The FAL Files  

Go Back   The FAL Files > General Information > Reviews - products, services, and sellers

Notices

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old August 23, 2017, 11:02   #1
gunplumber
Arrogant Bastard
Gold Contributor
 
gunplumber's Avatar
 
FALaholic #: 96
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Surprise, AZ
Posts: 24,304
Receiver Review: DSA L1A1 British Pattern

DS Arms L1A1 UK Pattern Receiver Review

Some have challenged my anecdotal observations on the various DSA L1A1 UK receivers that I have built over the last year. As an unintended consequence of legitimate skepticism (and unfortunately - baseless accusations and outright libel), I have developed a methodical procedure for testing each receiver prior to beginning work a build. Yes, it takes more time, but the advantage is that I can track patterns. I also discover a problem prior to doing post-refinish reassembly and testfire, so I'm not refinishing twice. Another advantage is that my meticulous documentation establishes to those who are yet unfamiliar with my awesomeness, that I am serious about this shit and prove every assertion I make with indisputable evidence.

On any Fail, I immediately retest with other parts to rule out the part as worn/damaged/out-of-spec. If all the other parts fit, it's the receiver. If some parts fit and some don't, I assign a pass with an explanation, as the fix would be so minor and I accept it as manufacturing tolerances, not a defect.

L1A1 Receiver Inspection

e-block rear: Is there a gap between the rear of the e-block and the receiver. Gap = fail

e-block at rail: Does the right arm of the e-block stick up above the rail enough to interfere with the bolt carrier? Binding = Fail

e-block at hinge: Do the inside portions of the rear of the e-block protrude enough to bind on the wings of the lower? FAL lowers are more susceptible to this than L1A1 lowers.
http://www.arizonaresponsesystems.co...-slr014-03.jpg

bolt carrier rails: Does the bolt carrier slide along the rails properly. Is there binding independent of e-block height?
bolt carrier does not drop under own weight = Fail
http://www.arizonaresponsesystems.co...-slr071-01.jpg

hinge hole: Does a hinge assembly fit in the hole with hand pressure only?

hinge width: Do the wings of the lower slide onto the hinge block with no more than moderate hand pressure?

lockup: Will the lower rotate up to the lock position (binding on front dust plate). Once rotated, is the receiver lock lever bottomed out (fail) or is there a gap (pass). While there should be a specific gap minimum, I accept any gap as a pass, because the receiver lock is a part that wears.
http://www.arizonaresponsesystems.co...-slr014-01.jpg (fail)

bho Does the bolt hold open slide to full elevation without binding. Binding = fail.

mag catch: Does the mag catch, without spring, fit in its recess with full travel and no binding on underside of e-block. Binding = fail

mag catch screw: Does the mag catch screw install to full depth with no thread binding, or binding on the axle hole on the R side of receiver? Binding = Fail

magazine fit With the magazine catch assembly installed, does the magazine latch into place under normal insertion pressure. I demonstrate this in video format here. http://www.falfiles.com/forums/showthread.php?t=418209

charge handle rail: Does the charging handle without knob or lug, slide the complete length with no more than moderate pressure. Since charging handles deform with some ease, and the smallest burr will interfere, I test with multiple pieces that all passed on an Enfield receiver.

carry handle thread: does a gas tube support / carry handle nut that threads easily on an Enfield receiver, screw in to full depth with no binding?

barrel thread: Does a barrel stub that passes on an Enfield receiver screw in to full depth with no binding?

timing: Since barrels will have different shoulders, I use an Enfield barrel stub on a handle, with a breeching washer that I selected to time to 10:30 on several different British and Australian receivers. Anything close to the golden triangle is a pass. Only those significantly outside this area are Fail.
http://www.arizonaresponsesystems.co...-slr000-01.jpg
http://www.arizonaresponsesystems.co...-slr000-02.jpg

breeching washer: Noted just for curiosity

bolt & carrier: This test was important because of the incorrectly machined rail fronts on DSA FAL receivers. Where a carrier would travel correctly, the combination of bolt and carrier would bind. So I included it on the L1A1 checklist as well. Due to the slightly different contour of L1A1 bolt/carrier leading edges, it may not be necessary.

