PTR....for what purpose?


PDA






Archangel14
May 9, 2013, 09:51 PM
My LGS has a few PTRs in stock. I am impressed with the quality. Yet I found the basic model to be very heavy and a bit awkward. The sights were less than adequate also.

So for the $1,300 price tag, I have to ask: what purpose does such a rifle serve?

If you enjoyed reading about "PTR....for what purpose?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
TurtlePhish
May 9, 2013, 09:55 PM
It's a reliable, powerful rifle that works for defense, competition, or just plain fun. In terms of price and quality, PTRs are really the best HK-style rifles available.

Arp32
May 9, 2013, 09:57 PM
Back when the CAI (I think) ones were $600, I asked myself the same thing after handling them in person a few times.

A little unwieldy, little heavy and not super accurate... Expensive to feed (even then), but still there was something about them I liked.

I think it's just because there aren't too many magazine fed battle rifles with pistol grips - a big thumper has a certain satisfaction to it.

Never worked up enough desire to buy one though.

Archangel14
May 9, 2013, 10:06 PM
I get the whole "it's cool" aspect of the rifle. And I know it would be a good, reliable battle rifle. I imagine it can be used to hunt with. But at $1,300 I imagine there are a ton of better hunting and defense rifles out there. How many of us our going to ever be in a hard core, sustained battle against multiple well armed adversaries? Even so, an AR will more than suffice. I think the PTR is essentially for the "I got one" enthusiast.

nwilliams
May 9, 2013, 10:07 PM
It's a cheaper alternative to shelling out well over $2,000 for a real HK-91

I got mine brand new for around $1,100 a couple months ago.

I wouldn't call it a tack driver but it's accurate enough for a battle rifle and it's reliable and fun to shoot. I don't think there is really a "purpose" to this rifle platform but I think it tends to appeal to gun enthusiasts who appreciate classic battle rifles such as the FAL and perhaps even the AK.

Prince Yamato
May 9, 2013, 10:16 PM
You can stick a registered full auto trigger group on it. If you want a G3 clone, it's the cheapest game in town. Also, it's made off of HK machinery.

adelbridge
May 9, 2013, 10:37 PM
AR-10 made more sense to me

Archangel14
May 9, 2013, 10:46 PM
I think it's a great rifle, so don't get me wrong. But the pure weight of it, whewww! I'm in pretty good shape, and probably above-average strength for a middle age guy. But in no way would I want to be slugging it out with a group of armed adversaries for a hour or two with the PTR. Way too heavy! The AR is a much better fit. And for hunting? A simple bolt action will do just fine.

On the other hand, if stuff gets crazy I can imagine the PTR bringing the thump!

DesertFox
May 9, 2013, 11:04 PM
1) It chows brass. Not good for the reloader
2) It has no last shot bolt hold open

Other than that, I dig it.

fireside44
May 10, 2013, 12:29 AM
I can't believe people constantly whine about an additional pound or two over varmint cartridge rifles. It's a full power weapon and actually isn't that heavy at all. A FAL is more front heavy IMO. I think it's a good rifle. Don't mind the lack of a bolt hold open. Safety catch is easy to reach. Worse part is the mag release, same with the HK93 style rifle, not sure what they were thinking.

leadcounsel
May 10, 2013, 12:37 AM
It's a good battle rifle in .308. The big advantages are reliability and dirt cheap magazines. I think I have 200+ mags for mine and bought them at $1 each!!!

There are better .308 battle rifles. Look into the M1A or the FAL. Both are better rifles and not much more expensive. I have both and speak from experience. Better overall features and accuracy and ergonomics.

I don't have a AR10, but have a lot of AR15s. That is also an excellent design.

Texan Scott
May 10, 2013, 12:59 AM
Exterminating entire sounders of swine...

SabbathWolf
May 10, 2013, 08:08 AM
What makes the FAL better than the PTR?
Just curious...

The_Armed_Therapist
May 10, 2013, 09:21 AM
$1300 is awfully expensive (Mine was $800 last summer), but they're quality shooters for sure. Mine shoots 2.0-2.5 MOA with the cheapest .308 available.

The charging handle is awkward at first, but I got used to it pretty quickly.

I'm not sure what you found inadequate about the sights unless you were looking at the notch. That's for very close shooting. You actually use the "2" a vast majority of the time.

