Ergonamics of PTR 91 vs M1A

Status
Not open for further replies.

Mike128

Member
Joined
Jul 28, 2004
Messages
236
Location
Eastern Shore of MD
I'm still torn between the M1A scout and PTR 91. Both seem accurate and reliable. Finacially the PTR 91 wins. My question is on how does it handle compared to a M1A scout (18 inch barrel version)? I keep hearing about the PTR being heavy. Is there a weight difference between the two? How about ease of mounting and using a scope? Any other pro/cons? Thanks

Mike
 
IMHO, the HK91 design is an ergonomic nightmare. The cocking handle is awkardly placed and awkard to use. Having no bolt hold open device, you get this same awkward loaing motion with every magazine. The magazine release is too far forward as well as the safety on the non-Navy style weapons. The stock is to short for American style heads-down shooting and tends to whack you on the cheek a lot harder and the recoil is more violent as well. The sights require a special tool to adjust and the brass is thrown out with enough force to be a PITA if you are a reloader. The trigger is pretty heavy on the non-PSG trigger packs as well. Finally, while field stripping is easier, putting the bolt head back on is a major pain. They are accurate and reliable but ergonomic they are not!
 
Not a bad summary. :)

Neither rifle was designed expressly for scope mounting, but you can get mounts for both. The PTR/HK/CETME scope mounts tend to look less sano than the M1A, and will definitely mar the finish on the upper.

I suspect that the M1A is a bit heavier, but probably only by about a half a pound or so.
 
Both are good rifles and both have their good and bad points.

With a little practice, most the complaints of the 91's go away.

The charging handle can be a challenge, but there are different knobs/handles around that can make it easier if you cant work it out.

The mag release isnt a problem if you reach around the front and use the middle finger of your left hand to release it while holding the mag. The rifles were designed with a paddle release, but that went away with the front pin. Mag changes are not bad with a little practice.

If you have short thumbs and try to take the safety off with the rifle in your shoulder, your probably going to have troubles. Any other time, its not an issue. There are also ambi safeties available that can be modified so you can take it off using your trigger finger.

The stock is no shorter than any other combat rifle and has basically the same LOP as the M1A and most others. I hear this complaint about the AK all the time too, which also has the same LOP. Most all are around 13". I shoot with my head down and forward on the stock and never had any troubles.

The HK style sights are one of the best combat sights going, once you understand them. They are robust and very easy to use, and once adjusted, you dont have to mess with them. The big notch is the CQB sight and used from 0-100 yards. Up close, you use the whole big notch and the whole front sight as you would normally use any open type sight. The globe is used in the notch instead of the post. If you take a quick aim, and then slowly rock your head down and focus on the post, you'll see the post is almost always in the little "V" in the bottom of the notch. This is the aim point for your 100 yard zero. For 2-400M, you simply dial in the peep. Fast, easy and requires no memorizing of "clicks".

Big advantage to the HK type rifles is the claw mount. They can be instantly scoped or dot sighted at will, removed and replaced, with no loss of zero and no need for a cheek pad.

They also come with a sling system that most of the others have tried to copy.

If you put a port buffer on the 91, the brass is not beat up and easily reloaded.

The trigger is not really bad once you get used to them. Again, its not what most Americans are used to dealing with.



The M1A's make a better target rifle. Their sights are better for that type shooting, no doubt. They pretty much suck for fast, up close shooting, or in lower light, and REALLY suck with the sun or bright light behind you over your shoulder.

Their slings are better for target shooting.

They are harder to scope and not real friendly to shoot that way.

They are also a little more ambidextrous friendly.

Adding a SE/Rooster33 bolt release really makes things easier during a reload. Works just like an M16 and you dont have to touch the charging handle.
 
I have one more question, how does the PTR handle and balance?