locking shoulder dogleg: Will a reversed locking shoulder dogleg fit in its recess. Tight fit is good. So tight that it breaks the dogleg off, is not good. This is a little subject, so I gave the receivers the benefit of the doubt. Only the slightest indication that it will enter under pressure, earns a pass.

locking shoulder hole: Will an in-tolerance LS enter the hole under normal pressure?

locking shoulder size: Noted for curiosity. Only of note if below .252" or over .264"

receiver cover: Does the receiver cover slide along it's rails? If not (British covers are slightly thicker than Aussie), is it something where minimal polishing of the cover rails will suffice? When fully inserted, does the front of the receiver cover enter it's corresponding recess on the inside front of the receiver? Since I expect minor fitting on receiver covers, I used 5 different covers that all fit both on an IMBEL inch-cut receiver and an LMT DSA Aussie pattern L1A1 receiver. I'm very happy that I added this test to the list, as it revealed a consistent pattern of the receivers warped at the front, to the left. This motivated me to test further with a compound dial indicator on the mill. The receivers are definitely warped slightly left forward of the hinge hole, which may manifest with zeroing issues when I get to the testfire phase. Unfortunately, there is nothing I can do to correct it. I can work around it by widening the clearance on the right side.
Same receiver cover on two different receivers. This is what motivated me to find out where, and by how much the receiver was warped.
http://www.arizonaresponsesystems.co...-slr018-02.jpg
Selecting a rod of receiver length
http://www.arizonaresponsesystems.co...-slr018-03.jpg
verifying rod straightness on DRO (proving mill vise is trued)
http://www.arizonaresponsesystems.co...-slr018-04.jpg
replacing rod with receiver and checking run-out.
http://www.arizonaresponsesystems.co...-slr018-05.jpg
Checking receiver side for parallel revealed the heights are not
http://www.arizonaresponsesystems.co...-slr018-06.jpg
Using level to verify "something ain't right", left side
http://www.arizonaresponsesystems.co...-slr018-12.jpg
http://www.arizonaresponsesystems.co...-slr018-11.jpg
http://www.arizonaresponsesystems.co...-slr018-14.jpg
checking again, right side
http://www.arizonaresponsesystems.co...-slr018-15.jpg
http://www.arizonaresponsesystems.co...-slr018-16.jpg
So now that we know the receiver is warped, which explains the receiver cover not fitting, I wanted to know "by how much?
Now obviously, it's bad enough for the cover not to fit, but it might affect zeroing - eh? So before mounting the barrel, I took some measurements
Right side, rear is flat over 4"
http://www.arizonaresponsesystems.co...-slr018-18.jpg
But right front is warped to the left by .023" over 4"
http://www.arizonaresponsesystems.co...-slr018-17.jpg
And when I extend it out another couple inches, it increases to almost .03". Which coincidentally, is about how much by which the duct cover misses its recess.
http://www.arizonaresponsesystems.co...-slr018-19.jpg
I won't know until testfire how much this is going to matter. It is interesting that the warp on all but one of the 7 receivers was from the hing hole forward, and always to the left. Suggests to me that DSA has a fixturing problem when machining the receivers, but I am also pondering if it might occur during heat treatment.
Left front out by .022" over 4"
http://www.arizonaresponsesystems.co...-slr018-20.jpg


manufacture: DS Arms
model: L1A1, UK cut, "F" Marked
serial number: SLR 014
e-block rear: Pass
e-block at rail: Pass
e-block at hinge: Fail (slightly proud)
bolt carrier rails: Pass
hinge hole: Pass
hinge width: Pass
lockup: Fail bottoms out with no gap to plate (UB 59 & UB 58)
bho: Pass
mag catch: Pass
mag catch screw: Pass
magazine fit: Fail
charge handle rail: Fail 2x UK, 2x Aus won't fit
carry handle thread: Pass
barrel thread: Pass
timing: pass 12:00
breeching washer: #4
bolt & carrier: Pass
locking shoulder dogleg: FAIL undersize
locking shoulder hole: FAIL undersize
locking shoulder size: .255"
receiver cover: Fail - receiver warped left

