Did I fuck up buying a DSA FAL? It should be at my FFL wednesday

I wouldn't think too much about it...

>>34780129
I get the impression it's pretty hard to fuck up a FAL.

>>34780129
Nigger why after you asking us after you bought it?

>>34780129
Rifle is fine

>>34780129
I just read on forums about how they're not what they use to be...

>>34780129
DSA FALs are probably the best quality you can get, bar buying an actual FN manufactured one.

Be forwarned tho, pic related u bought is the Voyager. It has proprietary parts.

>>34780129

You did good. The Voyager is a bit iffy but for the most part fine.

>>34780129
Nope I'm jelly, enjoy OP

>>34780142
Well i thought it was generally considered good until i started looking everywhere buy /k/. Seems like QC as went down after their new old stock ran out and they're using all USA made parts now....

>>34780129
Don't use steel cased ammo. You'll love it. Unless you think it'll be a sniper/DMR cause it won't. I had an 18" paratrooper, shit was cash. Shouldn't have sold it

>>34780163
The version I bought was $1500. I think the voyagers were running $1000? Mine is a 21 inch version

File: 14914402325871428454600.jpg (3MB, 4032x3024px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 4032x3024px

>>34780129
I like mine

>>34780163
except all receivers are now cast, even the non voyager line, combine that with commercial spec mimshit parts and out of spec magwwells and you got yourself a nice DSAinc fuckup.

>>34780197
To Rhodesia Paint Job or Not....thats the question

>>34780174
>>34780188
Depends, if yours has a forged receiver you did good. If the receiver is cast you bought a shit gun

>>34780219
Anyone other US companies make FALs?

>>34780229
Fuck.......

>>34780227
>rhodesia paint with those rails
>and that grip
uhhh, no, peg
toilet_flushing.wav

>>34780261
I bought the classic 21 inch version, not whats listed

>>34780239
Mostly just companies that made receivers of various quality and built them with foreign parts kits.

There are thousands of factory built and pre assault weapons import ban Steyr and Imbel factory built FALs on the secondary market though.

>>34780283
I'd rather look for a fal built on an Imbel receiver, or buy an imbel receiver and pay for gun plumber to do the parts kit than to buy a DSA FAL made today.


For DSA FALs it goes
>1.forged receiver built on stg58 parts kit
>2. Forged receiver built on DSA Parts kit
>why even bother. cast receiver built on DSA parts kt
> glorified range toy. Voyager model


It is like how there is no reason to buy a new Remington or Marlin over a used pre cerberus one

>>34780319
remember that you will probably be nearly 1500 dollars in the hole having gunplumber build and use one of his imbel kits after buying the receiver. Even then you get a pretty well used non parts matching kitbuild

>>34780422
So it is like $500 more than buying DSA for a gun that is guaranteed to run

>>34780479
Not really advocating for DSA here but pre import ban parts matching FALs are also in that exact price range

Does it even fucking matter if its cast or forged? Anyone tested this? I doubt it.

>>34780508
Those tend to run closer to $4,000 from what I have seen

File: 1499569378514.png (331KB, 470x470px) Image search: [Google]

331KB, 470x470px

>Atlantic has Voyagers for 899
>Might get it for cheaper cus friend with LGS owner
>Hear iffy things about them
>Some come with dust cut Carriers some dont
Should I get one? Do they run will with Tula/Wolf?

>>34780422
gunplummer is an ass. big reason he got b& from FAL files.

>>34780622
Voyagers have cast receivers and cast mim commercial spec parts.

>>34780622
DSA says steel case voids your warrente

>>34780638
Yeah but is their casting shitty or is it the same reason people dont like Springfield M14s cus their cast

>>34780645
What they dont know wont hurt them

>>34780598
Pacific Armament Corp imbels run about 1000-1500 on GB

>>34780659
Personally, I don't fall for the 'cast receivers are shit meme' cause cast is just fine. It's the mim shit non milspec stuff that's the issue.

>>34780129
only if you bought a voyager

>>34780661
Whole rifles or receivers?

>>34780727
whole factory built imported rifles.

