PTR 91 or AR-10,308

ar-10 much cheaper to build

I think the AR10 is a better, more modern rifle.

I do like the PTR though for other reasons (it's Hk and military history). Tons of cheap surplus mags out there for them if you look, were as low as $1ea a few years ago, should be able to get them for $3 or less still.
PTR does allow for a collapsible stock if that is your thing, it is not a fun to shoot it much with that check weld though.

AR10

NIGHTLORD40K said:

AR10

Click to expand...

Prices for AR10 are very good. I don't have one though. I think the AR10, especially a flat top, is a more flexible option.

The G3/HK91 rifle is interesting from a historical and functional viewpoint. It really is a very clever military rifle.



I see PTR is making a flat top version, which is all to the good. I tried using the military scope base, and it was too high, and the stock was too short. It would have put the scope in my eye ball if I had shot it. The regular stock is pretty short for irons, it will tap your glasses if you have long arms.

I have friends who have used the AR10 in competition, it is an inherently accurate action. You should be able to get aftermarket parts easily. My PTR has a thumping recoil, due to the massive carrier. While it does add to reliability, it kicks.

I don't have an AR-10 but I do have a PTR 91, an FAL, an M1A, and a bunch of AR-15's. I would rate the PTR 91 behind any of the rest of them. The problem is inherent in the design -- it's a brutish weapon with a violent action, made crudely of welded steel stampings. If a country has to equip an army at the lowest cost, I can see the logic of the G3 / PTR 91. For an individual civilian, the other choices are better.

Go with the AR-10. I would have said the FAL, but it's in a higher price range.

AR 10

Another vote for AR-10.

Think of the G3 design as the accurate .308 AK. The AR pattern is a better all around rifle for the most part.

I have a PTR 91 and it is a well made rifle. Accurate and reliable. With one you are well armed with a battle rifle. However I also think an AR 10 offers more for the $ all things being equal.

Having both, AR-10 (20" & 16") advantage is on the AR side for parts/barrels/ triggers/mags etc.. I will take any if lead is on the air.

Have we mentioned the G3 / PTR 91's bizarre bayonet location above the barrel?

AlexanderA said:

I don't have an AR-10 but I do have a PTR 91, an FAL, an M1A, and a bunch of AR-15's. I would rate the PTR 91 behind any of the rest of them. The problem is inherent in the design -- it's a brutish weapon with a violent action, made crudely of welded steel stampings. If a country has to equip an army at the lowest cost, I can see the logic of the G3 / PTR 91. For an individual civilian, the other choices are better.

Go with the AR-10. I would have said the FAL, but it's in a higher price range.

Click to expand...

This ^... I owned my PTR for several years and tried all the mods to make it easier to shoot a little softer and more accurately, i.e. heavier buffer, trigger work, larger butt pad, etc. The bottom line is that, in addition to the above criticisms, it is heavy as hell. I don't mind some weight but lugging that thing around got old real quick.

It wasn't all bad though: The PTR is built like a tank, parts are dirt cheap, and it's accurate enough for a battle rifle. Additionally, my experience with their customer service was excellent.

I vote AR in 308. Much more versitle, change uppers and stock fast. Mounting optics is fast and there are a ton of options.

That being said, if you are getting a G3/HK91 spend the extra and get a real one. This one isn't mine but is set up the same.

Very well built, modular design. You can go from a full length stock to a collapsible or side folder in less than a minute. Just pull out a couple of pins, put in the new stock and put said pins right back in.

The scope mount is rock solid. AlexanderA mentioned the bayonet mount position. It is in a perfect position. Mounted in the center of the rifle, Think about going prone and resting the barrel on a log or window. They bayonet on an M14 is under the barrel and hard to get if from not moving around since it is loose.

For us guys that reload the worst thing is the distance it throws brass. 30' or so to the right. Almost as dangerous there as the guy you are shooting at. First time I took mine to the range I let go with 5 rapid fire shots. I heard screaming from the last bench on the right. Guy was getting pelted with hot brass at high velocity.

The second picture is a guy out looking for his brass to reload.

As soon as I can sell my 1979 H&K 91 I'll replace it with an AR-10. I love the H&K but I'm not as young as I once was. I'm too old to chase brass.

-If you want accuracy, an AR-10 will likely be the better option.
-If you want reliability, a PTR-91 will, generally speaking, be more reliable than an AR-10. Before any AR-10 enthusiasts get their panties in a bunch, this is completely dependent on the AR-10 in question. However, compared to the PTR-91 and the similar, but smaller, AR-15, AR-10 pattern rifles have historically had more reliability issues. The PTR-91, has remained reliable.
-Price will be similar between the two platforms, with an edge going to the AR-10 since you can buy and build for as little as $550 using PSA offerings.
-The AR-10's modularity, customization, and parts availability beat out the PTR-91.
-The AR-10 will be easier on brass and gentler in the recoil department.

JONWILL said:

That being said, if you are getting a G3/HK91 spend the extra and get a real one.

Click to expand...

H&K is known for ridiculously overpricing their products. Plus, they have an arrogant attitude. Thank goodness PTR exists as a cheaper alternative.

