CETME or FAL?

Status
Not open for further replies.
M

Madmax

Member
Joined
Nov 20, 2003
Messages
51
Location
Eland, WI
Back in the day you could find cetme guns all over and I did not buy. Now I cant find one and I want one. Wish I pulled the trigger long time ago. Is there anyone out there that has gun at a fair price? Thanks
 
Check out the PTR-91 for a new manufactured version of the HK with a factory warranty.

http://ptr91.com/

And check out DSA for the FALs, also warrantied.

http://www.dsarms.com/

The PTR is gonna be in the $1000 range, the FALs are going to be a bit more.

The danger of buying used is that unless you know how to tell good from bad you could end up spending way too much.
 
I FAL would be nice as well, just cant find any. Do you know any on-line shops that have any? Thanks
 
How bout a Vector V51L, aren't those pretty good?
Click to expand...

I'm not sure why anyone would buy the Vector when the PTR is the same price.

A company called Special Weapons was making Vector receivers for a while, so be careful if you are buying a used Vector. New ones are not SW according to Vector.

You can do a search on SW if you want, you won't find much good about them :)
 
There was a gun on here who had a DSA for sale in the classifieds a couple weeks ago.
Try a search.

Also, after you decide what you want, post a want ad in the classifieds here and maybe locally as well.
Never know when someone may have what you want. Maybe they can use the money for a new gun of their own, to replace some money spent on Christmas, or to buy some coal. Any way you go about it though, I'd rather buy from one of "us" and support our own if possible.
Plus, you often get a better deal that way.
 
The biggest functional difference to the user is the receiver - the CETME will take a rugged scope mount that is detachable and returns to zero. The FAL has a bolt cover. Nothing screws to that, it has a loose fit, and requires a cantilever mount for scopes, just like the AK.

I'd choose a good used CETME. The FAL's are not as compact, the magazines aren't cheap, and collector demand keeps prices up. The CETME takes HK mags, accessories, and no worries about it being a "inch" or "metric" build.
 
I have both FAL and CETME. I like FAL much better. Less feel recoil, better sights and allow you to place your eye close to the peep sight. Action also feel smoother and easier to cock, spent casing not ejected 30 ft away or hit the person shooting at the bench next to you. a retractable CETME/G3 looks cool, but a para FAL is cooler.
 
1. I fixed the thread title.

2. Between the two, I would pick the FAL. The CETME isn't bad, though.

3. The FAL has a great scope-mounting option, the DSA scope mount.

Mike
 
The vast majority of FALs on the market are going to be used &/or built from surplus "kits" on an aftermarket receiver.
Keep your eyes open & there are plenty of bargains to be had, with "butthole" stocked L1A1's built by Century on Imbel receivers being particularly worthwhile.
The donor kits were mostly little used British rifles (look for serial #'s prefixed UE or UB on the lower receiver) & the Imbel receivers are first class (though I have no issues with Century's own, except cosmetically).
Replace the nasty furniture & you have a fine rifle.
They can be found for less than $600.
 
Tirod said:
The biggest functional difference to the user is the receiver - the CETME will take a rugged scope mount that is detachable and returns to zero. The FAL has a bolt cover. Nothing screws to that, it has a loose fit, and requires a cantilever mount for scopes, just like the AK.
Click to expand...

Au contraire, mon ami.

Take a look at the mounts DSA offers. They replace the cover on a FAL with a big honking piece of metal with a rail built into it. It clamps on to your reciever. Use some loctite and I bet you ain't getting that thing loose unless you do it on purpose.

Also, if you make a choice you don't have to worry about metric vs. inch either.
If you own one Ruger and one S&W, of course the parts aren't going to interchange. Same with inch vs. metric rifles.
Pick one or the other and your life is greatly simplified. ;)
 
the CETME will take a rugged scope mount that is detachable and returns to zero.
Click to expand...
The CETME sight base lacks the saddle which is present on its first cousin, the G3 or its clones. As a result, the claw type scope mounts as used in the HK version will slide fore and aft on the CETME receiver. Bad ju*ju. Scopes will lose "zero."

