Hand turning tiny drills in the peep holes of the rear sight drum to remove the enamel that clogs up the rear sight holes makes a lot of sense. It also explains why the mismatch exists between the thick front blade and those tiny drum peep holes. They're clogged over with enamel that significantly shrinks the sight hole diameter.
FAMAE 540 FAQ: Why its cool, and you should own one
- Thread starter b-wingpilot
- Start date
That would be another good idea for this lot of rifes. ERE had stocks and adapters back in the day, but nothing in recent years AFAIK. GS designshad a nice 540 ACR stock on their site, but it looks like its been out of stock forever.
Careful with the GS Designs adapters - they are 3D printed out of a fairly weak/wear-prone plastic and the angles on the hinge pieces are such that the Stock does not stay in the folded position, but rather flops around. Also, lock-up is not very tight (polymer, again), so there is considerable stock-wobble. Definitely my last choice in adapters if ANY other option is avaiable......
PR Precision, Paul, said he'd have a go at an adapter but I need to get my hands on a stock to see if it's doable. Placed an order with brownells for a zhukov yugo stock - we'll see if it actually ships
Emailed spectre ballistics with the same request but no replies, I assume their 180c adapters are OK
Emailed spectre ballistics with the same request but no replies, I assume their 180c adapters are OK
Ahh yes. I had a feeling that it was too good to be true
you know what they say, one man's trash is another man's treasure!
Trust me - not this time...
I am having some trouble unscrewing the screw that holds the folding stock to the lower receiver. It is either very tight or there is a locking mechanism I am not seeing. Anyone encounter this and have a solution? I don't have a lot of hand/power tools and thinking of taking it to a gun smith.
It should just be a standard bolt, no additional locking mechannism (unless they used LocTite on the threads). Lefty Loosey, Righty Tighty....
Firebat and I met up yesterday to compare the Handguard mounting systems of the two Generations of FAMAE SG 540. It turns out that the Gen 1 OG Handguard furniture is not compatible with the Gen 2 Gas Block. As mentioned previously, the OG Handguards fit within a "Nose Cap" formed by the Gen 1 Gas Block. The Gen 2 Gas Block does not have the same "Nose Cap" shape, and the Gen 2 Handguard fits over top of the Gas Block, hinging onto a pair of protrusions on either side of the Gas Block. It is a completely different set-up, and there is no easy way to adapt the OG Handguards to work with the Gen 2 Gas Block (or vice versa).
This is pretty much the nail in the coffin of those who thought that it might be possible to retrofit the smooth plastic Gen 1 Handguards to the Gen 2 Gas Block instead of the metal Picatinny Handguards. It is a non-starter of an idea, at least in terms of there being an easy fix.
This is pretty much the nail in the coffin of those who thought that it might be possible to retrofit the smooth plastic Gen 1 Handguards to the Gen 2 Gas Block instead of the metal Picatinny Handguards. It is a non-starter of an idea, at least in terms of there being an easy fix.
The Buttstock interface with the Lower Receiver is the same for both generations of SG 54x rifle. A GS Designs ACR Stock Adapter for the SG 540 fits the SG 540-1M perfectly.
Thanks, just want to confirm. It is on real tight!
Ah hah!! The 542 I had really didn't like 150 gr bullets (or heavier), but it LOVED 120 gr bullets. Shot fantastic with those light rounds. That makes sense now.
Do the 5.56 / 222 receivers offer more 'rigidity' that translates to more inherent accuracy downrange? The bolt carrier and bolt essentially 'float' in the upper receiver and glide along the rails. Ultimately the bolt locks into the barrel and there should be really little the receiver is doing to support firing - not so different than the AR at that point, and AR receivers are just cases that support the firing bits, be it the 10 or 15. It's for that reason I don't buy into the receiver flex theory.
Barrel whip, and harmonics? most definitely, even if you cancel out the inconsistent irons by running an optic on a receiver rail, but especially with the gas block and hand guard interface.
Of course ammunition it likes / dislikes is a big one - these combined are the driving factors imho.
Add to the fact that most surplussed 7.62 ball ammo is mediocre, does the SG-542 no favours.
Barrel whip, and harmonics? most definitely, even if you cancel out the inconsistent irons by running an optic on a receiver rail, but especially with the gas block and hand guard interface.
Of course ammunition it likes / dislikes is a big one - these combined are the driving factors imho.
Add to the fact that most surplussed 7.62 ball ammo is mediocre, does the SG-542 no favours.
Barrel harmonics and whip could be shown by comparing the same ammo in a SG543 vs a Sg540. I expect that any apparent differences would be exaggerated a bit more for a 7.62x51. Only one size fits all for the SG542 though.
That might make sense since I recall that owners were always surprised that in the SG550 series, the short CQBs and Carbines were usually compared favourably and sometimes even better in accuracy than the long barel 550s! Might only have been at short to mid ranges but still telling. I hope someone who tried them can tell us, as well as the 540vs 543 trial.
Cancer, I am actually a bit surprised by your finding on the 120gr ammo in it.
Reminds me of how the Turkish Mauser ammo used a lighter projectile rather than the heavier 185-210gr everyone else did.
That might make sense since I recall that owners were always surprised that in the SG550 series, the short CQBs and Carbines were usually compared favourably and sometimes even better in accuracy than the long barel 550s! Might only have been at short to mid ranges but still telling. I hope someone who tried them can tell us, as well as the 540vs 543 trial.
Cancer, I am actually a bit surprised by your finding on the 120gr ammo in it.
Reminds me of how the Turkish Mauser ammo used a lighter projectile rather than the heavier 185-210gr everyone else did.
Last edited:
