either the LaRue or the LMT. What I said was that they're perfectly valid alternatives to either the SCAR or the KAC. Again the only real weight savings is with the SCAR, but it falls well short in terms of accuracy. Any of these guns are available. You just have to wait. True, you don't have to wait as long for a SCAR17, but you'll pay at least as much for it. If I'm spending the money, I want a REAL improvement in accuracy. YMMV.

KalashniKEV

06-01-13, 18:28

Getting back to the topic at hand, I took my new manufacture DSA out to the range today for 120 rounds of Silver Bear. Zero malfunctions and I'm quite pleased with the rifle.

I would love to post that it had magical accuracy, but it is what it is- an FAL carbine.

http://i145.photobucket.com/albums/r220/Kalashnikev/Rifles/DSA_zps4ceaec42.png (http://s145.photobucket.com/user/Kalashnikev/media/Rifles/DSA_zps4ceaec42.png.html)

http://i145.photobucket.com/albums/r220/Kalashnikev/Rifles/IMG_20130601_162244_zpsf5037d63.jpg (http://s145.photobucket.com/user/Kalashnikev/media/Rifles/IMG_20130601_162244_zpsf5037d63.jpg.html)

Kchen986

06-01-13, 18:31

Getting back to the topic at hand, I took my new manufacture DSA out to the range today for 120 rounds of Silver Bear. Zero malfunctions and I'm quite pleased with the rifle.

I would love to post that it had magical accuracy, but it is what it is- an FAL carbine.
[/URL]

OP: If you're dead set on a FAL, get the full stock version. I enjoy the full stock much more than the para.

MountainRaven

06-01-13, 19:06

<snip>

I had a big, long response written, but screw it. It only would have led us further astray. The next part is the more important.

I sooooo don't give a long, wet, fart what LAV thinks. I'm always perplexed why some people can't make up their own minds without having it validated by some internet guru.

My needs are not his, your needs are not his.

LAV gets free guns and all kinds of other gear. Neither one of us are him.

What's the phrase? "Human beings are not alone as a species in being able to learn from the experiences of others, they are alone in being able to learn from the experiences of others and choosing not to"? Or words to that effect.

You're right. I am not LAV. My needs are not his needs.

But neither have I the time, money, ammunition, and collection of firearms and experiences that he has and has had. Nor do I have the connections and friends still inside the United States military and SOF that he has. If I did, the little text under my SN would be 'Subject Matter Expert' or 'Industry Professional'. Not 'Regular Poster' (or whatever it is).

Remembering here that I am the one who started this thread, I would like to remind you (and everyone) that the obsolescence of the FAL (or 1911 or AKM or...) does not concern me. The FAL's inferiority to more modern platforms does not concern me. Alleged or not.

What does concern me is whether or not there is a good, quality lightweight factory battle rifle, available in the wild, with 16-18 inch barrel for less than $2000 and whether or not the FALs coming off of DSA's production lines are or can be that rifle.

Getting back to the topic at hand, I took my new manufacture DSA out to the range today for 120 rounds of Silver Bear. Zero malfunctions and I'm quite pleased with the rifle.

I would love to post that it had magical accuracy, but it is what it is- an FAL carbine.

http://i145.photobucket.com/albums/r220/Kalashnikev/Rifles/DSA_zps4ceaec42.png

http://i145.photobucket.com/albums/r220/Kalashnikev/Rifles/IMG_20130601_162244_zpsf5037d63.jpg

Thank you for the post. I look forward to seeing how your new weapon shakes out. :)

OP: If you're dead set on a FAL, get the full stock version. I enjoy the full stock much more than the para.

I'm not dead-set on an FAL. Mostly exploring options, right now.

That being said, I'm somewhat addicted to folding stocks.

:eek:

Gutshot John

06-01-13, 20:23

What's the phrase? "Human beings are not alone as a species in being able to learn from the experiences of others, they are alone in being able to learn from the experiences of others and choosing not to"? Or words to that effect.

Many firearms experts of many different lineages, disagree with each other on a variety of issues. LAV is one among many opinions that need to be considered, but ultimately the decision is yours to make, and you have to consider....

You're right. I am not LAV. My needs are not his needs.

Exactly.

But neither have I the time, money, ammunition, and collection of firearms and experiences that he has and has had. Nor do I have the connections and friends still inside the United States military and SOF that he has. If I did, the little text under my SN would be 'Subject Matter Expert' or 'Industry Professional'. Not 'Regular Poster' (or whatever it is).

