Cetme G3 or AK


PDA






kngflp
November 14, 2004, 03:32 PM
I can't decide between a Romanian Ak or the Cetme G3. I already have an SKS and on one hand an AK would be the next logical step because I already have ammo and having two weapons with the same dietary needs would be nice especially in SHTF ,coked out rabid zombie terrorist, type situation, but I'm also kinda thinking that my SKS may be all the AK I'll ever need. Somthing about the G3 really draws me I've always wanted a .308 and the fact that future production of these rifles isn't a sure thing kinda makes me want to pick one up while I can. Knowing that both are from century arms and QC is an issue which rifle do I have the best shot of living happily ever after with.

If you enjoyed reading about "Cetme G3 or AK" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
itgoesboom
November 14, 2004, 09:44 PM
The CETME is actually the predecesor to the G3, and there are few differences.

The G3 has better sights, the safety is more ergonomic (same position, but fire is up in the CETME, down on the G3), and some of the internals are different.

I was in the same boat as you, I had an SKS, and I wanted another evil rifle, but I wanted something more powerfull than the 7.62x39 round.

So I went with the CETME.

It is probably easier to find a good century AK than century CETME.

With the AK, as long as the sights aren't canted, you are good to go.

With the CETME, you have to worry if they ground the bolt, are using bad oversized rollers in addition to worrying about canted sights. And there are a host of other problems (magazine not fitting right, cracks in the cocking tube, etc etc.).


With that said, the CETME can be an amazing rifle, once you get past the little screwball things that century does.

Here is a shot I posted, its a group that I shot yesterday at about 80 yards, prone, with surplus ammo. I was using the 200 yard sight, so the shots are high, but right about where they should be. I actually had 3-4 groups like this, but I kept wrecking them on shot 4 or 5. :banghead:

As you can see, they can be quite accurate, even with surplus ammo.

http://www.thehighroad.org/attachment.php?attachmentid=18417

I.G.B.

444
November 14, 2004, 09:49 PM
I probably wouldn't buy anything from Century.
The possibly exception would be if I knew someone that had a CETME for sale and I could put at least 100 rounds through it to see if it runs. I would not buy one otherwise.
I wouldn't buy anything else from Century or anything that contained Century parts.
If I was looking for an Ak, there are plenty of good ones out there. If I was looking for an HK G3 clone, there are plenty of good ones out there.
I am in the process of building a couple G3 clones right now from parts kits. And no, I am not using a Century receiver.

In case you haven't noticed, Century has a very bad reputation.
There are people who have purchased Century guns and guns built from Century parts that work great. The problem is that you don't know if the one you are getting is going to work because they have serious quality control issues. I wouldn't take the chance on getting one of their many lemons. I would rather buy something that I know is going to work than try to save a few bucks by taking a chance on getting a piece of crap. Getting a piece of crap puts you in a difficult situation. You can try to fix it and in the process probably spend as much as if you had bought a good one, or you can sell it to someone else knowing it is a piece of crap. I won't do either.

The Grand Inquisitor
November 14, 2004, 11:22 PM
First of all, your comment that "the SKS is all the AK I need" is well out of line.

The AK47 and the AK74 are rifles so vastly superior to the SKS that they should not even be thought of in the same sense. They share the same nation of origin and the basic AK47 shares the same cartrige with the SKS, but the similarities end here.

At this point AK's are to be had for very little money, and they were designed to be produced rapidly and with little cost, but the Kalashnikov rifle design is one of the most important and revolutionary in the history of small arms.


With that out of the way, I have a few different AK's and a CETME, and I am very happy with both. First of all, think what kind of rifle you really want, and that should sway you one way or another, but here are my experiances.

CETME - First of all with a CETME is that what is stated above is true; with the CAI CETME's the weapons tend to be hit or miss - Perro's CETME forum is a good place to start on what to look for in a CETME but here is my advice: the person who is selling you this gun (assuming it's not online) you have to trust. The guy who sold me his CETME has sold me most all of my other rifles and I trust his judgement and that he is not trying to scam me to make a quick sale. I only say this because Century's CETME's have proven to be hit or miss, and one of the things you have to rely on is that your dealer is not selling junkpiles. Take a look at Perro's forum and get the guide and then go back and look at it. My experiances with my CETME have been nothing but happy and I took it out today to shoot and put 60 rounds though it with no problems. It gives a good kick and lets you know it's there, but it is damned accurate and with work can be a real tack driver.

