PDA

View Full Version : Dear FAL Files Members:


DSA Inc
November 20, 2001, 16:30
Dear FAL Files Members,
We feel there is some confusion concerning the way some of you are reading the information we provided. Instead of taking this in the correct context, our critics are using this as an opportunity to take potshots, make unfounded accusations and vent anger upon us. This is supposed to be an open-minded discussion board for adults. You do not have to agree with us, but why live up to the poor image portrayed by the media and anti-gunners? The following points are answers to some of your questions that we are repeating in an easier format.

1. H.P. White Laboratories is not our own personal testing facility. They are a well-respected independent lab that performs tests that many manufacturers rely on.

2. The purpose of this test was not to destroy a receiver, but to ensure it would hold up to standard proofing procedures. This would enable us to sell our own products and services in conjunction with this receiver without having a greater liability exposure.

3. We had already experienced three of our own aluminum receiver failures. There is not any coincidence that all three failed in the same area behind the locking shoulder. We even had one withstand 20 proof loads and 2000 rounds of 7.62 NATO before ultimately failing. This proved, that using this material for this application on a .308 / 7.62 NATO caliber rifle was not worth the potential risks. We believe with the failure of all three receivers in the same area, that it is quite evident there is a problem. To put it simply, the tensile strength was not sufficient to withstand the force, which the FAL tilting bolt lock-up exerts on the main component of the system.

4. If we did not care about your safety, we would have been putting these receivers into commerce for the past three years thus recouping our R & D costs as well as gaining financially.

5. We would welcome any additional testing with a wider array of proof loads or any available ammunition that a consumer might function through his or her rifle. We strongly believe you will get the same results i.e. an eventual failure behind the locking shoulder area.

6. The point of this whole exercise is not to disparage Mr. Williams, his company or his supporters, but to inform you that THE POTENTIAL TO CAUSE SERIOUS BODILY HARM TO THE USER OR BYSTANDERS DOES EXIST. You may evaluate the risks yourself; it is your decision.

7. The reason this was not posted sooner is because we gave the Williams Arms Co. the information first in order for them to respond and provide information on their own testing and results in case there was something we were not aware of. Our company President spoke with Mr. Williams over the telephone to inform him of the test results. The information was then sent to him via fax. We then attempted to reach Mr. Williams on eight separate occasions, which are documented. These messages were left with several different employees and each time we were told the Mr. Williams was either out of the office or to busy to take the call. All of this happened with no attempted communication from Mr. Williams. We then sent a letter via FedEx priority overnight, which was signed for by L. Amos. In short, we gave Williams Arms Co. every professional courtesy possible, without ever receiving a single response or professional concern for the safety issue at hand. With the knowledge of the potential harm this product may cause, we were left with no choice but to release this information.

8. We believe we know how to properly barrel and headspace a FAL type receiver, even the aluminum that we pioneered 3-4 years prior to this unfortunate situation. We encourage you to perform your own testing at your own lab if you do not believe our findings.

9. Once again, this was for your safety. We would welcome any litigation this information might bring, due to the fact that we would have been negligent if we did not release it. Our critics may again spend time to pick apart our response and read between the lines if they wish. We welcome any questions you may have and would be happy to answer them. Our number is (847) 277-7258.

Warmest regards,
DSA Management

RRotz
November 20, 2001, 16:31
Thanks for the clarification Anne, very comforting that you are providing the facts, straight up.

'TUDE
November 20, 2001, 16:41
Thanks DSA.
Still awaiting more info though.

L1A1 shooter 1
November 20, 2001, 16:42
dsa,are u plainly saying the willaims reciever will blow up just use surplus Nato rounds fire semi-auto,??? please reply as simple yes or no,,Thank you,i'm sure i'm not the only person that wants to hear your answer :eek:

Valknut
November 20, 2001, 16:57
L1A1, Williams is the one to say yes or no on your question. DSA has presented their opinion based on independent testing.

sixplusone
November 20, 2001, 16:58
!!!!20 proof loads?!!!!

para phrasing"This proves, that using this material for this application/308/...was not worth the risks.""""

This indicates that the Al recvr. will not stand the "proofs for SAAMI loads of +80,000 psi[beyond yield strength of Al]"

How 'bout NATO Proofs of the 67,500psi range.
to the CIP "standard"?
How many of those will it stand????????
anyone?

cllary
November 20, 2001, 17:07
DSA - Thanks for posting here. Are you going to release the actual report? Was there, in fact, two rifles tested per White lab guidelines? Will you respond to the specific concerns regarding the locking shoulder and is it available for inspection? We are sure you know how to headspace but did the lab check it prior to, or anytime during, the test? Isn't the receiver which stood up to 20 proof loads :eek: better than your steel receiver did? I think answers to these specifics will allay many fears and concerns expressed on the board, at least mine anyway.

Naz
November 20, 2001, 17:19
cllary, go back and read DSA's report on the test of their steel receiver. This was no proof load, it was actually loaded to try to blow up the recever (which it didn't). Can't compare apples to oranges! :rolleyes:
Link to DSA pressure test (http://www.dsarms.com/presletter.htm)

FWRA
November 20, 2001, 17:28
Originally posted by L1A1 shooter 1:
<STRONG>dsa,are u plainly saying the willaims reciever will blow up just use surplus Nato rounds fire semi-auto,??? please reply as simple yes or no,,Thank you,i'm sure i'm not the only person that wants to hear your answer :eek:</STRONG>

They aren't saying that at all. Their reasoning behind this second posting (at least according to them) was to make it easier for everyone to understand it.

We even had one withstand 20 proof loads and 2000 rounds of 7.62 NATO before ultimately failing. This proved, that using this material for this application on a .308 / 7.62 NATO caliber rifle was not worth the potential risks.

No where in either posting does it mention "blowing up" that WAC receiver with standard ammo of any kind.

I thought this latest post was a bit condescending:

The following points are answers to some of your questions that we are repeating in an easier format.


We got it the first time. ;)

To post and re-post this "warning" to keep it in front of us makes me wonder. A Safety Warning is one thing, but to keep it going like this makes me think otherwise.

Then again, who really knows what any company or individual really thinks. If we could read minds we'd be rich.

Maybe one day we'll know all the facts.

Best Regards,
Mark Powell

sixplusone
November 20, 2001, 17:29
OK really a stupid "Newbie suggestion[No offense meant]" as I'm still a 'Newbie'

How about a 2008 $50 test of my [soon to purchase] Williams recv'r. for cracks or embrittlement or whatever by; ultra sonic or magna-flux or ? AND IF [if] deemed neccessary then allow me the purchase of a new Williams at 1/3 off the current market value.[approx. 5000rds total: AS I shoot per year].OR?
Thoughts?

cllary
November 20, 2001, 17:39
NAZ - I see what your saying. I was under the impression from DSA's first (and now infamous)post that the the DSA aluminum receiver had problems after the first proof round like the Williams. And then here we have an aluminum withstanding 20! I figured that had to be better than their steel test but I admit that this situation is the first time I have even attempted to understand proof rounds and what they are. So how did the DSA steel do with proof rounds?

