I know this may be a stupid question but can anyone describe the main differences between the all the HK91 CETME G3 clones and the
If you enjoyed reading about "G3 vs FnFal" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
February 8, 2008, 01:22 AM
Try searching the forum:)
Bit late for me to go trying to explain MARS/HK roller locking vs the FAL, but I'm sure someone will come along and jump on it.
February 8, 2008, 01:27 AM
I voted for the FAL. I have no idea why. Maybe because I like FN more than I like HK. Or maybe I've read more positive comments about the FAL than about the CETME/G3/HK91 line. Who knows...
February 8, 2008, 01:51 AM
If you're going for a CETME clone, get the CETME. G3=expensive, just because of a couple letters on the side.
The FAL seems to have more market support, and the adjustable gas system is a plus, to me. Haven't messed with a G3/ripoff in quite some time, though, so take my advice with a grain of saltpeter.
February 8, 2008, 02:36 AM
The roller delayed blowback action and requisite fluted chamber of the CETME/G3/HK-91 are both hard on bolts and very rough on brass. I think the FAL with its adjustable gas system and tilt locking bolt is a far superior design. There's reason that the FAL was adopted over the G3 and M-14 by almost every non-communist country during the cold war, earning it the nickname of "The Free World's Right Arm." I'd get the FAL if it was me.
February 8, 2008, 02:44 AM
They're both great rifles. The G3 is more accurate and reliable and has better sights. The FAL is more ergonomic and has better optics mounting options. The G3 is dirtier. The FAL kicks less. Century can screw up either one.
February 8, 2008, 03:43 AM
G3 vs FAL? That's a very unfair contest, heavily canted towards the FAL. The G3 is worth way more, but the FAL is undoubtedly a superior rifle. Adjustable gas, active ergonomics (unless you are a lefty), incredibly solid construction, good sights, and a fluted chamber. The CETME doesn't ebven come close.
The only real MBR that competes with the FAL is the M1A. In that comparison, what you lose in terms of reliability and adaptibility in the M1A you gain in terms of long range accuracy.
February 8, 2008, 04:00 AM
the thing is from all i read before this post i would rather buy a fal but all that i have found are way more then the g3 but maybe i am just looking in the wrong places suggestions most welcome
February 8, 2008, 04:18 AM
FAL, because I hate HK as much as they hate me.
February 8, 2008, 04:55 AM
I have a two FALs and one HK 91. The FALs are more comfortable to shoot, can be made into almost any configuration(full length, carbine, SBR, folding or solid stock, etc.), adjustable gas setting, inexpensive mags, a bolt hold-open, and are generally much less expensive than an HK-91.
While the HK-91 has inexpensive mags, changing it to a different configuation can be expensive and changing the barrels can be a nightmare.
I don't have any experince with CETMEs and most I've looked at seemed like crappy parts kit guns. I'd go with FALs over HKs any day if I had to carry one in combat.
February 8, 2008, 05:30 AM
There is no comparision when it comes to HK weapons. I would have voted G3 if you had put HK G3 on the poll!
HK 91 with folding stock and good scope makes excellant gun for multiple uses.
February 8, 2008, 06:23 AM
I voted the HK91, but really I would suggest the PTR-91. Its as good of a gun, without the high collectability cost. Most will find it more accurate than the FAL, but also less ergonomic and with worse recoil. Recoil isn't too bad, my wife likes to shoot it... Scope mounting is no problem, but you need a quality steel claw mount, and they do cost. Also, most will find that the PTR doesn't have the problems with ripping the case heads off of .308 (as opposed to 7.62x51 NATO), which the HK91 sometimes has.
February 8, 2008, 06:29 AM
The FAL for sure. The FAL also has ALOT more parts out there being made for it, at a cheaper price, where as the HK is stupidly expensive, they think I suck, and they hate me.
February 8, 2008, 08:18 AM
I'm faithFAL to the FN
February 8, 2008, 08:26 AM
CEMTE, not astronomically overpriced.
February 8, 2008, 08:56 AM
I've owned all three of your choices, and presently own a PTR91.
The FAL is a good rifle, but harder to clean, with poor heat control. If you get one, you will want to bring your oven mitt along so that you can shoot it. I think that the selector lever location on the FAL is better than that on the PTR91 or HK91, which are identical in most practical respects. If you have ET thumbs, the PTR91 or HK91 selectors become easier to use. The sights on the PTR91 are better than the FAL. Recoil mitigation with the gas system on the FAL is better than the PTR or HK91, and the FAL's bolt hold open is a nice feature. The PTR91 is handily the more accuate... as I'm able to get right at 1 MOA with good ammo in mine most any day.
