NEW DSA type 2 (lots of pix)

[Ghost]

OK,
I just got my NEW DSA receiver. Shipping was VERY prompt, not what I have come to expect from DSA, I waited a year for my last receivers.
First look over:
Markings are no longer .308 CAL, but instead 7.62 X 51MM. I like this change.
Machining looks very nice, much like the DSAs I have had in the past.


Ejector block fits nice and snug with out gaps, no over hangs or catches any where.


Time to start test fitting.
Barrel times to 10:00

The gas tube nut threads in fine
The mad catch and BHO both fit perfectly with the pivot screw centered in its hole (I've had them that don't)
The surplus Austrian mag fits nice.


Locking shoulder

Bolt and carrier slide in nice and smooth, no sign of binding.


The top cover was very tight on the ejection port side, I think this was the cover.
Upper to lower fit is nice. but there is some play back and forth in the take down lever, might replace the catch with a new one.

Ok every thing is awesome at this point. I test fit all the other parts.
I got 3 DSA 20rnd mags new today. I ordered them in the same order. I proceeded to test fit one. It's a no go. This is as far as it will seat:

All three DSA mags fit exactly the same.
I tried my whole (6) supply of Austrian mags. All Austrian mags fit.
I removed the BHO and mag catch. The DSA mags are still a no go, and fit just as before.
At this point I pulled out my brothers Rhodesian on an older DSA.
Every mag fit to include the new DSAs.

at his point I'm left wondering if the new DSA receiver is out of spec. or the mags or both. I find it disturbing that the old DSA will fit them with out issue but the new one wont, it leads me to believe the issue is with the receiver.. I want my FAL to be able to use all metric mags.
I have advised DSA of this and I'll see what they say. They haven't had problems with DSA in the past aside from the ultra long waits that are SOP.

On a separate note does any one else find the DSA pistol grips to be a bit on the big side compared to original Austrian ones?

[4x401]

I'm happy to see the receivers are look'in & fitting better.

Real shame the set of mags you got don't.

Nice pics BTW.

[FUUN063]

Yeah, OK, but how what size of locking shoulder does it require? Also, I would get rid of the DSA mags, but that's just me.

Leland

[Ghost]

Originally Posted by FUUN063

Yeah, OK, but how what size of locking shoulder does it require? Also, I would get rid of the DSA mags, but that's just me.

Leland

I'll up date when I do final assembly. This is at a test fit stage.

[Ghost]

Originally Posted by Sudden Death

How long of a lag time from placing the order until arrival at FFL?


I just placed an order for another G1 receiver and was told that they are in stock ready to go. I hope that they did not change the markings on the G1 recievers as they were pretty good as is.

Gew. Kal. 7.62 mm. G1 GOXXX vs. (original FN) Gew. Kal. 7,62 mm. F.N. XXXX


Thanks,

SD

They shipped the next day! after that it's in UPS hands. Took 3 business days, 5 days in my case because I had a weekend in between. I haven't heard any thing back from DSA yet about the Mag fitment though. I might have to try and call them on lunch break. I don't want to proceed with the build until I get resolution in case it is the receiver that is out of spec. though I suspect a stacking of tolerances. In either case how ever I refuse to live with a receiver and mags from the same company that aren't compatible with each other.

[Ghost]

UPDATE:
I was able to get a hold of DSA over my lunch hour.
They were very nice and easy to deal with.
The rep agreed with my assessment that the Receiver mag well is most likely out of spec.
They gave me a warranty reference #, and asked that I send the receiver back for evaluation. They will repay me for my shipping.

On one hand I am VERY PLEASED with their willingness to help me out.
On the other hand I'm a little scared, As I don't really know what to expect.
The receiver is so nice in every other regard and arrived promptly.
I'm afraid that the mag well will get Filled on and not be as aesthetic (yes I'm shallow and this matters to me). Or that they will replace the ejector block and cause other issues. And What if I need a replacement? how long will that take. Will it be as good (but with a correct mag well)?

