View Full Version : DCI Reciever
January 28, 2009, 14:50
Has anyone built a fal on a Dan Coonan reciever of recent prodduction?
January 28, 2009, 14:59
The last run of them, I got one. Built smoothly. No issues. The LS hole was a little out of spec. No biggy though. I have heard of others really raising hell about that. They either got one that was more out of spec than mine, or it just bothered them more than it did me. (I strongly suspect the latter)
The ones just offered haven't been tested as far as I have hear yet. If the supply goes as they have in the past, you best order one now. Speculators will scarf them faster than hobbyists can , in my opinion.
January 28, 2009, 16:50
I have had THREE from the last batch and built on TWO of them so far.. The Third is being built at this moment in time as a First FAL for a very good friend of mine ..
The L/S hole was not just a Little out, or just enough to be a minor annoyance but bad enough that BOTH Builds needed Over sized L/Shoulders.. L/S ordered through a vendor that had them in stock.. Using an OVERSIZE L/S on a rifle that has been used a lot is certainly within acceptable practices for a FAL Armour.. However these are/were BRAND New receivers...
NO Problems at all NOW though the rifles are GREAT, the O/S L/S took care of the problem and BOTH guns headspaced nicely and run perfectly..
Need a LITTLE more insight please read this:
(Might want to get a beer?)
I will say that "IF" there is a NEW/CURRENT Batch of these available I hope this issue was addressed? Other then the probs noted I am pleased with the receivers and the builds and the fact that in the end HARLAN always the gentleman did me right and I will always appreciate that.. :beer:
January 28, 2009, 17:20
So. An oversized barrel ~new~ LS was used and the "problem" was negated.
Sounds like pearl makin' ta me.
January 28, 2009, 17:44
NO barrel swap, just used an OVER sized L/S.. The Oversized part is the SHANK and NOT the shoulder itself.. This makes up for the Hole being too large, my "GUESS" is a Dull Cutter, or a cutter with a Chip was used when machining that area?
Might have been completely avoided by changing out the tooling OR triple checking that measurement?? Of course used as an example only, maybe cut 100 holes instead of 200, ya know??
January 28, 2009, 17:55
The "barrel" I mention is the locking shoulder round that the flats are ground onto.
They probably used a ream that was a size up on mine. Smooth hole like done with a sharp set of flutes. Again, no big, Just a bigger LS barrel and keep gettin up. This discussion was up a few days ago and it crossed my mind that the oversized LS are for the uppers than get re-headspaced more than three times. Ream the LS hole out and go to the next size up barrel.
Kinda like boring a 283 out to a 301. :)
January 28, 2009, 21:57
I did up two of them. Had no issues with locking shoulders. The BHO holes were tight on mine just because of the park finish. Cleaned out with a drill bit easily. The locking shoulders were also with in normal range 259 and 258.
January 29, 2009, 13:28
I believe these responses and critiques, all refer to the "last" batch of receivers. The newest batch of 100 has just been released in the past week or so. I have one scheduled for delivery on 2/2. There are supposed to be several more batches released over the next few months. Links are provided in several posts but most seem to ignore them. Here it is again just in case you missed it.
vBulletin® v3.8.7, Copyright ©2000-2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.