G3 vs. FAL

[AlexanderA]

The flanges on G3 magazines are a problem when stacking them side by side in pouches. The German flecktarn pouches (that date from the 1980's, the heyday of the G3) have dividers that take care of the flanges, but they only hold 2 magazines each. Four pouches on a belt give you a total of 8 magazines.

On the other hand, FAL magazines (like M14 magazines) stack flush against each other. A 100-round SAW pouch will hold 4 FAL magazines. Four of these pouches on a belt give you a total of 16 magazines.

 

[barnbwt]

Well, that and the G3 mags are simply notorious for being beat to hell when they get to us (thin aluminum, probabaly worse than the AR). At least they don't cost half a damn

Who the heck wants to carry 16 full FAL mags --no thank you

As far as recoil, the FAL is both a bit heavier and can be tuned for minimal ejection force. I fail to see how the G3 could possibly come in first, there. They may have nice buffers that make the impact less percussive (I forget if any FALs had crash buffers) but the fact is they'll move you around more. My STGW57 (the "best" roller delay blowback) has a smooth, rolling recoil impulse compared to my FN49 (FAL progenitor, and prettier than either), but it is definitely more forceful, even from a ~5lbs heavier LMG.

 

[lysanderxiii]

There is a reason gas operation is the standard, while roller delayed is limited to the CETME and some derivatives by HK (and the CZ-52 pistol).

The CZ-52 uses rollers to lock the slide to the barrel but is not the CETME/HK delayed blow-back design.

 

[C-grunt]

Both are proven battle rifles with lots of trigger time. To say either is unreliable is just plain false.

 

[Wildbillz]

Which model FALs have reciprocating CHs?

BSW

I think the Israeli heavy barrel and the FN Falo both have a reciprocating handle?

WB

 

[leadcounsel]

Which model FALs have reciprocating CHs?

BSW

Pardon my typing error. I meant NON reciprocating charging handle.

I also will add that the control ability in full-auto is of zero interest for my personal evaluation.

And the G3 does have very cheap high quality mags to its credit.

 

[briansmithwins]

Pardon my typing error. I meant NON reciprocating charging handle.

Guess I'm just slow tonight. The original was:

FAL has the best ergos of all, and the safety/fire switch is in the perfect position just like the AR15 platform. Good trigger. I love the reciprocating left-side charging handle. Adjustable gas system is cool and an advantage.

If we fix it to correct the error it reads:
FAL has the best ergos of all, and the safety/fire switch is in the perfect position just like the AR15 platform. Good trigger. I love the non-reciprocating left-side charging handle. Adjustable gas system is cool and an advantage.

While I wouldn't call the G3 trigger good by any stretch the G3 does have a left side, non-reciprocating CH. And although it doesn't have a gas system to adjust, you can get close to the same effect by swapping locking pieces to change the delay in opening.

BSW

 

[Nom de Forum]

While I wouldn't call the G3 trigger good by any stretch.....

That's an understatement!

the G3 does have a left side, non-reciprocating CH.

Just about the worst one ever designed. Its ergonomics require a very large arm movement that may be impeded in combat conditions and also be more detectable by an enemy.

And although it doesn't have a gas system to adjust, you can get close to the same effect by swapping locking pieces to change the delay in opening.

Something that would never be done by the user nor likely to be necessary since HKs work well in cold and hot climatic conditions.

 

[dancitizen]

I am getting the impression that folks are not comparing the G3 to the FAL, but rather the PTR 91 or some other civilian knockoff to the FAL.

Among HK fans there are reasons why the HK versions are preferred and command a premium price. The original rifle is considerably different in feel, and even operation (mag release), not to mention accuracy and reliability. Whereas the FAL civilian and military models are closer to one another.

I would no sooner judge G3s by the American civilian market, non HK versions, than I would assume an AR15 kit gun is the same as a colt. Many folks only experience with the platform is crap from Century or the like, cobbled up frankenstein fashion from parts considered worn out before they were even imported, and then assembled by uncertified minimum wage workers on out of spec receivers.

Even the very well made Springfield Armory SARs (greek parts) are not considered the equal of the German made models.

