Privacy guaranteed - Your email is not shared with anyone.

2nd post aluminum fal recievers

Discussion in 'The Powder Keg' started by carl, Apr 28, 2002.

  1. carl

    carl G&G Newbie

    well i can't figure out how to post this, it is in an email from dsa. it is the results of their testing on their alumnum upper 3 years ago and the williams upper in a nut shell they tested 100 round increments of radway green ammo and 1 proof round every 100rounds.
    both theirs and the williams blew up, although theirs was not as bad because it was a thicker receiver without lightning cuts. i will forward it to anyone who emails me or contact dsa or check their web sight it may be on there.
  2. The DSA test is well documented on the FAL Files. THe problems with the WAC receivers notwithstanding, the DSA report was a hatchet job. H.P. White laboratories performed the test at DSA's request, but did not publish the methodology other than the number and type of rounds. They did not publish the average chamber pressure of the "non-proof" rounds, or the headspace, or the assessment of the parts used to make the gun, so take the DSA report with a grain of salt and chalk it up to dirty marketing.

    What is more interesting is Mark Powell's (of FWRA in Ohio) non-scientific testing where the receiver cracked after a couple of thousand rounds of Radway Green. There was also a post-sample machine gun that was tested to destruction. IIRC, it got past 4000 rounds before the crack appeared.

    If you have one of these receivers and it has been assembled in a 308 Win configuration, my advice would be to retire it. There are several people who have built 223s out of them who are not having problems. The same guy that built the post-sample that broke also has a post-sample in 223 and has not had any problems. I'll see if I can find a reference for the post-sample.

  3. carl

    carl G&G Newbie

    good reply phil.