[ November 20, 2001: Message edited by: cllary ]

xtremerange
November 20, 2001, 17:41
DSA,

Respectfully, your clarification does not provide any more details that are needed to evaluate the receiver.

Key information that is missing includes, but is not limited to, headspace measurements prior to round 1, headspace at various points during the test run, any modifications done to the receiver, history of parts used to assemble the rifle.

If you were to provide this information by releasing the full report with endorsement of such by HP White Labs, then a lot of questions you are trying to answer will be answered.

Anything short of that and you will just give the conspiracy theorists gasoline for their fires. Delay will fan the flames,

moses
November 20, 2001, 17:54
isn't a proof load to see if receiver will have a catistrophic failure? if it survives one proof load without doing harm to person firing isn't that a sucsess. I wouldn't think it should be expected to function normally again after a proof load!how about that pic of the m1a (m14) that went kaboom?
remember the williams shot 88 more rounds after the proof load! I think that says something in itself!

L1A1 shooter 1
November 20, 2001, 18:21
what i was asking is what dsa thinks,,i've read what willaims think,,i just want dsa answer,if u get my meaning ;)

FALPhil
November 20, 2001, 18:30
Pardon my scepticism, but until I see the complete HP White report and understand exactly what happened and am comfortable with HP White's methodology, I'm going to be salting what I ingest.

If DSA's only concern was about liability, they could have forwarded the report to WAC, and just told their customers that they refuse to work on WAC receivers for liability reasons.

If they were concerned about our safety, they could have offered a competitive "sale" for a specified period, one long enough for WAC to investigate the test and decide whether it was worth responding to. Or they could advertised that their product was the safest on the market.

Either way, the fanfare with which the test "results" were announced was suspicious. They published their interpretation of the test in a perjorative manner, and, I suspect, have opened themselves up to a different liability. I seriously doubt that DSA's attorny approved the "announcement" (notice that I am admitting conjecture here).

It may very well be that reality is exactly as DSA has portrayed it, but it sure wasn't done with a lot of finesse, and that is what makes me and others suspicious.

Like I said before, I don't have a dog in this fight, but IMO, class goes a long way and DSA didn't (and hasn't based upon the volume and intensity of their postings on this board) show much of it.

I guess my beef is how DSA has handled the situation more than the substance of the allegation.

screech-fnfal
November 20, 2001, 18:36
Anyone know how many proofs a 1903, 1903A3, M1 Garand, M14, etc, etc were exposed to before being accepted? HUM,,,Damn wasn't it 1 (one)!!
1 proof round or 20!

What have I missed? :confused:

SamB
November 20, 2001, 19:05
Thanks DSA.

There will always be those who suspect the worst. Just ask Samco, another major firearms supplier. They had HP White test some of their rifles (they go so far as to send out actual copies of the test documentation) and still people won't believe the results.

For every effort you make, there will always be some clown in the back pointing to a "smoking gun on the grassy knoll."

When the day comes that some moron blows himself up and says on the stand "I called DSA and they warned me not to assemble this rifle", the millions of dollars you save will far outweigh the couple thousand that these whiners might have spent with you.

Valknut
November 20, 2001, 19:11
OK, Williams says their receivers are safe to shoot with 7.62 or .308.
DSA says they don't think aluminum receivers are safe - DSA aluminum or Williams aluminum.
Pretty clear to me - caveat emptor.
I have a DSA and I'd buy a Williams steel receiver, no question. And I'll admit a steel bias too. Bicycles frames, guns, scope mounts, automobile wheels - I want 'em to be steel. They bend instead of break, and I'd appreciate the notice if bad things are happening.

redneck whitesox PBR
November 20, 2001, 19:26
So the fired 2000 round and 20 proof load before it gave out ? WTF ? Is this a BAD thing ? That sound pretty damn safe to me ! :eek:

Runinwolf
November 20, 2001, 19:36
DSA, I appreciate the heads up on this and the professional manner in which you have handled it.

As for those of you "demanding" this report and that spect. What the F_ck is wrong with you. DSA does not owe you anything. A report should be going to Williams co per "their" request. DSA let you know about a test they had performed and nothing more. DSA contacted the manufacturer first as they should have. When contact appeared to be broken off and the issue was not being reported to us here on the board (williams did appear to contact their lawyers though), DSA spoke up. DSA brought it out in the open as a heads up issue.

If you have questions, direct them to William's co. It's William's product and it is their respondsibility to ensure it is safe. Williams and Williams alone. This is not hard. They should have or should be having a company like White testing their receivers in the first place. This is not a hang nail situation, a receiver blowing apart could seriously hurt or kill someone.

This could be a real problem or maybe not. We do need to know, due to the fact that many of our family and friends shoot with us. Williams has stated clearly that they are addressing this per their lawyers. Why? Because they are covering their rears in case there is an issue here as "any" company would regardless if there is or is not a problem with the receiver.

If you feel so strongly about this product (I would think you would wait to see what Williams finds in their testing, but for some, apparently not) buy the receiver or shoot the one you have. So, if it does blow up in your face you can say you were wrong (do you think williams would be making emotional decisions or business decisions at that point?) and if not, have fun with your gun and tell everyone you were right. Hell it's your face/family/friend. Question; if it does blow up are you planning to sue Williams? I bet Williams lawyers are preparing for either case.

I have never purchased anything from either of these companies. They are not my friends, just a couple of retailers that I may do business with in the future. But there again maybe not. Therefore what could I possible have to "justify". What the hell do you feel the need to "justify". Our opinions/emotions are meaningless. It will all fall on the facts of testing. To much libility here for the manufacturer not to follow thru.

I hope Williams succeeds in their endevor to bring us quality products. As a Consumer I want them properly tested for safty (I assume there is some kind of standard). If there is a problem here I hope they can recall their receivers and replace them (ford does this on my truck all the time).

Thanks DSA. Williams please let us know what you find in your own testing (at a third party's location). I believe we look forward to doing business with you in the future.

FALPhil
November 20, 2001, 19:49
Gee, Runinwolf. Maybe some of us are not suffering from cranial rectosis. :rolleyes:

Most people, when presented with conflicting presentations, would like to know all the facts, so they can make an informed decision. WAC says that they proof tested the receivers with satisfactory results. DSA commissioned a test, which on the surface, seems less than rigorous.

Maybe you can enlighten the rest of us dumbasses as to how you circumvent the discovery process with such great results.

Signed,
Insulted on Long Island

Originally posted by Runinwolf:
<STRONG>As for those of you "demanding" this report and that spect. What the F_ck is wrong with you. </STRONG>

gw11
November 20, 2001, 19:50
Runinwolf
I completely agree.
If the receiver blew up in someone's face, would it still be the
individuals responsibility to prove that it was defective?
It sort of seems that the DSA report is grounds for law suit, rather
than Safety.
More to be cautioned by !
gw11

sportsnut
November 20, 2001, 19:55
Runinwolf, pretty well said.....

