New DSA Stg 58 production quality vs. new S.A. M1A

[Ignition Override]

I started two separate topics on another gun website.

Without a doubt, the S.A. M1A is an extremely popular rifle and known to be very reliable.
I'm confident that they have very consistent production quality (and I love the looks with walnut). This gun might be more reliable than most modern semi-auto civilian centerfire rifles. Many of you might be biased towards the M1A, because if its military heritage. Quite understandable.

-----Please note: Let's be very clear: I'm Not interested in the higher accuracy, or tighter groups in my rifles. Most of my targets are paper at Only 50 yards, finishing with clay pigeons on the berm for real fun.

If a gun's sights can be adequately adjusted, aren't too 'canted' for the sight's knobs to compensate, like many AKM sights, then a DSA's sights would work for me.

-----The priority, to re-iterate: My only interest is finding out whether the Current DSA "FALs" are considered to have very good quality control in all of their models (no company is perfect), and that there are Very Limited cases of guns being Shipped back to the factory.

Again, I have plenty of confidence in the new S.A. M1A's reliability.

I'll probably order a DSA later today, or whenever I might determine whether the 'vast majority' of recent purchasers (of nib rifles) have been satisfied with their function.

 

[AlexanderA]

I have a DSA FAL and the quality is excellent. The only thing I would say is to avoid the DSA mags. They're almost as bad as the Korean mags. Get Belgian or Austrian surplus mags instead.

 

[FL-NC]

Used both, and used the M14 overseas. I would pick the FAL every day.

 

[Chuck R.]

No help with the more recent manufactured guns. At one time I had a standard SA M1A and a DSA SA58 Para.

My DSA was an older version from about 2000 with a Type II receiver that I ordered from them directly (back when they did that sort of thing). Accuracy was just about a wash with standard surplus ammo. Both were reliable, but the FAL ergonomics to me are superior, as is the over all design for a battle rifle. I still have the FAL, but the M1A moved on some time ago.

The pic is when I was plinking with it at a little over 400yds on a steel plate. So with the optic it's at least "minute of man" at that distance.

 

[AlexanderA]

One thing that I might mention is that DSA uses a domestically-produced pistol grip, as part of their compliance with §922(r). This pistol grip lacks the provision for the cleaning kit that's normally contained within the pistol grips of FAL's. I found that you can cut a small groove on the inside of the grip with a cutoff wheel on a Dremel tool (be careful about going too deep!), and the cleaning kit will clip right in. (That's a classic feature that is good to have.)

ETA: Here is a picture of the cleaning kit (really, oiler) that fits into the grip. A wire clip at the base of the kit goes into a groove inside the grip.

 

[Chuck R.]

One thing that I might mention is that DSA uses a domestically-produced pistol grip, as part of their compliance with §922(r). This pistol grip lacks the provision for the cleaning kit that's normally contained within the pistol grips of FAL's. I found that you can cut a small groove on the inside of the grip with a cutoff wheel on a Dremel tool (be careful about going too deep!), and the cleaning kit will clip right in. (That's a classic feature that is good to have.)

Another option, if you're not hung up on being authentic, is to just get a SAW grip. IMHO a better angle and it has the storage compartment.

 

[MachIVshooter]

I like both, but ergonomically and functionally prefer the FAL

One thing that I might mention is that DSA uses a domestically-produced pistol grip, as part of their compliance with §922(r).

DS Arms FAL receivers are are US made. 922(r) only applies to imported non-sporting rifles & shotguns

 

[Ignition Override]

The only entities which consistently try to worry gun owners about 922r are the businesses selling spare part$...Fear sells quite well.

Even importer-builders are only fined, if even that. No builder or private owners have been taken to court over 922r- unless already charged with an Actual Felony (trafficking, narcotics etc). Nothing has been documented, or would be all over the webz.

 

[czhen]

Skinny rifles, reliable, easy clean and good ergo. FAL fan writing.

 

[Robert]

No help with the more recent manufactured guns. At one time I had a standard SA M1A and a DSA SA58 Para.

My DSA was an older version from about 2000 with a Type II receiver that I ordered from them directly (back when they did that sort of thing). Accuracy was just about a wash with standard surplus ammo. Both were reliable, but the FAL ergonomics to me are superior, as is the over all design for a battle rifle. I still have the FAL, but the M1A moved on some time ago.

The pic is when I was plinking with it at a little over 400yds on a steel plate. So with the optic it's at least "minute of man" at that distance.

View attachment 1128284

What scope is that and what height rings?

 

[W.E.G.]

I have a DSA FAL and the quality is excellent. The only thing I would say is to avoid the DSA mags. They're almost as bad as the Korean mags. Get Belgian or Austrian surplus mags instead.

/thread

 

[Chuck R.]

What scope is that and what height rings?

Vortex PST 1-4X, LaRue medium QD rings.

 

[AlexanderA]

DS Arms FAL receivers are are US made. 922(r) only applies to imported non-sporting rifles & shotguns

Using a domestically-produced receiver does not get them out from under 922(r). The receiver is just one of the listed domestic parts. 922(r) applies to the domestic assembly of guns that are similar to banned imported guns. What you can't do is use all imported parts. A certain number must be domestic. The receiver counts as one of these. Theoretically, you could build a gun on an imported receiver as long as you had enough other domestic parts.