HKPRO Forums banner

1 - 12 of 12 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
436 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
I saw one unsale the other day, Aside from a rather interesting looking receiver does anyone have an opinion on these guns?

:80:


Tim
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
893 Posts
I saw one unsale the other day, Aside from a rather interesting looking receiver does anyone have an opinion on these guns?

:80:


Tim
If you talking about the FAC ones with the cast aluminum receiver (which is what I am assuming you mean by "interesting"), I'd tell you stay away. You can tell because the cast ones because they don't have the groove on the outside length of the receiver, which is where the sliding stock slides into (pic: http://mwdg3.homestead.com/files/SAR8.jpg).
I have one of these rifles, late model springfield SAR-8 with the cast aluminum receiver (built on FAC / DC Industries receiver). Some people have said on other boards that theirs function flawlessly, but I have had problems with mine (I think the headspace is off, but havn't spent enough time to troubleshoot it). One of their arguements (sales point) on this receiver was that it is stronger than the sheet metal receivers, which in several areas of the receiver it is true, because the aluminum is so darned thick and solid. That arguement falls apart when you look at some of the areas of the receiver which by neccessity of design needs to be compatible with G3 parts inside and outside, are the same thickness or size as the steel receiver, but made of aluminum, so therefore they are actually weeker, and the receiver is only as strong as its weekest point. The trunnion on these is also pinned in, not welded, and the cocking tube is just pressed in. I have read somewhere (on another board) that the pinned connection will loosen up over time or with enough shooting, as the aluminum bearing areas in the receiver fatigue from the pins, causing inaccracy, but can't confirm cause it hasn't happened to me yet.

On my rifle, the grooves cut into the scope rail are out of spec, and you can't put a flapper release on these rifles, the aluminum is so thick that an HK wide forearm will not fit on it, and since the aluminum is softer than steel, the shelf where the lower grip holds onto just gets chewed up, the mag well is too tight, and the finish sucks. Oh yeah, and a headspace problem.

/rant

(sorry)

But like I said, somepeople love theirs.

---->If anybody else on this board has one of these, and has sent it back to Springfield Armory, I would love to hear how it turned out.

My .02, get a rifle built on a JLD receiver.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,734 Posts
If I'm not mistaken, Springfield recalled all their rifles with the aluminum receiver and offered the owners an M1A.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
436 Posts
Discussion Starter #4
the thing lookes a little funky. I will stay away. I thought it would be a good alternative to the century gun
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
886 Posts
If you could get it cheap enough, it would be good for parts to put on a JLD receiver. Otherwise +1 for the posts above, the pins thru the receiver and trunion become loose, making a dangerous situation.

Bill
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
886 Posts
From what I have seen most are from Portugal, parts are of very nice quality. Current PTR-91's are made of a lot of Port parts.

Bill
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5 Posts
Springfield didn't do a recall. There isn't any safety issues with the rifles. Many of the rifles run well, but there are some that don't. I know of a couple of guys that have them and they are decent beater rifles. One of the main problem is the trunion was pinned, so the ones with high round counts can develope problems. Like many of Springfields products, it is sub-contracted rather than built in house like the custom 1911 & M1A rifles. Unfortunely, the sub-contractor didn't put out the best product. So unlike the Portugese clones, Imbel FALs and 1911s, this seems to be a semi-problem rifle for Springfield. They does have the lifetime warranty and back it without hessitation. So based on that alone, I would probably buy one.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
893 Posts
From what I have seen most are from Portugal, parts are of very nice quality. Current PTR-91's are made of a lot of Port parts.

Bill
All parts one mine are FMP. (except the receiver, obviously, too bad).


I figure that even though the rifle is a POS, and for what these are going for if you can manage to sell it (~~$450 ish) its worth keeping just for the parts.

Way back when, what I really wanted was one of those SAR-8 HBCS rifles, but was too late and ended up with this one instead.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,734 Posts
I was mistaken about saying there was a recall.

I sent an email to Springfield and asked about their product support/warranty on those rifles and received this response:

"Springfield offers a life time warranty to the original owner of our products, but I have never seen us not stand behind any of our products regardless of the owner being first or second. The only problem would be if the firearm was damaged or not cared for by the previous owner, which would void the warranty. Let me know if you have any other questions."

So, it sounds like they will stand behind the rifles.

According to the postings from these links:

http://www.thehighroad.org/archive/index.php/t-116261.html

http://www.hkweaponsystems.com/cgi-bin/forums/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=5
&t=000580

people who need service on them can send them in and be given the choice of receiving an M1A
instead of haing the SAR8 repaired.

According to this link:

http://mwdg3.homestead.com/g3misc.html

The receivers were made by DCI Industries:

http://www.dancoonan.com/

I didn't see any mention of them on the company's website or on their forums.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
449 Posts
Run as fast as you can! I would probably take one of the beater Century Arms $300 Hesse HK91 clones over that new SA SAR8.

Based on production costs, I bet it cost Springfield less to produce M1A than it does to have the newest SAR8 rifles repaired. You wouldn't believe how costs add up after 8 hours of tinkering and troubleshooting.

Springfield has too good of a reputation to NOT support a product that it sells. I applaud them. They are consistant. I just feel they went the wrong route with the cast aluminum receiver. I do not know materials that well, but is thin cast stainless better than thick cast aluminum?

JPG
 
1 - 12 of 12 Posts
Top