The FAL Files

The FAL Files (http://www.falfiles.com/forums/index.php)
-   Gunsmithing & Build It Yourself (http://www.falfiles.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=12)
-   -   DSA receivers vs. Imbel, Argy, etc. (http://www.falfiles.com/forums/showthread.php?t=208589)

tracyballard July 26, 2007 23:15

DSA receivers vs. Imbel, Argy, etc.
 
Since DSA is licensed to make FAL receivers by FN, I was wondering how they compare dimensionally with other licensed manufacturers, like IMBEL, FMAP Rosario, Steyr and FN itself???


:fal:

Radio July 27, 2007 01:01

You are posing a rather elemental question. Just a teeny bit of research will prove to you that DSA is the bomb, the cat's ass, the big Kahuna. They didn't get that way by being dimensionally irregular.

Try comparing DSA's reputation against, say, Entreprise, or Hesse, or Century. Not to mention DPMS, or Armscorp, or the debacle we've been seeing with Coonan lately. They're not in the same league, they're not even in the same county with DSA. This only happened with consistent, repeatable, reliable quality. Not that DSA receivers are made of gold, everybody makes a lemon on occasion, but the vast majority are very well produced and make excellent building candidates.

DSA bought the blueprints and a ton of surplus parts (which are at long last beginning to dry out) and have produced a very fine receiver, the best the USA has to offer. IMBEL is a true "licensed" manufacturer and is still cranking them out, although they can't be imported to America anymore. The others, including FN, have been shut down for quite some time. This IS a 50-year-old design we're talking about.

Everybody has slight manufacturing "choices" that become part of the final product. DSA has Commonwealth sand cuts in their Metric receivers for example. Century went with the infamous "unibrow" feed ramp design. The highly dangerous WAC "Alumibombs" featured a sort of cross between Type-I and Type-II, and used a Commonwealth-style dustcover slot. You will always find slight barrel timing differences between receiver manufacturers (and sometimes barrels as well). None of this matters, they all assemble the same.

--Radio

tracyballard July 27, 2007 09:16

Radio - thanks for all the info which mainly answered my question, although what I would also like is to know how a DSA compares with only the other licensed receivers, not Hesse, etc. Like, how do they rank in relation to each other (#1 Belgian, #2Argy, #3Imbel, #4 DSA - is that about right?). For instance, I've read Imbels are not quite as well made as those from Herstal. Not that I think I'll ever run across a used Belgian receiver I can afford, just curious.

As far as building goes, the one I built on a Century receiver went together great after I fixed the problems, and I like the receiver just fine, although it wasn't as easy to assemble as an Imbel receiver...

I will be buying one more receiver, and I'll probably make it a DSA Type 2, unless I run across a cheap argie or Imbel, so I'd really like to hear people expound on the quality of DSA, and how their milled from block receivers compare to milled from forged blank receivers.

Radio July 27, 2007 14:08

No builder in the USA is likely to ever encounter an FN-manufactured receiver; the very FEW that are in-country are quite special and command a premium price. A big four-figure premium price!! Not for the normal builder.

IMBEL receivers, at least the earlier production, are purported to be fully forged, while DSA receivers are purported to be machined from top-notch billet steel. (Other US-made receivers are cast.) I have a great love for the old-style, Portuguese-language Gear Logo IMBEL as imported by PAC; these assembled flawlessly for me and are fantastic products. The DSAs are quite pretty, one of the very, very few sources of the beautiful Type-II receiver, and are similarly of very high quality. These millings are also well spot-heat-treated. The FNs and Steyrs were, as I understand it, forged, with a variance of heat treatments over the years but finally settling on spot treatment (to properly harden required areas while also leaving the remainder of the receiver malleable to absorb firing shock). On the Steyr stubs that came with my kits I could often see very fine, even machine tool marks that ran lengthwise with the receiver... added to the beauty, but were missing on the many R1 kits supposedly made by FN.

As few or none of us are likely to exceed 75,000 rounds I don't think there would be any functional difference between an FN, or Steyr, or FMAP, or an IMBEL, and a DSA that you would be able to see in the rifle's lifetime. For that matter, others have commented that we are highly unlikely to exceed the service life of even a cast receiver such as Entreprise or that ilk.

My own personal ranking would be Steyr and FN in a virtual tie, maybe a slight nod to Steyr for the "look"... very closely followed by the "brand-name" IMBEL, DSA, and the late-production IMBEL rounding out the list. I have never examined a FMAP. Other domestic manufacturers would be in a totally different list, not in the same league as the top dogs.

--Radio

dougjones31 July 27, 2007 14:26

I vote for the Imbel over the DSA. The Imbel is forged and the DSA is cast......Forging wins everytime. I vote for function over frills everytime.

We will see for sure soon if the Imbels are forged, because we are planning to buy some forgings/castings soon. I will report when I find out.

tracyballard July 27, 2007 14:29

the DSA is actually forged, it's just machined from a solid billet forging, rather than machined from a blank that has been forged into the general shape of a receiver.

ostrobothnian July 27, 2007 14:33

.
 
Quote:

The Imbel is forged and the DSA is cast
Sir, I do believe you are mistaken.

Quote:

SA58 FAL Metric Type I Receiver, .308 Cal. with Carry Handle Cut, Machined from 4140 Steel Drop Forging.

bookertbab July 27, 2007 16:20

I have never met an Imbel I didn't like. Some people think the ones from PAC are better, but I have never seen any proof to back that up. I think any Imbel is a great rec, get them while you can.