As far as AK's go I may not be the one to give impartial advice, but I would say that getting an AK is always a good idea. Against what many will tell you the AK can be an accuarte rifle with a little work and practice and with ammo cheap and plentiful you can have a great rifle that will out live most of your relatives. If you like playing with accesories with your rifle and things to tinker with, the AK is as good as an AR and there is more stuff than you'll ever be able to afford to put on your rifle.

ALso, if you are interested in being different, look into buying an AK74 chambered in 5.45x39 or perhaps even 5.56x49 (although I really do prefer 5.45). A good 74 from Romania or Bulgaria is only $100 or $150 more than a regular 47 but you will definately see the difference and you'll even have something unique when you're at the range. The 5.45 cartrige has almost no kick and is very accurate - Search around a bit and I'm sure you'll find a very nice 74 (I would say Plum furniture looks best...but that's just my opinion)

MagnumCaliber357
November 15, 2004, 12:36 AM
id also go with blonde for my second choice

Joe Demko
November 15, 2004, 01:00 AM
The AK47 and the AK74 are rifles so vastly superior to the SKS that they should not even be thought of in the same sense. They share the same nation of origin and the basic AK47 shares the same cartrige with the SKS, but the similarities end here.

Not really. If your AK has "da switch" you might have a talking point; a semiauto AK clone isn't notably superior to an SKS in anything except mag capacity. Yes, I've owned both. I found the SKS to be markedly more accurate than the AK and just as reliable. If we want to talk tacticality, the SKS lets you hug dirt a lot closer than the AK. That's always a good thing, but especially when the AK in question isn't even one that lets you use that big honking thirty round magazine for its main purpose in life. Semiauto AK's look meaner and take them big ol' magazines but any supposed superiority to the SKS ends there.

BTW, they cost somewhat more than the CETME's floating around, but if you want a good G3 type gun, buy a PTR-91.

kngflp
November 15, 2004, 01:52 AM
I wasn't dissin on the AK I just ment that the SKS could temporarilly fill the void for the AK. If I did get somthing other than an ak for my next rifle.What I really want is a vepr and a fal I probably should just try to get together a little more cash and get the vepr, but instant gratification feels so good, and so does a warm barrel.

The Grand Inquisitor
November 15, 2004, 03:00 AM
Rate of fire has nothing at all to do with the quality of a firearm - a ratty class III Mac 10 may be able to shoot 30 rounds with one trigger pull, but it may very well put only 7 or 8 holes on a target at 50 yards.

Also, with proper positioning, it is very possible to fire any AK with a 30 round mag while in the prone position firing accurate, well timed shots.

I'm not going to debate things, but there is a reason that the Kalashnikov design is still very much alive in not only Kalashnikov rifles in Russia, Ukraine, Romania, Latvia, Belarus, and almost every other Eastern European nation, but also in Israel (Galil is still used sometimes), Finland, Sweden, Switzerland, and many, many other nations. The original AK design was put into production in 1949 and I think the rifle has shown the test of time because not only do you dee AK47's across the globe, but even with complete overhauls and modifications, like the Galil and the Sig 550/551, the basic Kalshnikov design is still there at the heart of the rifle.

MAKOwner
November 15, 2004, 04:40 AM
Having an SKS and several different AKs I'd have to go along with the "the AK is superior in every way" line of thinking. But of course that doesn't mean the SKS isn't perfectly fine, and doesn't do what most want it to do just fine so...

I've been eyeing a CETME too though, I'm a little leary as they seem to be alot more of a crap shoot in getting a real lemon though. The AKs Century sells you at least don't have to worry whether they'll function, they may have fit and finish issues but you can be fairly sure they'll function 100%...

444
November 15, 2004, 08:39 AM
"but you can be fairly sure they'll function 100%..."

Based on what ? How is it that you can be sure of this ?