L1A1 shooter 1
November 20, 2001, 19:57
i'll say it again,,u can blow up or tear up anything if u set your mind to it,your right dsa doesn't owe us the report,but when u cry wolf,they're better be a wolf.i would think willaims knows the law concerning sale of his products,only time will tell how good these alloy recievers are.

gw11
November 20, 2001, 20:11
L1A1
I just hope that no one gets hurt because they trust too much! I'm sure most Fal'rs
are stubborn and at least alert!
gw11

Charmedlyfe
November 20, 2001, 20:32
Interesting how supporters of WAC will quesition DSA's testing, but will accept WAC's 'proofing to 91-93K' without a quare.

I once bought a car from a dealership (used), and was treated very well by the sales staff. I was assured that the car was cherry, and that I would be happy. It had serious transmission problems soon after purchase, and I got ignored. The dealership's service dept couldn't find a THING wrong with the car. Another dealership's mechanic went in and found recall work on the tranny that the first dealership didn't do. It was NOT something they could have missed had they looked. This taught me not to put faith into anyone just because they sweet-talk me while trying to sell me something. I like solid answers based on fact, not touchy-feely reassurances based on how long someone's been around the business.

DSA doesn't sell aluminum recs, or low-priced recs. If a person didn't buy a WAC, they would probably buy a Hesse, DPMS, Imbel, Entreprise, etc. before a DSA. So DSA really isn't going to increase sales by hurting WAC. That is the real bottom line on the business argument.

I don't care who everyone likes, no-one should be slandering either company. Let them hash it out and provide fact to us on which to base our own purchasing decision.

andrew
November 20, 2001, 20:39
Originally posted by Redneck Whitesox PBR:
<STRONG>So the fired 2000 round and 20 proof load before it gave out ? WTF ? Is this a BAD thing ? That sound pretty damn safe to me ! :eek:</STRONG>

LOL - a redneck couldn't have said it any better! Muahahahahah!

DABTL
November 20, 2001, 20:46
I have bought a lot of DSA parts and no receivers. But I have seen them and shot rifles with their receivers. Fine products all.

I have bought from Williams Arms Co. and have been disappointed.

So what?

Pure and simple it is a safety issue. We need more information and less emotion.

Are the WAC receivers safe? Simple question with an apparently difficult answer. To me it is not important as I have no WAC receiver on a gun. So, are they safe?

Dan at VOW
November 20, 2001, 20:54
Anne, there are some questions that we would like answered in detail. While most, if not all of us realize that DSA does know how to headspace a rifle, several people have asked what the headspace was set at. There hasn't been an answer to that, if you would, please let us know. Also how was the barel timed up, from what clock position or degree. These are fairly simple questions, and the answers would go a long way toward appeasing some of the members here.

Other questions that go along with the above. How many FTE, FTF did the test rifle experience? I am asking these questions not to stir the pot, but with the hope that your answers will help bring this to a conclusion. Thanks, Dan at VOW.

GDYankee
November 20, 2001, 21:00
Originally posted by DSA Inc:
<STRONG>2. The purpose of this test was not to destroy a receiver, but to ensure it would hold up to standard proofing procedures. This would enable us to sell our own products and services in conjunction with this receiver without having a greater liability exposure.</STRONG>
Easy solution: include a prominent warning that Williams receiver are NOT to be used under any circumstances with a DSA product or service. That way DSA avoids appearing (perhaps unintentionally) like it is exploiting this issue for marketing purposes. Just curious -- has DSA also tested Hesse, Entreprise and Imbel receivers under identical protocol? I mean, DSA has safety concerns beyond just aluminum receivers, right? I mean, it wasn't because Williams had a potential lock on a lucrative niche market that you singled it out, right?

<STRONG>4. If we did not care about your safety, we would have been putting these receivers into commerce for the past three years thus recouping our R & D costs as well as gaining financially.</STRONG>
Geez ... could you sound any more self-serving and insincere?

<STRONG>6. The point of this whole exercise is not to disparage Mr. Williams, his company or his supporters, but to inform you that THE POTENTIAL TO CAUSE SERIOUS BODILY HARM TO THE USER OR BYSTANDERS DOES EXIST.</STRONG>
Uhhh ... your paragraph 2 above said your point was to avoid liability, but what the hell.

I would be interested to see how sample DSA, Entreprise, Imbel, and Hesse steel receivers would respond to the identical testing. Stay tuned I guess.

L1A1 shooter 1
November 20, 2001, 21:04
i would hate to see anyone hurt from a gun explodeing near they're head,,i truly hope all fal recievers are safe,NO matter what name is on the outside ;)

Lance
November 20, 2001, 21:25
Originally posted by ER:
<STRONG>
(edit - to DSA: I have the ability and means to build a FAL receiver for myself, and put the G1 kit on it I bought from you. I can use any material I can afford, especially aluminum of various grades. Are you liable if I blow myself all to hell with it? It`s your kit I would use, and you ARE worried about "liability exposure" concerning your kits now aren`t you? Please answer. you may want to issue a "safety notice" concerning it too, LOL.)</STRONG>

I think liability is relative to how deep the defendant's pockets are. You can bet your bottom dollar that if someone is seriously injured or killed as a result of a KB, all involved manufacturers will be sued for damages.

Lance

FALshot
November 20, 2001, 21:32
I get home, (light rain falling this time of year in Oregon) the cats are outside, wet, and hungry and I have some reading for work I have to do and you force me to do an exhaustive search to find "Some of the history," "of what others have said."

You can see I'm not the author of these links, I am only posting some of what has been said by others.

Discount my opinions if you like but please DO read the links.
http://fnfal.com/falfiles/wwwboard/message/archives/messages/335.html
http://fnfal.com/falfiles/wwwboard/message/archives/messages/27732.html

TARGET=_blank>http://fnfal.com/falfiles/wwwboard/message/archives/messages/335.html[/URL]</A>
<A HREF="http://fnfal.com/falfiles/wwwboard/message/archives/messages/27732.html" TARGET=_blank>
http://fnfal.com/falfiles/wwwboard/message/archives/messages/27732.html (http://fnfal.com/falfiles/wwwboard/message/archives/messages/27732.html</A>)[/url]
<A HREF="http://fnfal.com/falfiles/wwwboard.message/archives/messages/416.html" TARGET=_blank>
http://fnfal.com/falfiles/wwwboard.message/archives/messages/416.html (http://fnfal.com/falfiles/wwwboard.message/archives/messages/416.html</A>)[/url]
<A HREF="http://fnfal.com/falfiles/wwwboard.message/archives/messages/333.html" TARGET=_blank>
http://fnfal.com/falfiles/wwwboard.message/archives/messages/333.html (http://fnfal.com/falfiles/wwwboard.message/archives/messages/333.html</A>)[/url]
<A HREF="http://fnfal.com/falfiles/wwwboard.message/archives/messages/2575.html" TARGET=_blank>
http://fnfal.com/falfiles/wwwboard.message/archives/messages/2575.html (http://fnfal.com/falfiles/wwwboard.message/archives/messages/2575.html</A>)[/url]
<A HREF="http://fnfal.com/falfiles/wwwboard.message/archives/messages/14559.html" TARGET=_blank>
http://fnfal.com/falfiles/wwwboard.message/archives/messages/14559.html (http://fnfal.com/falfiles/wwwboard.message/archives/messages/14559.html</A>)[/url]
<A HREF="http://fnfal.com/falfiles/wwwboard.message/archives/messages/27363.html" TARGET=_blank>
http://fnfal.com/falfiles/wwwboard.message/archives/messages/27363.html (http://fnfal.com/falfiles/wwwboard.message/archives/messages/27363.html</A>)[/url]


Bill Woodward
FALshot
Portland, OR.

