PDA

View Full Version : Aluminum lower recievers


kayakpirate
March 29, 2009, 16:41
The SA58 has a lower aluminum reciever.Has anybody heard of this being a negative in any way? Cracking,stretching or any other problems? I really like the balance that the aluminum reciever gives me,but is there a down side from a longevity standpoint?

BUFF
March 29, 2009, 23:41
No downsides. They do feel funny with a front-heavy FAL but great with a carbine.

DSARep
March 30, 2009, 09:06
You won't have any issues with aluminum. The stress is on the receiver so it is just a matter of saving some weight.

John

kayakpirate
March 30, 2009, 10:04
Thanks John,I gotta tell ya...that SA58C18 has just a beautiful balance with that lighter lower reciever.I can see Buffs point,with the longer barrel weight,it might be awkward.But at 18",the length and weight are excellent.Also,The accuracy has turned out to be just great,very satisfied all the way around with this rifle.
My long lost love,my old H&K 91,that I got back in the 80's, ( dont ask what happened...its too painful), as great a rifle as it was,had an awful balance and often mistook me for a heavy bag.So I'm really happy with this product.
I just wanted to be sure,thanks for the input.

DSARep
March 31, 2009, 07:44
I really like the 18" length. It is a great compromise between performance and handiness. Two of my three SA58s are 18" guns, and the Para between them is the one that most often goes with me to the range. I too had a couple 91s over the years, and they just could not match the handling characteristics of a FAL for me. They shot well, but it was just not the same.

John

johnmac
March 31, 2009, 09:49
I have a para with the Lightweight Holland lower and 18" barrel. It is great!

But I could use some instructions for getting the DSA extreme scope mount back on properly!

Scott S
March 31, 2009, 10:43
Mine's holding up well after maybe 2000 or so rounds. Link to a thread with pic I posted in '04 when I had 1500 through it:

http://www.falfiles.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=115645

Oh, and no loosening of the hammer/trigger axis holes.

kayakpirate
March 31, 2009, 10:44
Would it be possible for DSA to permanently install one of their extreme mounts to a dust cover? Then you could just break open the rifle and plug in the dust cover/scope mount without the "screwing around".

DSARep
April 01, 2009, 10:47
The plates are there to secure the mount properly despite any possible play in the cover. An integrated mount without them might fit one gun differently than another. I suppose if DSA made one built on the specs if its receivers only, it might be possible to get a fairly consistent fit but that might make it far less useful for anyone with another sort of receiver. It would be hard to know what the dimensions would be on all the other receiver's out there, in particular the non-military ones that were not built using original specifications.

John

kayakpirate
April 01, 2009, 12:14
Good point...got excitied and thought I had it all figured out.So thanks for bringing me back to reality.Never dawned on me about the different receiver dimensions it would have to compensate for.Gosh darn it!

J. Armstrong
April 01, 2009, 13:12
+1 on the comments about the aluminum lower being best paired with an 18" barrelled upper. IMHO, a superb combination - balance remains excellent, but handling is much livelier due to the lower mass. I don't see any negatives for a full length barrel and alloy lower, but that combo doesn't shine like the carbine length rifles do. IMHO.
The DSA scope mount is rock solid and reliable, but awfully heavy - guess that's the price ya gotta pay !!! The only trick to putting it on is to get the locking rails aligned, and I've never had a problem with either of mine, so I don't understand the difficulty, I guess.

jimmbob
April 16, 2009, 03:51
John(DSA Rep)--you mention prefering the 18". I'm brand new to the FALs and just love em. I just bought a NIB 16.25" Para-Tact and a NIB 16.25" Std. Carb. and love the feel of them both. I've heard a lot of other FALers also prefering the 18". Am I missing something here? What are the advantages if any of the 18" over the 16"? Or vice--verse? thanks, JB

DSARep
April 16, 2009, 07:28
I tend to prefer the 18" because it is a good compromise length. It is only 1 3/4" longer, so handles close to the way a 16" carbine does. It loses less muzzle velocity. Essentially it is an in between choice. Mind you I like the 16" guns and have one. I really appreciate its weight savings versus my 18" gun given both have rail systems.

John

sar488
April 21, 2009, 06:27
John, on the DSA website it had a steel para lower, but when I called they said they no longer have these. Is this a new change the salesperson acted as though they haven't had them for along time I have a longer 21" barrel and from the above posts wonder if it would'nt be better with a steel lower thks

DSARep
April 21, 2009, 07:38
I will check on that, but the difference is actually just a few ounces. I would suggest sticking with the alloy lower. I have them on all of my guns regardless of barrel length.

John

sar488
April 21, 2009, 22:49
Thanks a ton, John
Dan