It also isn't really any heavier than any other battle rifle in .308. It's 9.5 lbs. You CAN get M1As, AR10s, or FALs at slightly lighter, but other configurations are much heavier. The LR308, for example, is 11.25 lbs. Unless you're comparing the PTR to an AR15, I'm not sure it's much heavier than anything else.

A few things are slightly different, but it's just as good as FAL, AR10, M1A, etc... It's hard on brass, obviously, but that's a different story. LOL

Gunnerboy
May 10, 2013, 09:26 AM
What makes the FAL better than the PTR?
Just curious... Nothing no offense to anyone but if i remeber right its one of the few rifles that the africans cant break....within reason.

The_Armed_Therapist
May 10, 2013, 09:30 AM
I imagine it can be used to hunt with. But at $1,300 I imagine there are a ton of better hunting and defense rifles out there. How many of us our going to ever be in a hard core, sustained battle against multiple well armed adversaries? Even so, an AR will more than suffice. I think the PTR is essentially for the "I got one" enthusiast.

Of course there are better hunting rifles. You're paying for a battle rifle. I doubt the store that has them for $1300 is selling any other battle rifle (FAL, AR10, M1A) any cheaper... Perhaps slightly on an LR308 would be my guess.

If you don't ever think you'll ever have to battle against many well-armed multiple adversaries, then you should definitely skip it. You would only be getting it as an "it's cool" enthusiast. Stick with bolt action and lever action rifles.

In the event of a "battle" against many well-armed multiple adversaries, an AR15 would "suffice"? LOL... For people who view this as plausible, "suffice" isn't really good enough. The .308 pentrates up to 3X deeper than the .223. It carries more energy and momentum at 500 yards than the .223 does at the muzzle. The .308 can shoot several hundred yards further without being nearly as affected by wind. If the weight and recoil of the .308 vs. the .223 isn't an issue (it will be for some), then a battle rifle is far better than an AR15.

The_Armed_Therapist
May 10, 2013, 09:33 AM
I can't believe people constantly whine about an additional pound or two over varmint cartridge rifles. It's a full power weapon and actually isn't that heavy at all.

++1

Archangel14
May 10, 2013, 10:00 AM
In the event of a "battle" against many well-armed multiple adversaries, an AR15 would "suffice"? LOL... For people who view this as plausible, "suffice" isn't really good enough. The .308 pentrates up to 3X deeper than the .223. It carries more energy and momentum at 500 yards than the .223 does at the muzzle. The .308 can shoot several hundred yards further without being nearly as affected by wind. If the weight and recoil of the .308 vs. the .223 isn't an issue (it will be for some), then a battle rifle is far better than an AR15.

I disagree. The AR 15 qualifies as a "battle rifle", as does my Yugo M48. My concern is protecting my own from roving bands of citizen criminals during a Karina-type situation. I would have a difficult time believing that I'm not well armed with an AR in 5.56. Certainly the .308 is much more powerful and will do much more damage. But the 5.56 would serve well. I think that's the scenario I envision.

And as for the rifle's weight, loaded at over 10 pounds? That's pretty heavy to be hauling around. My 30-06 bolt gun comes in at a bit over 6.5 loaded. That's actually a big difference in carry weight.

leadcounsel
May 10, 2013, 10:10 AM
The FAL is a superior rifle over the PTR91.

FAL = Better accuracy, better sites, better ergonomics, more user friendly charging handle location, mag release location, safety design, etc. bolt hold open feature, and the balance is better. Factory forearm and stock on the PTR91 are complete junk and need immediate $200 replacement too.

Invest $1300 into a DSA FAL and you'll be much happier.

SlamFire1
May 10, 2013, 10:24 AM
Any complaints about mine are really irrelevant to the use of the rifle as a battle rifle. The rifle is meant to be zeroed once with one type of ammunition. Rezeroing is a bother . the windage adjustment knob has about a half turn of slack and you have to have a screw driver to loosen the screw. Since the elevation turret has fixed elevation adjustments for yardage, you have to play with a screwdriver to get an elevation zero when changing ammunition or bullet weights.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v479/SlamFire/Rifles%20various/PTR%2091/PTRRearSight.jpg (http://smg.photobucket.com/user/SlamFire/media/Rifles%20various/PTR%2091/PTRRearSight.jpg.html)


For a rifle to be handed out to untrained cannon fodder in a war, this is not an issue: cheap, fast, manufacture, reliability and ease of maintenance are far more important considerations.