[ November 20, 2001: Message edited by: FALshot ]

[ November 20, 2001: Message edited by: FALshot ]

Lance
November 20, 2001, 21:37
Originally posted by Dan at VOW:
<STRONG>Anne, there are some questions that we would like answered in detail. While most, if not all of us realize that DSA does know how to headspace a rifle, several people have asked what the headspace was set at. There hasn't been an answer to that, if you would, please let us know. Also how was the barel timed up, from what clock position or degree. These are fairly simple questions, and the answers would go a long way toward appeasing some of the members here. </STRONG>


Is there a correct answer to these questions that would satisfy everyone? I would think that "proper" is what it means. If DSA were to furnish an exact number to the nth precision here, I'm sure it would be just more fodder for the resident experts no matter what it was.

I'm no expert but I have observed some disagreement in this forum as to just what "proper" headspacing is. Same for the barrel timing.

I prefer to assume that since DSA is in the business of manufacturing FALs, that they know how to assemble one.

On the other hand, does anyone honestly think that if they intentionally set the headspace wrong they would hesitate to publish false numbers?

Lance

JT
November 20, 2001, 21:55
FN has had more experience than DSA and WAC making Fal recvrs combined. One of the main considerations in making a MBR has always been the weight. A lot of the manufactures have used and still use aluminum to make receivers, but in all these cases of Hi power rifles, the steel bolt locks up to the steel barrel-thus most of the pressure of the firing of the round is contained by metal to metal lock up. Of course when the pressure lowers and the bullet goes past the bleed hole to gas tube, some of the gas pressure unlocks the bolt and ejects the spent brass. I really believe that if an aluminum receiver would work in 308/7.62, that FN would have made it first. Now I believe the test done by White Labs for DSA was done to see if it was receiver was safe-If it was I am sure that DSA would have assembled and headspaced them for there customers. If the Rcvr had passed the test I am sure that DSA would have had there R&D people all over it to see how they could make one to compete with it. I am glad they posted the results of the test. For the ones who don't believe the results, go ahead and buy one and wear it out. You don't have to believe the results of the test. If you buy a WAC Recvr, your liability claims are between you and Williams Arms.

Dirtfarmer
November 20, 2001, 22:25
This all seems pretty clearcut to me... and has for sometime.
It boils down to the safety margin that each manufacturer expects.

i.e.- Williams ran proof loads at 67,500psi (7.62x51)and the receiver was (presumably) undamaged. They then ran pressures to 91,000+- and, while irreconsilable damage occured (...exceeded yield strength), they were gratified to see that the receivers stayed intact.(..but made unservicable)

DSA ran 100 rds of NATO surplus, then a .308 proof load (87,000psi?-92000psi?,89,000 published)and continued testing, even though observed headspace stretching had occurred.
Guess what. -It went bang.


...Therefore DSA claims it as unsafe, because it is not "proof" against .308 Win. published proofing loads.
Williams claims it IS safe with normal pressure loads, .308 or 7.62NATO.

I declare that Williams is right, it being marked 7.62NATO (or 51)

BUT!!!!

-It is not that DSA is wrong!

DSAs receivers have an inherently greater safety margin than required.
They exhalt (rightly) in that.
DSA believes that ALL FAL receivers should continue functioning after .308 Win. proof loads.
I would disagree.

And so may we all.
But I don't get all upset by disagreement, With aluminum, you trade off some safety margin,(that YOU can make DAMN sure you don't USE!!) for light-weight.
With DSA you can revel in the fact that you can fire loads that aren't recommended to be fired in their receiver anyway., and not destroy thier receiver (Hoo-RAHH!) (-But don't do it)

Room for both.

But ..no, Aluminum is NOT as strong as steel, not in the conventional sense at least.

Goodwill,
-Dirtfarmer

FWRA
November 20, 2001, 22:37
Originally posted by FALshot:
<STRONG>I get home, (light rain falling this time of year in Oregon) the cats are outside, wet, and hungry and I have some reading for work I have to do and you force me to do an exhaustive search to find "Some of the history," "of what others have said."

You can see I'm not the author of these links, I am only posting some of what has been said by others.

Discount my opinions if you like but please DO read the links.
http://fnfal.com/falfiles/wwwboard/message/archives/messages/335.html
http://fnfal.com/falfiles/wwwboard/message/archives/messages/27732.html

TARGET=_blank>http://fnfal.com/falfiles/wwwboard/message/archives/messages/335.html[/URL]</A>
<A HREF="http://fnfal.com/falfiles/wwwboard/message/archives/messages/27732.html" TARGET=_blank>
http://fnfal.com/falfiles/wwwboard/message/archives/messages/27732.html (http://fnfal.com/falfiles/wwwboard/message/archives/messages/27732.html</A>)[/url]
<A HREF="http://fnfal.com/falfiles/wwwboard.message/archives/messages/416.html" TARGET=_blank>
http://fnfal.com/falfiles/wwwboard.message/archives/messages/416.html (http://fnfal.com/falfiles/wwwboard.message/archives/messages/416.html</A>)[/url]
<A HREF="http://fnfal.com/falfiles/wwwboard.message/archives/messages/333.html" TARGET=_blank>
http://fnfal.com/falfiles/wwwboard.message/archives/messages/333.html (http://fnfal.com/falfiles/wwwboard.message/archives/messages/333.html</A>)[/url]
<A HREF="http://fnfal.com/falfiles/wwwboard.message/archives/messages/2575.html" TARGET=_blank>
http://fnfal.com/falfiles/wwwboard.message/archives/messages/2575.html (http://fnfal.com/falfiles/wwwboard.message/archives/messages/2575.html</A>)[/url]
<A HREF="http://fnfal.com/falfiles/wwwboard.message/archives/messages/14559.html" TARGET=_blank>
http://fnfal.com/falfiles/wwwboard.message/archives/messages/14559.html (http://fnfal.com/falfiles/wwwboard.message/archives/messages/14559.html</A>)[/url]
<A HREF="http://fnfal.com/falfiles/wwwboard.message/archives/messages/27363.html" TARGET=_blank>
http://fnfal.com/falfiles/wwwboard.message/archives/messages/27363.html (http://fnfal.com/falfiles/wwwboard.message/archives/messages/27363.html</A>)[/url]


Bill Woodward
FALshot
Portland, OR.

[ November 20, 2001: Message edited by: FALshot ]

[ November 20, 2001: Message edited by: FALshot ]</STRONG>

Bill. Same deal with me...LONG day. :-)
For whatever reason though, the links don't work. Is it just me?