-------------------------

manufacture: DS Arms
model: L1A1, UK cut, "F" Marked
serial number: SLR 016A
e-block rear: Pass
e-block at rail: Pass
e-block at hinge: Pass (slightly proud)
bolt carrier rails: Pass
hinge hole: Pass
hinge width: Pass slightly tight
lockup: Pass not quite bottomed out. Slight air gap between back of receiver and recoil plate
bho Pass
mag catch: Pass
mag catch screw: Pass
magazine fit: Fail
charge handle rail: Fail 5 cocking handles won't even start.
carry handle thread: Pass
barrel thread: Pass
timing: Pass 10:30
breeching washer: #10
bolt & carrier: Pass
locking shoulder dogleg: Fail - undersize
locking shoulder hole: Fail undersize (.287")
locking shoulder size: .252"
receiver cover: Fail receiver warped left.

-----------------------

manufacture: DS Arms
model: L1A1, UK cut, "F" Marked
serial number: SLR 018
e-block rear: Pass
e-block at rail: Pass
e-block at hinge: Pass
bolt carrier rails: Pass
hinge hole: Pass
hinge width: Pass
lockup: Pass
bho Pass
mag catch: Pass
mag catch screw: Pass
magazine fit Fail
charge handle rail: Fail 4 different charging handles won't start.
carry handle thread: pass
barrel thread: pass
timing: pass 10:30
breeching washer: #8
bolt & carrier: Pass
locking shoulder dogleg: Pass (very tight)
locking shoulder hole: Fail - undersize
locking shoulder size: .253
receiver cover: Fail receiver warped left

---------------------

manufacture: DS Arms
model: L1A1, UK cut, "F" Marked
serial number: SLR 063
e-block rear: Pass
e-block at rail: Pass slightly proud
e-block at hinge: Pass
bolt carrier rails: Pass
hinge hole: Pass
hinge width: Pass
lockup: Fail bottom radius of hinge area binds on dust plate
bho: Pass
mag catch: Pass
mag catch screw: Pass
magazine fit: Fail
charge handle rail: Pass very tight
carry handle thread: Pass
barrel thread: Pass
timing: pass 10:30
breeching washer: #1
bolt & carrier: Pass
locking shoulder dogleg: Fail - undersize (broke locking shoulder)
locking shoulder hole: fail - undersize
locking shoulder size: .255"
receiver cover: fail receiver warped left

----------------------

manufacture: DS Arms
model: L1A1, UK cut, "F" Marked
serial number: SLR 071
e-block rear: Pass
e-block at rail: Pass slightly proud
e-block at hinge: Pass slightly proud
bolt carrier rails: Fail binding right side
hinge hole: pass
hinge width: Pass
lockup: Fail dust cover contact at hinge
bho: Pass
mag catch: Pass
mag catch screw: Pass
magazine fit: Fail
charge handle rail: Fail, 5 different charging handles
carry handle thread: pass
barrel thread: pass
timing: Pass 10:30
breeching washer: #1 + .008" shim (bad barrel shoulder)
bolt & carrier: Fail (see above)
locking shoulder dogleg: Fail - undersize
locking shoulder hole: fail - undersize
locking shoulder size: .255
receiver cover: Pass (only one to pass!)

-----------------------

manufacture: DS Arms
model: L1A1, UK cut, "F" Marked
serial number: SLR 094
e-block rear: Pass
e-block at rail: Pass
e-block at hinge: Pass
bolt carrier rails: Pass
hinge hole: Pass
hinge width: Pass
lockup: Fail bottoms out
bho pass
mag catch: Pass
mag catch screw: Pass
magazine fit: Fail
charge handle rail: Fail x5
carry handle thread: pass
barrel thread: Pass
timing: Fail (12:00)
breeching washer: #8
bolt & carrier: Pass
locking shoulder dogleg: Fail, undersize
locking shoulder hole: Fail undersize
locking shoulder size: .255
receiver cover: Fail, receiver warped left