The DSA FAL is the one to compare all FALs to these days. It is quite a bit more expensive than the PTR91. If you opt for a FAL though, they are the one to get.
If you intend to turn the safety on and off alot, or if the Bolt Hold Open is an important feature to you, get the FAL... understand you are paying more for less accuracy, and forgoing that darned "click" on round 21 in the HK91 or PTR91.:scrutiny:
February 8, 2008, 10:00 AM
FAL - Right Arm of the Free World
February 8, 2008, 10:02 AM
You know, you really are going to need BOTH :)
But get the FAL first.
February 8, 2008, 12:24 PM
For just complete simplicity, I chose the FAL. I tend to like things that are easy to fix in the field, whether at the range or in hunting. And yes, I own both a CAI cetme and a CAI L1A1 at the present time.
February 8, 2008, 12:36 PM
VG3 vs FAL? That's a very unfair contest, heavily canted towards the FAL. The G3 is worth way more, but the FAL is undoubtedly a superior rifle. Adjustable gas, active ergonomics (unless you are a lefty), incredibly solid construction, good sights, and a fluted chamber. The CETME doesn't ebven come close.
uhhhh, the FAL doesn't have a fluted chamber. Given your sig line, I'm thinking you may want to fix that...
February 8, 2008, 12:50 PM
FAL with DSA "Hampton" lower and the A2 rear sight.
Accept no substitutes.
February 8, 2008, 12:54 PM
Any of the three are solid rifle designs.
Ergonomics... the Fal is better for most people, but you really have to get your hands on each to find out what's comfortable for you. The Cetme and HK design has a rather long reach for the safety selector, for sure.
Personally, I find the FAL an ugly beast. Just don't like the look.
Don't know much about the Cetme, other than it's history as the predecessor to the H&K... Most that I've seen look pretty primitive.
I bought my PRT91 because I liked it. It was sitting on a shelf next to an AR10 and a DSA FAL... all within a few hundred of each other. I picked the PTR on looks, and how if felt to me. Didn't really know that much about the action at the time, though I had heard it was known to be quite reliable.
PTR mags are cheap and plentiful, but so are FAL's really...
Downside of the PTR is that you can't really reload for it. Mine throws it's cases quite some distance, they all have a fairly severe dent in the neck area, and soft brass shows the impression of the chamber flutes all along the sides. Not exactly gentle on the brass. I started shooting steel cased ammo, and couldn't be happier with it's performance. It's cheap (as .308win goes, anyway), reliable, accurate enough for my purposes, and I don't have to worry about scrounging for brass.
Hard to go wrong with any of these choices, as long as you get a good quality example of the Cetme or Fal (the PTR's are quite good... some would say better than the originals!)
Tully M. Pick
February 8, 2008, 12:55 PM
They're both good guns. Get both.
P.S. - Don't get the HK collapsible stock on the PTR-91. Looks cool, feels bad.
February 8, 2008, 02:12 PM
Adjustable gas, active ergonomics (unless you are a lefty), incredibly solid construction, good sights, and a fluted chamber.
The FAL does not have a fluted chamber.
If it was between a century (bottom dollar) G3 and FAL, i would take the FAL, as it goes togather much easier and the quality is a lot harder to **** up.
If it was between a DSA FAL and a PTR-91, i would take the PTR-91 any and every day of the week.
I have about 10 reloads on HK91/G3 brass, and its all still just fine. The G3/91 is FAR more accuare and has a better optics platform (the accuracy is fact, the platform is my opinion). And needing to adjust a gas setting is also NOT a plus in my opinion. (I have both) I also dont like the HK kool-aid, the PTR-91 is MUCH better than the "real" HK91 in my opinion. (more accurate, less chamber flutes, lower recoil, better QC)
The only thing is the G3 design is dirtier, but it likes dirty, unlike the AR-15.
February 8, 2008, 02:30 PM
I have about 10 reloads on HK91/G3 brass, and its all still just fine
Really? I have not reloaded any brass out of my PTR91, it has MASSIVE dents in the side in addition to all the fluting damage.
Do you get the big dents?
February 8, 2008, 06:03 PM
I'm sorry. I mean non-fluted chamber, as opposed to the G3, which does have a fluted chamber, thereby screwing up the brass for reloading.