>>34780740
Are they made in the factories that make the actual rifles for the hue hue army? And do they have the letters F, A, and L next to each other on any part of the rifle? Asking for a friend

>>34780672
What makes the Mim made stuff so shit and whats out of spec?

>>34780219
Ignoring that from some time in the seventies FN themselves started using cast receivers.

File: images.jpg (3KB, 88x100px) Image search: [Google]

3KB, 88x100px

>>34780796
Nothing, hating on MIM is a played out meme.

File: saisar48matchu515.jpg (70KB, 1000x752px) Image search: [Google]

70KB, 1000x752px

>>34780751
yes they are built by Imbel in Itajuba.

No to the second question

They were also imported by springfield armopry as the SAR 48

Lurking because I need to know. I'm looking at buying a 7.62 Real FN NATO Rifle that won't anger tha brass jew like a PTR will. Are current DSA rifles that bad? How much worse are the Voyager series than their rdgular line?

>>34780830
Not for the lack of trying. Type 3 Belgian FN/FAL receivers were only cast because their tooling was old and most of it was sold off to imbel for their production lines.

It was simply cheaper just to cast them and FN even admitted the cast receivers were not as strong as even the forged type 1's.

>>34780830
>>34780903
In the June 1983 copy of Soldier of Fortune, page 52, in the article "FAL: Rise and fall of a Misguided Classic", it is reported that forged FN FALs could be expected to last 80,000 rounds (military use, including full auto fire), but Blake Stevens reported seeing one cracked at 60,000 rounds. Cast FN Type III receivers were expected to last 40,000 rounds based on testing by H.P.White labs

>>34780140
>hold my beer
>T.CAI

>>34780219
>commercial spec mimshit parts
list some, what have been your personal issues?
>implying you have had any

>out of spec magwwells
so a few receivers have QA problems and now everything DSA makes is garbage, do you shitpost on FALfiles too?

about the only thing DSA consistently fucks up is magazines

If a four foot long, 3 MOA rifle is fine for you, then have fun

>>34780960
Cast is always going to be weaker than forged. The processes by which those two methods are made dictate it.

What blows me away is that there's a worrisome trend where milled billet parts are milled from cast billet instead of forged billet (yeah, you heard me right). It's becoming more common in the automotive parts world and I can only assume in the firearm world too.

>>34781342
I think it is because of our weakening domestic industry and cost of keeping giant forges around capable of pumping out huge chunks of billet. Instead it is ordered to spec (4140 who gives a shit about the process)

Thankfully it takes a long time for the gun industry to move on with the rest of manufacturing technology, there are still some designs being produced the old school tool and die way instead of chucking a part into a CNC machine and pressing go.

File: sweat.jpg (37KB, 600x600px) Image search: [Google]

37KB, 600x600px

>tfw want a FAL but also a poorfag
Shit /k/ do i buy it or not?

File: blank2.jpg (166KB, 602x864px) Image search: [Google]

166KB, 602x864px

>>34780140
>*Cough, *Cough, *Cough
>Eyes glance over to Hesse

>>34780479
The DSA guns are guaranteed to run they are all warrantied

>>34781342
that's wrong.

modern casting with modern alloys are better than forged. So long as you properly heat treat the casted part.

>>34781534
Nope. Sorry. Material science major here.

Forging is working the allotrope(s), crystalline structure, into the direction of the finished part. Casting doesn't do that on its own even with heat treat. Forging is cast plus heat treat, plus working the material.

The bro science here is palpable.


Here's a good explanation http://www.motoiq.com/MagazineArticles/ID/1608/PageID/2135/Industry-Insider-A-Look-at-the-Technology-Behind-RAYS-Wheels.aspx

If you're talking about growing the allotrope, that's different.

https://www.theengineer.co.uk/issues/june-2015-online/jewel-in-the-crown-rolls-royces-single-crystal-turbine-blade-casting-foundry/

Casting, even with heat treat is garbage. You nary see it in any parts that experience high wear or deflection forces... ever.

