For a CETME owner, any advantage to going with HK G3/91?


April 1, 2003, 03:29 PM
I've purchased a CETME recently, and have the opportunity to get an HK kit in primo condition. Other than country of origin, different sights, and the fact that it's all black, any other advantages to going with the HK? I'm just not coming up with any right now.



If you enjoyed reading about "For a CETME owner, any advantage to going with HK G3/91?" here in archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join today for the full version!
April 1, 2003, 04:45 PM
Not really. If the past is any indication...

IF the CETME was a rare rifle and only a few thousand had been imported and assembled from parts with a new "improved" chrome-molly steel, computer operated stamped/milled receiver the World would be singing it's praises about the "better paddle rear sight" The attractive wood stocks instead of the ugly plastic stocks, the fact that it's the "'pure" design and wasn't altered like the G3 or H&K "clones". Kind of like the difference between the '98 Mauser and the '03 Springfield debate.

As far as I am concerned if your CETME was assembled correctly (most are) its BETTER than an H&K or G3:what: for the reasons stated above. You are just in the right time, right place and can get your CETME at a bargain price. If they had kept making the CETME, we wouldn't even have heard of an H&K 91 or 93.

I don't like either (yes, I've owned both, H&K's I mean) and feel the FAL is heads and shoulders above both. Yet I'll get a CETME soon and just put it away and watch it appreciate and think back to the day when "I could have bought 3 of these for less than $1000 15 years ago. If only I had known".:uhoh:

The H&K without the hype and PR is just a heavy ugly rifle made of stampings and plastic with a weird/complex extraction system that is about as reliable and accurate as any other battle rifle manufactured with the same tolerances. Factory parts are on the high side also.

April 1, 2003, 05:28 PM
My $0.02 is that I bought a G3 clone instead of the CETME in January. Rationale?

1) I don't like the ground bolt that is showing up in CETMEs sporadically. I have an engineering background and personally don't believe that operationally it is dangerous, however it does give a false reading on wear in the trunnion, bolt, roller lockup. What I read into this is that the "parts bins" have mostly worn out used parts and they are being fixed with a field expedient method. The G3 clones aren't showing up this way.

2) Sorry, I like the G3 rear sight BETTER than the paddle on the CETME. Better sight picture and windage adjustment method in my opinion (YMMV)

3) Sorry, I like the G3 stocks better than the CETME wood...especially the green ones. (YMMV)

4) Overall, used part availability is better (do a search on eBay) and new parts are available in a pinch.

For me, it was worth an extra $100 to get these advantages. I am not comparing either to FALs, M1As, etc as each has its own advantages and bit of history. Nor am I comparing it to the HK91..come on, $2200????? Outrageous.

April 1, 2003, 05:32 PM
Personally, I like the 91 over the CETME in looks and build (at least against the US re-manufactured CETMEs and yes, I own both 7.62s). The flat sides of the buttstock just looks a little odd to me. And I much prefer the HK drum sight, more stable as the paddlewheel CETME is easy to push over. Not a big deal but I've always had to look at the sight to make sure it is in place correctly before any shooting.

The G3 entered service in the late 50's. The CETME Model C was stopped in '76. The reason the G3 came to be was that, IIRC, Germany wanted a domestically manufactured rifle and FN wouldn't license them to build the G1 (FAL) in Germany. Heckler, Koch, and Seidel, former Mauser employees, peddled the CETME design they developed.

You can't beat the price of a $300 dollar CETME though. (I'm plaaning to get another they're so cheap.)

As to the HK kit. I persoanlly would waste my cash on it unless you plan on eventually buying an HK and use it for spares or replace any parts if you buy used.

April 1, 2003, 05:44 PM
The HK is easier to reconfigure to your preferences. A wide array of stock sets (colors and styles), many gripframes, and so forth are available.

I don't like the CETME selector switch configuration.

April 1, 2003, 06:20 PM
Except for the "worn out parts" issue, seems like the differences/objections are minor and are a matter of taste. At $350 or less, the CETME looks like an even better deal than before.:)

April 1, 2003, 07:48 PM
UUUHHH! As I've said before,


"The flat sides of the buttstock just looks a little odd to me."

To clarify, I have an A3 stock on my 91.

"I persoanlly would waste my cash on it unless..."

Should read, "I personally would NOT waste my cash on it unless..."

April 1, 2003, 11:23 PM
There aren't really that many differences between the Cetme or G3 clones. emc instead of buying a g3 kit, I would buy a Cetme parts kit for spare parts.

I bought a Cetme parts kit from FAC for $99 and sold off what I don't think that I'll need 10 years from know. I kept the complete bolt assembly, trigger pack, and recoil spring assy and sold everything else off on ebay. I received $45 for the stuff I sold and feel pretty good.

If you enjoyed reading about "For a CETME owner, any advantage to going with HK G3/91?" here in archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join today for the full version!