------------------------

manufacture: DS Arms
model: L1A1, UK cut, "F" Marked
serial number: SLR 095
e-block rear: Pass
e-block at rail: Pass
e-block at hinge: Pass (very slight proud)
bolt carrier rails: pass
hinge hole: Pass
hinge width: Pass
lockup: Pass almost bottoms out
bho Pass
mag catch: Pass
mag catch screw: Pass
magazine fit: Fail
charge handle rail: Fail x 5
carry handle thread: pass
barrel thread: pass
timing: Pass 10:30
breeching washer: #9 + .002 shim bad barrel shoulder
bolt & carrier: pass
locking shoulder dogleg:Fail - undersize
locking shoulder hole: Fail - undersize
locking shoulder size: .258"
receiver cover: Fail receiver warped left.
__________________
T. Mark Graham, Master Gunsmith
Arizona Response Systems, LLC

Last edited by gunplumber; September 19, 2017 at 10:20.
gunplumber is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 23, 2017, 11:51   #2
OLDMANPBK
Veteran Member
Silver Contributor
 
OLDMANPBK's Avatar
 
FALaholic #: 69978
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: Medina, Ohio
Posts: 1,016
I find that the DSA made inch cocking handle fits well. I couldn't get a Brit or Aussie CH to even start in SLR092. So did DSA design their receivers around their CH or visa versa?
__________________
"The truth is incontrovertible; malice may attack it, ignorance may deride it, but in the end, there it is. "
-Winston Churchill-

"Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery?"
-Patrick Henry-

Inside every progressive is a totalitarian screaming to get out.
OLDMANPBK is online now   Reply With Quote
Old August 23, 2017, 11:53   #3
lew
Registered
Bronze Contributor
 
lew's Avatar
 
FALaholic #: 16727
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Phoenix, AZ
Posts: 7,764
Quote:
Originally Posted by OLDMANPBK View Post
I find that the DSA made inch cocking handle fits well. I couldn't get a Brit or Aussie CH to even start in SLR092. So did DSA design their receivers around their CH or visa versa?
That would be a shock.
__________________
Statism: Ideas so great, they're mandatory.

There is not a problem that government cannot make worse.
lew is online now   Reply With Quote
Old August 23, 2017, 11:56   #4
gunplumber
Arrogant Bastard
Gold Contributor
 
gunplumber's Avatar
 
FALaholic #: 96
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Surprise, AZ
Posts: 24,304
Quote:
Originally Posted by OLDMANPBK View Post
I find that the DSA made inch cocking handle fits well. I couldn't get a Brit or Aussie CH to even start in SLR092. So did DSA design their receivers around their CH or visa versa?
I also had no problem with DSA's folding cocking handles.

I suspect that DSA made their L1A1 receiver the same rail thickness as a FAL, and their folding cocking handle, to fit the FAL. You'd think they'd know the L1A1 handle slide and receiver rail is slightly thicker, it's not like it's a secret or anything. I've been machining L1A1 slides to fit FAL receivers for 25 years.
__________________
T. Mark Graham, Master Gunsmith
Arizona Response Systems, LLC
gunplumber is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 23, 2017, 14:02   #5
embatp
What? Me AR?
Silver Contributor
 
embatp's Avatar
 
FALaholic #: 39856
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Behind enemy lines...
Posts: 4,137
I've had problems with dsa standard charging handle slides being too thick to work on Coonan receivers.....can remember how they worked on imbels or argies....
__________________
"only he is lost who gives himself up for lost"
embatp is online now   Reply With Quote
Old August 25, 2017, 10:55   #6
adamweinerog
Member
Gold Contributor
 
FALaholic #: 4362
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Somewhere in the vicinity of Betelgeuse
Posts: 265
Bump to top for awareness, thanks Mark!
__________________
Aim above morality. Be not simply good, be good for something. -Henry David Thoreau
adamweinerog is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 30, 2017, 17:41   #7
gunplumber
Arrogant Bastard
Gold Contributor
 
gunplumber's Avatar
 
FALaholic #: 96
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Surprise, AZ
Posts: 24,304
Going to the range tomorrow to see what happens.