I know I'm over thinking this and it needs to be done but for me this is a major chunk of my current income, so I want perfection

I'm very happy that DSA is so willing to work with me on this though.

[TheRussian]

My recent dealings with DSA have been pleasant, they appear to be willing to go the extra mile, as they are THE manufacturer for many things FAL, imho I want to support them just so we ensure their survival in this absymal economy.
I do think they are a bit understaffed at the moment and working to rectify that, but they are always helpful and will deal a bit too

[Ghost]

A visual of the Issues I'm sending the receiver back for:

[LaConservationist]

Ghost, what was DSA's reply to CORRECTING your receiver issues?

I think I may send mine back as well.....BOTH of them!
I was thinking about doing it myself, BUT I think now that DSA should be held accountable for their own SCREW UPS!!!

THANKS!

LaC

[Ghost]

They are paying me back for shipping, supposedly. The receiver is still in UPS hands in Chicago.
I'll up date with the resolution. I had the same though as you I'm giving them the chance to fix it before I either replace with Coonan or have a smith fix.
After noticing more like mine, I'm a little afraid that they won't see the issue as a problem.
I sent an email requesting that they install surplus EB if all the new ones are of the defective style.

I'm sorry yours have the same problem
Its too bad these got past QC, probably in numbers it looks like.
I sent them a thumb drive with the 4 photos above. hopefully that illustrates the problem clearly enough!

Originally Posted by LaConservationist

Ghost, what was DSA's reply to CORRECTING your receiver issues?

I think I may send mine back as well.....BOTH of them!
I was thinking about doing it myself, BUT I think now that DSA should be held accountable for their own SCREW UPS!!!

THANKS!

LaC

[LaConservationist]

Seems like all mine is OK......well I say OK, still times like CRAP at about 9:30 ish, but the mag well is fine.....
BUT my EB is much like this photo



I will call them tomorrow and try and get some definitive answers as to what their solution would be.....I do have consecutive serial numbers and if replacement is in their plans, I would want them replaced as such!!

I know this is ONLY a pipe dream, BUT if they have to make two new receivers to keep the same serial numbers they would go ahead and offer CUSTOM serial numbers.....HAHAHA

Main thing I want it fixed and I don't feel I should have to spend a dime doing so!

LaC

ETA: I am not sure who is doing their ejector block NOW.....BUT I know a almost 2 years or so ago they were contracting this out to someone BESIDES LMT.......I am assuming it was the EB builder and NOT DSA, and probably DSA goons had NO IDEA they are incorrect!!

[Ghost]

I think they NEED to fix the issue, and be made aware.
I think mine times "OK" but could be a little better?
BUT I really don't know what the LS size will end up as
I think they got complacent about being #1 and lest quality slip in favor of the bottom line, I also think they are focusing more on ARs these days, really to bad because everybody and their dog makes AR stuff.

Originally Posted by LaConservationist

Seems like all mine is OK......well I say OK, still times like CRAP at about 9:30 ish, but the mag well is fine.....
BUT my EB is much like this photo
I will call them tomorrow and try and get some definitive answers as to what their solution would be.....I do have consecutive serial numbers and if replacement is in their plans, I would want them replaced as such!!

I know this is ONLY a pipe dream, BUT if they have to make two new receivers to keep the same serial numbers they would go ahead and offer CUSTOM serial numbers.....HAHAHA

Main thing I want it fixed and I don't feel I should have to spend a dime doing so!

LaC

ETA: I am not sure who is doing their ejector block NOW.....BUT I know a almost 2 years or so ago they were contracting this out to someone BESIDES LMT.......I am assuming it was the EB builder and NOT DSA, and probably DSA goons had NO IDEA they are incorrect!!

[Ghost]

Got this in email today:
"That is actually the way that all of our ejector blocks are now and have been for about 2 years now. We most likely will replace the ejector block, based on the information you have provided. But I will wait for the gunsmith to inspect and let me know how he want s to handle it."

We'll see how this plays out.
But if all the new ones are the same......

