DSA Folder kit for the FAL

[DMK]

Has anybody tried this Para folder kit for the FAL? How's the quality?

I've been itching for one of these for a while to put on my Imbel FAL Carbine that I built during "the AWB".

The light weight alloy lower looks like a nice improvement. The FAL could loose a few pounds. I wonder if it will negatively affect the balance though.

DSA says the kit has everything needed for the conversion. Isn't the Para rear sight higher than a standard metric sight? If so, then I suppose I'd need a taller front post as well.

I'll check the headspace with the new bolt carrier of course. If necessary, changing the locking shoulder won't be a big deal.

 

[Chuck R.]

DMK,

I bought one of these conversions for my DSA SA58. The quality is excellent, and it was a simple drop in deal. The rifle has been 100% reliable before and after I switched out the lower. The stock is nice and tight when unfolded, probably one of the tighter folder “system” I’ve handled

I had no additional weight savings because I started out with a lightweight lower. To me it weighs about the same, but I haven’t bothered to put it on a scale. The balance on my rifle is very good, but I have a 19” barrel as I ordered my SA58 that way. With the DSA scope mount and my Trijicon Tri-Power mounted forward, the balance is really close to ideal.

My POI was only a couple of clicks different in elevation, so my factory “two dot” front sight works.

In theory, and common belief, changing out the bolt carrier will not affect headspace. On my rifle I checked with a go/no-go gauge and there wasn’t a problem.

I’ve put about 1000 rds through mine since it’s been “para’d”. Accuracy is about the same as is functioning. I did add a cheek-piece to the folder as the Tri-Power sits higher than the iron sights. My rifle is comfortable to shoot with or without the piece though. I’ve fired close to 60 rds in the prone unsupported during a session without undue discomfort.

 

[milcaztra]

Chuck, what's the length-of-pull on the folder, and do you see a way to shorten it if necessary?

 

[DMK]

Thanks for the review Chuck R!

I have an 18" barrel and also have a 2 dot sight, so my results in balance and POI should be similar.

 

[Chuck R.]

Milcaztra,

The LOP is listed as 14.25”.

There is no adjustment, but I suppose you could pull the pins that hold the butt “pad” on and cut down the tubes that compose the frame easy enough.

DMK,

You're welcome! The DSA Para really is a nice set up.


Chuck

 

[Grunt]

You don't need to check or readjust headspace. You are swapping out the standard bolt carrier for the para version but your bolt, that is the bridge between the chamber and locking lug, is still the same bolt you were already using. The bolt carrier has nothing to do with headspace.

 

[DMK]

You don't need to check or readjust headspace. You are swapping out the standard bolt carrier for the para version but your bolt, that is the bridge between the chamber and locking lug, is still the same bolt you were already using. The bolt carrier has nothing to do with headspace.

Yea, that's right. The bolt itself rests on the LS.

The DSA Para really is a nice set up.

Alright, you've convinced me. I just ordered one with the railed top cover.

 

[DMK]

The LOP is listed as 14.25”.

That's the distance from butt to trigger right? If so, that's right at the same LOP as the fixed stocks on my Imbel FAL (a US made copy of an STG58 stock) and the DSA X-stock on my STG-58. Probably a standard length for the FAL.

 

[Chuck R.]

DMK,

Yup, butt to trigger, and 14.25" is listed as the standard for both the fixed and Paras.

With my fixed stock, and the standard sight, the LOP was a litle short and I'd get whacked in the glasses by the rear sight. With a para rear on either my fixed or folding lower I can creep up on the stock and it doesn't happen.

Chuck

 

[Coronach]

Does anyone make an adjustable LOP stock for the FAL? The only reference to one I can find is the WeaponArts one, and I cannot find a picture of it anywhere (to say nothing of product reviews or one for sale).

Mike

 

[DMK]

Does anyone make an adjustable LOP stock for the FAL?

There's this or an M4 type collapsing stock with the ACE adapters.
(You could make it a little shorter without the folding mechanism)

 

[Coronach]

Dear Lord.

Just when I thought it was impossible to make a FAL ugly, someone goes and proves me wrong.

I'm as big of a fan of rails, doodads, folding this, adjustable that, and tacticool everything as anyone else, but wow. That's one ugly rifle.

Oh well, pretty is as pretty does. Or, "they have to survive the encounter to call your weapon ugly." Whichever.

Thanks for the link.

Mike

 

[DMK]

Just when I thought it was impossible to make a FAL ugly, someone goes and proves me wrong....That's one ugly rifle.

Yea, I agree.

At first I prefaced my post with "If you can get past the asthetics of it...". But then I figured somebody must like it so ...

I figured at least pic I posted looks slightly better than the one with the M4 stock.

 

[Coronach]

It's not just the stock, it's the whole package. Something about the rail forearm just doesn't work with the FAL, IMO. The foregrip makes it worse. The stock just does for the rear end of the rifle what the rail system did for the front. At least it is symetrical; it is equally ugly all over.

I'd still like to see what the WeaponArts stock looks like. And one would think that a FAL para folder (one of the better folder designs, I've heard) with a LOP adjustment would not only be possible, but also a big seller.

Mike

 

[DMK]

Something about the rail forearm just doesn't work with the FAL, IMO.

Kinda like the Springfield Socom-II. The Socom-16 is very attractive, but that rail just makes it pfugly.

And one would think that a FAL para folder (one of the better folder designs, I've heard) with a LOP adjustment would not only be possible, but also a big seller.

ACE does make their AFX stock (the one that sorta looks like a FAL Para) in different lengths, but it's not adjustable.


Here's some pics of a Weaponarts adjustable stock here:

http://www.birdman.org/bling.htm

Is that the one you're talking about?

 

[Thefabulousfink]

Kaiser Works makes an adapter to fit a M4 style stock onto the FAL. The results are not that bad looking IMHO.

http://www.thekaiserworks.com/purchase/falprod.html

You do lose the nice "folder" ability which saves you a lot more space than a collapsible stock.

 

[Coronach]

Yeah, but every BTDT guy I've spoken to says that collapsing is better than folding, if you had to pick one.

I dunno. The M4-style rear just destroys the lines of the rifle, for me (same as putting it on an AK), and that WeaponArts design looks really...big. I didn't realize it was a faux-PSG stock. Thanks for finding that, though.

Mike

 

[DMK]

Yeah, but every BTDT guy I've spoken to says that collapsing is better than folding, if you had to pick one.

That's subjective. It depends on how you use the weapon. What's good for someone else might not be good for you.

A "BTDT guy" (I'm assuming from context that's referring to LEO or Military persons) may be bulked up with body armor, a heavy jacket and/or web gear, and for those reasons prefer an adjustable M4 type stock.

A sniper or competitive target shooter might like an adjustable PSG1 type to get comfy on that stock in various positions.

I like the folder better for my use because it's more compact when folded to store in a vehicle, keep at ready in a nook in the house or to carry in a canvas bag with other gear.