All the mags now fit.

5 of the 7 needed the NFE Oversize receiver lock. One should have one but the lever isn't quite bottomed out. 1 needed an oversize 2. This is enough of a pattern to say "better look at this!"

My biggest concern is how 6 of the 7 receivers are warped to the left enough that the receiver covers won't fit. It is difficult to get the receiver covers on, and even more difficult to get them off - and this is after I opened up the recess on the right side. I am concerned it will affect zero.

Anyway, here's the culmination of the last two weeks work. I think the L1A1 has a balance and elegance superior to that of the FAL, so I hope DSA gets their shit together.



And since I know someone is going to ask - the two in front are supposed to be from the Ghurkha Regiment. 1958-1962 dates and lightly distressed.

Since the original stocks I had were in need of too much repair for me to do right now, I duplicated the marking style and then toned it down by rubbing with Gurkha Cigar ashes. I am still confused, because the stocks are definitely UK with the slip patches, but the numeric system is in the North Indic system - not Hindi. They are similar, but the 5 is unique to the Bengali-Assamese system and not the Nepalese (Assam is NE India, east of Nepal and N of Bangladesh) or Hindi. There were Gurkha regiments in India but it's still a mystery to me.


__________________
T. Mark Graham, Master Gunsmith
Arizona Response Systems, LLC

Last edited by gunplumber; August 30, 2017 at 17:59.
gunplumber is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 30, 2017, 19:51   #8
embatp
What? Me AR?
Silver Contributor
 
embatp's Avatar
 
FALaholic #: 39856
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Behind enemy lines...
Posts: 4,137
Pics of the L2....
__________________
"only he is lost who gives himself up for lost"
embatp is online now   Reply With Quote
Old August 31, 2017, 06:58   #9
357ross
Registered
 
FALaholic #: 47543
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Utah
Posts: 4,927
Quote:
Originally Posted by gunplumber View Post
Going to the range tomorrow to see what happens.

All the mags now fit.

5 of the 7 needed the NFE Oversize receiver lock. One should have one but the lever isn't quite bottomed out. 1 needed an oversize 2. This is enough of a pattern to say "better look at this!"

My biggest concern is how 6 of the 7 receivers are warped to the left enough that the receiver covers won't fit. It is difficult to get the receiver covers on, and even more difficult to get them off - and this is after I opened up the recess on the right side. I am concerned it will affect zero.

Anyway, here's the culmination of the last two weeks work. I think the L1A1 has a balance and elegance superior to that of the FAL, so I hope DSA gets their shit together.



And since I know someone is going to ask - the two in front are supposed to be from the Ghurkha Regiment. 1958-1962 dates and lightly distressed.

Since the original stocks I had were in need of too much repair for me to do right now, I duplicated the marking style and then toned it down by rubbing with Gurkha Cigar ashes. I am still confused, because the stocks are definitely UK with the slip patches, but the numeric system is in the North Indic system - not Hindi. They are similar, but the 5 is unique to the Bengali-Assamese system and not the Nepalese (Assam is NE India, east of Nepal and N of Bangladesh) or Hindi. There were Gurkha regiments in India but it's still a mystery to me.


This business of warped receiver affecting the zero is a deal breaker for me. If your results show this to be the case, I think I'll ask dsa for a refund and sell off the rest. I agree the L1a1 is such an elegant rifle, but if it can't be made to work with EXPENSIVE American parts I guess it ain't happening. Many thanks for sharing your expertise and efforts.