Joe Demko
November 15, 2004, 08:53 AM
I'm not going to debate things, but there is a reason that the Kalashnikov design is still very much alive in not only Kalashnikov rifles in Russia, Ukraine, Romania, Latvia, Belarus, and almost every other Eastern European nation, but also in Israel (Galil is still used sometimes), Finland, Sweden, Switzerland, and many, many other nations.

How many of them issue semiauto AK clones made with parts of mixed nationality? That is what our good OP would be constrained to buy.

Tomac
November 15, 2004, 09:38 AM
How many of them issue semiauto AK clones made with parts of mixed nationality? That is what our good OP would be constrained to buy.

I've owned or fired 7 different SAR-2 5.45 AKs from Century. I took the first 2 I got, took 'em straight to the range and put over 1,000rds each through both of them w/o any prior cleaning/lubing (did check the bore for obstructions, though) and didn't experience a single problem. When a rifle design can take Century's monkey-smithing & questionable US parts (not to mention welding the gas piston to the bolt carrier instead of properly pinning it) and still be that reliable then IMHO that speaks volumes as to the inherent success of the design.
Back to the original topic/question: The AK & CETME were designed for 2 different battlefield roles so pick the one that best suits your needs. If I were "defending in place" I'd want a .308 (& plenty of loaded mags) to give me reach & penetration. For mobile CQB ops I'd take the AK (5.45 over 7.62 due to difference in weight of ammo & recoil). My personal .308 is the NDM-86 Dragunov & with match ammo & my poor skills it's good out to at least 750m (even my 15yr-old son hit the 750m gong the first day he fired the Drag!).
Tomac

Joe Demko
November 15, 2004, 10:21 AM
I've owned or fired 7 different SAR-2 5.45 AKs from Century...
Tomac

How wonderful for you. So, you are telling me that even Century didn't manage to bugger up the AK? It reliably fired semiauto? Wow. It did what an SKS will do.
My point in this discussion is that the semiauto AKs have no advantage except ammo capacity over an SKS. If you want to seek out one of the Norinco SKS carbines that were factory-made to accept AK mags, even that is gone.

Tomac
November 15, 2004, 09:29 PM
How wonderful for you. So, you are telling me that even Century didn't manage to bugger up the AK? It reliably fired semiauto? Wow. It did what an SKS will do.
My point in this discussion is that the semiauto AKs have no advantage except ammo capacity over an SKS. If you want to seek out one of the Norinco SKS carbines that were factory-made to accept AK mags, even that is gone.

Not quite... besides ammo capacity an AK is easier to strip/maintain plus you have a much wider range of optics, calibers & accessories available. There's nothing wrong with the SKS... except that it's not an AK... ;)
Tomac

The Grand Inquisitor
November 15, 2004, 09:40 PM
Tomac said it perfectly - If an AK can stand up to the nuttiness CAI puts their weapons through and still be totally reliable - well, it speaks volumes about the reliablity and quality of the Kalashnikov.

Redlg155
November 15, 2004, 09:51 PM
I would personally get the AK. It's hard to go wrong with the AK. Ammo is also much cheaper. I hear of more folks having problems with CETMEs than AKs. That means something since there are way more AKs in circulation than CETMEs.

If you want a good .308, then consider the Saiga .308 and convert it to the pistol grip style. All I have left to do is cut out the PG hole in mine and my conversion is finished. With the Saiga you get the legendary reliability of the AK action as well as a newly manufactured rifle.

Good Shooting
Red

MAKOwner
November 16, 2004, 03:09 AM
"but you can be fairly sure they'll function 100%..."

Based on what ? How is it that you can be sure of this ?

Based on that I have a pair of them with zero problems in around 3000 rounds combined... And know of another 3-4 personally that are 100%, not to mention the AK boards online are full of happy customers (with the occasional lemon, thus the "you can be fairly sure" part...) They're kinda ugly and crudely finished which many find fault with, but they very rarely have any problems that would hinder functionality...