FWRA

Bullet
November 20, 2001, 23:34
Let me see.

If I call and order parts from DSA and inform them that I intend to use them in Williams receiver they want see them to me due to a potential liability?

Has DSA also tested Entreprise, Imbel, IMI, Hesse, and centry receivers for liability reasons in the same manner? If not, can I call and order parts to assemble a rifle with one of these receivers?

Bullet
November 20, 2001, 23:35
Originally posted by Bullet:
<STRONG>Let me see.

If I call and order parts from DSA and inform them that I intend to use them in Williams receiver they want sell them to me due to a potential liability?

Has DSA also tested Entreprise, Imbel, IMI, Hesse, and centry receivers for liability reasons in the same manner? If not, can I call and order parts to assemble a rifle with one of these receivers?</STRONG>

Hambone_22345
November 21, 2001, 09:30
Originally posted by Lance:
<STRONG>


Is there a correct answer to these questions that would satisfy everyone? I would think that "proper" is what it means. If DSA were to furnish an exact number to the nth precision here, I'm sure it would be just more fodder for the resident experts no matter what it was.

I'm no expert but I have observed some disagreement in this forum as to just what "proper" headspacing is. Same for the barrel timing.

I prefer to assume that since DSA is in the business of manufacturing FALs, that they know how to assemble one.

On the other hand, does anyone honestly think that if they intentionally set the headspace wrong they would hesitate to publish false numbers?

Lance</STRONG>

A VERY IMPORTANT aspect of the assembly would be the "degrees before TDC" barrel timing. Williams specifically addressed this and said that the aluminum will not "crush" like the steel and the "standard" 10:30 BTDC would over stress the receiver/barrel junction and "pre-load" the receiver too much. He recommended an 11:30 ball park for the timing. Therefore, if DSA "cranked" the barrel up to TDC from 10:30, it could have had very predictable results as the receiver was already "stressed" by the excessive amount of torque required to bring it to TDC.

Another factor is the increase in headspace due to a faulty locking shoulder and "excessive" initial headspace. The failure appears to be an explosive one as represented by the receiver in pieces, the swelled magazine, the bent cocking handle, etc. This indicates the strong possibility of an "out of battery" ignition or "excessive headspace" case failure. Therefore, the initial AND continuing headspace values throughout the testing are VERY IMPORTANT as well as the BARREL TIMING issue. JMHO

I'm sure DAN AT VOW can elaborate more when he sees your questions.

;)

Radio
November 21, 2001, 09:57
FALshot, judging from the link addresses you posted, these are some of the infamous flame wars featuring Jim Elmazi etc. (I well remember the nuking.) See if you can correct them for some of our newer members to review. Open some eyes, or at least offer additional perspective.

Just gotta love the rain. Air smells good, too.

--Radio

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

As I go backward catching up on the Files, just discovered this thread by the TROLL. Egad, Bill, at least HIS links work... check these out, fellows, nice little history lesson. Something to at least consider.

Topic: DSA VS Williams relevant links (http://www.l1a1.com/cgi-bin/forums/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=1&t=015692)

[ November 21, 2001: Message edited by: Radio ]

Dan at VOW
November 21, 2001, 11:19
Hambone, that is exactly what I was referring to when I asked how they were timed. Yes there has been disagreement as to how to properly head space on the board. The reason I asked about the FTF and FTE was also related to the headspacing. When you build one and build it tight, you will generally encounter some FTF and FTE until you 'break' the rifle in as well as get the gas adjusted.

I don't doubt DSA's ability to build a rifle, they turn out a very nice product. I haven't slammed DSA or Williams in this thread or any of the others relating to the Kaboom threads. I do have some questions about how the rifle was assembled and headspaced. These are the same questions I would ask if someone brought a rifle in to the shop with extraction problems, case seperations, bolt not closing completely or in worst case scenario, a blown out mag or blown up reciever.

I do have a horse in this race, if the light weight receivers prove to be dangerous, I lose out on some light weight charging handle sales. If they are exonerated and found to be good to go, I sell some light weight charging handles. The sales or lack there of won't make or break me. I would like to see the answers to my questions so that we can make up our minds with more of the facts on hand. Dan.

Gavin
November 21, 2001, 11:44
DSA and WAC -
I am an experimentalist, its what I do for a living (analytical chemistry, area of forensics). Whenever an experiment is performed, one must remove as many variables as possible, and also establish a firm baseline, it is also important to run enough tests that it be possible to apply statistics.
1) Variables: In the case of this test - the report that the ammunition was not uniform, or at least is unknown, increases known variables, there is also some question as to the locking shoulder bending instead of breaking. It would be nice if we could get info as to what the rds fired through this gun chrony-ed at (were they consistent... +/- 100 fps?)

2) Baseline: What do other receivers withstand? how long will a standard steel fal receiver last under these conditions? Imbel/entreprise/DSA/Hesse?

3) Stats: In order to run stats (meaningful stats) you need at least three replicates (an Al receiver will last X rds +/- ts/(n^.5)) -

now - on a personal note - no-one can expect DSA to pay for this! WAC should have run at LEAST 3 of these types of endurance tests before selling ONE receiver (IMO) - those results should be available to ANYONE who buys one of their receivers.

REgards
Gavin
Denton Research Lab
Tucson, AZ

Valknut
November 21, 2001, 11:56
here's my question, relating to the original quote -

"Some of you have called and asked us to provide barrel and headspacing services on this new Aluminum FAL type upper receiver manufactured by Williams Arms Co. ... We respectfully refused to provide you with these services. "

It sounds like the barreling and headspacing of Williams receivers by DSA was the original source of concern for liability.
So -
Who has been denied barreling/headspacing by DSA? (definite liability involved)
Who has been denied purchase of lightweight lowers, kits, barrels for installation by someone other than DSA? (no liability to DSA)

I see a lot of references to sales of parts for builds on Williams receivers. Is DSA actually denying those sales, or just the barreling/headspacing services?

Blag
November 21, 2001, 11:59
Originally posted by Gavin: ... the report that the ammunition was not uniform, or at least is unknown, .... It would be nice if we could get info as to what the rds fired through this gun chrony-ed at ...

Actually, DSA mentioned some of that in their description of the results:

"H.P. White Labs also performed pressure and velocity tests on the ammunition.* The copper unit of pressure average was 52,800.* The velocity average was 2798 (ft/s)."

Gavin
November 21, 2001, 12:14
averave means nothing. If you re-read my post
"were they consistent... +/- 100 fps?"

An average of ~2800 fps can be attained with one rd travelling at 2000 fps and one travelling at 3600 fps. I am sure white labs reported the data as a Mean +/- a standard deviation (or mean std. deviation etc etc.) This same argument applies to pressure data.
Regards
Gavin

Blag
November 21, 2001, 12:27
Originally posted by Gavin:
[QB]averave means nothing. If you re-read my post ...

You need to re-read your own post.

You wrote, "1) Variables: In the case of this test - the report that the ammunition was not uniform, or at least is unknown, ..."

