Comparing the 91 to issue grade FALs and M1A/M14 would cause anybody to draw that conclusion. Standard infantry G3 vs. FAL vs. M14 is gonna show similar combat accuracy of 2-3 MOA. That said, the FAL is the least accurizable due to design. It's possible to make a MOA FAL, but not easy. Of course, again, I don't really know why anyone would bother with any of these battle rifles for precision shooting in the age of inexpensive .308 ARs that will run circles around them with far less time & money invested.
I found the HK's and M14/M1A's to shoot about the same. Between their sights and stringing rounds as they warmed up, the FAL's were a distant third, and not really in the running.
I agree about the AR's too, but we are kind of spanning "eras" here now too, and sliding away from comparing like things. Now if you want to compare the original issue AR10's, that would be more appropriate here. Ive only ever got to shoot about a mag out of one of those, and it wasnt enough to really make any kind of comparison.
The G3 development paralleled that of the AR10 & 15, and while the G3 pattern has merits, I'd say the proof is in the pudding as to which one transitioned into the 21st century better, and which inspired other designs. We don't see myriad semi-auto, pump, bolt, lever & single shot rifles & shotguns designed to accept G3 stocks, grips & hand guards. And the modularity of the G3 basically ends at buttstocks unless we're talking the flexibility of the registered fire control groups giving the owner easy swaps between hosts; little utility in that feature otherwise outside of streamlined manufacturing. As for the optics, I'll respectfully disagree, at least as far as the claw mounts & repeatability. They may hold zero well enough to be minute of torso at 300 yards, but not near as good as Picatinny or other, more postitive & robust QD mounts that don't involve pinching against protrusions on a sheet metal receiver.
What I was referring to here was basically at the start of things changing. While the AR has certainly become the toy of choice these days, back when these guns were still being issued, or close to it, the AR's were still basically just the M16/M16A1, and nothing like you see today. Some models had a sliding stock, and that was about it. Just your basic, carry handle rifles.
The HK's were in fact, easily changeable with the push of a couple of pins, you could have fixed stocks, collapsible stocks, forearms with bipods that folded into them, and a couple of other options there. They were definitely leading the pack back then as far as this sort of thing went, and drug everyone else along with them.
I always found the factory HK claw mounts to be repeatable. I just never liked how they set on the gun.
At the time, the ARMS claw mounts were really the only aftermarket mounts that worked like the factory mounts in the repeatable zero respect, and they were more versatile for mounting different optics. The STANAG mounts werent really available then as they were later on either.
My favorite scope for the HK's was a Beeman SSS-3, which was a small, 1-4x Air rifle scope, that was rated for full auto fire up to 50BMG. The claw mount and scope together would fit in a BDU pocket. With a fixed stock and the low ARMS mount, you got about the same cheek weld you did with the irons, you just have to slide your cheek up on the stocks "ramp" a bit for it to be perfect. No chin or higher strap on pieces needed.
No doubt, Picatinny has surpassed the claw mounts, but at the time, there really wasnt anything else available, and they were about the best thing out there, if you wanted that capability.
HK style sights are good irons, I'll agree that they're better than FAL, but not as good as A2 irons on AR/M16 IMO.
I still actually prefer the HK type sights over most others, as a combat type sight. The A2 and M14 type sights are great "target" sights, but not the greatest for close up quick shooting, especially in lower light. I think the HK's sighting system shines there. Most people Ive ever talked to, dont seem to understand how they work, even as simple as they are, and I think that lack of understanding and lack of with experience with them, along with the often heard insistence on having target type sights on the gun, make them less popular.
Of course, again, times have changed, and I prefer a good red dot these days, and have them on the majority of my AR's. Of course, if you still have an old HK type rifle, they are still easily mounted on them as well with little effort. Not so much your old FAL or M1A, or even AR. But Im sliding off into another era here.
That recoil impulse does make them one of the least controllable in full auto. For a semi, it's not particularly abusive compared to other 9-10 lb battle rifles, but a bit weird. I personally don't find the balance of them terrible, but the ergonomics overall lacking a bit in standard form. Of course, I'm not a humongous fan of standard FAL ergos, either, favor a different stock and SAW grip. The M1A is better than either in basic form, and the AR-10 is, well, yeah, an AR, so the sky's the limit with configuration.
All of the 7.62x51 rifles are a bit of a handfull in full auto. Not really a problem if youre shooting them properly though, and the pistol gripped guns are, I think anyway, easier to shoot that way.
Ergonomics is simply familiarity and goes with any of them. The biggest problem there is trying to run any of them like something else, which is usually where the complaints come in. Trying to do that generally doesnt work. Spend some quality time with any of them, and learn to work/shoot them, and most of the complaints go away. They all have good and bad points, but I never found any of them to be a problem, once I learned to use them. Do we all have a favorite, sure. But I really wouldnt be upset if I had to use any of them in a pinch.
Again, I agree, the AR's of today are really the LEGO toys of guns, and can make things easier all around, but you do still have to put your time in with them, just like anything else if you want to be proficient with them.
Some rifles are worse than others, some brass softer & more prone to deformation. I've had brass that's been run through full auto G3s and 91s which had only faint impressions of the flutes, and I've also had it so badly deformed from them that it ripped case heads off trying to pull them out of the sizing die.
I never had any troubles with the brass out of any of mine, especially once I put port buffers on them. Light scratches was about it. Sizing was never an issue either, but I pretty much always used commercial brass with them if I was reloading for them. For the most part, I learned early on to dislike military brass for reloading, and it was always harder to work and shorter lived. I was also the only brass Ive ever had stuck in a die, and it happened a couple of times. Other than the free 5.56 I get these days, I still dont use it. And its still considerably shorter-lived than commercial brass. But its free, so who cares.
Of course, reloading it means finding it, and the G3 is generally in the mini-14 low orbit ejection camp.
Ive owned a number of HK's over the years, rifles, pistols, and SMG's, and all of them sent their brass off to the hinterlands.
