Cetme versus FAL

[Drakejake]

After playing with a couple of FALs for a few months, I more or less accidentally acquired a Century Cetme built in 2004. (I put in a bid that I thought would be a loser.) I took it out yesterday and was happy to find that it worked fine with three different kinds of G3/Cetme mags.

The FAL has a strong, compact receiver which I suppose is cast; the Cetme has a flimsy, huge stamped receiver. The Cetme receiver is two feet long because it incorporates the cocking lever tube. One of the big differences between the two firearms is that in the FAL a fairly modest sized bolt and bolt carrier moves back and forth as the rifle fires, whereas firing the Cetme sends a much bigger, heavier package of bolt, bolt carrier, recoil tube, firing pin, and firing pin carrier back towards the shooter's shoulder. I don't know whether the recoil spring bottoms out, but it certainly makes a big clank.

The Cetme is known for being quite dirty because the fluted chamber allows gun powder to blow into the receiver. The dirt is fairly superficial and easily wiped off, however.

I find the easy-opening FAL a simpler design than the Cetme, which comes apart when two pins are pulled. The Cetme allows the firing suite to fall out for easy access while the FAL keeps the parts tucked into the lower receiver.

Thus far I find the FAL stock more comfortable to use and softer on the shoulder, although the Cetme wood is attractive in an old-fashioned way. My rifle came with an HK retractable stock which lives up to its reputation as a "meat grinder." I could tolerate only a few shots to the shoulder from that compact, strong, but unergonomic device.

I admit that shooting the Cetme has reinforced my appreciation of the FAL.

Comments?

Drakejake

 

[wayne in boca]

Got to agree with you there,I have a couple Cetmes as permanent project guns, but my FALs are superior in every way.Can't bring myself to ever sell a Cetme though,I still like them in an odd way.If I ever have the time to perfect them (something Century did not even attempt) I think they might be great rifles.

 

[SigfanUSAF]

The perfect repair to the Century CETME is a new JLD reciever !!! A few HK springs, (still need a hammer spring) and she wont dissapoint.

 

[SigfanUSAF]

BTW, I purchased mine about three years ago, now, is it just me or is that an HK wood stock set on that thing? Is that what they're coming with now???

 

[dot 43]

I'm a FAL convert, and I'll admit right up front that I spent a few paychecks learning that it is simply the finest .308 self-stuffer ever made.

Having said that, the CETME really is a fun plinker, and mine's a blast to shoot. Understand which rifle is which, and enjoy both for what they are.

 

[hksw]

I've not had any problems with the CETMEs I've purchased (both Century), but some folks have had issues with their guns. IMO, the crudeness of the receiver is mainly do to the builder (Century) than the gun itself. My first CETME was built with a very tiny angle (to the left) between the receiver and the front end with the apex being at about the trunion. It does, however, shoot where it is pointed. The other gun is built correctly. To compare, the JLD and HK receivers are built extremely well despite being essentially sheet metal.

The disassembly and dirtiness of the Spanish gun does give the FAL the advantage but, for me, I like the grip angle of the CETME better. A little too much rake on the stock FAL. I replace the grips on my FALs with M249-styled grips. My first (parts built by a dealer) FAL had too high of a comb on the buttstock. Replaced it with a Penguin. Imbel and DSA (and FN) FAL receivers are forge/milled, others cast/milled.

 

[Mumbles_45]

My .02

I just recently bought an FAL and had a PTR-91 (I know, not a CETME, but close) for a while.

In my opinion the PTR feels very solid (except for the buttstock which feels like it came off a cheap Airsoft), it is very accurate, especially for a MBR, and magazines were cheaper than any I've ever seen. Thats about all I can say I liked about it though. The safety was just out of reach for my thumb, the magazine release was in a stupid place, the charging handle was also in a stupid place, it has no last shot bolt hold open, and there is no convenient way to mount optics (some will probably argue with me on that though). The claw mount puts them too high, and the low profile mounts put them in the way of the charging handle and in some cases block the iron sights (my low profile mount did not). The lack of last shot bolt hold open + the stupid placement of the mag release and charging handle made for some of the slowest reloads of all time.