What happens in major wars is that the military does not have time to train recruits to any level of marksmanship. At best the recruits understand how to load, fire their weapons. There are a number of accounts of Dough Boys (WW1) and Dog Faces (WW2) who arrived in combat not knowing how to load their weapons. We still have a living WW2 veteran in the gun club, he had a total of 20 rounds of familiarization with M1 carbines before being second wave on the Iwo Jima invasion. He had two ten round periods of familiarization at a 200 yard range with a carbine before being loaded on an invasion ship. He got each of those carbines zeroed in the ten rounds he was to fire through them, but the carbines were taken away. One he had to aim at the bottom of the target to hit the middle, it was shooting at least three feet high! He was issued an unzeroed, unfired carbine on the way to Iwo Jima. He had to zero the thing in combat. He said his first shots, he aimed at the right most of three Japanese, and hit the left most! He had to beat the sight base over with a knife butt.


My Uncle, 101 Airborne, he had a total of eight rounds of familiarization with his M1919 before being dropped behind enemy lines at Normandy. He and his loader were so ignorant of the function of the thing they did not know it did not have a safety. They loaded a belt into the machine gun, were setting it up in combat, and bumped the trigger mechanism on the ground. The M1919 discharged, shooting off a finger of the loader who had his hand over the muzzle!



Another complaint has been the short buttstock and the scope mounts that place the scope directly into your head. Maybe about 2” into your head, I took my scope mount off after realizing that it placed any scope I had too far back.

The rifle is hard on ammunition, but reloading is not a consideration for an issue service rifle. I installed a buffer which kept ejected ammunition within 15 yards. Without a buffer cases are ejected 25 yards or so.

This is a well thought out battle rifle, it is still in production and service, after the FAL and M14 have been out of production for decades.


In 2008 I had Bill Springfield do a trigger job on my PTR 91. He did an excellent trigger job, match quality for a service rifle.


> wspringfield@comcast.net wrote:
>
> 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
> is:
>
> Bill Springfield
> 4135 Cricket Ct.
> Colorado Springs, Co 80918


http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v479/SlamFire/Rifles%20various/PTR%2091/PTR91fulllength.jpg (http://smg.photobucket.com/user/SlamFire/media/Rifles%20various/PTR%2091/PTR91fulllength.jpg.html)

stubbicatt
May 10, 2013, 10:40 AM
In truth, speaking for myself only, I have no immediate use for any of the firearms I own, other than the enjoyment of shooting and learning about the mechanisms. I am not a soldier, nor do I want to be one. I do not fear roving bands of thugs coming to take my food horde. I do not fantasize about such events, I do not plan for such events, as I find the thoughts disturbing, and the liklihood of such nonsense pretty remote.

However, I am an unabashed gear head, and love learning how things work. I enjoy shooting as a pastime, and sometimes I will compete, or at least I used to, before I broke my neck and spine. I really like my PTR91. It is more accurate than any FAL I have owned, and as accurate as any M1A I have owned. It is relatively short, has a free floated barrel, points well, and is absolutely reliable. With a port buffer, any brass that I can find ejected from the PTR is reusable, the sights are just plain marvelous. It readily accepts optics, and night vision. The "retarded blowback" roller "lock" mechanism always fascinates me, and makes me smile.

Cleanup is a breeze, and the rifle is just plain my favorite of its type.

Whenever I have the chance to shoot it, I always return from the range satisfied with the day. Back when 22 long rifle was plentiful, my 22 cal kit in the PTR was responsible for introducing several people to shooting sports, some of whom went on to buy their own firearms.

AK reliable, AR accurate, super easy to clean up, naturally points well, what's not to like? It packs a whole lot of fun in that little package. I guess it is like licorice: Not everybody likes licorice, but those who do like it, really like it. :)

GCMkc
May 10, 2013, 12:20 PM
Different strokes for different folks. Out of all the battle rifles I feel this one gets the most criticism. Not everyone is a believer. Forgot to mention what purpose this rifle is for. Same purpose as an FAL, M1A, or AR-10 style rifle: Target shooting, plinking, hunting, self defense, SHTF, whatever roll you want it to fill.

PTR makes a quality rifle on HK machinery. I cannot vouch for an FAL but I do recognize that the ergonomics appear to be more user friendly. I bought my PTR-91k about 3 years ago for $999. I have about $450 into the rifle (cheek riser, rail section, HK claw mount, scope rings, clipped and pinned metal SEF lower, and some other small parts). A new M1A, FAL, or decent AR-10 is going to run you that much.