Fair enough, my opinions are simply my own. I'm not asking that you agree with me, I'm just asking you to think critically about what it is you want from this rifle.

What does concern me is whether or not there is a good, quality lightweight factory battle rifle, available in the wild, with 16-18 inch barrel for less than $2000 and whether or not the FALs coming off of DSA's production lines are or can be that rifle.[/b]

I think the answer is a resounding yes. What I would recommend for that rifle, is to buy yourself a base model SA58 (preferably over 2 years old) with a medium contour barrel (long gas system).

I would then send that rifle to GP to do a workover and recoat. That's what I did with this G1 modification...

http://i286.photobucket.com/albums/ll99/GutshotJohn/CIMG0449.jpg (http://s286.photobucket.com/user/GutshotJohn/media/CIMG0449.jpg.html)

That had too much magnification, frankly a 10x was a total waste on the gun. Fortunately I had a Trijicon 3x30...that's a great optic on the gun.

http://i286.photobucket.com/albums/ll99/GutshotJohn/DSC_1103.jpg (http://s286.photobucket.com/user/GutshotJohn/media/DSC_1103.jpg.html)

I cleaned up at a DMR class taught by LittleLebowski's brother at the family ranch in Wyoming. One of the most fun shooting classes I've ever been to.

http://i286.photobucket.com/albums/ll99/GutshotJohn/DSC_1100.jpg (http://s286.photobucket.com/user/GutshotJohn/media/DSC_1100.jpg.html)

I ditched this...it was really a pain in the ass.

http://i286.photobucket.com/albums/ll99/GutshotJohn/IMG_0001-2.jpg (http://s286.photobucket.com/user/GutshotJohn/media/IMG_0001-2.jpg.html)

This is another GP special. Awesome little gun, with .308 match could pull off 1-1.5moa groups.

http://i286.photobucket.com/albums/ll99/GutshotJohn/DSC_0328.jpg (http://s286.photobucket.com/user/GutshotJohn/media/DSC_0328.jpg.html)

KalashniKEV

06-01-13, 21:17

Thank you for the post. I look forward to seeing how your new weapon shakes out. :)

Thanks. I would loved to have reported on 400 rounds, but these are desperate times.

I am usually forgiving of a first outing from a reliability/ break in standpoint, but this rifle points, clicks, and shoots as it should, and I expect it will keep doing so.

Will keep the board informed if otherwise.

That being said, I'm somewhat addicted to folding stocks.
:eek:

Oh, wow.

I'm somewhat allergic to folding stocks.
(Not really, but you get over them quick)

I would then send that rifle to GP to do a workover and recoat. That's what I did with this G1 modification...

The G1 mods are going to be like M1917 and M1903 mods some day. Change it back! (IMO)

That had too much magnification, frankly a 10x was a total waste on the gun. Fortunately I had a Trijicon 3x30...that's a great optic on the gun.

Nice!

I agree completely. For an outdoor-type carbine that's the way to go, with the 3x mag in roll mount I envision my set up as more of an all-around.

I ditched this...it was really a pain in the ass.

Yeah, a lot of weight with no point unless you're going to mount an IR laser, and even then... is it rock?

The MOE rail sections work perfectly with the factory HGs.

This is another GP special. Awesome little gun, with .308 match could pull off 1-1.5moa groups.

Whoa! Must be the advantages of a factory new rear sight, plus good ammo.

Most accuracy suffers, I think, not from the front and rear sight being on different receivers, but from play in the unprotected rear sight... especially on worn kit guns.

Still you'll hear it repeated forever on the internet.

Scoby

06-02-13, 10:02

FALs are great guns. I’d have no problem “fighting” with my SA58. It has been very reliable with all types of ammo.

Comparing an FAL to a more modern battle rifle is not really fair IMO. There are more accurate and lighter rifles to be had nowadays.

I put the FAL in the same class as the Garand, k98 Mauser, 1903 Springfield, etc…. They are cool rifles that warrant a place in anyone’s firearm collection.
A tried and proven piece of history and the “The Right Arm of the Free World” moniker fits just fine.

If money and availability were not concerns, I’d go for a 16” 7.62 LaRue over a FAL without hesitation.

MountainRaven

06-02-13, 11:00

Oh, wow.

I'm somewhat allergic to folding stocks.
(Not really, but you get over them quick)

I've had this addiction for years.

:p

shootist~

06-02-13, 11:40

Most accuracy suffers, I think, not from the front and rear sight being on different receivers, but from play in the unprotected rear sight... especially on worn kit guns.