When you wrote the ammunition was "unknown" it meant you were unaware of the numbers that had been provided. If that wasn't what you meant, you should have expressed yourself differently. ;) You'll see that your chrony remark was attached to a different comment, if you'll go back and take a look.

Are you really presuming a variation in the ammo velocity from 2000 fps to 3600 fps? I find that rather doubtful, frankly.

Blag
November 21, 2001, 12:31
Originally posted by Valknut: ... Who has been denied purchase of lightweight lowers, kits, barrels for installation by someone other than DSA? ... Is DSA actually denying those sales, ...

There have been some complaints on the board from people who tried to order from DSA, and told DSA they wanted aluminum lowers for use with the Williams aluminum receiver, and DSA refused to sell to them. So, yes, apparently DSA is denying those sales.

Gavin
November 21, 2001, 12:37
"You need to re-read your own post."

No I don't - they posted ammo was mixed lots...

"Are you really presuming a variation in the ammo velocity from 2000 fps to 3600 fps? I find that rather doubtful, frankly. "

Blag - as you JUST stated, what YOU DOUBT is not applicable here, and no, I "presume" nothing. I was pointing out the necessity for variation data, that was an example of how averages alone aren't meaningful. Any set of numbers can be lumped together and averaged, without a variance, we have no idea what they they mean, or whether they are relevant (are they at all comparable, lots of info is "hidden" in numbers)... its just simple stats that I use in the lab, daily.

On another note, I am, not at all accusing DSA of foul play. I am actually hoping for them to post the data, so that this study can be viewed with a level of scientific cetainty (I'd like to see all of the relevant info posted). Once that is presented; DSA is, in my mind, vindicated from all these flamers who are crying "conspiracy."
Regards
Gavin

Valknut
November 21, 2001, 12:46
Thanks Blag -
all I've read are references to references to suppositions.
Denial of sales of parts to build on a Willliams is excessive. That is too much of a stretch to include under liability - a warning would suffice.

BUFF
November 21, 2001, 12:53
Last summer, probably July, 2001, when Entreprise was advertising an aluminum upper receiver (which turned out to be the one made by Williams), I had one ordered. I planned a lightweight carbine and wanted to use DSA's aluminum lower, cocking handle, top cover and trigger guard as well as other DSA parts (handguards, p.g. and short muzzle brake). I called them to order the parts. I also asked them if they would assemble the carbine on Entreprise's aluminum receiver. They were happy to sell me the parts, but spent a fair amount of time on the phone with me warning me about their experiences attempting to bring an aluminum receiver to market. They told me they had tried, and had tested several, and none had fired many rounds before failure.

They did not try to sell me a DSA receiver, they just emphatically told me they thought an aluminum upper was unsafe. They ultimately declined to build on the aluminum upper for me. They did sell me the other parts I wanted to buy.

As the pretty much sole source of new, lightweight FAL bits other than uppers, I do believe DSA really tried to build their own aluminum upper that would meet their own standards for wear and safety. The market would be substantial. They did not make it.

I do not know how this affects their test of the Williams upper.

Sure, anyone injured by a failed Williams upper could sue the source of any component he used, but DSA's 'testing' of the Williams upper, and their subsequent warning, would very probably serve to shelter them from a financial judgement from a litigious shooter. I don't know if this entire episode is an attempt to erect such a shelter or a marketing move. Only time MAY tell.

Blag
November 21, 2001, 12:59
===Originally posted by Gavin: ... they posted ammo was mixed lots...===

Sure. Different years, so it would have to be different lots. But then, so is the ammo people buy.

===... I was pointing out the necessity for variation data, that was an example of how averages alone aren't meaningful. ...===

Ted mentioned DSA was going to send him the report, or at least had tentatively agreed to do that, so we can cross our fingers that the ammo data, when we see it, will be complete enough to show how HP White arrived at the average, and what the extremes are, etc.

DSA also sent a copy of the report to Williams, so Williams could release it too, at least if it shows anything substantially different from DSA's description of it.

Gavin
November 21, 2001, 13:14
Blag - on the lots thing... my point is, erradicate the "It was the ammo, loaded with c4, for Hamas...." bs conspiracy theorists. Controlled tests need very well defined experimental parameters, so that you cannot start incorporating variables not necessarily studied to make spurious correlations between unrelated variables (such as the social scientists do:Those who wear Birkenstocks are less likely to die from violent crime - conclusion: wear birkinstocks and you will be more safe. The ss's are notorious for such garbage).
I understand that we shoot this ammo - but thats a different point alltogether - it IS possible that whatever round blew the receiver - would have grenaded any receiver - at least thats the argument that CAN be made without it being dispelled. Its just a matter of thorough study.
Regards
Gavin

Blag
November 21, 2001, 13:42
Originally posted by Valknut: ... Denial of sales of parts to build on a Willliams is excessive. That is too much of a stretch to include under liability - a warning would suffice.

A warning would suffice if we lived in a more sensible society.

But if - God forbid - there's a blowup with serious injury, and the victim decides to sue, the lawyers will go after everybody they can get their paws on. Even after DSA has posted the warning, they'd still be included in such a suit, at first, probably, if there are DSA parts on the gun. DSA's posted warning, and their established policy, which they can easily prove, would be their hope for getting out early, with minimum legal expense, otherwise they could be in for the long haul as the bills pile up. It's only prudent to have an early exit strategy. It's a lawyers' world these days. Somebody slips and falls in the parking lot at the local discount store, and they think they've just won the lottery.

I also believe that DSA is truly concerned for people's safety, and I find remarks to the contrary to be unduly cynical, even paranoid. That too, is a sign of the times, I guess.

Knock wood that all this talk remains purely hypothetical.

av8tor
November 21, 2001, 13:47
If HP White's function as a "firearm forensic lab" is the determination of fault once a firearm fails, IMHO I believe their report will also include a detailed evaluation and determination of the root cause of said failure, which would be unbiased and based on fact.
We need the report. (the Complete report)

Av

0302
November 21, 2001, 14:15
more testing is needed by an one or more independent experts, on steel and alum receivers for comaparison, to get enough info for and informed decision, otherwise opinion and emotion will prevail and not the scientific truth about alum receiver capabilities. seems like lots of sh*t is being thrown based on fairly skimpy info.
one alum receiver test is not enough to prove either way, only raise doubt.

Valknut
November 21, 2001, 14:25
"a warning would suffice if this was a more sensible society" -
Indeed!
I was assuming that our little FAL society here WAS more sensible -
oops
my bad

:rolleyes:

Tec 9
November 21, 2001, 14:41
If you folks believe that DSA is posting these results 'for your safety' and for their own 'liability', you're fools. DSA posted these results for fear that Williams may cut into their receiver sales. DSA does go and send out ever FAL accessory to an independent testing lab.

That being said, I have no clue whether a Williams receiver is safe, and I don't trust either side telling me one way or another. I'd like facts of the testing, and even then it will be difficiult to decide.