>>34781342
>there's a worrisome trend where milled billet parts are milled from cast billet instead of forged billet

that's what they always do bro, that's what cast parts are

they don't cast the entire thing in a finished mold

>>34781636
They'll cast from a rough shape. And then do finishing machining. I'm taking about a billet (like a brick) that is milled to a much smaller final part. Billets being cast rather than hammer forged are becoming more common and it's leading to shitty part life.

>>34781615
Just a btw, even though they call it casting in the Rolls Royce turbine article, the process is more akin to guiding the growth of a crystal, like quartz, but instead it's a nickel alloy like incomes or something and using heat and pressure to guide the growth. It's not really casting. This technology is very trade secret stuff and the details are closely guarded. It's one of the things keeping the west ahead of china and Russia. Here, specifically in jet engine technology. Material science baby.

>>34781780
Inconel*

File: ALL3.jpg (63KB, 900x404px) Image search: [Google]

63KB, 900x404px

>>34780558
Yes. Forged parts are stronger than cast parts and have higher fatigue strength. It is important that parts that endure stresses are not cast, and it is especially important to ensure that if they are cast, that they do not have air pockets

>>34781615
Mk3 High Powers and all later high powers made by FN are cast frames instead of forged.

>>34781876
That's fine, frames don't experience high stress. Casting is cheaper.

You won't see cast barrels. Even button cut rifling is done with forged bar stock. Cold hammer forging is the current blue chip gold standard for barrels because the barrel gets forged into its final shape, rifling and all.

>>34781875
no components of a FAL will be forged like that, except maybe the springs

>>34781994
Why not? Ar15 receivers are often forged like that with minor finishing machining. Billet ar receivers are only merely milled from forged billet because it would be stupid expensive to tool up to make forges that crank out receivers in the crazy different "styles" and shapes that ar15s come in anymore. They'd be stronger than milled though if they did.

Forged into final shape > milled from forged billet > cast

>>34781660
>I'm taking about a billet (like a brick) that is milled to a much smaller final part.

i don't think the result is always much smaller

the way it was explained to me, this is how they always do cast parts, so how could that be any different structurally than casting a rough shape and machining afterward?

File: 1467089243456.png (362KB, 700x700px) Image search: [Google]

362KB, 700x700px

>>34782022
>Forged into final shape

who builds rifle parts that are hammer forged directly into their final shape?

>>34782022
the parts under constant sheer stress will be the machined parts like the pin holes and the threads
actually, i'm guessing for this. i haven't seen any videos/pictures on professional construction of AR15 lowers/uppers and the like.
i think it's more reasonable to assume the level of tolerance acceptable for those parts requires machining

parts like the mag well and the shape of the upper may be forged, but i dont' think so

>>34782025
We're talking past each other I think. What I'm saying is that usually when you see the term "milled from billet" in the description, usually, and historically, a billet is a forged brick or bar or "billet" or "tranche" of material. I was complaining that it is becoming common for billets to be cast anymore instead of forged. Meaning the crystalline structure isn't properly worked into the proper axis and the boundary layers between the allotrope structures is severe compared to forged.

You're right. There is little difference between a cast part that is cast into its final shape and a cast part that is milled from cast billet. The cast billet will probably have less air pockets however.

File: IMG_0869.jpg (34KB, 448x245px) Image search: [Google]

34KB, 448x245px

>>34782042
Pic related is the end result of forging. It only needs final machining to cut holes, cut threads, and make room for internal parts.

Cold hammer forged barrels are also more or less in their final shape and only need threading and chambering.

>>34782069
>Meaning the crystalline structure isn't properly worked into the proper axis and the boundary layers between the allotrope structures is severe compared to forged.

and if the billet is forged then milled how can you be sure the "grain" of the steel is aligned in such a way that it's a structural benefit?

i've heard several arguments for why heat treating matters more than the rough shaping processes of cast vs. forged

heat treating is supposed to reset the structure of the molecules

>>34782113
But it doesn't work the material. That's partly why cold hammer forging is so effective.

The blanks are already forged and heat treated. They are then worked (physically moved) and work hardened into its final shape.