Last edited by 357ross; August 31, 2017 at 07:34.
357ross is online now   Reply With Quote
Old August 31, 2017, 07:26   #10
pl521
Registered
 
FALaholic #: 74645
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: USA
Posts: 934
Thank you for taking time to document your findings and sharing results. Info you provided will play a huge factor in choosing receiver with my upcoming Brit build. Very much appreciated. Thanks for sharing.
pl521 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old August 31, 2017, 08:24   #11
gunplumber
Arrogant Bastard
Gold Contributor
 
gunplumber's Avatar
 
FALaholic #: 96
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Surprise, AZ
Posts: 24,304
Quote:
Originally Posted by embatp View Post
Pics of the L2....
That's the LMT receiver I tested the mags in (all fit). Mostly Canadian. I think Pat did the original work, but the timing was off. I have some questions on some of the parts if you know about C2s. I'll get pics when I return from the range.
__________________
T. Mark Graham, Master Gunsmith
Arizona Response Systems, LLC
gunplumber is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 31, 2017, 19:17   #13
hkshooter
Mighty Fine!
Contributor
 
FALaholic #: 5391
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Central Indiana
Posts: 6,144
Very nice work on the L2, Mark. The owner is going to be very happy.
Thanks for taking the time to report and post pics.
__________________
How's your dog, Paden?
hkshooter is online now   Reply With Quote
Old August 31, 2017, 20:55   #14
embatp
What? Me AR?
Silver Contributor
 
embatp's Avatar
 
FALaholic #: 39856
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Behind enemy lines...
Posts: 4,137
Looks good
__________________
"only he is lost who gives himself up for lost"
embatp is online now   Reply With Quote
Old September 01, 2017, 09:29   #15
gunplumber
Arrogant Bastard
Gold Contributor
 
gunplumber's Avatar
 
FALaholic #: 96
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Surprise, AZ
Posts: 24,304
Quote:
Daniel Lombard, (R1shooter) DSA Rep: "(Mr. Graham) has a vendetta against DSA, he is a clown and has no skills to back up His bullshitt claims, he has posted some stupid videos and they are a lie"

Quote:
DSAInc We have determined a small number of receivers have had the engagement lockup area machined in an incorrect location, being too high. This would not enable the magazine to be rotated fully into the locked position.
apparently, DSA needs to get their story straight.
__________________
T. Mark Graham, Master Gunsmith
Arizona Response Systems, LLC

Last edited by gunplumber; September 01, 2017 at 09:50.
gunplumber is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 02, 2017, 08:10   #16
Johnaski
Registered
Bronze Contributor
 
FALaholic #: 80056
Join Date: Aug 2017
Location: Athens, Ga
Posts: 41
Quote:
Thank you for taking time to document your findings and sharing results. Info you provided will play a huge factor in choosing receiver with my upcoming Brit build. Very much appreciated. Thanks for sharing.
As someone new to building and am going with a brit L1A1 rifle, what is the receiver you would choose? I have no idea since DSA and Coonan both seem to be having issues. Use a metric FAL receiver with an inch kit?
Johnaski is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 02, 2017, 08:57   #17
gunplumber
Arrogant Bastard
Gold Contributor
 
gunplumber's Avatar
 
FALaholic #: 96
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Surprise, AZ
Posts: 24,304
DSA's L1A1 receiver is cosmetically beautiful but at this time, I'd say the IMBEL is the better choice.

DSA talks about their warranty, but they have a history of not honoring it. They just sit on it for long time, then send it back with "no issues found" (it's The Chicago Way).

Like this e-mail I got yesterday - I'm getting quite the collection of these.

Customer is not happy to pay someone else to fix his DSA complete rifle. It illustrates that DSA's warranty claims are bullshit. Even if they did replace the rifle, they'd simply sell that defective one to someone else. It's The Chicago Way.

A good machinist can "fix" their programming in an afternoon. I don't think anything can fix the culture of corruption.


-------------


I recently purchased a Para 18" FAL from DSA (in hindsight, that was a mistake).

It has a problem with mags fitting, absolutely won’t fit a Moses mag (without slamming it on the bottom of mag 3-4 times), the only other mags I have are DSA, it will take a DSA mag with one round in it and chamber it fine (for gas adjustment), but a mag with a few rounds in it, it will only strip the round about half way out of the mag, then jam. Seems like mags need to be slammed on the bottom to go in and lock in to the mag catch.