The trigger and mag release of the PTR will have to be alterd and it sounds like there are some good choices there. Mounting of the scope is expensive for both rifles but I think the HK style has the advantage in ease of mounting there. The Biggest draw back for me is the no last round bolt hold open. I can see that being a real pain.
It's just that the M1A just looks so cool!
 
I never had any troubles with my 91's.(mine where HK's) They handle a little different than the M1A, but then again, so do most rifles with a pistol grip. Some find the 91's muzzle heavy.

Any reason as to why you want to alter the rifle before you even have it and have become familiar with it? I never found either the trigger or mag release to be an issue.

I have shot rifles with the Williams trigger in them. They are more along the lines of what most are accustomed to in a precision bolt gun, but I see them more as a specialty trigger and not one you would normally want on a combat type rifle.

I have seen a couple of paddle type mag releases for the 91's (and others) that "sort of" work like a paddle, but not as the original. They push to the side. The original needs the front pin to work, and I dont think your going to get that easily or cheaply done, if at all, due to the trigger group issue.

I've never understood the ruckus made about the lack of a last round bolt hold open. When the gun stops running, you reload it, bolt hold open or not.

If the M1A looks sexy to you, get it. :)
 
True, the length of pull between the face of the trigger and the buttplate are about the right length but that's not the issue. The issue is that the rear of the receiver comes back farther than what we see as the norm. In Germany, folks there tend to shoot with more of a heads-up position so for this style of shooting it's not an issue. However if you tend to shoot the American way, there is a stronger cheek weld and the shooter tends to place their head lower on the stock and closer to the sights. This is where the problem with the HK comes into play. If you shoot in a heads down on the stock position, you get your cheek bone whacked a bit more due to the longer reciever postion coming back into your cheek.
 
I know what you mean about the "heads up" style of shooting the Germans seem to like, especially with scopes. Its one reason I got rid of my HK claw mounts in favor of the ARMS flat top mounts. The HK mounts placed the rear of the scope out over the stock. The rear of mine were always mounted just over the rear sight.

My cheek weld for the iron sights on the HK's is head forward, right on the "rise" of the stock. Its always been very comfortable and natural for me, and when a scope is mounted forward, no cheek piece is needed, as you just slightly slide your cheek forward up the incline. I've never been "whacked" in either position.

I think a lot of the difference in feel has to do with what you learned on. Seems that those who learned on the more traditional style, non pistol gripped stocks, like the M1's/M14's, and most bolt guns, seem to mention the length difference more. Once you get used to them, the only time you notice, and usually instantly notice, is when the stock is to long, as the longer stocks tend to hinder natural shooting. About the only place they are comfortable is off a bench.

If it really bothers you, the butt plate on the HK stocks can be changed for a longer LOP.
 
Something to consider is the cost of magazines. I believe M1A magazines cost between $25-$35 each. G3/HK91 magazines are $2-$5 each. I buddy of mine ordered 100 used aluminum G3 magazines for $1 each.

I like both rifles very much. I had a HK91 & would consider the current JDL offering a great rifle. I have two friends with these rifles & both are great. The sights on the PTR91 are great & once set are no-fuss no-mess.
Then again on the m1A you get a classic American design that just looks & shoots well. Not much drama.

Whatever rifle you get you will want to shoot it a lot, any ergonomic problems like re-loads; mag changes & selector issue get worked out with practice.

I am left handed. The HK91 was a little more difficult to charge but not a deal breaker by any means.

I would also give an edge to the PTR91 on reliability. They are not gas operated & really do not have much that can go wrong with them.
After thousands of rounds through my HK91, I can only recall 3 failures. They were all with one magazines so at $3 per mag I tossed it in the trash & forgot about it.

I never had an optic on my HK91. So I will have to defer to others that have experience with this.
 
Can't say a thing about PTR vs M1A. But I have shot M14 and AK4 (G3 clone) so I could comment on those. I do recall the M14 being more pleasant to shoot, but HK is OK, once you learn to handle it.