>>34782113
as long as it's aligned, it's better for structure than if it's unaligned
it removes a plane of along which fractures can form (easily)

>>34782146

yeah but nobody does that with anything but barrels, you can't cold forge a complex part like a rifle receiver

if you wanna argue cold forging can make a part stronger that's fine, but find me one manufacturer that cold forges a finished rifle receiver

>>34782113
Also, cast swords, even if heat treated, won't compare to swords that have been hammered and heat treated ( the combination is called forging).

It's not that the heat treat resets the structure as more relaxes it, relieving tension. The crystalline structure doesn't just magically flow into the shape of the part during heat treat. It has to be worked into that shape.

>>34782163
I won't because they don't. I'm saying forging is superior to casting. Forged receivers > milled from forged billet > milled from cast billet > cast

>>34782042
https://youtu.be/NF-Gp7-zCgY

Here. The hammer is literally in the shape of the final part. They do this with ar15 uppers and lowers too.

For guns like the scar upper, they use extrusion which is an excellent way to make a tube, albeit a square one, with forged strength. You're pressing the metal into its shape.

>>34782298

i know how it's done, those parts still get machined and heat treated

i was going to point out that this
>It's not that the heat treat resets the structure as more relaxes it, relieving tension. The crystalline structure doesn't just magically flow into the shape of the part during heat treat. It has to be worked into that shape.

felt like a contradiction, because the heat treatment would in theory relieve any of the "work" put onto that part, and if it's done before milling, that will still leave the "grain" structure altered

i really think there is very little difference in general strength between a cast and forged part, and a lot of complaints come from rare and unusual failures or generally shit materials used (like cheap car parts with questionable metal sourcing)

>>34782336
I don't mean to sound coarse but it doesn't matter what you think. Cast parts are always weaker than forged parts. The heat treat is no contrafdiction. Relieving the stress does not mean undoing or resetting the crystalline structure.

http://sys.4chan.org/derefer?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.motoiq.com%2FMagazineArticles%2FID%2F1608%2FPageID%2F2135%2FIndustry-Insider-A-Look-at-the-Technology-Behind-RAYS-Wheels.aspx

Read that please.

https://www.forging.org/how-forgings-compare

And that.

Any mat-sci guy worth their salt knows this stuff.

>>34782362
>Relieving the stress does not mean undoing or resetting the crystalline structure.

then what is it doing

are you a mat-sci guy?

just for shits can you comment on how any of this would be different between steel and aluminum receivers?

you're just linking me to what is just a long-winded advertisement for aluminum rims and in the 2nd link the very first thing it says is different from what we're discussing
>Casting cannot obtain the strengthening effects of hot and cold working.

no receiver is cold-worked and the rest of the points aren't applicable

trust me i want to believe forging is "better" in some way but i really doubt it's as much of a difference as you seem to think, and in any case i can carry on doing more of my own research but feel free to put up some more points if you want

>>34782418
Yes I am.

Linked an article the describes the process for the layman. The topic of wheels is coincidental. linked a trade association website that's legitimate. Their shit about costs is bogus, it takes very large production runs of a part to make it cheaper than casting, but about strength is right on point.


Look if you don't want to read It and learn that's fine.

Hot and cold working.. only replies to cold.

I see. Look. I've pointed you in the right direction.

For most metals, since they form a grain structure, forging is superior.

Plutonium being a notable and exceptionally rare exception. It has something like 32 different allotropes and they can all exist within the grain structure of a sample at the same time making machining difficult and potential galling due to using the wrong bit a tedious process. That and it releases helium nuclei meaning that a sample can burst because of the build up of helium gas within the grain structure of the sample. Yeah plutonium is gnarly stuff.

File: fulton armory cast vs forged.png (122KB, 988x1106px) Image search: [Google]

122KB, 988x1106px

here's what Fulton Armory says about receivers (they build those expensive as fuck M14s, not FALs)

>>34780129
Theyre good. Dont worry

>>34780622
Yes, just crank the gas up.

penis!

>>34780884
Hate to be that asshole, but just build an AR-10 if you're worried about the jews.

A lot of this debate only seems to start to matter at a really high round count, is that correct?