Country of Origin: Germany
Manufacturer: Heckler & Koch
Caliber: .308 Winchester/7.62mm NATO
Feed: 20 round box-type magazine
Modes of Fire: semi-automatic and continous fire
Cyclic Rate: 600 rounds per minute
Mechanism: delayed recoil roller block locking system with fluted chamber
That said, the FAL beats up brass too and can mangle it completely if the gas setting is set wrong. It's predecessor, the FN49, leaves very large dents in the brass even with the gas all the way open because the brass strikes a ridge in the receiver on the way out.
February 8, 2008, 06:08 PM
The G-3 is a CETME, which is a sheetmetal blowback subgun scaled up for 7.62x51 NATO. It relies on two springamabobs and a bunch of dirt-collecting grooves to delay the cartridge blowing itself out of the action enough for the gun to function. The cocking knob is inacessable, the ergonomics are poor, and the sights barely acceptable.
The FAL is milled steel, elegant simplicity, heavier than hell, has maybe ten moving parts all of which are big honkin' steel pins or plates, and makes a dandy club when you're out of ammo.
FAL > all other MBRs and ARs.
February 8, 2008, 06:39 PM
Try each, see which one you like. The cocking knob is quite OK for me, my objection to HK ergos is the long reach to the selector lever. So I installed an ambi setup from Williams Trigger Specialties. Easy to manipulate with your trigger finger.
As far as reloadable brass goes, since I installed the port buffer, I haven't had any issues reloading my RA headstamped NATO brass at all. In fact, it shows now headspace change at all fired vs unfired. No stretching either. The flutes do leave some ridges on the brass, but nothing to interfere with reloading it.
I chose FAL, just as I chose it when I bought it over the HK91 and M1A many years ago.
February 9, 2008, 01:05 AM
There are a bazillion threads on this. Type "FAL G3" or "FAL HK91" into the search funciton.
February 9, 2008, 01:38 AM
if you take into account only; accuracy ,reliabilty and handling(im a southpaw) the g3 wins.the fal is a great rifle though,a very close second.:D
February 9, 2008, 12:40 PM
FAL, simply because of ergonomics, if you want a fast answer.
February 9, 2008, 06:38 PM
I recently purchased a PTR91 in Oct 07 and find that I like it. It is a well designed battle rifle.
My preference is the M14 platform, mainly because I got my Distinguished with that rifle and I just love the sights and the fine trigger. Second choice would be the FAL.
However when you look at costs, the PTR is several hundred dollars less than a nice FAL or GI parts M1a.
On a cost basis, you would be well served by the PTR.
There is really nothing "wrong" with any of them. It is a matter of preferences.
February 9, 2008, 06:42 PM
I inadvertently voted for CETME rather than HK91.
I own a PTR91. Wonderful rifle.
February 9, 2008, 06:55 PM
One of the most bizarre things (IMHO) in the gun world is that H&K guns always have unpleasant triggers. I'm not sure why this is. When I was at SHOT I handled every single gun HK makes right now. Without fail, each had the same gritty, drag-your-butt-over-gravel feel to it. The trigger felt more like a plastic spoon than the release mechanism of a firearm. Obviously, H&K intended it that way - the guns show far too much engineering and expensive development for the trigger to simply be a product of poor QC.
I own M14/M1A and FAL rifles. If a G3 were to come along at a good price (say $1000 or so) I would probably buy it. They are good rifles too, but I personally am not fond enough of the delayed roller system to pay the premium for it. While I have little experience with the DRS in HKs, in my CZ52s which also use DRS I have had many bad experiences. Often a tiny bit of grit gets in the roller mechanism and while the gun will still function it will grind that bit of grit horribly into the frame. On a military gun this doesnt matter, but as a shooter who pays for his own gun and its maintenance this sort of sucks.
My personal top 3 308/762nato rifles are (In order from first): FAL, M14, SAIGA 308. Our FALs are $899, a good M14 is about $1200 (with the chinese ones about 950, but those often require a little bit more work), and a good SAIGA 308 with their new Dragy wood stock is about $450. FALs are most reliable and flexible, M14s are the most accurate, and the SAIGAs are the best bang for the buck.
February 9, 2008, 08:38 PM
Well maybe I forgot to mention that I sent my PTR trigger pack off to Bill Springfield for a trigger job :
> I can set you up with a pull that has virtually no creep in the 4.75 area. I
> also remove all the take up slack. Price runs $54 and return postage is
> included. Only the trigger pack is needed, personal check is fine. My address
> Bill Springfield
> 4135 Cricket Ct.
> Colorado Springs, Co 80918
Even my SuperMatch M1a's were not up to my standard, but I was able to fine tune them myself, or have Ronnie Morris do a trigger job.