As for the SKS vs AK thing, the only thing the SKS has going for it is the longer sight radius. Otherwise the AK's action setup is better, it's less complicated/has fewer major parts, the trigger setup is better, it's much shorter/handier feeling IMO, even if you where using 10 rnd mags the detachable magazine setup is superior, the newest batch have a sight rail for optics already attached, it's just plain more "evil", etc. As I said I'm not saying the SKS is bad or can't do more than what most people expect of it either, I love them. They're cheap and I actually like the stripper clip mag setup. But they're not a very good substitute IMO for an AK if a semiautomatic "evil assault weapon" variant is what you really want...

wasrjoe
November 16, 2004, 03:30 AM
I would get the AK. The ammo is MUCH less expensive, and the recoil is a lot less. Ergonomics can't really be compared because of the difference in cartridge power, in my opinion - though they each suit their purpose well enough. I own an SKS and an AK... I had to make the same decision as you. I would really, really like a G3 clone or a CETME, but I wouldn't trade one for my AK.

It's true that the SKS will "do" what an AK will - that is, be a mid-ranged semi-auto carbine - but the AK really is a different experience. It is a higher quality weapon and it is quite verstile. Granted, it's no AR15 - dad gum things and their interchangeable uppers! - but it still has a lot of accesories out there.

Ash
November 16, 2004, 11:55 AM
Well, to pipe in, the SKS has one real big advantage over the AK. It was built by the folks who wished to put it into battle, which is to say, the Century Wizards didn't build any of them out there now. The SKS costs more to produce than the AK, which is the prime reason it fell out of favor and was replaced so quickly (plus the fact the AK started fully auto). The SKS is equally reliable but is certainly not as easy to field strip (though not difficult). It lacks the sex appeal of the AK, but the aftermarket parts for SKS is as good, if not more diverse, than the AK. I have owned both, and found the trigger starting out was better on the SKS, the AK was much lighter, and the AK was easier to clean for corrosive ammo. Yet, for the American civilian, the SKS is not particularly inferior to the AK. They are both adequately accurate and both semiautomatic. The AK wins mostly in the highcap mag department and the coolness factor. But, the SKS is more suitible to prone shooting (you don't have to figure a way to fire it prone, you just drop to your belly), is mostly machined parts made and assembled at the original factory, and most don't require silly US parts to make them legal.
Ash

444
November 16, 2004, 01:12 PM
The reason I ask this question is a long curiosity I have had in regard to the AK rifle. I don't have much experience with them. I once owned one, but that is the extent of my knowlege.
On these internet forums, the AK is considered to be the most reliable rifle ever made. The question that always comes up in my mind is: does this apply to any AK ? I mean, the originals developed a fine repuatation. But the ones we buy in the US today are not the orgininals. First of all, the original design was modified into a semiautomatic configuration. They are currently made by who knows how many different companies in who knows how many different countries. They are made in all kinds of different configurations. They are made in several different cartridge chamberings. Yet, all are considered by the internet crowd to be equally reliable. I often wonder if this is in fact, the case. If it is, is is obviously a great measure of the original design, and it would also be fairly unique. Most other firearms designs have managed to become screwed up over the years by the makers of clones. The US 1911 is a prime example. For many years it was as reliable as the sunrise. But, today, we have all manner of people turning out 1911 clones. Many use inferior parts and inferior manufacturing methods along with inferior quality control. The problem has become so bad that the internet crowd now accepts the fact that the design is not reliable. I have often wondered the same about the AK. Does the reputation it earned in combat translate directly to the clones produced today for the American public ?
The answer you gave to my question was also unusual for the internet. You actually own the weapon in question, have fired it an amount sufficent to determine whether it runs, and know others that have done the same. That is refreshing to actually be dealing with facts rather than speculation.

ny32182
November 16, 2004, 01:58 PM
FWIW, I've never seen any AK malfunction, and that includes watching thousands of rounds being put through different makes. Granted they were all 7.62x39, and were all made as semi-autos for the US market.

The semi-auto trigger group in the AK is so simple that I don't see how it could ever really fail. Anything is possible, but as long as the parts themselves don't actually break... As far as I'm concerned, the weakpoints of the AK design are the sights and the pain in the ass mag release.