I have been very satisfied with my new (to me) FAL though. I think all the time I spent shooting the PTR-91 has made me appreciate it even more, although the grip is a little wierd, definately replacing it with an M-249 grip in the very near future.

 

[Limeyfellow]

You can get some nice wood furniture for the fal too. I been tempted in getting some.

 

[db_tanker]

Limeyfellow speaks true...

There is NOTHING that looks better than a wood stock and fore-end either G-1 style or Izzy style. ESPECIALLY the Izzy's...

My Imbel was the pebble-grain plastic...

D

 

[Father Knows Best]

In my opinion the PTR feels very solid (except for the buttstock which feels like it came off a cheap Airsoft), it is very accurate, especially for a MBR, and magazines were cheaper than any I've ever seen. Thats about all I can say I liked about it though. The safety was just out of reach for my thumb, the magazine release was in a stupid place, the charging handle was also in a stupid place, it has no last shot bolt hold open, and there is no convenient way to mount optics (some will probably argue with me on that though). The claw mount puts them too high, and the low profile mounts put them in the way of the charging handle and in some cases block the iron sights (my low profile mount did not). The lack of last shot bolt hold open + the stupid placement of the mag release and charging handle made for some of the slowest reloads of all time.

First, a caveat -- I have both a PTR-91 and a DSA SA-58. So I'm not going to argue that the G3 type is better than the FAL type. I just want to respond to some of the criticisms above about the PTR-91 and other G3 type rifles.

The claw type scope mount does indeed work very well. Yes, it puts the scope pretty high off the bore, but is has the advantage of being a solid, quick-detach mount, and allows use of the irons with the scope in place. I solve the height problem by using a snap-on cheek rest. The iron sights are also excellent, especially the version used on the PTR-91 (four peeps). The irons are definitely superior to the vast majority of irons I see on FAL's.

The "stupid" mag release is not part of the original G3 design. It is a result of ATF mandates. Real G3's have paddle style mag releases that are just like an AK's. Changing mags is a one-handed operation, as your thumb hits the release as you grab the mag to remove it. Unfortunately, the paddle rides on a pin through the lower receiver. That pin is also the attachment point for the fire control group (FCG). In order to prevent people from buying semi-auto HK 91's and slapping on a selective fire FCG from a G3, ATF mandated removal of that pin. Removing the pin meant the paddle had nothing to attach to and rotate around. Way back when ATF made that demand (1970s or 80s?), HK just eliminated the paddle and went to the push button design you see now. The push button definitely sucks. The good news is that you can have a paddle mag release! There are several gunsmiths who will do an ATF-approved modification to put the paddle release back on (something HK should have done from the beginning). It costs around $150 for the parts, labor and refinishing, though. Or, you can add a Tac-Latch, which is a drop-in part that works a lot like the original paddle release but moves side-to-side instead of fore-and-aft. A Tac-Latch costs around $35 and can be installed in about 10 minutes by anyone with basic skills and a few simple tools (brass punches, hammer and needle nose pliers). I have a Tac-Latch on my PTR-91, and it works great.

The charging handle is indeed in a strange location. No doubt about that. The rifle also recoils pretty hard compared to gas semi-autos, it destroys brass thanks to the fluted chamber, it ejects empties with enough authority to clear the firing line for 10 yards to your right, and the triggers are heavy and creepy from the factory.

What I really like about the PTR-91 and other G3 clones is their incredible durability and reliability, and their potential for accuracy. The roller-locked, recoil-operated action will function with any ammo under any conditions. There is no gas system to get fouled up (or clean!). Yes, you get a lot of stuff in the receiver, but it doesn't seem to impair operation. The HK/G3/CETME may not be quite as impervious to neglect and dirt as the AK, but it's awful close. They are also quick and easy to field strip and reassemble without tools. I can take mine down and put it back together in minutes while blindfolded.