I sent this to DSA, they sent it back a few weeks later and indicated that they filed the mag release or something and said all the mags fit in their testing, but it is no different than before. I don't want to mess with DSA anymore, just want the rifle to function correctly. ...
Like I said, I don’t have any decent metal mags: when I take a loaded DSA mag and just try to push rounds out/ forward by hand it seems there is a lot of resistance and they can catch on the front mag lip, is this normal? Could part of the problem be with my DSA mags?
__________________
T. Mark Graham, Master Gunsmith
Arizona Response Systems, LLC
gunplumber is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 07, 2017, 09:15   #18
gunplumber
Arrogant Bastard
Gold Contributor
 
gunplumber's Avatar
 
FALaholic #: 96
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Surprise, AZ
Posts: 24,304
Well, testfire went pretty well. Couple guns needed gas ports reamed step 1, and one (my screwup) I had some grit in the return spring tube Except for one significant problem. One won't zero - could be because of the warped receiver, but could be a warped lower, so I am going to test again today and bring a spare lower.

But on two of the rifles the magazine fell out during firing. This freaked me out! Did I screw something up? I spend days comparing every mag well dimension to the prints and my original Enfield receivers. I checked, double checked, and took dozens oof photos for enlarged comparisons. But why is the mag falling out?

Oh.... I think I know what it is. . . . one of the parts kits came off a thumbhole sporter, and maybe shortened the mag catch spring. Or maybe I had a case of the dumb-ass and used a FAL spring instead of an L1A1 spring. Nope. Right spring. What could it be?

And then I saw it. A difference between DSA's ejector block and a correct one. Looks minor but it's a big deal, as it prevents the mag catch from full engagement. In some situations, with this defect, the mag catch can disengage under recoil.

The fix is simple - just cut/file this spot flat.

http://www.arizonaresponsesystems.co...-slr000-30.jpg

http://www.arizonaresponsesystems.co...-slr000-31.jpg

http://www.arizonaresponsesystems.co...-slr000-32.jpg

http://www.arizonaresponsesystems.co...-slr000-34.jpg
__________________
T. Mark Graham, Master Gunsmith
Arizona Response Systems, LLC

Last edited by gunplumber; September 07, 2017 at 09:22.
gunplumber is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 07, 2017, 09:30   #19
gunplumber
Arrogant Bastard
Gold Contributor
 
gunplumber's Avatar
 
FALaholic #: 96
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Surprise, AZ
Posts: 24,304
One of the guns failed my final inspection because the bolt hold open was seized. I figured it was a bad BHO, or the screw was damaged. But when I took it apart, it became apparent that DSA had drilled the hole in the wrong place, then tried to work around it by making the hole larger.

This is probably going to require me welding in the hole and redrilling it correctly. It is possible that I can use a (slightly larger diameter) Indian screw. I hate it when I only discover new defects in DSA products after the refinish!

Oh, by the way, what do you call it when a manufacturer alters a part to work around a defect, then sells it as a correct part? Is it an honest mistake? A whoopsie? No.

That incompletely machined e-block in the post above is a "mistake". At least for a company without the talent or interest to actually test their products before selling them. I can see how that would slip by someone not knowledgeable, or specifically looking for it. I missed it during reassembly. But I found it when I did by final pre-shipment testing.

No - when there is evidence that the defect was identified, worked around, and then sold without disclosing its defect - I call it "knowingly and willingly selling defective parts".

Tag that phrase, you will be seeing a lot more of it in the coming weeks.

SLR014 (bottom) note how much larger the hole for the mag catch screw is than on the Enfield (top). This is because the hole was misaligned and the "work-around" was to make it larger on the right side. Unfortunately it still is enough crooked as to force a bend in the mag catch screw, which binds the BHO.