+1 on the PTR91. For the money spent, you just can't do any better.
-1 on the "greater recoil" myth of the PTR91/G3 clone over the FAL. This is just not so. There is a difference in the character of the recoil, but a 308 or 7.62 NATO is the same cartridge, fired in either rifle.
-1 on the "better sights" myth of the FAL. The sight picture obtained with the globe and post HK style sight with rear aperture is a better optical arrangement than the simple "winged post" front sight with wobbly rear aperture of the FAL. CETME has similar sight picture as the G3 or PTR91, but the paddlewheel rear sight is not as good as either the FAL or the rotating drum of the G3.
+1 easier cleaning of the CETME or PTR91, assuming you have the right tools.
+1 inexpensive G3 magazines over the FAL.
-1 on reaching the selector/safety on G3 or CETME vs. FAL. FAL is easier to manipulate the selector than the standard G3 or CETME or clone.
+1 on mounting optic on G3, -1 on CETME (for reasons set forth above) -2 or -3 on FAL optics mounting. FAL optics mounting arrangement is a replacement dust cover with a dozen or so little set screws. If one removes the FAL optics mount/dust cover in order to properly clean the rifle, the optics do not return to zero upon reinstalling the dust cover. Huge PITA, so most folks leave it set, don't clean the chamber, or properly clean their FAL because of the dust cover optics mounting arrangement.
+1 on accuracy of G3 or PTR91, as barrel is floated. Not so on FAL. FAL shoots to different point of impact from bipod as it does from sandbag.
+1 on modularity of G3 over FAL. Easier to mount different accessory bits on G3, different stocks, different forends, better bipods, etc.
-1 on gas regulating "feature" of FAL. G3 will shoot anything you feed it, no need to futz around with a gas regulator. Other than the "on/off" feature of the gas plug on the FAL for shooting rifle grenades, there is no advantage to a "gas regulator."
-2 or -3 on destroyed brass with G3, absent a port buffer. G3 or CETME will shuck your brass into the next century, and if you can find it, it will be unsuitable for reloading, unless you have installed a port buffer. Port buffer is best $50 you can spend on a G3 accessory.
+1 on weight of FAL. Other than FALO, the FAL is lighter and easier to carry or throw around than the G3 or CETME.

In the end, however, it is whatever fits you best. If the FAL fits your frame and enables you to shoot better than either of the others, choose that one. I would put the CETME in a 3d place position relative to the #1 PTR91, and #2 DSA FAL. Other "kit" FALs have a hodgepodge of parts and their reliability and quality varies as a consequence, and they may be worse than the CETME depending.
 
Take a look at the mounts DSA offers. They replace the cover on a FAL with a big honking piece of metal with a rail built into it. It clamps on to your reciever. Use some loctite and I bet you ain't getting that thing loose unless you do it on purpose.
Click to expand...

FAL1.jpg

Yep, and there is no need to remove it to properly clean the FAL.

Don
 
"a 308 or 7.62 NATO is the same cartridge"

problem with this statementis the commercail ammo is loaded to higher pressures. It also uses softer brass then the military ammo does. These two things make it not suitable for a cetme. You can actually have a case pull in half in the chamber. It has happened to me more then once. Cetmes were not designed to handle full power commercial 308 ammo
 
Stubbicat,

I am addressing an error of your post because a friend of mine is now using your faulty arguments as a means of comparing these two rifles that he is now considering for purchase.

-1 on gas regulating "feature" of FAL. G3 will shoot anything you feed it, no need to futz around with a gas regulator. Other than the "on/off" feature of the gas plug on the FAL for shooting rifle grenades, there is no advantage to a "gas regulator."
Click to expand...

The port adjustment allows for fine tuning of how far spent cases are thrown, among other things. There is no need to 'futz' around with it either. If you want it to be as 'unadjustable' as the Cetme or PTR, simply screw it down to it's maximum setting and never fool with it.

The adjustable gas setting is a mechanism that allows recoil to be averted, and you show ignorance of that fact by this statement:

-1 on the "greater recoil" myth of the PTR91/G3 clone over the FAL. This is just not so. There is a difference in the character of the recoil, but a 308 or 7.62 NATO is the same cartridge, fired in either rifle.
Click to expand...

The cartridge is the same of course, but if you have a mechanism that allows for the dispersion of gas, you can lessen the perceived (actual) recoil. Several such mechanisms are the compensator on the tip of my 50 cal rifle, that ports exhaust gasses backward, or the gas adjustment port on the FAL that allows an adjustable amount of gas to escape before it impinges on the recoil piston.

There are a few other errors in your analysis, but I believe most of them have been addressed by other posters.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top