Is this DSA's way of competing with PTR? They claim that

>>31641702
I think the receivers are cast.

>>31641707
Voyagers are cast, I handled one right before buying my forged one, it's so much lighter but I don't trust cast parts

>>31641702
Castle receivers. They're fine.

>>31641707

Educate someone who knows nothing about metallurgy plz

>>31641727
Cast. How the fuck does autocorrect not recognize that word?

>>31641736
It likes to think you are always using longer words so tries to fill them in for you.

>>31641729
Casting is when you pour metal into a mould.
Forging is when you take a piece of metal and shape it.
Casting runs the risk of air bubbles and other deformities, but any competent manufacturer can prevent them. DSA is a competent manufacturer.

>>31641729
In simple terms they fill a mold with liquid metals as opposed to machining from billet or forging. At some level these are weaker, but in practice you will never reach the point where that will matter.

>>31641729
Milled>stamped>cast
Milled is obviously removing metal from a single block of steel to get the desired shape. Stamped is "stamping" sheet metal into a particular form. Casting is where the liquid metal is poured into a mold.

>>31641752

Wouldn't an NDT inspector be able to detect air bubbles assuming DSA has one?

>>31641723

Why not, are failures known to happen with cast parts?

>>31641897
From a purely cost standpoint, cast receivers will never be as strong as forged receivers and will break before forged receivers.

Throwing enough money at a cast set up will net you a receiver as strong as a forged one, but by that point it is a lot cheaper and quicker to buy a few 5 axis CNC machines.

Basically with cast receivers, short of having an extremely expensive temperature controlled environment to ensure the part cools entirely uniformly, the part will always be off measure, with parts of the receiver cooling faster or slower than others - which weakens the metal, then you have impurities formed in the casting, which will happen of you're using anything other than a tungsten cast in a vacuum chamber.

With a forged receiver you're starting with a block of metal that is already normalised, has to standard chemistry (no impurities making the metal weak/brittle) and it's basically ready to be hardened and tempered.

Try casting a basic part and then hardening and quenching it, a lot of the time it will just shatter.

>>31641897
i suspect you have no idea what you are talking about.

>>31641773
NDT here

We can, along with hairline cracks when mag partical testing.

Air bubbles are usually found with UT (ultra thickness) meters or just upright x-ray

>>31643478
Auto correct a nigger.


ultra sonic thickness

Think of it as the tool doctors use to look at prego women or internal bleeding.

Same concept

>>31641702
>>31641707
I have a voyager that I have fired around 3000 rounds out of without issue.

Almost entirely magdumps

>>31643312
>asking a question
>i suspect you have no idea what you are talking about
Gee I wonder what made you come to that conclusion?

>>31643312

I really don't

Other than some garbage tier company like IO or Century I have never heard of any real issues

>>31643478
>>31643508

I know companies that make weapon for the military have inspectors but I am curious if DSA would have one or would it be cheaper for them just to cover any potential issues with a warranty

>>31643687
Me thinks they would have at least a team of guys on hand who do all of thier DT and NDT work for what you mentioned.

Even its on a test one gun out of a batch basis.

Cause that that would suck balls both time/material wise amd possiable lawsuit to send out a batch or two with sub par metal or for them to have voids in the gun that could make it fail.

>>31641702
Can anyone who has one of these carbine-length FAL's tell me how well they shoot?

I always hear DSA's voyager line is cast reciever and their SA58 line is forged reciever, which explained the big price difference.
But then I read some on falfiles saying how ALL of DSA line of the fal is cast once they sell out of forged.
If that is true, then what exactly is the $700-800 difference between the Voyager line and their regular SA58

>>31645397

That would make sense from a business standpoint. Right not ptr is blowing them out the water in sales

>>31641702
investment cast receivers, no extra machining done, cheaper polymer furniture, new production button cut barrels without chrome lining (made by Badger/Wilson).

