Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 44

Thread: Current state of DSA SA58/FALs?

  1. #21
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Anna, TX
    Posts
    6,315
    Feedback Score
    26 (100%)
    Quote Originally Posted by Kchen986 View Post
    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.
    Last edited by Gutshot John; 06-01-13 at 11:16.

  2. #22
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    NM
    Posts
    1,476
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by Gutshot John View Post
    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.)

  3. #23
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    SWMT
    Posts
    8,188
    Feedback Score
    32 (100%)
    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?"

    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.

    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?
    " Nil desperandum - Never Despair. That is a motto for you and me. All are not dead; and where there is a spark of patriotic fire, we will rekindle it. "
    - Samuel Adams -

  4. #24
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Anna, TX
    Posts
    6,315
    Feedback Score
    26 (100%)
    Quote Originally Posted by shootist~ View Post
    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.

  5. #25
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Anna, TX
    Posts
    6,315
    Feedback Score
    26 (100%)
    Quote Originally Posted by Fjallhrafn View Post
    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?
    Last edited by Gutshot John; 06-01-13 at 13:56.

  6. #26
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    SWMT
    Posts
    8,188
    Feedback Score
    32 (100%)
    Quote Originally Posted by Gutshot John View Post
    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?
    " Nil desperandum - Never Despair. That is a motto for you and me. All are not dead; and where there is a spark of patriotic fire, we will rekindle it. "
    - Samuel Adams -

  7. #27
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    NM
    Posts
    1,476
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by Gutshot John View Post

    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.

  8. #28
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Anna, TX
    Posts
    6,315
    Feedback Score
    26 (100%)
    Quote Originally Posted by shootist~ View Post
    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.

  9. #29
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Anna, TX
    Posts
    6,315
    Feedback Score
    26 (100%)
    Quote Originally Posted by Fjallhrafn View Post
    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.
    Last edited by Gutshot John; 06-01-13 at 18:22.

  10. #30
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    NoVA
    Posts
    3,190
    Feedback Score
    2 (100%)
    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.




Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •