Hi,

I recently took my DS Arms SA 58 out for a range trip to the local 100 yard rifle range. I also took the chronograph to get some velocity data for MagTech M80 Ball ammunition. Surprisingly the factory ammo did great, with an average velocity of 2707fps and a standard deviation of only 4.7.
However at 100 yards, the rifle was producing 12 inch groups ! I tried a few more times, and each 5 round group resulted in approximately 12 inch groups. Mind you this was fired from a seated position with the rifle rested on a bag. Not the best firing position, but certainly not the worst. We obviously checked the scope and mount to make sure it was secure and it was.

This rifle has never shot well since I've owned it, but this latest range trip has me scratching my head. Does anyone know what home remedies I might be able to take to fix it? Is there anything in particular I should be looking at? I'm not as familar with the platform so I don't know where to look.


*Scroll down for update*

Borescope that barrel, like yesterday!

I'd suggest you try using iron sights or a different scope to rule out a faulty scope. Might also make sure the bolt is not rubbing on the scope mounting brackets, make sure the handguard is on securely, use quality ammo - Ive found the surplus ammo from europe tends to be more accurate than us ball ammo.

12moa is pretty bad - should be able to do 3-4moa or better

Get that clamp on light mount off the barrel. The harmonics are messed up by them.

How does it normally shoot?

I wouldn’t expect Magtech to give top notch accuracy, but 12 MOA is messed up.

That said, I have a DSA carbine that does the same. I’ve scooped it, RDS’d it, used the irons...it just plain shoots like crap. Minute of basketball with no rhyme or reason.

I’m sorta suspicious that DSA might have taken some kit barrels or somesuch and cut them down and refinished them to look great, but without much QC. Extremely disappointing given how much they cost these days.

First, dont put clamp mounts and flashlights on your barrel.

Second.. once that is removed, check your optic. Inexpensive Chinese optics might be tight on the mount but loose in the internals.

But they aren’t messed up by a gas block or un-floated handguards? Or a light hanging at 9 o’clock on a quad rail?

I don’t think a barrel clamp is adding to accuracy by any means, but I doubt it’s turning a 3-4 MOA gun into a 12 MOA gun.

I think if everything is locked up tight, for 12 MOA errors, you can go straight to barrel examination.

Any strikes on the flashhider OP? Have you taken it off to examine the crown or chrome lining  at the muzzle?

Mine hates Magtech M80, but it's not 12moa bad.

Hornady 168gr V-Max is much tighter.

No strikes on the flashhider and all the holes in the target were centered as near as I could tell (no obvious keyholing etc) I haven't taken it off, not sure how difficult that would be without an action block or similar.

I have looked down the barrel and its bright with nice shiny rifling. This rifle has never impressed me with accuracy but damn, it would be nice to shoot 308 tighter than a BTFO'd AK.

I will say that when I play with the locking wedge piece, it can move left to right under thumb pressure, is that normal?

I think I'm going to strip it down to irons and remove the light, see how it shoots with that, and then kind of go from there.

Check the crown. I had a FN SCAR that shot similar groups with FGMM. FN claimed it was because I ditched their shitty PWS deafener for a SEI Vortex flash hider. Told them to shoot it bare muzzle then and it shot the same. They recrowned it and the rifle shot 1MOA if you kept the barrel cool.

You need to eliminate all the failure points in the system..

Is the FH tight?

If the dust cover is installed properly I’d try a different scope

or even better start from the basis…use the iron sights.. just make sure there’s no play between the upper and lower.. and see how it goes..

This. When I had my SA-58, the scope would get loose in the mount all the time.

12moa is so bad I'd think loose optic before anything else.

Yup, that one. Its snug, not wobbly or anything, but I can push it left/right a little bit (the same way you would drift a pistol sight for example) with my thumb, maybe about .5-1mm left and right if I'm pushing on it back and forth. I'm asking bc I don't know if its supposed to be ROCK solid, like, immovably solid, as if its a part of the receiver itself. As it is on mine, it has just enough of that play under pressure that it doesn't feel like its going anywhere, but you can tell its an obviously separate component if that makes any sense.

Lake Barrington we have a problem.

probably the optic

FALs eat cheap optics

This.

And get the headspace checked.

Well...there it is.

Well, so on the advice of this thread I sent my rifle back to DSA, and today their gunsmith gave me a call. Re-headspaced and installed a new locking piece as well as a tighter rear sight. Really impressed by the fact they took the time to call and explain exactly what was done, testfired etc. Looking forward to getting her back and seeing what she can do!

I bet the light mount didnt help.

Loose locking shoulder trumps harmonics here.

In for results.