>>34783494
40k

Most FALs in existence today likely won't see 1k

>>34783559
Ok, that's acceptable honestly. I'd much rather have a more durable rifle of course, but the price is stretching it already for a poorfag like me.

>>34780229
There's no way to tell though, from what I've read it's basically luck of the draw if you get a forged or not.

>>34783494
There's a post on FAL files about it, like someone else said, it's about 40k rounds on full auto for cast parts.

>>34782687
Lol. Their justification for using cast parts is hilarious. Nobody in heavy industry would take a cast part over a forged part for structural reasons.

I swear to god almighty that the firearms industry is full of snake oil garbage pseudo science and justifications. Look at fireclean.

Whelp, not buying from Fulton armory.

You'll be fine, OP.
Enjoy your rifle, shoot the hell out of it.
People see shit on the internet and feel the need to be contrarian anywhere they can with their newly found "knowledge".

I work at a range where we converted a voyager to full retard and it's ran fine for the past 2.5 years. The only issues we've had were fucking idiots touching the gas block and changing the gas setting.

>>34780129
>he fell for the REAL FUCKIN' NATO meme

File: casting_wax-barrels.jpg (351KB, 1224x1632px) Image search: [Google]

351KB, 1224x1632px

>>34781971
But you do see cast barrels. Ruger has been casting barrels for semi auto pistols since the p series. Pic is sr barrels.

>>34783996

Casting is sufficient for a lot of purposes, I think people are arguing, and correctly I might add, that apples to apples, a forged part is superior to an identical cast part in most respects.

Yeah there are a ton of cast parts out there that fit the bill.

>>34780197
stop anon i can only get so erect

>>34780632
Yea, I'd rather pay $5000 for a pre ban imported FAL than deal with that insufferable cunt

File: 1458488520785.jpg (1MB, 2060x1236px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 2060x1236px

>>34780129
Yeah, you fucked up.

http://www.falfiles.com/forums/showthread.php?t=417510

>>34780188
>$1500
Good lord you got buttfucked

>>34783681
i guess it's a good thing m14 receivers don't carry structural load then, just a couple pounds

>>34783681
I think I'll take the gunsmiths at Fulton's expertise over yours.

File: witcher battle raifus.jpg (2MB, 1681x2988px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 1681x2988px

>>34781487
Build one. That's what I did.

>>34781487
no. you won't be able to afford to shoot it

>>34783709
Mmmm, gonna call bullshit on this
Who cut the receiver?

>>34784846
How much harder are they to "build" than ARs?

File: witcher parts.jpg (824KB, 2560x1440px) Image search: [Google]

824KB, 2560x1440px

>>34784926
Harder but really not much. The real bitch of it is screwing in the barrel/having the barrel and receiver clamp and having all the pin gauges to headspace it. I actually still need to get the locking shoulder for mine. I know the size, just need to order it.

>>34782687
makes sense really. the weakest link breaks the chain, therefore, if your cast receiver is the strongest part relative to all the others, it'll be the last to break, regardless of it being cast or forged. Forged would still be stronger on an absolute scale though.

>>34783681
>Nobody in heavy industry would take a cast part over a forged part for structural reasons.

They're not saying cast is better. They're saying cast is good enough, which it certainly can be, and cheaper.

>>34780129
The only regret I have with mine is that I paid about as much as I did for my Daniel Defense. Is it a good rifle? Fuck yeah. But is it THAT good? Eh...

>>34784379
I dont disagree with any of that. I guess my point is the differences between forging and casting can become insignifacant when taken into account in design. Problems happen when dimensions are replicated with a casting without taking material diffences into account. For example smith vs ruger revolver frames both seem to be strong enough for their purpose but the ruger uses a thicker top strap to acheive the same result with a casting, if they would have copied the smith design with a casting they would probably fail within a few thousand rounds. Especially since thiers a major difference in tensile stregnth (pulling/bending) were as compression strength and surface hardness can be similar. I guess with fals it really matters if the casting follows the original design of the receivers or the type 3 fn receiver design which was slightly modified to be produced with a casting process.