HK91 or FN FAL?

Which would you get?

  • HK 91

    Votes: 64 32.3%

  • FN FAL

    Votes: 134 67.7%
  • Total voters
    198
Status
Not open for further replies.
I had a HK91 back in the 1980's. The only regret I have in selling it is that I sold it before the AW Ban and therefore didn't make out like a bandit. The HK91 is heavy, akward and unergonomic. The trigger pull has to be one of the worst ever on a service rifle. I much prefered the FN-FAL but could not afford one at the time.
 
I can assure you that the word "Ergonomics" was a term not known to the engineers when they designed the HK-91.
 
FAL. Less recoil, doesn't chew up brass, cheap mags, more ergonomic. Not to mention FN doesn't think that you suck nor do they hate you.
 
Saw the Youtube, but saw nothing that was either pro or con the Hk except that it was in use.

Ash
Click to expand...

Yes, in use, but look at the conditions that it's being used in, probably about as harsh as it will get for a rifle with little cleaning or maintenance. These guys don't baby their rifles nor are they safe queens. When you judge a battle rifle those are the conditions to consider.

And no, I'm not joking. What do you think these rifles were made for? Judging a rifle because it looks cool? C'mon.
 
Yes, in use, but look at the conditions that it's being used in, probably about as harsh as it will get for a rifle with little cleaning or maintenance. These guys don't baby their rifles nor are they safe queens. When you judge a battle rifle those are the conditions to consider.

And no, I'm not joking. What do you think these rifles were made for? Judging a rifle because it looks cool? C'mon.
Click to expand...

Dude, you gotta be kidding me... That video didn't show anything of substance, and I would pit my FAL against a G3 in any conditions you could drum up. I've handled the G3, and I can say this: it is a piece of junk in comparison to an FAL, if feels cheap, has poor ergonomics, and it is overpriced.
 
I've handled the G3, and I can say this: it is a piece of junk in comparison to an FAL, if feels cheap, has poor ergonomics, and it is overpriced.
Click to expand...

that about sums up my opinion.

If you want to talk about harsh conditions, I'm sure you can find the link to ol'dirty somewhere around here.

Nice rifle cameron.personal. I'm working on putting something very similar together. I'm waiting on backordered Para Extreme Duty mount though, but yeah, Hampton A2 lower, Magpul CTR stock, and IOR-Valdada scope. I'm using an 18" bbl with full length gas system though. And the scope is a 4x with MP9 reticle.
 
hmmm....Belgians do two things really good....


chocolate and rifles. :D


dream rifle would be a low SN 50.63

of course...I haven't won the lotto yet. :) lol
 
sorry, did a google search on "SN 50.63 " and came up empty in the rifle department. Care to tell me what your REAL dream rifle is now?
 
sorry, did a google search on "SN 50.63 " and came up empty in the rifle department. Care to tell me what your REAL dream rifle is now?
Click to expand...


my REAL dream rifle IS a low Serial Number (SN) FAL 50.63 folding stock Para.


D
 
FN FAL 50.63:
falpara-f8dbh9u4.jpg
 
HK-91

I like both weapons but, with the exception of balance, I think the HK has the FN beat. Total weight might go to th FN too bu not by enough to matter, it certainly balances better.

Ergonomics are better on the HK for me anyway. FN is good, HK better. The HK's I've seen are more reliable than the FN's, not a ton of experience here, just anecdotal stuff. Even HK-91 magazines can be had for $2 each. The sling is even better!

Nothing against the FN people! I just prefer the HK, even though it is quite front heavy.
 
Have owned and sold both in the old 1980s civilian versions. Have also fired both military versions extensively. The long range accuracy of both are hindered by their sights. An AR-10 or M-14 will outshoot both at longer ranges. The dust cover scope mounts for the FN are not the most solid things in the world and not worth while for real accuracy either.
Firing both in full auto mode is fun, but not very practical for real use. Well shooting an M-14 on full auto is not a good way of obtaining hits either and the old AR-10 I fired in the Sudan was almost impossible to hold on full auto.
The FNs are simpler and have lasted for a long time in actual field use.
 
The dust cover scope mounts for the FN are not the most solid things in the world and not worth while for real accuracy either.
Click to expand...

While this may have been true for the older FN scope mounts, modern DSA mounts made with newer technology are rock solid and reliable, easily equaling the quality of a good M1A or HK mount.
 
I voted for the FAL.
I had an original HK 91...Bought it BRAND NEW in 1985 for the HUGE price of $475.00 out the door.
Kept it until about 2002. Sold it for $2200.00...Still miss it.
However...Over the years I owned that rifle...I am guessing I put 3-4000 rounds of EVERY type of ammo thru it.
It NEVER failed. I mean NEVER ONCE.
ALWAYS fired.And always hit My mark.
EXCELLENT RIFLE,in My opinion.
Last year,I bought a new DSA FAL PARA CARBINE.
Another excellent rifle.
Vey accurate,maybe 500 rounds thry it (so far) and zero problems...A real work horse...solid as a rock.
One or the other?
The FAL. Feels better to Me.
For Me,it is a VERY close race...I would prefer the FAL,the milled reciever clinches it,as well as HK's rep for TERRIBLE customer service.
The HK has a stamped reciever,that I could see getting damaged much more easily than a FAL....And the HK finish is kinda brittle...can chip/flake if Your not careful....
Just My .02....
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

A
  • Locked
  • Poll
G3 vs FnFal
2
Replies
44
Views
3K
USSR
U
T
  • Locked
FAL and HK91 mags
Replies
8
Views
518
.45&TKD
4
G
  • Locked
G3 or HK91 Clones
Replies
18
Views
2K
kennyboy
K
G
  • Locked
Ishapore 1A1 "FN-FAL"
Replies
5
Views
2K
Afy
A
H
  • Locked
FN FAL info
Replies
3
Views
746
JShirley
JShirley
Back
Top