The lack of a bolt hold open doesn't bother me.

I don't reload but dinged up brass can be fixed with a simple brass deflector ~$35.

Everyone knocks the magazine release. I can understand why but if you are just out on the range bench shooting what need is there to be able to quick change magazines. Paddle mag releases have to be installed per BATFE specs with a certain size pin and have to be permanently welded in place so a push-pin lower cannot be swapped onto the rifle. Like others, I wished they just did this in the PTR factory during the building process. Anyway, you can go the TAC-Latch route for around $55 or have one professionally installed the rifle for around $150 (Bill Springfield does this).

Whoever said that the stock forearm on the PTR is junk, can you please explain? It's machined aluminum, lightweight, and has the ability to add or remove picatinny rail sections. What more could you want? Why do you have to spend $200 more to get something better? What do you consider better?

The weight isn't that bad. I don't have an FAL or M1A but I'm pretty sure that it can't be much heavier or unwieldy. I would think that an FAL would be more nose heavy due to the piston system but I could be wrong. Most people won't be lugging one of these rifles around all day with full kit so I don't really see a difference in 1/2 to 3/4 of a pound. It seems these rifles are either loved or hated.

DSA SA58 w/ 16" barrel claims 8.35lbs
PTR-91kf w/ 16" barrel claims 9lbs
M1A Socom 16 w/ 16" barrel claims 8.8lbs
DPMS LR-308 AP4 w/ 16" barrel claims 8.5lbs

I can't believe people constantly whine about an additional pound or two over varmint cartridge rifles. It's a full power weapon and actually isn't that heavy at all.

Agreed 100%

For the "I got one" crowd. ;)

http://img832.imageshack.us/img832/7513/ptr91k.jpg (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/832/ptr91k.jpg/)

Uploaded with ImageShack.us (http://imageshack.us)

Archangel14
May 10, 2013, 01:26 PM
I am not a soldier, nor do I want to be one. I do not fear roving bands of thugs coming to take my food horde. I do not fantasize about such events, I do not plan for such events, as I find the thoughts disturbing, and the liklihood of such nonsense pretty remote.


Do you find such thoughts "disturbing" and nonsensical? Well, just so you don't have the wrong impression, I spend very, very little thought on such subjects. But my personal experience has dictated that I give some thought to, and prepare for, several people trying to do harm to me and my family. Because it's actually happened to me. I'm sure that in your nice, insulated world there will never be a need to defend yourself or your family. Simply cannot happen, I'm sure. But strangely, it's actually happened to me. It's shocking, I know. And after a bit of research, I saw that it has happened to quite a few peaceful folk in recent times. The aftermath of Katrina is one solid example. Oh, and there were those roving bans of KKK guys no so long ago attacking peaceful black families. Oh, and there was that gang of teenagers who beat the living crap out of my cousin after Hurricane Sandy when he found them raiding his garage.

I live in an earthquake zone. I've taken some steps to be a bit prepared. Sorry that offends you so much friend.;)

Archangel14
May 10, 2013, 01:31 PM
The weight isn't that bad. I don't have an FAL or M1A but I'm pretty sure that it can't be much heavier or unwieldy. I would think that an FAL would be more nose heavy due to the piston system but I could be wrong. Most people won't be lugging one of these rifles around all day with full kit so I don't really see a difference in 1/2 to 3/4 of a pound. It seems these rifles are either loved or hated.

I get your point. I guess that after handling a light AR, the weight difference is quickly noticed. And I think that for hunting, particularly, I'd rather carry less weight if I could. And God forbid I ever find myself using a rifle in self defense, I think a lighter AR platform would be a great choice. I think those are the thoughts behind my "what purpose does the PTR serve" question. For us civys anyway.

fireside44
May 10, 2013, 02:01 PM
The weight isn't that bad. I don't have an FAL or M1A but I'm pretty sure that it can't be much heavier or unwieldy. I would think that an FAL would be more nose heavy due to the piston system but I could be wrong. Most people won't be lugging one of these rifles around all day with full kit so I don't really see a difference in 1/2 to 3/4 of a pound. It seems these rifles are either loved or hated.