Also, POF (Pakistan Ordnance Factory) is a viable source of replacement parts. People may scoff at the Pakistani origin, but this factory was set up under H&K auspices and the quality is quite good. My PTR 91 originally came with the plastic "Navy" style trigger housing. I replaced it with a POF metal housing and it made a big improvement. And I didn't like the slim forend supplied by PTR. I replaced it with the beavertail forend with integral bipod mounting (seen in the second picture in JONWILL's post, above), also from POF. My PTR 91 is about as good as it can be made. It still falls short of the FAL.

Depends what you want to do with it - if you want to shoot a few rounds off a bench on occasion, the AR-10 offers more options. But I've seen issues with reliability when pushed on the cheaper models like PSA.

That being said, in a Battle Rifle class that I took with a local training group, there were two FAL's, two SCAR-H's, four AR-10/SR-25's, and my PTR-91. When all was said and done, throughout the day the FAL's had no issues. The SCAR's had no issue. My PTR had no issue. The $4,000 KAC SR-25 had no issues, but all three homebuilt and/or budget AR-10's had to be pulled apart multiple times in a 350 round class where distances varied from 5 yards out to 100.

For a reliable "battle rifle" I'd take the PTR, SCAR, or FAL. For a precision semi-auto rifle, I'd take an AR-10/SR-25.

Had an HK91 many years ago and didn't really care for it. At the time I also had access to a SA M1A and a DSA FAL, both of which were much more ergonomic and enjoyable to shoot than the HK91. If I were choosing between a PTR 91 and a AR10, I would go with the AR10.

Some guy1776 said:

So I am an the market for a 308 rifle and I have been wondering what rifle gets you the most bang for your buck the PTR 91 or an AR-10 or if there are other rifles in the same price range?

Click to expand...

Ive had a couple of each and there are pluses an minuses to eac

Some guy1776 said:

So I am an the market for a 308 rifle and I have been wondering what rifle gets you the most bang for your buck the PTR 91 or an AR-10 or if there are other rifles in the same price range?

Click to expand...

I don't think you can really go wrong with either. The AR10 has a higher up side, with a PTR91 you get what you get, not a lot of mods. I have owned multiple examples of both, and currently just have a Smith &Wesson M&P-10. if that tells you anything ( I do have an M1A and Saiga 308 too. ) I really like PTR's and would not hesitate to get another. If your particular rifle has violent recoil try another buffer or whole milsurp buttstock assembly. It can make a difference. PTRs can be run very fast, and are reliable, if you get a good one.

.308 AR hands down.

The PTR-91 can be had for $200 more than an AR-10. So I’ll factor price as almost equal. That said, I own a PTR-91, it’s cool and useful, but heavy. Not as practical as the AR-10. The AR has a nicer recoil implulse I think. But for something different the hk91 is great.

AlexanderA said:

I don't have an AR-10 but I do have a PTR 91, an FAL, an M1A, and a bunch of AR-15's. I would rate the PTR 91 behind any of the rest of them. The problem is inherent in the design -- it's a brutish weapon with a violent action, made crudely of welded steel stampings. If a country has to equip an army at the lowest cost, I can see the logic of the G3 / PTR 91. For an individual civilian, the other choices are better.

Click to expand...

I agree. It is more or less ironic that of the post war, issued, 7.62 battle rifles, only the HK91 design is still being made, and being issued, as a standard service weapon. All the rest were simply too expensive and those niceties of fine trigger pull, ergonomics, soft recoil, pretty surface finish, so cried over in civilian forums, are of absolutely little concern to those pay the bills. They want something cheap, and reliable. Ludwig Vorgrimler and his merry band of Germans, lived through the experience of total war, probably knew some of those millions of men who disappeared in Russia. And through the scientific method of trial and error, learned that a grunt will find more useful a cheap, rough, functioning sidearm, that he has, than an expensive, highly polished one, that he does not have. The Germans lost entire Armies in Russia in times periods of months. Armies whose material represented years of industry production. Look at Japanese last ditch weapons if you want to have an idea of desperation.

Still, I think the PTR91 is a neat toy. Glad I bought one. I think the M14 is the cat's meow, but that is a lot more expensive than an AR10 or PTR91.

Let's talk about G3 / HK91 magazines. First of all, they're relatively cheap. That's because Germany dumped a whole bunch of them as surplus in a short period of time. Prices lately have been going up as the supply stabilizes.

The standard G3 magazines are aluminum, although steel ones exist. That's the opposite of the situation with FAL magazines, where the easy-to-find ones are steel.

Characteristic of G3 magazines are the raised "stops" on the sides. This means that the magazines don't carry well with the sides touching. German ammo pouches designed for G3 mags have rigid dividers between the cells, so that the sides of the mags don't touch.

A worthwhile improvement for the PTR rifles is a "paddle" style magazine release. However, this modification has to be done in the right way. Drilling the pivot pin hole all the way through is seen in the eyes of the ATF as inadvertently creating a machine gun, because that would allow a full-automatic trigger housing to be installed.

Slamfire said:

It is more or less ironic that of the post war, issued, 7.62 battle rifles, only the HK91 design is still being made, and being issued, as a standard service weapon.

Click to expand...

Yes, but it's telling that Germany itself has moved on to other things. The G3 is now being produced and used as a standard rifle by countries such as Greece, Turkey, and Pakistan. All these countries are near bankruptcy.