[LaConservationist]

Originally Posted by Ghost

Got this in email today:
"That is actually the way that all of our ejector blocks are now and have been for about 2 years now. We most likely will replace the ejector block, based on the information you have provided. But I will wait for the gunsmith to inspect and let me know how he want s to handle it."

We'll see how this plays out.
But if all the new ones are the same......

IF that is their answer......I PROMISE you they can POUND SAND on ANY future RECEIVER purchases from ME!!!

THAT is UNACCEPTABLE!!

LaC

[Ghost]

My receiver has been in their hands since last Tues.
I emails them on Thurs asking for an update. I'm still waiting.
I hope they correct this in future production! I will not buy another DSA if they do not.

DSA you supposedly purchased the Steyr blue prints with all their left over inventory and equipment, USE THEM!!
I'm also seeing more inch features sneaking into DSAs, bolt, carriers ect.

I also want to add that the whole hard to machine because of complex machining process is a load of crap! That was true back in the day, but with modern CNC,not so much. that is why there are so many small low volume companies making machined billet AR receiver. it's not because they are "better" it's because they are cheaper in low volume than making or buying forging dies. if any thing these receiver should be BETTER than original!

[chrsdwns]

DSA has been adding many Inch pattern features into their production for good reasons.

Many Inch features, especially the sand cuts and reliefs on the bolt, bolt carrier and receiver are significant function and reliability improvements based on the British Army's extensive testing, especially in sandy conditions found in places like the Sudan.

With the Brit mods and clearances combined with procedures followed by a well trained soldier, an L1A1 pattern FAL can continue to function in adverse conditions that challenge or even stop an AK-47.

[Ghost]

I'm not really apposed t inch features, though I think they should be an OPTION.

I wish they would focus on their quality control and material/manufacturing practices BEFORE the start making design changes, who cares if you have a sand cut bolt if the material is crap and it fails.
On the other hand if made well it would be a good thing.

Originally Posted by chrsdwns

DSA has been adding many Inch pattern features into their production for good reasons.

Many Inch features, especially the sand cuts and reliefs on the bolt, bolt carrier and receiver are significant function and reliability improvements based on the British Army's extensive testing, especially in sandy conditions found in places like the Sudan.

With the Brit mods and clearances combined with procedures followed by a well trained soldier, an L1A1 pattern FAL can continue to function in adverse conditions that challenge or even stop an AK-47.

[LaConservationist]

Originally Posted by Ghost

I'm not really apposed t inch features, though I think they should be an OPTION.

I wish they would focus on their quality control and material/manufacturing practices BEFORE the start making design changes, who cares if you have a sand cut bolt if the material is crap and it fails.
On the other hand if made well it would be a good thing.

X10!!

EXACTLY!!
That is NO more than putting CLEAN DRAWS on a DIRTY ASS!!

FIX your screw UPS before covering them with MORE out of specs changes!!

LaC

[LaConservationist]

Just to add a pic showing this isn't something they have BEEN DOING!!!

THAT is just GOOD OLE BS!!!

[munchoman]

Originally Posted by LaConservationist

Just to add a pic showing this isn't something they have BEEN DOING!!!

THAT is just GOOD OLE BS!!!

Yes, but in that serial number range they were useing, the first MIM ejector blocks,which are the defective onepiece blocks

[Ghost]

Originally Posted by munchoman

Yes, but in that serial number range they were useing, the first MIM ejector blocks,which are the defective onepiece blocks

I hadn't heard about those, What was the serial # range? and what specifically were the defects, aside from being 1 piece?

[FALRifle]

Just as a point of reference. Here is a picture of my stg 58 from dsa. The build is over a year old from them. From what I can tell my receiver is the same as the one in question.

[munchoman]

Originally Posted by Ghost

I hadn't heard about those, What was the serial # range? and what specifically were the defects, aside from being 1 piece?

Soft ejectors, from #37500 to 40000 that I know of.