As to the original question: I say compromise. VEPR .308. :D

444
November 16, 2004, 02:10 PM
Well, I have seen an AK (s) malfunction. It seems to happen regularly in those news videos where someone is firing one in the air is a thrid world country. But, I personally don't think that means a whole lot. The VEPR .308 is actually what got me started thinking about this whole issue. In another thread someone commented that even though this particular rifle was never actually used in combat, it was absolutely reliable. And of course my thought was that this is not a real AK, and it is in a totally different cartridge etc. Does this mean it is as reliable as a "real" AK ? I don't know. Back to the 1911 analogy: the ones in the store look like 1911s. They use the same basic design. But their execution of that design is the problem. So, just because a weapon looks like an AK, does this make it as reliable as an AK ? Does the fact that you have seen hundreds of them on American civilian rifle ranges work great mean that they would be as relliable as a "real" AK under less than ideal conditions ? Again, I don't know but I thought I would ask.
Another good example would be the AR15 familiy of rifles and carbines. The military M16 and the better civilian clones have a chrome lined barrel and chamber. The chambers are cut for 5.56mm etc. They use parts that are built to mil-spec. Then you have other clones that have none of this. Someone sets out to buy the cheapest AR15 clone available, thinks he made a good deal only to find out that it isn't reliable: then blames the basic design istead of blaming the manufacturer for turning out an inferior product.

Joe Demko
November 16, 2004, 02:36 PM
If it is mechanical it can and will malfunction. 444 has a valid point regarding the AK family of weapons. No doubt Russian and Chinese milspec AK's from their state factories are reliable. As we get increasingly farther from that, how true does it remain? Much of the AK's reputation does seem to exist just because it has been repeated endlessly by the vast echochamber of the internet.

Black Snowman
November 16, 2004, 03:00 PM
I've gotten to handle the PTR-91 recently. If you have the means I highly recommend them. Fit and finish is excellent. You'd swear they were a particularly good run of HKs. Collapsing stocks coming soon. I haven't heard any reports on accuracy yet but I haven't been looking.

Tomac
November 16, 2004, 08:42 PM
My personal experience w/"civvie" AKs over the past 15yrs has been with Norincos, Polytechs, Bulgarians, Romanians & most recently custom "AK-74" builds on virgin demilled Bulgarian AK-74 kits. During this time I've seen exactly *1* malfunction and that was in a friend's polytech w/a recoil buffer & clogged gas port. Removing the buffer instantly restored reliable functioning in spite of the gas port. There are quality US-made AK parts if you're worried about questionable-quality US-parts (ie: some of Century's compliance parts). Don't want any US parts then get a Saiga in .308, .223 or 7.62x39. All *Russian* parts and they still accept (proprietary) hicap mags.
Tomac

wasrjoe
November 16, 2004, 10:23 PM
The AK design is just that good. Seriously.

Of course, while everyone brags of their AKs reliability, how many of us brag about how accurate it is? ;) That's the design tradeoff, in my opinion.

Tomac
November 16, 2004, 11:02 PM
The AK design is just that good. Seriously.
Of course, while everyone brags of their AKs reliability, how many of us brag about how accurate it is? ;) That's the design tradeoff, in my opinion.

Agreed... I can consistently hit the 300m gong w/my 5.45 AK's and that's good enough for me (any further and I'll use my .308 Dragunov). I'll take reliability over gilt-edge accuracy anyday...
Tomac

zougou
November 17, 2004, 12:52 AM
I can't decide between a Romanian Ak or the Cetme G3.

There's a simple answer that everyone so far has missed, unless I missed it.

Get both. Pick one, save money, then get the other. Then start saving for your first AR15. :)

Joe Demko
November 17, 2004, 08:07 PM
The AK design is just that good. Seriously.

Your basis for saying this about the design rather than the particular example(s) you own?

goon
November 17, 2004, 10:49 PM
Whoever said that just because it looks like an AK doesn't make an AK does have a point.
Century arms is known for taking short cuts (on most anything that they assemble) and most of the SAR-1's and WASR's I have seen were a little rough. The thing is that the AK is so simple that it doesn't take a whole lot to take one of the rough ones and smooth it up. If you start out with everything straight (I wouldn't buy one that wasn't) the biggest thing you have to worry about in Century guns is probably the fire control group, which isn't too expensive or hard to replace.
I have also heard of the pistons sometimes not being secured properly. They are supposed to be screwed in the whole way, backed out a couple turns so they wiggle a little, and then pinned in place (I think the pin in mine is welded as well but I am not looking at it right now.)
Century just screws them in all the way and welds them fast. They usually still work, but apparently sometimes the weld isn't as strong as it should be. I have read reports of people stripping their guns for cleaning and finding the piston almost unscrewed. I am thinking that if it came apart while you were shooting the damage would range somewhere between being terrible to get apart and fix to dangerous with that piston coming back out of alignment and going God-knows-where with all that force behind it.