What I will say is that there is a TREMENDOUS liability problem for Williams if they were to sell an unsafe receiver. Just the fear of that lawsuit would lead me to believe that a Williams receiver is safe when assembled appropriately (unless they're just complete morons, who hadn't even considered the implications of a wrongful death/injury lawsuit, which I don't believe). It does seem odd that Williams doesn't have receivers that have 20+k rounds run through them for testing purposes. Perhaps they do..time will tell.

take care,
Tec

Gavin
November 21, 2001, 15:17
tec - 9 - your speculation as to the true motives behind DSAs tests, and subsequent condenmation of those who may not agree with you is rather obtuse. How can you really testify to the true reason behind this test?
Are you qualitfied in the field of mind reading?
Gavin :) :) :) :p

VoceNoctum
November 21, 2001, 16:16
Originally posted by Tec 9:
<STRONG>If you folks believe that DSA is posting these results 'for your safety' and for their own 'liability', you're fools. DSA posted these results for fear that Williams may cut into their receiver sales. DSA does go and send out ever FAL accessory to an independent testing lab.
</STRONG>

See, if they'd posted this the first week after they got the report (having either not contacted William's, or only trying once) they could have timed it to a time when a lot of people were still waiting on rcvr's from the recall.

If this had come out during that time, William's would most likely have gotten a lot of cancelations.

FWRA
November 21, 2001, 16:33
Originally posted by Gavin:
<STRONG>tec - 9 - your speculation as to the true motives behind DSAs tests, and subsequent condenmation of those who may not agree with you is rather obtuse. How can you really testify to the true reason behind this test?
Are you qualitfied in the field of mind reading?
Gavin :) :) :) :p</STRONG>

A mind reader is exactly what's needed to sort through all this.

DSA tested a competitor's receiver, told us it was for our own good to know the KB results (which no one's seen any published data, just photos, which sure told a story!) and is only looking out for our interests for safety reasons? (Karnak where are you?)

I feel that the Williams receiver is a safe one when used in a consciously appplied program of oral hygene and regular professional care. (Whoops! That's an old Colgate toothpaste commercial! Sorry... :) )

I really do feel that the Combat Elite is safe with all but proof loads, and am convinced Williams proof tested it completely before ever releasing it to the public, yet we hear varying reports from both sides of just what "proof load" makes it go KB. (Karnak where are you?)

I just hope all the facts are fully disclosed in the end but we may never know them all due to "pending litigation".
Is there litigation pending? (Karnak where are you?)

So Gavin is right on....."are you a mind reader?"

That is exactly what we need!

Note:
My reference to "Karnak" was from the old Johnny Carson show where he did the mind reading thing and wore a red turbin. He was Karnak on that skit. The spelling could be flawed however ;-)

Tec 9
November 21, 2001, 17:23
Gavin, c'mon...just apply a little common sense :) DSA stands to gain hugely from Williams disappearing. DSA is in direct competition with Williams' current and future products. To say they are doing this only for the safety of the end-user (us) is pure crap. I have a problem with them trying to mask the real reason, but I don't necessarily have a problem with them posting their test. I'm not even saying that DSA isn't correct (I don't have access to all the facts, and I've never seen either receiver).

Voce, it's alot more expensive to do a recall than it is to simply cancel an order that's in production. There's shipping, human resources, co-ordination, spin control,etc involved. Purely conjecture, but if DSA wanted to really put the screws to Williams, they've timed it very well. Again, I'm not saying they're not correct, I'm just saying that it will be more damaging now than before people had received their receivers.

I'm no mind-reader. Just a guy who can sit back, absorb the facts, and see through the smoke :)

take care,
Tec :) :)

Sailor553
November 21, 2001, 17:29
Hey Dwight!

It's time to release the lightweight lower!

Follow up with the steel uppers.

Maybe a different flavor locking shoulder?

Radio
November 21, 2001, 18:10
"May a diseased yak invade your tent!"

*Sigh* Mark. We know we're getting old when we have to explain to the kids what we used to take as cultural givens. Remember the (now generation-old) joke, "Wow! You mean Paul McCartney was in a band before Wings?"

--Radio

(Wonder what ever happened to that mayonnaise jar?)

FWRA
November 21, 2001, 18:26
Originally posted by Radio:
<STRONG>"May a diseased yak invade your tent!"

*Sigh* Mark. We know we're getting old when we have to explain to the kids what we used to take as cultural givens. Remember the (now generation-old) joke, "Wow! You mean Paul McCartney was in a band before Wings?"

--Radio

(Wonder what ever happened to that mayonnaise jar?)</STRONG>

Heh, heh! When I talk about Johnny Carson to the "kids" at work, they say who?

Even worse....

When Dec. 7th rolls around, I always ask.. "What does Dec. 7th mean to you? Do you know what historic event took place on this date?" Most have no clue.

Try the same question Dec 7th on 10 people of any age. I'll bet you'll be shocked.

FWRA

VoceNoctum
November 21, 2001, 18:49
Originally posted by Tec 9:
<STRONG>Voce, it's alot more expensive to do a recall than it is to simply cancel an order that's in production. There's shipping, human resources, co-ordination, spin control,etc involved. Purely conjecture, but if DSA wanted to really put the screws to Williams, they've timed it very well. Again, I'm not saying they're not correct, I'm just saying that it will be more damaging now than before people had received their receivers.
</STRONG>

Nyah, once the reciever's are out there, you just "reorganize" as a new company and cut the old customer's loose :-p

ricochet
November 21, 2001, 21:49
Originally posted by Dirtfarmer:
<STRONG>This all seems pretty clearcut to me... and has for sometime.
It boils down to the safety margin that each manufacturer expects.
Williams claims it IS safe with normal pressure loads, .308 or 7.62NATO.

I declare that Williams is right, it being marked 7.62NATO (or 51)

BUT!!!!

-It is not that DSA is wrong!

DSAs receivers have an inherently greater safety margin than required.

But I don't get all upset by disagreement, With aluminum, you trade off some safety margin,(that YOU can make DAMN sure you don't USE!!) for light-weight.
With DSA you can revel in the fact that you can fire loads that aren't recommended to be fired in their receiver anyway., and not destroy thier receiver (Hoo-RAHH!) (-But don't do it)

Room for both.

But ..no, Aluminum is NOT as strong as steel, not in the conventional sense at least.

Goodwill,
-Dirtfarmer</STRONG>

Hello Dirtfarmer and others,
I totally agree with Dirtfarmer and could not express my words better than he. I am not condemning DSA or Williams, and I will buy more receivers in the future from someone.

A little analogy that explains my feelings. In the past, I bought 3/4 ton or one ton pickups. Now I drive a half ton. It does all I need. It will haul as much weight as I need, and is pretty efficient. I can haul decent loads with it. If I wreck it against a much larger item, I would be better off in a 1 ton, but this is not what I plan to do with it. I know it's limitations, and I wreak the benefits of a quieter, lighter, better handling vehicle, yet I sacrifice some safety.
What I am trying to say is simply, I bought what I need and must realize it's limitations. I will not proof test my William's receivers with unproven ammo by the same token.
I do appreciate DSA looking out for me JUST AS I appreciate my friends telling me why I should buy a 1 ton pickup. I bought what I wanted, and I use it. I will not try and carry 2 tons in my 1/2 ton pickup. Does this make sense, I hope so, but I am damning no one.