For me the HK ergonomics ain't that bad, I can use the flipper with ease, remove the mag easily, charging can be a little "different", but I got used to it. All those millions of AK-47 rifles and it's clones+offspring don't have the bolt-hold-open device, but yet they'll do just fine in combat. So it's a question of taste and habit.

Besides, you can make the G3 shorter, by either collapsible stock, or one of those funky G36 style side-folders (will look good with one of those wide-base handguards, imho).
HKFLSTO.jpg

Thus making the rifle more easily carryable and easier to move in tight quarters.

Haven't got any optics on my issued rifle yet, but I have looked out for the claw mount. Any comments on those, how the scope sits etc?
 
I have both and I can say the M14 is a smoother shooting rifles that is easier to shoot IMHO. The recoil is less and the sights are easier to me. I grew up with M14 rifles and mini14's with the peep sights so I guess that is what I am used to.

The PTR-91 is built very solid and I like the rifle, but the trigger is heavy and the recoil is harsh. I can deal with the trigger, it just takes some getting used to. The recoil is only an issue since I perceive a shorter length of pull. The receiver likes to slap me in the safety glasses. I have recently obtained a butt plate add on to extend the LOP a 1/2" or more so I'll have to see how that goes. The mags are very cheap and normally very reliable. I don't have an issue with the cocking handle. The mag release and mag insertion take some getting used to and do seem a bit more awkward than normal.

As for the iron sights, I don't see much advantage to the PTR. They are tough and work well. The M14 iron sights are much more precise IMHO.

I haven't done much with scopes on either rifle so that will have to wait.

If costs were the same, I would go for the M14, but you can outfit yourself with a PTR and all the trimmings and ammo for less than an M14.
 
You Gringo's just don't get it.

The g-3 is a battle rifle. The M-14 is a marksmans rifle. Also let me say this. Wrap your right hand around the pistol grip. Leave it there. Don't take it off, change magazines and charge the rifle with your left hand. You break your line of sight on M-14 or AK rifles when the pulling the rifle back and down to change the magazine then charge the rifle. As with the MP-43/44 series Sturmgewer they did not break the line of sight on the target when charging the rifle. I still don't get why if they build the receiver with a CEMET or G-3 parts kit the builder did not install the flapper magazine catch. It's a simple operation done when the receiver halfs are welded up. Note that the people who built these HK's and all the family had listend to the men in the dirt when they described the never ending lines or Russian troops at the slow jog bayonets fixed walking into the MG34/42's till these same troops ran out of ammo. More bodies than bullets.The mission satatement for these rifles(HK's) was not individual targets at 400 yrds. but masses (2.5 mil.) of Russians comeing through the Fulda Gap in 1963 that had to be stopped by 52,000 German Bund.

Greenmeanie-THR.jpg


MJ now ducks down to slap another mag in and waits for return fires. Oh I loved my M-14 and made both the 400 yard single and the 20 yards auto and I'm still here to,, well I'm still here.

Cheers
MJ
:neener:
RVN66/68
 
Last edited:
No, the AK-47 is the marxsman's rifle. :neener:

My AK's dont do to bad, even against the M1A. :neener:

SAR 1 iron sights, 200 yards
ece2f3d2.jpg



One was shot with an AK, the other a M1A SOCOM, guess which one was which.
f420593d.jpg


I still don't get why if you build the receiver with a CEMET or G-3 parts kit the builder did not install the flapper magazine catch.
How about 10 years and $250,000? The pin that holds the flapper, also holds the full auto trigger group lower. This part of the receiver is welded up on the semi auto guns.
 
The SOCOM is a nice M14 cut down for a close range rifle. A waste IMHO unless you just like the extra weight. Not a great comparison for accuracy with another rifle.

I really don't give a damn about the G3's history and why the Germans designed it the way they did. My M14 is a better shooting rifle IMO. I certainly don't agree about the mag changes, but each to his own. However, if mag changes are slowing down your rate of fire with .308, you really have the wrong caliber.