Now how do I know this is a known defect that was worked around, and sold anyway - without disclosing the defect? Because it is also on SLR016A but not on later ones. Defect identified, corrected, and defective receivers knowingly and willingly sold anyway.

http://www.arizonaresponsesystems.co...-slr000-20.jpg
__________________
T. Mark Graham, Master Gunsmith
Arizona Response Systems, LLC

Last edited by gunplumber; September 07, 2017 at 09:41.
gunplumber is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 07, 2017, 11:44   #20
357ross
Registered
 
FALaholic #: 47543
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Utah
Posts: 4,927
Thank you much for your efforts on this project. I am still trying to decide whether to abandon this project or not. This warped receiver business really makes me mad.
357ross is online now   Reply With Quote
Old September 07, 2017, 13:20   #21
gunplumber
Arrogant Bastard
Gold Contributor
 
gunplumber's Avatar
 
FALaholic #: 96
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Surprise, AZ
Posts: 24,304
Quote:
Originally Posted by 357ross View Post
Thank you much for your efforts on this project. I am still trying to decide whether to abandon this project or not. This warped receiver business really makes me mad.
So far, other than dust-cover fitment, only one of the 7 is having zeroing problems (lateral). And I'm not ready yet to blame the receiver. I have had lowers that are warped.
__________________
T. Mark Graham, Master Gunsmith
Arizona Response Systems, LLC
gunplumber is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 24, 2018, 15:01   #22
RadioHack
Registered
 
FALaholic #: 46044
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Plano, Texas
Posts: 56
Wow, I am so impressed.

So few true craftsman left in this world. True FAL pattern rifle fans are blessed that you turned your talents to these weapons instead of putting your passions into another patform.

Thank you.

PS. ONE day (when I save enough and get out of debt) I'll be having one of your Rhodie builds and if anyone ever makes a good Inch Pattern receiver again, you'll be building me a proper L1A1.
RadioHack is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 27, 2018, 07:24   #23
FUUN063
Registered
 
FALaholic #: 35576
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Converse, Indiana
Posts: 6,491
Mark, I have one time filed that same area, some time back. I do not recall what the serial was on that upper. On the other issue, with the eblock/hole issue, do you simply swap out the eblock with a couple pins instead of welding up and redrilling the BHO hole? Just curious, is all. I've had to replace eblocks before.


Leland
FUUN063 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 27, 2018, 07:27   #24
gunplumber
Arrogant Bastard
Gold Contributor
 
gunplumber's Avatar
 
FALaholic #: 96
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Surprise, AZ
Posts: 24,304
Quote:
Originally Posted by FUUN063 View Post
On the other issue, with the eblock/hole issue, do you simply swap out the eblock with a couple pins instead of welding up and redrilling the BHO hole?
Leland
In this case, it was the location of the hole in the receiver. Changing the e-block would not help. So it needs to be welded in and redrilled. Use the e-block axle hole as a drill guide.
__________________
T. Mark Graham, Master Gunsmith
Arizona Response Systems, LLC
gunplumber is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 27, 2018, 09:37   #25
FUUN063
Registered
 
FALaholic #: 35576
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Converse, Indiana
Posts: 6,491
Ahh, got it. Just wondering. Also, it should be noted, that if I were a company, oh, let's say, that had a CNC operation producing something, anything. I would definitely start making direction towards a quality Inch pattern receiver. I would also pay very close attention to the company in which I aim to keep, i.e. FAL Files, in order to find out what would be asked for by the actual users and builders themselves. In the case of this thread, and others like it that have been posted by other members as well, it has very in depth intimate knowledge of the FAL/SLR building world. This would go greatly with the fact that people out there are actually making a living with the products that are being produced and large amounts of money are being spent to keep them running. If I were in a better situation, I would definitely produce a quality bar stock receiver as were the early EAI receivers. Bar stock is easy to come by, as is the CNC machines nowadays. A couple knowledgeable operators/builders would make all the kits lying around come to life. End of rant.


Leland
FUUN063 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old March 10, 2018, 17:12   #26
Potshot
Registered
 
FALaholic #: 6398
Join Date: May 2002
Location: xxx
Posts: 1,397
Thank you for this thread Mark, saved me trouble on the charging handle and e block/mag catch.
__________________
Remember, remember! When you vote in November, The gun bans, treason and plot;
I know of no reason Why the gun banning treason should ever be forgot.
Potshot is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 01:19.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
©1998-2018 The FAL Files