They also have a well-deserved reputation for accuracy. HK made target and sniper variants of these rifles that are among some of the most accurate semi-autos ever. My inexpensive PTR-91 (with an early, polygonally rifled barrel) will consistently do 2.5" groups at 200 yards with match ammo. Of course, that's off sandbags using a scope, and my trigger has been improved a lot by a $40 Bill Springfield trigger job (it now breaks crisply at 2.5 pounds).

Of course, mags are indeed dirt cheap. I've got 50+ because you can buy them in bulk for $1 each.

Here's my PTR-91. You can see the paddle of the Tac-Latch mag release just behind the magazine, and the snap-on cheek rest. If the scope craps out for any reason, I can have the scope and mount and the cheek rest removed in seconds. There are 20 and 30 round mags in the picture, along with an original HK .22LR conversion kit:

 

[Drakejake]

My Stock Set

My Cetme came with a wood handguard and HK retractable stock. I knew that I would want the option of using a standard butt stock and bought a stock set at the gun show last Saturday. Although the dealer assured me that what I bought was the right set for my not-yet-delivered Cetme, he was wrong. I had to fabricate a buffer to take the place of the metal thing on my recoil rod. The metal part was too big to go into the recoil tube. That was the only incompatibility. So I suppose that what I bought was a G3buttstock. By the way, the wood was in good shape and very pretty. The three piece set coast $30.

Drakejake

 

[Mumbles_45]

I guess I got caught up in the negative aspects of the PTR/G-3 and wasn't quite fair in mentioning everything that is good about it:

What I really like about the PTR-91 and other G3 clones is their incredible durability and reliability, and their potential for accuracy. The roller-locked, recoil-operated action will function with any ammo under any conditions. There is no gas system to get fouled up (or clean!). Yes, you get a lot of stuff in the receiver, but it doesn't seem to impair operation. The HK/G3/CETME may not be quite as impervious to neglect and dirt as the AK, but it's awful close. They are also quick and easy to field strip and reassemble without tools.

That is all very true.

'course I also forgot to mention all this:

The rifle also recoils pretty hard compared to gas semi-autos, it destroys brass thanks to the fluted chamber, it ejects empties with enough authority to clear the firing line for 10 yards to your right, and the triggers are heavy and creepy from the factory.

actually mine flung the brass almost straight forward, but if it didn't I'm sure I would have been restricted to the far right side of the range (like my friend's Mini-14, that thing's just rediculous)

I know the mag release is not part of the original G-3 design, but the way it was intended to be doesn't change the way that it is. Even with the tac latch or even the original G-3 paddle, the mag release still wouldn't be as quick and easy as on on, say, an AR, an FAL, an M-1 carbine, etc.

 

[Father Knows Best]

My PTR-91 actually sends the brass somewhat forward, too. When shooting from the bench, it actually lands about 5 yards downrange and 7-8 yards to my right. I have to be careful about post location on covered lines so I don't have ejected brass deflecting off the posts and bouncing back at me and others.

With a paddle mag release installed, the PTR-91 works just like my SA58 and AK. I don't have an M1A/M14 to compare it to, and while I just picked up an AR, I haven't used it enough to get a feel for the advantages/disadvantages of the AR mag release.

All that said(tm), I still think the FAL is probably the better rifle overall, at least for most people. I like my PTR-91, though, and it's the rifle that got me into owning EBR's, so I'm gonna keep it. After all, you can never have too many guns.

 

[hksw]

I've always felt, although I'm not sure if it was considered in the design, that the location of the charging handle of the CETME/G3 was to help aid the shooter in gaining more leverage needed to break open the rollered action before retracting it.

 

[Bwana John]

I like the idea of forgings and threads(FAL), over stampings and wields(G-3).

But, if you've got to man a check-point all day and night, the G-3 is MUCH easyer to carry due to the 3 point sling design.