Yup. Harmonics don’t make that much of a difference in a 3-4 MOA rifle.

Loose locking shoulder = bad deal...  I would not want to find out what happens if you touch off a round without one...  

Literally the most important part in an FAL.  And it is concerning that a factory DSA had a loose locking shoulder...

They may have put in an oversized one- something to keep in mind if you even need a new bolt or barrel.

Maybe it's the packing tape?

@BigBurkeyBoy

I'm hoping you got your FAL back by now, how's it shooting?

Blowback 308 with bonus piston assist happens

Yes! Got back within about 2 weeks, and had a chance to shoot it, the locking piece is absolutely solid now, and the accuracy has tightened up considerably, about 6 MOA with ball ammo, and about 4 MOA with Gold Medal Match, iron sighted, which I am alright with.

Very happy with how DSA came through for me, and the gunsmith even called me to explain exactly what they found, what they did, and how the test fire went. Couldn't have asked for better service.

Their service has been pretty great. I called and basically asked about hacking up a barrel assembly and they came right up with dimensions

FN would not have allowed a FAL out of their factory shooting like that.  That's well outside of acceptance standards.  Mine is a build and I would have been very upset if it shot like that.

Gauging moa with irons at 100y can be tough for some.

Honestly, I dont think ive ever shot better than 2 moa with irons at 100.

Scopes are a different story.

OP, are you testing accuracy at 100y?

Care to elaborate on what the gunsmith said the problem was and what they did?

Also what is the purpose of the duct tape on the stock and handguards, sling mount?

Also I would suggest getting a section of M-Lok rail and attach it to your handguard for the light.  Much better than the barrel mounted light

That's what I did, although it took some filing on the rail.

Sure, he said basically they installed an oversize locking shoulder, test fired it and got a good group at 25yd. He also installed a new rear sight with less wobble.

Duct tape on the stock and back of the handguards is to secure 550 cord for a sling mount. I prefer my slings to attach towards the rear of the receiver, and if possible the front of the receiver or back of the handguard. Its how I carry my other rifles and what I'm generally familiar with as it feels more handy than sling mounts further back and further forward. The forward duct tape on the handguard is to secure the pressure pad (not seen in picture since its on the other side) and lastly the duct tape on the front sling mount is to keep it from rattling in the field.

I've since stripped the gun down and am running it stock irons, no light, as I've given up on using an optic for it, even with the new accuracy improvements I just don't see this gun shooting well enough to take advantage of magnified optics. That and TBH I personally would never grab a 308 for any serious use as the gun and ammo is too heavy for anything but static defense when you have 5.56 rifles available.

Quite frankly I'm inclined to think most people on the internet exaggerate accuracy. But if you can get a FAL to shoot tighter, more power to you.

Yup, 100yd.

The 4moa GMM group is with irons, just to clarify. The original 12moa group was with a 5x scope. So we're shooting 300% tighter with an inferior sighting system. I'll take that.

I figured. Not too bad. With just irons, 4 moa is 12 inches at 300y and 20 inches at 500y. Provided u can hold that with environmental considerations.

Your rifle probobly shoots better than that, but that will most certainly get the job done.

And props for posting real groupings, too many people inflate their results.

Glad you got it sorted OP.

In the case of the FAL, it's the opposite that's true on the Internet.  People grossly exaggerate inaccuracy.  Lots of "4 MOA at best" when the standard for OEM FALs was "4 MOA at worst."  This is, of course, with standard ball ammo.  A FAL that could not even get 4 MOA with ball ammo would have been rejected by the factory or a purchasing military.

I will say that mine is not very fond of GMM.  It only performs a little bit better than ball ammo as far as groups go, has stability issues (the rounds will keyhole if they so much as touch a blade of grass, pretty much), and the trajectory corresponds poorly to the iron sights.  My barrel is a Steyr in excellent condition cut down to 17".  On the other hand, FAL Filer stubdog25 was able to get 1.69-1.8 MOA from 550 to out past 700 yards with his StG-58 on IMBEL build using GMM (we both used the 168-grainers).  Using German MEN ball ammo he was able to get around 2.8 MOA at those ranges and 1.62 MOA at 100 yards.  See link for pictures: https://www.ar15.com/forums/Armory/Looking-to-update-a-STG-58/7-524321/#i5550906

Also mentioned in that thread was another FALFiler (I think his name is Paolo or orangepaolo or something like that) who is from Italy and shoots in European service rifle matches with his FAL, an L1A1 in his case.  He eliminated play in the rear sight, eliminated play between the upper and lower assemblies, put in a new high-quality barrel, and did a trigger job (he also reamed his flash suppressor, but that was to deal with it being off-center).  He also made handloads crafted specifically for his rifle.  He was able to get sub-MOA a significant percentage of the time at 300m with irons with that setup and placed or won at multiple matches over there.  He put up pictures of his work and results, too, but I've had a hard time finding the thread since the site change over there.

I also have a review from the 1980s by Guns and Ammo on an actual FN and they averaged around 1.67 MOA with commercial ball ammo (I forget which brand) at 100 yards (they may have shot out to 200, but I don't recall or have the magazine handy).  I forget which model from FN they used (50.00, 50.61, or 50.63).

Mine really likes the Hornady 155 grain AMAX and ELD-M bullets, though.  Shoots significantly better than ball ammo and with factory loads nearly matches the 21" barrel ball ammo trajectory out of my 17" barrel, which makes the irons very usable, and I have shot and made hits past 700 yards on steel with irons with this rifle (using Hornady Black ammo, in this case), with multiple ARFCOMers as witnesses (to some shock, lol), in an improvised sitting position supported by a sling.  It hovers around 2 MOA with this ammo and somewhat under 3 MOA with ball, but I suspect a better shot than myself could do better with this rifle.

Anyhow, all this is to say that FALs can shoot better than 4 MOA, often to a significant degree, and were expected to by the manufacturers and by military customers.  Rifles grouping over 4 MOA were rejected and those already in service demonstrating such a degradation in accuracy were removed from service.  It'd be interesting to see what groups your rifle would get from a machine rest, which eliminates any human error (this is how rifles were tested by the factory and militaries for accuracy, usually).

Agreed.

Ive erroneously heard for years that the FAL was a 3-4 moa gun.

I finally got around to getting a kit built and my cl imbel barrel will shoot better than 2moa with match. Under 3moa with imi 150gr fmj.

Got a buddy with a CAI frankenFAL that shoots better than 3moa with 155gr with irons.

Its hogwash. A stock fal might not be a matchgrade rifle but neither are most cl barreled mil rifles. Not to say they cant be with a matchgrade barrel and some mods.

The point i was trying to make is that although the OPs rifle probobly shoots better, his 4 moa range session with irons is not poor shooting, nor is it necessarily indicative of the OP's DSA FAL being of poor accuracy.

Arizona response systems offers a sling mount that mounts between the stock and receiver.

I appreciate the in depth explanation. I do think my rifle is mechanically capable of better accuracy than 4moa at 100yd, but between the irons and the VERY heavy trigger, I would be lucky to see it, unless like you said I was using a machine rest. For me, my FAL occupies the role of a 'fun gun' so I'm thankful I don't have ring the best performance out of it as possible and I'm mostly content to just let it be. Perhaps one day when time allows I might test a few loads or develop a handload for it as well, sure would be a neat project imho.

The ammo that our FALs love is Hornady TAP 150 grain.

Mines adores it and with my Stg58 with DSA receiver type 1 from the late 90s its 1.5 or better.

My Lithgow L1A1 LEO adores it also and its a consistent 1.75 or so with it.

Firearms writer Patrick Sweeney said the same for his rifles about the ammo from Hornady and he claims have had input with them on making it shoot the FAL good.

I've gotten my best groups from my DSA with Hornady Z-Max of all things.  It seems to like the 168gr bullets with plastic noses.

I have not bought the more pedestrian V-Max version yet.



It really doesn't get out much.  Spends most of its time posing for photos.

Studies by men I know who are into such things say the FAL is happiest with pills under 150 doing 2800 fps.

I seent it.

I re-barreled my FAL when it went above 4moa and got a maybe 2.5moa FAL for the effort.
That first bbl went from 2.5 to 4 over about the last 3k of the 14k rounds I put through it.

One of my FAL’s- (kit gun STG), shot a literal single hole group, it was about the size of a .40 round but not clover-leafed at all, at 25 yards, 3 rounds fired, iron sights, using Portugese surplus ammo.  There was nothing special at all, I was just having a good day and the rifle showed me what it was capable of.  Just had the range available after a training day was over and used a table for a bench.  Literally the best 3 round group I have ever fired.  

Trigger on an FAL should not be heavy either.  Maybe look into that as well.  

They are by no means my first choice for accuracy requirements, but they are my favorite rifle to just shoot.  I enjoy them mainly as iron sighted battle rifles, as God intended.  I save the magnified optics for other weapons.

Glad they fixed your rifle, but it should not have shipped with a loose locking shoulder or if it was firing anywhere near that large of a group.  

First thing to always check is the optic anyhow- more likely they go bad internally or have loose mounts.  Having a loose LS, and hanging junk off the barrel didn’t help either.

disregard