DSA SA58 w/ 16" barrel claims 8.35lbs
PTR-91kf w/ 16" barrel claims 9lbs
M1A Socom 16 w/ 16" barrel claims 8.8lbs
DPMS LR-308 AP4 w/ 16" barrel claims 8.5lbs

The FAL is more nose heavy, however, a standard 21" FAL with steel lower has excellent overall balance that makes it feel lighter than it is. Put a picatinny rail on, thereby ruining the balance, and you quickly see how a well balanced weapon negates extra weight. My own is a 16" barrel model with para folding stock and alloy lower. It has excellent balance as well. Handling and shooting a FAL, one quickly realizes why over 90 countries used it and many still actively field and produce a variant. It's simply a rifle that does nothing particularly well but does everything satisfactorily. I feel that is what makes it a great design.

GCMkc
May 10, 2013, 02:38 PM
The FAL is more nose heavy, however, a standard 21" FAL with steel lower has excellent overall balance that makes it feel lighter than it is. Put a picatinny rail on, thereby ruining the balance, and you quickly see how a well balanced weapon negates extra weight. My own is a 16" barrel model with para folding stock and alloy lower. It has excellent balance as well. Handling and shooting a FAL, one quickly realizes why over 90 countries used it and many still actively field and produce a variant. It's simply a rifle that does nothing particularly well but does everything satisfactorily. I feel that is what makes it a great design.

I can see why people rave about the FAL. It's definitely on my bucket list of rifles to buy. Come to think of it, I've only handled one or two FAL's in my entire life (all 25 years of it). Most LGS's don't have them and I've only held a couple at gun shows. Would you recommend a DSArms FAL? Will they run steel cased ammo? Barrel length recommendations?

Sorry, I am getting off subject OP.

The_Armed_Therapist
May 10, 2013, 02:46 PM
I disagree. The AR 15 qualifies as a "battle rifle", as does my Yugo M48. My concern is protecting my own from roving bands of citizen criminals during a Karina-type situation. I would have a difficult time believing that I'm not well armed with an AR in 5.56. Certainly the .308 is much more powerful and will do much more damage. But the 5.56 would serve well. I think that's the scenario I envision.

You misunderstood me. No AR15 bashing here; it's an amazing tool. Just saying that because something is "sufficient" isn't a reason to not consider something that could be even better.

And as for the rifle's weight, loaded at over 10 pounds? That's pretty heavy to be hauling around. My 30-06 bolt gun comes in at a bit over 6.5 loaded. That's actually a big difference in carry weight.

The comparison was to battle rifles, was it not? Ultra lightweight hunting rifles are a whole different tool with a whole different purpose.

Rudedog
May 10, 2013, 02:59 PM
I was a soldier once and have carried everything from M60 MG on down (in weight).
There are a lot of good points brought up here.
I have experience with the previously mentioned rifles. My favorite one was the FAL. However the PTR (HK) will fire and keep firing any brand of ammo you want to shoot in it, at least from what I remember of some old HK G3s I have shot.

The .223 (5.56mm) as a military round was a compromise brought about for the need to carry a lot of ammo for a lightweight weapon in a jungle environment where engagements ranges were relatively short. It will of course kill people. It makes a really good close quarters round. Yes lugging a nine pound, 44 inch long M14 around in the jungle must have been tiring. Pity the machinegunner.

Nowadays the .223 is proving to be lacking in range and knockdown power in the current war against armed insurgents. Therefore M14s/21s were brought back and in limited numbers the FN MK17 in 7.62 x 51mm is being used. So the "battle rifle" is back.

I myself have an AK type "assault rifle" for the purposes of "home-land" defense and others. If I was going to buy a full on battle rifle I would seriously consider the PTR.
Oh yeah, I had an AR but sold it, never really did like that dirty firing platform anyways.

JShirley
May 10, 2013, 03:28 PM
There is no such thing as "knockdown power" from a shoulder-fired rifle. It's quite literally a scientific law.

When I was infantry originally, I marched with a 35-lb 60mm mortar in my arms. When I came back from OSUT ITB (Infantry Basic), I found that all rifles were lighter...but the HK-91 was still badly balanced.

I took an HK-91 deer hunting. Once.

My buddy Byron, may he rest in peace, had owned a HK-91 for years. After I met him, he also bought a M1A. After shooting my FN-FAL, he eventually bought mine (I was buying another), and sold the HK-91 he'd owned for over 20 years. He kept the M1A.