I have a Century made L1A1 and it was not up to spec. I had to hand fit enverything that touched it but the top cover if i remember right. But once built it is fine, other than the name on the side bringing it down.

I can't speak of the other brands because I don't own any of them.

AndyC July 27, 2007 16:21

http://img510.imageshack.us/img510/9...orging1dc3.jpg

Stranger July 27, 2007 17:04

I don't believe that DSA is technically "licensed" by FN to make FALs. That would imply that DSA pays/paid FN for the rights to produce rifles (receivers, barrels, etc.). Any patents on the design expired a long time ago.

From what I understand DSA purchased the schematics, tooling (???), and a butt load of parts from FN. FN was out of the FAL making business a long time ago and sold everything to Dave's company.

1811GNR July 27, 2007 23:42

Quote:

Originally posted by tracyballard
the DSA is actually forged, it's just machined from a solid billet forging, rather than machined from a blank that has been forged into the general shape of a receiver.
DSA's have been machined from a forging the general shape of a receiver for the past couple of years.
FN type III's were machined from castings.

Andy the Aussie July 28, 2007 00:24

Quote:

Originally posted by Stranger
From what I understand DSA purchased the schematics, tooling (???), and a butt load of parts from FN. FN was out of the FAL making business a long time ago and sold everything to Dave's company.
....actually I believe they got all their toolingu and tech package and spares from Steyr in Austria and not FN (semantics I know as Steyr built one of the very best FALs anyways).

Andy:beer:

Stranger July 30, 2007 10:47

Quote:

Originally posted by Andy the Aussie
....actually I believe they got all their toolingu and tech package and spares from Steyr in Austria and not FN (semantics I know as Steyr built one of the very best FALs anyways).

Andy:beer:

You are correct.

ScottS July 30, 2007 13:34

The blatant inaccuracy of this statement:
Quote:

Originally posted by dougjones31
I vote for the Imbel over the DSA. The Imbel is forged and the DSA is cast......Forging wins everytime. I vote for function over frills everytime.
makes one wonder about the accuracy of this report:
Quote:

Originally posted by dougjones31
We will see for sure soon if the Imbels are forged, because we are planning to buy some forgings/castings soon. I will report when I find out.

tracyballard July 30, 2007 13:40

indeed.

combat engineer July 31, 2007 12:40

Personally, I think this ballard guy is just a Huge Ass trying to increase his post count!! :biggrin: :biggrin: :eek:

tracyballard July 31, 2007 13:00

oh, c'mon now!


:shades:

combat engineer July 31, 2007 14:51

"Please believe me" :wink:

mutter August 05, 2007 00:14

Radio, could you please describe the early PAC imbels with Portugeese writing. More specificaly the years of import by serial number and exactly what the writing looks like. I have been trying to ID the Imbel receivered Izzy I picked up cheap. The Itajuba line is printed differently then my other FAL's.
Thanks

bykerhd August 05, 2007 09:53

Some folks were having assembly issues with the last of the Imbels that were around. Usually the barrel face making contact with the feed ramp.

The IMBEL issues, few that there actually were, bring to mind a few questions.

While IMBEL WAS a licensed FAL producer, are they still, licensed ?
Is FN still in a position to enforce the manufacturing standards of those that they licensed ?
Does FN even care about those who produce FALs, or High Powers anymore ?
Has IMBEL maintained or possibly even upgraded the FAL production machinery after all these years ?
Has IMBEL changed specifications of primary components, such as the receivers, to streamline production or reduce costs ?

Gunny71 August 05, 2007 14:07

>
Quote:

Radio, could you please describe the early PAC imbels with Portugeese writing. More specificaly the years of import by serial number and exactly what the writing looks like. I have been trying to ID the Imbel receivered Izzy I picked up cheap. The Itajuba line is printed differently then my other FAL's.

Below are the stampings on my PAC Imbel. I have only owned one other Imbel, it was a NGL from Century with 2000 in the magwell. It did not have the caliber markings on the charging handle side or the other proofs that the PAC GL does.
I could be completely wrong, but The PAC GL seems heavier than my NGL Imbel was. Maybe someone has a couple sitting around and could verify? Serial on the PAC is 38XX.

<a href="http://photobucket.com" target="_blank"><img src="http://i11.photobucket.com/albums/a163/Gunny71/FN001.jpg" border="0" alt="Photo Sharing and Video Hosting at Photobucket"></a>

<a href="http://photobucket.com" target="_blank"><img src="http://i11.photobucket.com/albums/a163/Gunny71/FN006.jpg" border="0" alt="Photo Sharing and Video Hosting at Photobucket"></a>

<a href="http://photobucket.com" target="_blank"><img src="http://i11.photobucket.com/albums/a163/Gunny71/FN005.jpg" border="0" alt="Photo Sharing and Video Hosting at Photobucket"></a>

<a href="http://photobucket.com" target="_blank"><img src="http://i11.photobucket.com/albums/a163/Gunny71/FN003.jpg" border="0" alt="Photo Sharing and Video Hosting at Photobucket"></a>

Radio August 05, 2007 23:51

You posted after I went to bed. Sorry.

The photos above accurately show the right and left sides of my IMBELs, which are pre-2000 as they don't have a magwell year stamp and the serial numbers are in the 9000 range. I bought them from PAC in late 1999 or early 2000.

I don't have the "years of import by serial number", you'll have to write Rav and ask him, if he'll tell you.

--Radio


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 10:53.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
©1998-2012 The FAL Files