The truth about DSA

C

CrociJA

New member
Recently I have found that the board can be used for evil, and good.
Just talked to both the ATF and DSA.
The recent "spill-over" about DSArms rifles no longer being in compliance with regards to the muzzle break has to do with the STG-58, NOT the SA-58 series of rifles.
I say again, NOT the SA-58 series of rifles.
Even than I was assured that DSArms was going to lodge a formal complaint to ATF regarding the STG's, and have posted a "retraction" to http://www.fnfal.com, regarding the misinformation that has been put out on this board.

Thanks,

Jon
 
So the ATF has backed away from their approval of the STG-58ish muzzle brake? It seems they do this to make people uncomfortable about owning something cool.
 
Sodapop,

Somewhere along the line someone, either on this board or another someone was talking about how DSArms FN-FAL's were out of compliance. So those of us who bought the SA-58 series of rifles should "look out" because of the ATF's attempt to reclassify the rifles muzzle brake as a "flash suppressor".
The rifles in question are the STG-58's that DSarms are putting out, NOT the SA-58's. They are ALL compliant, as long as you leave them as is from the factory (see the AWB of 93').
I talked to someone at DSArms and she said that they contacted the ATF regarding the STG-58. ATF apparently got excited regarding the possibility that the muzzle brake could be taken off or switched.
She said they had contacted the ATF and were contesting this, simply because of the fact that everything that comes out of DSArms is compliant. No if's and's or but's.
The Technical Branch of the ATF said they knew ALL about (yeah right...believe they called it a "machine gun"...) the SA-58 and as long as the muzzle brake was firmly affixed there was no problem.
So the final answer is if you have a STG-58 it's still under "investigation" by the ATF and DSArms.
If you own a SA-58 series you are good to go.

Interesting ehhh??

Jon


[Edited by Art Eatman on 05-10-2001 at 03:58 PM]
 
Ok I was just wondering because I put up a thread a few days ago about having to send my STG58 back to DSA and I was making sure you weren't talking about me spreading false info. The status of the STG58's are NOT under investigation THE ARE COMING OFF! DSA said they have to take them off and replace them with compliant muzzle breaks. Its a Royal Pain in the ass I just got mine 3 weeks ago!
 
Do we have any attorneys on the forum?

Isn't this a case of enforcement "Ex post facto?"

True, BATF regs are not law, but they have the "color of law" and their regs are BASED on the Assault Weapons Ban laws, so it seems to me that a consumer who bought a product in good faith that was AT THAT TIME described by BATF as being compliant cannot be forced to change the configuration of the product?

Someone with a law degree care to pick this up or shoot it down?
 
Was there written ATF approval for the old MB?

Any idea what MB DSA is going to replace it with? Do they have written ATF approval for the new one? I think I'd prefer the Browning fake MB over the SA58 style MB. I already have an SA58 and wanted the more authentic look of the original.

I'm more than a little miffed that DSA is just rolling over on this one.
 
The STG58 is not really the same as the SA58. The muzzle brakes are completely different looking. The STG58 is a parts gun from the Austrian Military. They got a shipment of Austrian Parts and just assembled them to a DSA receiver.
DSA really isn't saying much right now other than the fact there protesting this decision. Nothings posted on there website.
 
It's not just the DSA brake, the TAPCO brake is also in this fiasco. TAPCO is contesting this and having testing done and possibly, this will be stiffled......
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top