Lance
November 21, 2001, 22:37
Originally posted by ricochet:
<STRONG>A little analogy that explains my feelings. In the past, I bought 3/4 ton or one ton pickups. Now I drive a half ton. It does all I need. It will haul as much weight as I need, and is pretty efficient. I can haul decent loads with it. If I wreck it against a much larger item, I would be better off in a 1 ton, but this is not what I plan to do with it. I know it's limitations, and I wreak the benefits of a quieter, lighter, better handling vehicle, yet I sacrifice some safety.</STRONG>

Would you still feel that way if the 1/2 ton pickup had an aluminum frame of the same dimensions as a steel frame 1/2 ton pickup? ;)

Lance

[ November 21, 2001: Message edited by: Lance ]

FWRA
November 21, 2001, 22:40
Originally posted by Lance:
<STRONG>

Would you still feel that way if the 3/4 ton pickup had an aluminum frame of the same dimensions as a steel frame 3/4 ton pickup? ;)

Lance</STRONG>

At least the pickup has seat belts and air bags. ;)

VoceNoctum
November 21, 2001, 22:41
Originally posted by ricochet:
<STRONG>
Does this make sense, I hope so, but I am damning no one.</STRONG>

When the discussions of Kimber's and their MIM parts come up, that's what I say. it may not be as strong as X, but is it strong enough for the job?

As long as you're apprised that the reciever is not as strong as steel, that's fine IMO.

Like the S&W revolvers (Scandium for instance) that say "no bullets under 120 grains"

Nik
November 21, 2001, 22:46
It will be interesting to see whether a lawsuit will break out between Williams and DSA. If I were Williams and was confident that DSA fixed the test I would certainly sue. If Williams does not sue, then maybe DSA's test results are valid. Its easy to shoot your mouth off on the net and claim one thing or another but its another thing to do so in court, under oath and subject to cross-examination.

What bothers me the most is the fact that over the past 50+ years no-one has come out with an aluminum receiver. What does Williams know that FN, Enterprise, DSA and everyone else does not. Furthermore, what are Mr. Williams' qualifications with regards to producing receivers. While Mr. Gouger is an experienced and well thought of gunsmith, is he an engineer? Is Mr. Williams? Was an engineer involved in the design and/or manufacture of the Williams receiver? Was the Williams receiver tested by a bon fide testing lab? Making a nice scope mount is one thing. Making a receiver that has to withstand extreme pressures is something else.

ricochet
November 21, 2001, 23:17
Originally posted by Lance:
<STRONG>


Would you still feel that way if the 1/2 ton pickup had an aluminum frame of the same dimensions as a steel frame 1/2 ton pickup? ;)


Lance


[ November 21, 2001: Message edited by: Lance ]</STRONG>

If I were so inclined. I fly in jet aircraft with the inferior metals I believe you refer to. I hold my face (which is as valuable as your face) against my rifles, but will not proof test a particular run of ammo in my aluminum receivered rifles. I do have steel, as when I tested loads of .357 ammo, I used a S&W model 28 for tests. I will use my Entreprize, DSA, or maybe IMBEL receivers for the unknown. I believe the Japanese maybe would use your analogy aluminum frame, yet I would rather die than sit in a Japanese vehicle.
So, I do not believe your point carries water. I do believe metalurgey improves in modern times. I belive that I have pistols using polymers or alloys that years ago I questioned. I will continue using my Williams receivers using the ammo it was designed for. And, maybe one day I will buy an American vehicle with more aluminum in it. Till then I will buy half tons when half tons are needed.

VoceNoctum
November 21, 2001, 23:38
Originally posted by Nik:
<STRONG>It will be interesting to see whether a lawsuit will break out between Williams and DSA. If I were Williams and was confident that DSA fixed the test I would certainly sue. If Williams does not sue, then maybe DSA's test results are valid. Its easy to shoot your mouth off on the net and claim one thing or another but its another thing to do so in court, under oath and subject to cross-examination.
</STRONG>

I think DSA has covered their ass long before releasing info on a public forum. But, has William's accusation of DSA building an intentional Kaboom to disparage them become slander/ libel?

Lance
November 21, 2001, 23:51
Originally posted by ricochet:
<STRONG>If I were so inclined. I fly in jet aircraft with the inferior metals I believe you refer to. I hold my face (which is as valuable as your face) against my rifles, but will not proof test a particular run of ammo in my aluminum receivered rifles. I do have steel, as when I tested loads of .357 ammo, I used a S&W model 28 for tests. I will use my Entreprize, DSA, or maybe IMBEL receivers for the unknown. I believe the Japanese maybe would use your analogy aluminum frame, yet I would rather die than sit in a Japanese vehicle.
So, I do not believe your point carries water. I do believe metalurgey improves in modern times. I belive that I have pistols using polymers or alloys that years ago I questioned. I will continue using my Williams receivers using the ammo it was designed for. And, maybe one day I will buy an American vehicle with more aluminum in it. Till then I will buy half tons when half tons are needed.</STRONG>

I think you missed the point entirely... An airframe is designed with an aluminum structure in mind. Your 1/2 ton truck frame was designed with steel in mind. In fact I believe any auto manufacturer could design and implement an equally strong aluminum frame. What would never happen is for an auto manufacturer to simply make an aluminum frame from the specifications of a steel frame and replace it. Can you imagine the liability?

I don't think aluminum is an inferior metal in an aircraft but I do believe it to be inferior in this application where a steel FAL receiver is essentially copied and remade in aluminum. Inferior is a relative term.

The same applies to modern firearms made from light weight materials. They are designed with those materials in mind.

That was the point.

Anyway, I'm glad to see that you will make the appropriate safety considerations when using your aluminum receiver. I hate to hear of anyone getting hurt in this hobby.

Slainte Mhath,

Lance

ricochet
November 22, 2001, 00:13
Hey guys,
This maybe has no merit, but do any of you 'not so young' folks remember seeing plastic used in automobiles? I remember seeing parts of the dash, then a DAMN ashtray made of plastic. And we all knew plastic would not hold up. And then there was that wheel bearing nut on a volkswagon that turned THE WRONG WAY. I have learned and I have (and probably will) make mistakes. I would have never believed man would walk on the moon. Technology has advanced faster than I have, and I sometimes get ahead of proof. I will wait and see on this, but will not damn either company nor their attitudes.
Till then, I will try to use what common sense I have left. I believe we have room for lightweight metals, and I believe I will hedge my bets. I have no intentions of testing these new products with the pressures that are outside of their designs (as in unknown ammo). Until more proof is in, I must err toward safety, as I did with plastic ashtrays (I pictured cars going up in smoke), plastic ain't safe- it's plastic. Then we realize that alloys and mixes improve the basic materials. DSA nor Williams have intent to injure us, they are just fighting for market (ie,money) and we are their paychecks.