All of this leads me to this point.
Get an AK, but get a higher end AK. At least with something like an Arsenal or comparable AK, you know that they were assembled by people who really care about whether or not they work right and that they were assembled with about the same care as a military issue AK (probably more in the case of something like one of the AK-USA conversions).
I can also tell you that the VEPR, while not a pure AK (but close) is a very accurate and reliable rifle. They are heavy, but are of very good quality.
My current AK is an Arsenal SA-M7 carbine that I have done some minor replacing and mods to. Eventhough I had to take care of one relatively minor problem with it, it is still way above the average Romanian AK in terms of quality.

I am anticipating an onslaught of people telling me that I don't know my @$$ from a hole in the ground, but that is how I see it.

MrMurphy
November 18, 2004, 12:23 AM
The original Q was AK vs G-3 or CETME.

I've owned an AK and shot many, including "The Switch" equipped model.
I've owned a CETME made by Century (nice one) and shot HK91/G-3s and FALs.


For a short handy carbine for under 200 meter or 300 meter use, get the AK. It's handier, has good performance, plentiful mags, and rock solid reliability, and will certainly hit a man sized target at 200m or less all day long. It may not get tiny groups, but in combat, a hit is a hit and few people are getting tiny groups in combat usage, which is what these rifles are built for originally.

The CETME for offhand use (house clearing, urban warfare, etc) isn't exactly "handy", i wouldn't want to CQB with it because of the length and the ergonomics. For prone or sitting position shooting at 200+ meters, it's excellent and has decent sights for this (sitting in a trench ambushing Soviets from a hilltop in Afghanistan, this would be a good rifle), as would the G-3, which has even better sights for this purpose. Long distance is it's forte.

If you want a handy weapon for medium to short distances for plinking and SHTF, a medium to high grade (Bulgarian, Arsenal, Russian Krebs Custom job,etc) or Vector Arms would certainly be indicated. The Krebs KTR-03 would be the best of both worlds...... Russian made gun, rail system forearm like our M-4s, and an aperature rear sight for good accuracy like the Galil or Valmet (both AK derivatives).


To clear things up: Long range, hard hitting, decent accuracy, get the Cetme, G-3, or better than both, the FAL. However, ergonomics on the G-3 and CETME are worse than the AK.

Short (0-50m) to medium (200m) range, fairly hard hitting and decent accuracy, get the AK.

Having shot all three, if I couldn't get the FAL, the AK would certainly be my pick if an M16A4 or M4 carbine were not handy. Fixed stock only, the folders are easy to carry but harder to shoot.

Edit: between a Romanian AK and a Cetme G-3, get the AK. SAR-1 preferably, this is what I had. Besides, 80% of the world uses AKs or has them around, in a real SHTF situation, parts, mags and ammo plentiful.....unlike the Cetme, which was only used by Spain, and the G-3, which was used by about 50 countries, only about 5 which still use it.

Marko Kloos
November 18, 2004, 07:24 AM
The AK47 and the AK74 are rifles so vastly superior to the SKS that they should not even be thought of in the same sense. They share the same nation of origin and the basic AK47 shares the same cartrige with the SKS, but the similarities end here.


Hmm. I actually prefer the "vastly inferior" SKS to the semi-auto AK. It has a longer LOP, a milled steel receiver, and four inches more barrel length. It is just as fast to reload as the AK if you practice a little with stripper clips, and it's a lot easier to shoot one from the prone position. The only edge of the AK is capacity, but I can actually carry more ammo in SKS stripper clips than I can comfortably carry in AK mags.

Anyhoo, back to the original question. MrMurphy sums up the contestants quite nicely. If we're talking clones from Century's Drunk Angry Monkeys, I'd give the nod to the AK, since its simplicity and robustness allows for more variance in quality than the CETME/G3 design. Also, the AK is far cheaper to feed, and every bit as good inside of 200 yards.

If you enjoyed reading about "Cetme G3 or AK" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!