The FN/FAL, I swapped parts which made them acceptable, I have no idea how to tune one of them. Maybe someone has a link?
February 10, 2008, 02:56 PM
Springfield trigger work has to be experienced to be believed.
February 10, 2008, 03:16 PM
g3 trigger is meant to be dropped cocked safety catch off from 8 foot and not go off
g3 looks cooler buts heavier and has more recoil
SLR is the daddy
though the g7 cut down g3 looks cool as long as you have the big tache and north face jacket to go with it :D
February 10, 2008, 04:30 PM
having owned both, I'll opine in here. The FN-Fal is a darned good rifle. In the Isreali configuration, it about can't be beat. It's adjustible gas port allows for long firing, even after all the internals are gunked up. It will shoot 3 moa all day long (combat standard), but isn't worth a fiddler's fart for precision shooting. It is heavy.
The G3 will shoot anything all day long without adjustment. It won't leave a pile of brass less than 25 feet from the shooter. It will shoot 3 MOA all day long (combat standard), but isn't worth a fiddler's fart for precision shooting...
Both have been adopted by many countries as their standard battle rifle. Both are currently in service after almost 50 years after their development. Both show their age.
Given a choice today, I'd pick the G3. Only because it's the one I'm most competent on
February 10, 2008, 04:43 PM
Another FAL vote here. Its a more ergonomic and easily adjustable rifle when it comes to sights and the gas system. As far as accuracy is concerned it works just fine as a battle rifle. Its definitely no sniper weapon but then again it was never meant to be.
February 10, 2008, 06:52 PM
I was wondering what a good price is for a FAL?
I saw a good price at the gunshow today. $750 for a PAC gear logo imbel 21".
DSA STG58's run just over a grand in my area (although some people in other areas find them for less).
February 10, 2008, 07:19 PM
There's also a guy selling his DSA STG on calguns.net and gunboards.com. IIRC it was $1300. DSA receiver on IMBEL kit. IMBEL kits were carred a hell of a lot but not really shot all that much.
But if you want to pinch pennies, really consider the Saiga 308. It's one of the best gun deals out there. Accuracy won't be much different from either the G3 or FAL.
Or, if you have money saved up - wait for Kel-Tec's RFB 308 that is going to be out later this year. That is one KICK *** rifle. While almost certainly not as reliable as FAL or accurate as M1A, this is going to be a bullpup, front ejecting rifle.
February 10, 2008, 08:59 PM
If you take the time to do a search, this subject has been hashed and rehashed dozens of times on this board.
I'd vote FAL by personal preference but as others said they are both high quality firearm designs.
Here's my "stock" reply to the FAL vs. other battle rifles
FAL is a great platform because compared to other major battle rifles (e.g., against CETME/G3/HK91, M1A):
I have owned a HK G3 (Century c91 that was a perfect build...not typical Century crap) and a DSA STG 58A. I still own the FAL and sold the G3...here's why:
* Both are accurate for a MBR (2-3 MOA) ... HK fans will sy that their rifle is more accurate but I can find equal number of accurate / inaccurate G3's and FALs from people I know
* Both are 100% reliable (with early break in hiccups on both)
* Both have similar recoil but impulse is different
FAL wins on the following
* FAL has overall superior ergonomics for me
* FAL has bolt open (G3 does not)
* Couldn't reach either selector without changing grip...can fix that on FAL with L1A1 selector
* FAL mag release is easier to manipulate (assuming no paddle release on G3, if so then equal)
* FAL charging handle is in appropriate place (what idiot puts the charging handle near the muzzle of a rifle?)
* FAL breaks down/easier to clean and maintain eaiser than G3
* FAL has more simple locking mechanism
* FAL is "prettier" (subjective)
* FAL has adjustable gas system (but I personally don't see that as a big deal)
Here's where G3 wins
* Feels slightly more balanced/handy (subjective)
* G3 mags are better designed and snap in with more authority
That's it...usiing those criteria, FAL wins hands down for me. I currently own a PTR91 with a Bill Springfield trigger job in addition to my M1A Loaded. The PTR is best of breed...still if you are looking for a battle rifle, FAL wins. YMMV
KEY THING -- make sure you get to shoot them before you buy. Any bubba could of put them together and sometimes reliability will be a significant issue.
February 10, 2008, 09:36 PM
The good ergonomics, robustness of the platform, and the ease of attaching optics, makes it a no brainer.
If you enjoyed reading about "G3 vs FnFal" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!