My Vepr K is pretty accurate as well. The M1A's iron sights are just better and much easier to aim precisely.
 
As with the MP-43/44 series Sturmgewer they did not break the line of sight on the target.
I am evidently too spindly and incorrectly proportioned to hold up a G3 with my right hand on the pistol grip and, while keeping a proper cheekweld and eyes on target the whole time, drop a mag with the left hand, insert a new one, reach forward, grab the charging handle down the left side by the front sight, and rack the Bullworker-quality action to chamber a new round. I personally know of no one that can accomplish this feat. If you can do this, you are a class of man superior to most in physical prowess.

I can, however, recharge my rifle's magazine while maintaining a proper cheekweld and eyes-on-target with my Saiga 308 (AK platform) and my AR10.

YMMV.
 
I did not compare the M-14 and G-G3

My M-14's are great.


bkt019.jpg


Cheers
MJ
:cool:
 
Last edited:
The SOCOM is a nice M14 cut down for a close range rifle. A waste IMHO unless you just like the extra weight. Not a great comparison for accuracy with another rifle.
The SOCOM's accuracy is limited by its sights, the barrel length has nothing to do with it, nor does it really have anything to do with its weight. It basically weighs the same as the standard and Scout/Bush models, and most of the other 7.62x51 caliber military rifles.

If you put a set of Scout sights or a scope or red dot on your SOCOM, your groups at farther ranges will be different than those fired with the CQB sights that come with it. I normally have an Aimpoint on both my SOCOM and AK's, although the targets above were shot using the iron sights on all of them. The only rounds fired from a rest, were the bottom three on the 200 yard target, to confirm zero. All the rest were fired from a cross legged sitting position, with no sling, and at a steady, comfortable cadence.

When it comes to actually shooting any of them and comparing accuracy, I think a big problem is, most of the comparisons are based on target or bench type shooting at bullseye targets at known distances, and not practical field shooting. It amazes me at how many of these super duper target rifles cant hit the broad side of a barn at 50 yards, when you ask the shooter to step away from the bench and shoot quickly standing up. ;)

Peep sights are great for target shooting or more precision shots at longer distances, if you have time. They flat out suck in certain lighting conditions, especially if the light is behind you or your moving in and out from light to dark. Add to this the need to shoot quickly, and it gets worse.

The HK's sights, especially the big open notch, are better suited for all shooting, in any light, 100M and in, and are no slackers for precision shooting out to 400M using the peeps.

Another advantage they have over the M1A is the ability to have tritium sights that are the same size as the standard sight, so you can also have night site capability with no loss of longer range accuracy, such as that suffered by the SOCOM with its big, fat front sight.

Of the three types of sights, (M1A, HK, AK) for anything that required fast shooting, especially closer in on moving, multiple targets, the peep would be my last choice. Over all of them, a good red dot would be my #1.
 
News flash: Argument is over, no point in it, ancient 7.62mm technology replaced by the new KelTec bullpup rifle.

Oh, it will cost how much?

Going to be available when?

OK, keep posting.


Bart Noir
 
By the time it shows up and the bugs are worked out, we'll have phased plasma rifles in the 40 watt range, and who knows, maybe even a SHRIKE too. :D
 
I didn't realize the SOCOM comes with different sights. I just noticed that all the reports I have seen on their accuracy were at very short range.
As far as weight, I meant that you find a lighter rifle in a smaller caliber that has decent performance at close range and either have a bigger mag or just less weight. If you only need 100 yards or less, .308 doesn't make sense unless you are just convinced you the more powerful cartridge.
 
The SOCOM has a fat front sight with a tritium insert, and a drilled out standard rear, making it a large ghost ring. They are fine for quick, close up shooting, but are a chore for any kind of precision shooting at 100 yards and about useless beyond.

I agree, the Ak's and AR's are the better choice for general use over any of the .308's for 300 yards and in. Personally, I like the AK's in 7.62x39 the best.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top