The HK-91 may be reliable, but has horrible ergonomics and is badly balanced, especially when compared to a standard FN-FAL. The Germans wanted to make the FN-FAL in Germany (the Germans call the FN-FAL the G1), but the Belgians refused to sell them the license. The Germans then went on to build the G3/HK-91, which was based on the Spanish CETME- but always remember that even the Germans preferred the FN-FAL.

John

fireside44
May 10, 2013, 04:20 PM
Would you recommend a DSArms FAL? Will they run steel cased ammo? Barrel length recommendations?


No on recommending a DSArms. They are a lousy company to deal with and their QC on small parts has been badly lacking. For instance, broken firing pins and other DSA manufactured parts. They also turned out a run of receivers that were out of spec beyond what their customer base had come to expect. An early Grayslake DSA model is highly regarded, but current DSA has some black marks.

Steel cased ammo is a hot topic and central to many a flame war over at the FAL files. Some guys shoot it all the time, others have had kabooms with it. Personally I avoid it because I cannot afford to replace my rifle at this time. Prior to the run on ammo they did have sub-$10 a box Monarch brass cased for blasting. The main problem right now is feeding one if you aren't set up with surplus 7.62x51 or reloading components.

Barrel length? I built a Para so I went with a shorter length for reasons of compactness. It's said you lose 50fps (I think) for every inch you cut off. Mine is somewhere in the neighborhood of 16 or 17 inches, I never made an exact measurement but function is excellent with factory ammo. I love all lengths myself but an 18" or so seems to be thought of as the most even tradeoff between performance and compactness.

If you really want a good rifle I would go to the FAL Files, meet some guys, and browse the marketplace. In the madness FAL prices remained more stable and some VERY nice weapons went for very reasonable prices. I recommend buying a good kit built weapon on a DSA or Coonan receiver through someone with good feedback on the forum. Some nice guys to deal with over there.

There is no such thing as "knockdown power" from a shoulder-fired rifle. It's quite literally a scientific law.

True, but there is perceived and real world effectiveness that people describe generically as knockdown power.

Archangel14
May 10, 2013, 04:40 PM
Nowadays the .223 is proving to be lacking in range and knockdown power in the current war against armed insurgents. Therefore M14s/21s were brought back and in limited numbers the FN MK17 in 7.62 x 51mm is being used. So the "battle rifle" is back.

I couldn't say, as I'm not a soldier. But I have to imagine that in an actually "battle" scenario, a .308 shooting rifle is likely superior. But for hunting, plinking, and self defense in the type of scenarios most of us would likely encounter (or "unlikely"), an AR 15 would be ideal.

Old_Gun_Hand
May 10, 2013, 04:55 PM
Why a Glock 17 with 17 round mags? I do not know anyone who goes through life just buying things strictly according to need and no more or less. That is why our supermarkets are so big compared to some other countries where all you can buy is the single State sponsored brand. God Bless America and the many choices we have.

The_Armed_Therapist
May 10, 2013, 05:05 PM
Why a Glock 17 with 17 round mags? I do not know anyone who goes through life just buying things strictly according to need and no more or less. That is why our supermarkets are so big compared to some other countries where all you can buy is the single State sponsored brand. God Bless America and the many choices we have.

++1

JShirley
May 10, 2013, 06:03 PM
Archangel, I am a soldier, and I've deployed to Afghanistan for a total of 22 months. At the ranges the 5.56mm runs out of steam, you kill the enemy with crew-served weapons, anyway. I've fired at the enemy a LOT- always at over 1000 meters. The only people I've heard extol the virtues of 7.62x51mm for Afghanistan have always been armchair commandos, not real infantry.

John
06-07
11-12

Ed Ames
May 10, 2013, 06:09 PM
To the OP: people have different aesthetic and physical tolerances. I knew someone who did track and stalk deer hunting (no feeders or stands) with a surplus m1 garand. 9.5+ pounds and iron sights but it worked for him. PTR would be about the same.

Other people use them as range toys, wall art, talismans, etc..

I don't have one, but I have rifles that are more absurd. I mostly use them as safe weights, to make it harder to move my RSC, but I wouldn't hesitate to take one hunting, to a match, to training, or just to a range for some fun. Not to mention emergency uses that hopefully will never come up. ;)

Archangel14
May 10, 2013, 06:42 PM
The only people I've heard extol the virtues of 7.62x51mm for Afghanistan have always been armchair commandos, not real infantry.

JShirley, thank you for your most excellent service. You are better than most.