[ridgerunner1488]

I just got off the Phone With Mike Fowler At DSA and he gave me the song and dance about they have been that way for Over Two years.
When I told he I thought he was incorrect as i had several of there receivers that were correct that I had Bought in the last 14 to 18 months he told me "they must have been old Stock".
Well if that's the answer they are going to go with then I am done with DSA they can go pound sand as far as I am concerned.
I am sure they wont close the doors with me not buying the product but it Might hurt them a little bit.

[Ghost]

I like the 2 part ejector, BUT it needs to fit flush. I do NOT like the missing section of EB around the BHO, functional or not it is WRONG.
Still waiting on an update.

[Ghost]

UPDATE!!!

SO DSA said that they have a pile of magazines to include IMBEL, Steyr, and DSA.
they say that they ALL fit!
they also say that my receiver meets all critical dimensions!
they say that the CUTAWAY portion of the EB at the BHO is NORMAL!

Their assessment is that there is NOTHING wrong with my receiver!
their resolution is to send back the receiver in exactly the configuration I sent it to them, and to send me some DSA magazines that are proven to fit my receiver. I will send back the mags that do not fit.

so now I'm not sure where I'm at with this!
I suppose I'll have to have one of the smiths fit a surplus EB in order to have a correct receiver!

[Ghost]

Any one have an undrilled Steyr EB?

[R1shooter]

Chrsdwns has hit the nail on the head, it is a proven upgrade, may not be correct for the type of gun you are building but is just not cost effective to do both when enough surplus is out there if a change has to be made. We have had to streamline production and this makes sense.

[Ghost]

Originally Posted by R1shooter

Chrsdwns has hit the nail on the head, it is a proven upgrade, may not be correct for the type of gun you are building but is just not cost effective to do both when enough surplus is out there if a change has to be made. We have had to streamline production and this makes sense.

For future reference you could always REMOVE material, but you can not ADD it back. so If some body for some reason wanted to cut away the BHO support they could "break out the "Dremel".
I also think that maybe non standard changes should be public so you know what you are getting. I know you advertise the only receiver made from a drop forging using original prints.
DSA was my FIRST choice because of positive past experience, and that parts were made to FN/Steyr spec. I wanted the most authentic receiver I could buy, markings aside the technical make up of the receiver is what matters to me.

I still think the machine work is nice I just wish I'd have been fully aware of what I was getting.

[LaConservationist]

Originally Posted by Ghost

For future reference you could always REMOVE material, but you can not ADD it back. so If some body for some reason wanted to cut away the BHO support they could "break out the "Dremel".
I also think that maybe non standard changes should be public so you know what you are getting. I know you advertise the only receiver made from a drop forging using original prints.
DSA was my FIRST choice because of positive past experience, and that parts were made to FN/Steyr spec. I wanted the most authentic receiver I could buy, markings aside the technical make up of the receiver is what matters to me.

I still think the machine work is nice I just wish I'd have been fully aware of what I was getting.

DSA seems to have a NEW POLICY......SCREW the CUSTOMER....THEY will come back ANYWAY!!

Well I have news for DSA.....I will NOT be a returning CUSTOMER for ANY PARTS......PERIOD!!

I will either swap out the ejector blocks myself OR sell them just to get rid of them!
Sure SUCKS ......FINALLY getting consecutive serial numbers from DSA and they end up being SUB-STANDARD and then to hear DSA write them off as "OUR NEW STYLE EB's"......THAT'S NOTHING More than BS!!

THANKS for the GREAT CUSTOMER SUPPORT!! HAHA

LaC

[LaConservationist]

Originally Posted by chrsdwns

DSA has been adding many Inch pattern features into their production for good reasons.

Many Inch features, especially the sand cuts and reliefs on the bolt, bolt carrier and receiver are significant function and reliability improvements based on the British Army's extensive testing, especially in sandy conditions found in places like the Sudan.

With the Brit mods and clearances combined with procedures followed by a well trained soldier, an L1A1 pattern FAL can continue to function in adverse conditions that challenge or even stop an AK-47.