It can also be a sloppy rear sight, but after building a few (on my way to about a dozen), I found the most common problem to be horizontal slop in the upper/lower fit. I had five different barrels on one of my early builds, a low numbered StG kit, before I saw this.

A tip on accurizing from a subject matter expert from S.A. on shortening the hinge pin helped, but a NIB G1 lower actually cut the group size in half.

A tip to the OP on weight - an aluminum lower is certainly going to help, but a DSA scope base is going to add back 9 ounces or so. Also, if you go with a Para, but sure you can clean the gun without removing the scope base (if an optic is being considered). Zero will change otherwise.

Scoby makes some very good points on why a FAL is a good addition to a battery. While it's no longer my favorite "battle rifle", I have several that will never be sold.

Spooky130

06-02-13, 13:57

Glad I picked up a Springfield import a few years back. Looks like it has doubled in value from auctions posted on Gunbroker.

As others mentioned FALs are solid rifles that have been eclipsed by newer rifle advancements. Look up CJ Chivers from the NYT - he just posted a few photos of FALs in action in Syria. Belgian FALs will be around for a long, long time.

Sounds like DSA is running into the same issues Springfield Armory did in the late 90s with their M-1As and the lack of USGI spec parts. Tough to build guns to the same level of quality and price point without those mil-spec parts at cut rate prices.

KalashniKEV

06-02-13, 17:26

...but after building a few (on my way to about a dozen), I found the most common problem to be horizontal slop in the upper/lower fit.

I've actually not encountered an FAL with excessive slop, including a few truly thrashed kits. I guess I've been lucky...

I had five different barrels on one of my early builds, a low numbered StG kit, before I saw this.

That's like whoa. I wish the kits were still in such abundance that I would even have 5 barrels lying around.

A tip on accurizing from a subject matter expert from S.A. on shortening the hinge pin helped, but a NIB G1 lower actually cut the group size in half.

That's interesting. Short or long, what's the difference? I would think that the tension might play a very minor role.

shootist~

06-02-13, 18:49

That's like whoa. I wish the kits were still in such abundance that I would even have 5 barrels lying around.

Yeah, I got pretty anal on that one, but kits and parts were way cheap in the late 90s.

The NIB lowers made a difference on a couple of my kits and not so much on another. The rest, especially the high numbered (like new) StG kits had no need. A buddy's [drug-thru-the-dirt-by-the-Turks] G1 had horrible upper/lower slop, but ended up being a hell of a rifle after the fix.

Several of us did 3-Gun with FALs for a number of years, just because it was fun. (They just don't compete with the SCARs two of us now use.) The StG with the NIB G1 lower plus a G1 barrel ended up being my "G1 Clone" and 1st 3-G FAL. It's also the rifle in my avatar pic.

Shortening the hinge pin just enough so you can pull it tight is probably minor, but all of mine are that way. Can't hurt and it's easy to do using a cut-off wheel on a Dremel as a rotary sander.

mashed68

06-04-13, 00:18

OP: If you're dead set on a FAL, get the full stock version. I enjoy the full stock much more than the para.

Shoot both then decide. I enjoy folding stocks so much more on FAL's.

Slvr Surfr

06-06-13, 15:19

OP,

I would also like to throw in the suggestion to see if you can pick up an older DSA STG-58. At least then you know it was built with original Steyer parts, on DSA's receiver. The STG-58 used to be found for a bargain. Although things on that front have most likely changed.

I recently got to shoot about 20 rounds through a slightly modified Scar H that belonged to a visiting FN Rep. After shooting it I am not sure I would drop $2700 to own one, since I already own an Para 16" STG-58. Beyond the lighter weight and improved iron sights, I really couldn't see the major benefit of spending the extra money even with the "PO-lice" discount. Mind you I have had my FAL before the Scar L/H even existed........

I'm sure that ultimately the Scar H is a "better" all around rifle and a more accurate beast, but personally, that's not what I wanted the FAL for anyway. I made my choice to buy the FAL because I wanted a tried and true .308 battle rifle. The FAL, G3, and M1A were my choices at the time. I have never regretted owning my FAL, and probably will never let it go.

That's my 2 cents. As previously stated, YMMV. Here is a pic of mine for your viewing pleasure! My FAL does sport DSA's top rail and quad rail cheese grater. ;)

http://i42.photobucket.com/albums/e341/helas_9/FN%20FAL/Desktopblkwhite.jpg (http://s42.photobucket.com/user/helas_9/media/FN%20FAL/Desktopblkwhite.jpg.html)