So, I want to hear from you, because I think your opinion is most persuasive. For an all around defense rifle, anticipating a kind of civil disobedience scenario (post-earthquake bandits roaming the neighborhood type of thing), am I correct to think that an AR in 5.56 is all I really need? ?

Thanks!

splithoof
May 10, 2013, 07:43 PM
The PTR-91 is for those who don't/can't/won't find an original HK-91. The design is just about the closest thing to a disposable rifle as can be found (perhaps only second to a WW2 Greasegun), and can be discarded when finished with.

JShirley
May 10, 2013, 09:46 PM
Archangel,

Thank you.

Yes, out to 400 meters (more with optic, careful ammo selection, and a good barrel), the AR-15 in a 16-20" barrel is all you need, so long as you don't need to shoot things weighing over 250 lbs. If you anticipate being over-run with herds of bears, a heavier caliber would be in order. :)

For most people, I suggest a "disaster rifle" that is a sturdy bolt-action with a low fixed power or low to mid power adjustable optic. Something in the 7.62x39mm to 7mm Rem Mag power range will repel all but the heaviest boarding parties, and be useful in the woods, too. Of course, if you're not a hunter, just get an AR-15.

John

LNK
May 13, 2013, 07:34 AM
What makes the FAL better than the PTR?
Just curious...

1. Doesn't flute the brass.
2. Last shot hold open, (on metric, but can be installed on inch).

That is about it.....I like them both, but prefer the FAL..

LNK

Rudedog
May 13, 2013, 09:46 PM
Dear JShirley (Administrator),
I appreciate your service too. Not to take anything away from you, but...
I have been to Afghanistan as well. Infantry operations has definately has change over the decades. From what you say (and from what I've seen over there) it sounds like you are confined to your firebase or COP and lob mortar rounds or bursts of crew served machinegun fire at specks over a 1000 meters away. That is not effective.

Well if you were with a unit that uses FM 7-8 as a base of operations and left your firebase , COP or MRAP and learned how to manuever, close-in and kill the enemy on foot then you would appreciate the destructiveness of the 7.62x39 and 7.62x51 cartridges. In the end it will come down to the people that carry the rifle and shoot it out, and if you were ever in that situation you would not belittle the 7.62.

Ed Ames
May 13, 2013, 10:14 PM
I'm unlikely to visit Afghanistan, and if I ever go it certainly won't be to play Soviet Army 2.0. But I can read. Being a frequent reader I am exposed to a lot of dubious propaganda, including some that is relevant to - is perhaps at the center of - this clash of fobbits and armchairs.

An excerpt:

"U.S. Army data ... reveals that more than half of the war’s small arms engagements are now beyond 500 meters, with the enemy employing heavier weapons and then withdrawing before air support or artillery fire can arrive."
http://www.americanrifleman.org/m-articlepage.aspx?id=3163&cid=4

Of course the purpose of that blitz, which involved everyone from the AP to the NRA, was to convince the Party to pay for new stocks for some old rifles, but, as with most of these efforts, there was collateral damage. Specifically, it influenced perceptions of the effectiveness of the 5.56 in Afghanistan. Sigh.

So the problem now is that we have JShirley on one side saying one thing, and many news and propaganda outlets echoing exactly the opposite message. It raises questions.

stubbicatt
May 14, 2013, 08:33 AM
Anyways, the PTR 91 is a whole lot of fun. I have shot prairie dogs on the run with mine at 400 yards. If I can see it, chances are I can hit it. It is absolutely reliable. For a really good time call 1-800-PTR-91! LOL.

As far as a rifle to be used in anger, I think that folks tend to think very highly of the rifle that they carry into harms' way, and with which they are really familiar. These are lifetime impressions, near as I can tell.

With 155 grain Amax bullets and a near maximum load of H4895, mine has been nothing short of stellar. And I can play "dress up" with it if I should wish, almost as much as do the boys with the AR 15's. You can change the stocks and fore ends, you can change the lowers, you can add bipods, brakes, flash hiders... scopes and optics... a neat little 22 long rifle kit... These sorts of things are fun to collect in their own right, and it is important to "accessorize!" :D

Three things I did to mine which made it much more enjoyable for my uses are the port buffer so that recovered brass may be reloaded, a paddle magazine release, which is IMO so important that the factory should install these, and a trigger job. Bill Springfield did this trigger and I cannot say enough good about his work.

