Armory Sponsor
Posted: 11/3/2011 4:43:02 AM EDT
|
My rifle is at DSA getting the lower checked.
On the plus side, they're taking care of it. On the down side, I don't have my rifle. I hate waiting! |
I've had various problems with parts from DSA, FSE, and Falcon Arms.
|
It was a hardness issue with certain alloy lowers.
Pretty hard to get a surplus alloy lower and I doubt their any better than the DSA as alloy tech has improved . This is the easiest way to lighten an FAL a bit and DSA alloy lowers were always GTG before this. OP, DSA has been very good about handling this issue and I'm sure they will take good care of you as well. I had two myself. |
|
Quoted:
This is why you don't use aluminum for things on FALs.    I am lost on why people think aluminum on a FAL lower is crap. The way the action works an Aluminum upper would and is stupid due to how the metal reacts to heat and how the rifle locks up. Aluminum can have a higher tensile strength then steel depending on the quality. Nothing is wrong with Aluminum lowers on a FAL. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
This is why you don't use aluminum for things on FALs. I am lost on why people think aluminum on a FAL lower is crap. The way the action works an Aluminum upper would and is stupid due to how the metal reacts to heat and how the rifle locks up. Aluminum can have a higher tensile strength then steel depending on the quality. Nothing is wrong with Aluminum lowers on a FAL. My issue with it is cosmetic. A Romat should have a parkerized steel lower and a different selector. The problem with aluminum in this application is something you hit right on the head: "[a]luminum can have a higher tensile strength then [sic] steel." Can have. If you use the correct grade. Which didn't happen in some cases that's why DSA needed to recall them. Using aluminum means everything has to be as specified, exactly, where just about any steel would have been fine. It's not a zero load part and the stresses are not tensile. They are torsional and compressive. Aluminum is just not as good as steel in the long term with those forces than steel, just look at the fatigue life on an airplane. Weight is paramount in aircraft and those alloys are stronger than steel, but they fatigue. Aviation accepts the more limited lifespan because it allows a far more useful vehicle (and in most cases one that couldn't fly if you substituted steel parts). The good news here is that I will likely never approach the fatigue limit of the lower (nor will the next five owners most likely). The bad news is that it does have such a limit, steel doesn't. With all that said, I'd would not pass over a new SA-58 if I was in the market for another FAL because of that aluminum lower. Nor will I be replacing my current lower with a steel one out of concerns for its strength. |
|
Quoted:
Nothing is wrong with Aluminum lowers on a FAL. Clearly SOMETHING is wrong with SOME of the aluminum lowers...or this thread wouldn't be here. At any rate I was mostly just poking fun at using crappy metals on a rifle that should be all steel IMO. Admittedly I was being a brat.
|
|
"Adult Signature Required"
HA! They let me sign for it! Either they recreated the scratch I'd put on it, or it's the same receiver that I had before. Glad they owned up to the issue, doubly glad I was unaffected. 
Good to have her home. All told it was about four weeks from the first call to them to getting my rifle back. And the first week was waiting for their RMA box. |
Armory Sponsor