Originally Posted by R1shooter

Chrsdwns has hit the nail on the head, it is a proven upgrade, may not be correct for the type of gun you are building but is just not cost effective to do both when enough surplus is out there if a change has to be made. We have had to streamline production and this makes sense.

THAT is a FLYING CROCK of 5HIT!! You mean to tell me YOU and OR DSA expect us to believe that this EVIDENT SCREW UP was due to a more correct functioning rifle? WTF does the INCORRECT EB have to do with ANYTHING that chrsdwns has referenced to in his post?

I am morbidly SHOCKED that you honestly come onto the FALFILES and actually back up and support DSA in this complete idiocy and expect US to fall into this ridiculous SCAM?
I really do hope the over all membership here are far more intelligent than YOU and or DSA are giving credit!!

I am sure someone out there will not be very impressed with this post BUT personally I am APPALLED by the thought of DSA putting the screws to the actual group that has shown relentless support to DSA and their.....PREVIOUS PRODUCTS!!

NO need in correcting me or trying to have me cut back on caffeine.....BUT this has really taken the cake for me!!

LaC

[nwobhm]

This is why I only use OLD DSA receivers & Imbel.

Building with current DSA receivers now requires:

ruining the barrel shoulder
small LS
replacement of EB

No thanks.

[ridgerunner1488]

Originally Posted by LaConservationist

DSA seems to have a NEW POLICY......SCREW the CUSTOMER....THEY will come back ANYWAY!!

Well I have news for DSA.....I will NOT be a returning CUSTOMER for ANY PARTS......PERIOD!!

I will either swap out the ejector blocks myself OR sell them just to get rid of them!
Sure SUCKS ......FINALLY getting consecutive serial numbers from DSA and they end up being SUB-STANDARD and then to hear DSA write them off as "OUR NEW STYLE EB's"......THAT'S NOTHING More than BS!!

THANKS for the GREAT CUSTOMER SUPPORT!! HAHA

LaC

AMEN BROTHER
dsa has got my last dollar.
You know Coonan could not buy good will like this.

[R1shooter]

I guess the only response to a reply like that would be that we standardized on one type of ejector block and chose the more modern upgrade as we have done with bolts, carrier and gas regulator. I realize we all love our FALs here but I am detecting a little too much emotion, if the incorrect ejector block upsets you just change it.

[ridgerunner1488]

Originally Posted by R1shooter

I guess the only response to a reply like that would be that we standardized on one type of ejector block and chose the more modern upgrade as we have done with bolts, carrier and gas regulator. I realize we all love our FALs here but I am detecting a little too much emotion, if the incorrect ejector block upsets you just change it.

Dont worry it will be Done.
And its not emotion Its just some of us or most likely all of us dont like to be Pissed on and told its raining.
My question is why should a person have to change the Ejector block after spending $350.00 for a receiver if something is working why change it.
And it is not only the Ejector Block but also the small locking shoulder and the undertiming. I guess they were improvements also.
And Why has Coonan not made this change maybe because the old one works.
I had a order for some parts but it will be a cold day in HELL dsa has saw my last dollar.

[R1shooter]

I did not say you have to change it, it is a preference thing. As far as barrel timing it depends what barrel you use, they are not all the same. FN made 24 locking shoulders and for good reason, if a receiver needed a small locking shoulder off the charts I would say a problem exists, I have not seen this yet. I have rebarreled many FN and R 1 rifles, sometimes the locking shoulders we used were on opposite ends of the spectrum, this is the design. We chose the inch type ejector block and chose not to tool up for both, I hope this clarifies the issue.

[LaConservationist]

Originally Posted by R1shooter

if the incorrect ejector block upsets you just change it.

Yeah NOW ya TALKING!!!
"DSA warranty department.....Well sir I am sorry to tell you this, BUT due to YOU replacing parts on your receiver, the problem X will NOT be covered under our warranty......we will have to charge you $$$ to correct this issue....."

Well NOT this ole boy!!!