Rudedog
May 15, 2013, 12:26 AM
Stubbicatt - amen
Archangel14 - You will not go wrong with your AR for your intended purposes.
All- any of the previuous mentioned 7.62x51 battle rifles have their advantages and disadvantages and any of them will work for what they are made for.
Remember a .22 LR will kill most anything with proper shot placement, but is it the right cartridge?

JustinJ
May 15, 2013, 11:20 AM
So for the $1,300 price tag, I have to ask: what purpose does such a rifle serve?

It's generally better to define a purpose and then select the weapon but like the AR, AK, FAL, SCAR and a while slew of other rifles available to civilians it's original purpose was combat. However, most of us who own such weapons do so for one or more of the following: cool factor, plinking, collecting, hunting, competition, home defense, etc.

MJ
May 15, 2013, 01:18 PM
You can't reload the brass is an old wives tale.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v130/montereyjack/ffcc3a60.jpg (http://smg.photobucket.com/user/montereyjack/media/ffcc3a60.jpg.html)

stubbicatt
May 15, 2013, 09:05 PM
I agree with MJ, I reload for the rifle with no issue. I use a port buffer to deflect the empties without putting that "smiley" on them, but even so, the case heads take a beating from the ejector and the forces involved.

Using .mil brass, I get 4 or 5 reloadings before I opt to place them in the recycle bin.

JShirley
May 15, 2013, 10:05 PM
Dear Rudedog (Member),
I appreciate your service. Not to take anything away from you, but my copy of FM 7-8 emphasizes "close combat", beginning with the first sentence of Chapter 1, "Fundamentals of Tactics". Continuing one with part of the 5th and 6th sentences: close combat is callous and unforgiving. Its dimensions are measured in minutes and meters. That would seem to rule out long shots...like I said.

I suppose I should tell the 3rd and 7th Group Special Forces soldiers that I was with that they didn't know how to fight a war. Perhaps you should read a little more carefully. I didn't "belittle" the 7.62x51mm, I said it wasn't necessary as an individual weapon for warfighting.

Now, with a historical perspective, I can tell you that killing the enemy with support weapons has always been the preferred method. I suggest you read FM 7-8 again, especially 1-20, 1-70, 1-95, and all of Section 4. Let me help you with the first sentence of Section 4: The Army's preferred method of fighting is combined arms. Helpfully illustrated with pictures (Figures 1-8, 1-9, and 1-10), that section then illustrates how using indirect and direct fires, maneuver, and use of terrain is how we are SUPPOSED to fight. In other words, killing the enemy with massed firepower rather than individual weapons is the US Army way.

So, yeah. I'm pretty familiar with FM 7-8, but it doesn't sound like you are.

John

Rudedog
May 15, 2013, 10:30 PM
Good deal John, just checking.
I'll stick with 7.62 though.

JShirley
May 15, 2013, 10:38 PM
Fair enough. I think the 7.62x51mm is a much more versatile caliber than 5.56x45mm.

MJ
May 16, 2013, 06:18 PM
I said it wasn't necessary as an individual weapon for warfighting.

I think that would depend on your war wouldn't it?

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v130/montereyjack/DSCF0047_zps272031ef.jpg (http://smg.photobucket.com/user/montereyjack/media/DSCF0047_zps272031ef.jpg.html)

...MJ...
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v130/montereyjack/ee27d9b6.jpg (http://smg.photobucket.com/user/montereyjack/media/ee27d9b6.jpg.html)

StretchNM
May 16, 2013, 07:58 PM
In truth, speaking for myself only, I have no immediate use for any of the firearms I own, other than the enjoyment of shooting and learning about the mechanisms. I am not a soldier, nor do I want to be one. I do not fear roving bands of thugs coming to take my food horde. I do not fantasize about such events, I do not plan for such events, as I find the thoughts disturbing, and the liklihood of such nonsense pretty remote.

You really should give some thought to, AND plan for, disaster events. Otherwise, you will find yourself unprepared, your will to live will kick in, and you may become a thug or one of a band of thugs that many people will be shooting at. It's terrible, but thinking about disaster events is something all persons should do, I believe. Because people find the thoughts "disturbing" is no reason to ignore them. However, I'm with you on the fantasizing. I recommend you continue not doing that. Fantasies have nothing to do with mental preparedness. (((:D)))

Don't be a victim in the end.

stubbicatt
May 16, 2013, 08:00 PM
Oh.... Nevermind.

If you enjoyed reading about "PTR....for what purpose?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!