1. investment cast receivers in a FAL are lighter but still pretty good - they aren't under anywhere near the stress a G3 receiver would be since nothing locks directly into it.

2. reduced machining and materials costs add up

3. the barrels are very inexpensive because the blanks are shared with AR-10 barrels. they are profiled and reamed differently, but they are batch made on the same tools. hence cheaper.

>>31645397
SA58's are all forged, and the Voyagers are investment cast. as a price reduction, DSA will offer nicer SA58's with the same forged receivers, and move less expensive SA58's with investment cast ones with better machining and quality tests. failed quality might make an SA58 cast receiver into a Voyager receiver.

it's business strategy and it's a good one.

>>31642025
forged receivers also gain strength through density rather than through hardness. The block of metal is compressed using a forging machine. This allows the metal to be strong but not brittle. The only way to add strength to cast parts is through heat treatment, but you can only get so hard before the metal starts to become brittle and is then prone to shattering.

Forged is a million times better than cast purely due to this fact.

For those who don't know when FN went to the Type 3 receiver they were cast and not forged. There are a lot of FALs out there with cast receivers that work just fine. Also by the time you spend enough money on .308 to wear out a cast FAL you'll have spent many times the cost of a new rifle or replacement parts for the existing rfile.

I bought an SA58 Congo 18" with forged receiver back before they ever did the cast guns, and while I like it, having examined the cast guns from DSA they seem like they will serve any civilian purpose just fine.

>>31641897
>Why not, are failures known to happen with cast parts?

>>31643312
>>>31641897
>i suspect you have no idea what you are talking about.

What the fuck is wrong with people on this board? Are you really so insecure that you'll take every opportunity to try to put other people down, even when they are engaging in an act of humility like asking a question?

Stay classy, /k/.

>>31643687
They do. At one time I applied to work there, but they didn't want to pay what I wanted.

>>31647709

But from a shooters standpoint will it matter?How many rounds would a rifle have to theoretically go through before the receiver cracks?

>>31649484
more rounds than you'll ever shoot

that guy is really exaggerating the strength differences
some parts can be cast, others require different methods
forging isn't "better" than casting
it's different and has its own advantages and disadvantages, one of the advantages being lower cost

Ruger makes the toughest revolvers out there and uses extensive casting in making them

>>31650453
sorry if this is unclear
forging and casting are different
casting has one advantage of lower cost

>>31649484
If it's a good cast, probably 40k.
If it's a bad cast it can go on the first shot.

>>31650903

I'm starting to feel as if the chances of a bad cast are extremely low I assume

>>31651529
Extremely low. So low as to be unworthy of notice.

>>31651529
It is, but it's a possibility.

The chance of a Hyundai detonating on you the first time you turn the key is incalculably low, but it's not going to be as reliable or last as long as a BMW.

It's not a bad gun, by any means, but if you want that extra but if strength and rigidity, you may deem the extra cost worthwhile.

>>31650453
>Ruger makes the toughest revolvers out there and uses extensive casting in making them
>acthually
They make damn strong revolvers but strongest is pretty close to fuddlore at this point. However it does go to show that cast can be very strong

File: 1444951750299.jpg (25KB, 400x386px) Image search: [Google]

25KB, 400x386px

>>31651815

>BMW
>lasting long

>>31651815
>BMW
>reliable

>>31651815
Bad analogy is bad.

>>31650903
What if it's a good forged? Will it ever break?

>>31654222
Yes, but it will have a lifespan easily double or triple that of a cast reciever.

In reality, most shooters will never wear out their receiver, cast or forged, but it's up to you.

>>31653449
>>31653580
>>31654142
>Koreaboos honestly defend Hyundai.
Maybe the Czech made ones, but honestly guys, I've owned a new Hyundai and a new BMW - the BMW went probably 70k further than the Hyundai before having a major issue.

>>31641702
>All parts American made.
>Not cutting corners.
Pick one.

>>31651815
KEK

Hyundai's already do outlast BMW's