R1shooter, I will give you credit for ONE THING......you are a master at trying to cover DSA's SHIT with your INVALID excuses!!
INCH, Ejector Blocks????
Hell so Inch Bolt carriers, Why not completely discontinue METRIC parts production, produce ONLY INCH version parts.... and TELL EVERYONE it is actually METRIC......hey its actually a functionality issue and we at DSA know far better than FN and have IMPROVED on the ISSUE!!

BS!!!

LaC

[cbr954fz1]

i have about a dozen eb's but originals that accept the fullauto sear w/pins. i'm not sure that it matters because your rec isnt cut for it..if you want some just send me your addy and i'll send it to you cause i have no use for them..cbr

[ridgerunner1488]

Originally Posted by cbr954fz1

i have about a dozen eb's but originals that accept the fullauto sear w/pins. i'm not sure that it matters because your rec isnt cut for it..if you want some just send me your addy and i'll send it to you cause i have no use for them..cbr

Sir
Many thanks for the Kind offer But i am gonna sell the Two I have as dsa has put a real BAD taste in my mouth.
I Guess I was wrong to defend them all these years.
Well Live and learn.
Again Many thanks
Terry

[G3isMe]

Originally Posted by R1shooter

I did not say you have to change it, it is a preference thing. As far as barrel timing it depends what barrel you use, they are not all the same. FN made 24 locking shoulders and for good reason, if a receiver needed a small locking shoulder off the charts I would say a problem exists, I have not seen this yet. I have rebarreled many FN and R 1 rifles, sometimes the locking shoulders we used were on opposite ends of the spectrum, this is the design. We chose the inch type ejector block and chose not to tool up for both, I hope this clarifies the issue.

That is BS, the bottom line is the almighty dollar and in the words of ridgerunner148; don't come in here and piss on our legs and tell us it is raining. The use of inch ejector blocks isn't due to an increase in quality it was done for an increase in profits. My LAST DSA receiver I just barreled handtimed at 9:00 and required a 0.255" locking shoulder. That is substandard. And that hand timing I just noted was tested with 7 barrels, an STG, 2 Imbels, and 4 G1's, so don't try to blame your poor craftsmanship on the barrel. I won't be sending any of my hard earned money to DSA for receivers ever again!


.

[Ghost]

Ok I got my receiver back.
My wife signed for it while I was at work.
The ejector had been smoothed out and is now flush with the EB. It is the same EB. I have compared it to the MANY photos I took before I sent it off. The spacing between the receiver, the alignment, and the pins all match from before.
The whole receiver has been reparkerized. ALL DSA mags I have access to (the 3 replacements and the 3 old ones) now seat. They are all very tight. one of the old magazines was very tricky to remove and For a minute I thought it might have become a permanent fixture.
I do not think Mike was aware that the receiver had been worked over before it hit his desk. He was puzzled about my complaint and the mags not fitting so called me. He was given my receiver and a pile of magazines. All fit an he didn't know why I was having a problem because "all the critical dimensions were measured and are in acceptable tolerances"
I suspectThat the "smith" did the work dropped it on mikes desk with a bunch of mags, not mentioning that he had already corrected the mag fitment issue, and said some thing to the effect of "I don't know what this guy is talking about there is no problem here". no mention that he had already preformed the work to mike.
That kind of dishonesty really bugs me.
I also have not been compensated for my original shipping charge.

[Ghost]

UPDATE
I did receive my refund on shipping and handling charges.
I will restate that the protruding ejector was fixed, and actually looks really good.
all DSA mags DO seat, one DSA mag (returned) was very hard to remove.
I do not like the Inch EB, I do not like how it leaves a large portion of the BHO unsupported, and to my eye is unsightly.
However I understand that there is nothing functionally wrong with it, I do find it technicaly wrong.
DSA did take care of the functional problem.
R1Shooter has been very helpful in PMs
I will be replacing the EB with a StG EB because I really don't like the inch version, doesn't belong on a metric.

[R1shooter]

Ghost, thanks for your honesty, maybe when this crazy time is behind us we can review the style of blocks we use.