Comparing a $700 knockoff of an HK to a Herstal FAL would be as crooked as comparing a nice $5000 German HK to a cheesy century C1 FAL.

The FALs commonly found in civilian possession in the US are more typically made by an original manufacturer, or at least a licensed factory.

 

[MachIVshooter]

The CZ-52 uses rollers to lock the slide to the barrel but is not the CETME/HK delayed blow-back design.

No, but if I had left that gun out, someone would have been along shortly to say "It's not just HK! CZ did it too!"

 

[9mmepiphany]

I am getting the impression that folks are not comparing the G3 to the FAL, but rather the PTR 91 or some other civilian knockoff to the FAL.

It is a good thing that it is just your impression. other wise some might think that you were looking for rationalizations.

My basis of comparison is experience has been with the civilian H&K 91/93 as well as a couple of different G3s. My disdain for the 7.62mm and 5.56mm offerings does not extend to the 9mm MP-5 family (my favorites are the SD variations)

The FALs commonly found in civilian possession in the US are more typically made by an original manufacturer, or at least a licensed factory.

I'd be interested to know what you are basing this one.

As mentioned a couple of times already in the thread, I would believe that most members with experience with the FAL platform acquired them by building up aftermarket receivers with de-milled STG-58 or L1A1 parts kits...which would indeed fall under the description of a "civilian knockoff"

So the quality situation would be the opposite of that which you've stated...and yet they still prefer the FAL

 

[barnbwt]

The CZ-52 uses rollers to lock the slide to the barrel but is not the CETME/HK delayed blow-back design.

No, but if I had left that gun out, someone would have been along shortly to say "It's not just HK! CZ did it too!"

It's not just HK! SIG did it too!

...and far better, I might add. The lack of tensioned bolt head and the deceptively simple non-reciprocating charging handle vastly simplify many practical aspects of the STGW57's service regime (which the Swiss promptly complicated in numerous other ways the Germans could only dream of). The HK may have cost less to build, but you can't build one out of box tube, either (and you darn sure can't take that bolt apart in the field :banghead

TCB

 

[barnbwt]

I am getting the impression that folks are not comparing the G3 to the FAL, but rather the PTR 91 or some other civilian knockoff to the FAL.

We're not all Tier 1 operators or senselessly spendthrift, so forgive us civvies if those clones are all we have to judge by. Seeing as those are the only option for the vast majority, to dismiss them out of hand "because they aren't HK" is a bit petulant.

Among HK fans there are reasons why the HK versions are preferred and command a premium price

Sheesh. It's because a registered trigger pack will fit into most of them. Said packs are highly expensive, ergo the price of the guns themselves gets bid into the stratosphere by the moneyed Class 3 set. The rest of it is only explainable as Colt Python-esque idiocy; ain't no earthly reason a clapped out MP5 parts kit should go for +2000$, yet they do (again, those guys with a $50,000 autosear pack really want another toy they can drop it into without paying another fifty grand). HK G3 parts sets are frequently in terrible condition, and yet still sell for more than comparable FALs; either due to NFA reasons again, or because they are an easier build (except for the fluted barrels, whose reproductions drive the price even higher for a build).

At least other nations were able to manufacture FALs of good quality (Imbel). Although I guess the Pak's are making MP5 on old tooling, now.

The original rifle is considerably different in feel, and even operation (mag release), not to mention accuracy and reliability.

Plenty of builds are/have been done on original H&K parts (minus receiver and some scattered 922r parts). No, they aren't significantly different than quality, non-Century'ed repros in practice. I'll grant you the mag release issue (which is definitely an issue)

Comparing a $700 knockoff of an HK to a Herstal FAL would be as crooked as comparing a nice $5000 German HK to a cheesy century C1 FAL.

No, we're about comparing a 3000$ FN FAL to a 4000$ HK G3 that few will ever even see let alone shoot or buy, for some reason. In that case, I'll submit that the STGW57 is infinitely superior to both in ways so obvious they don't even warrant elaboration

 

[Jackal]

My PTR has a 7lb, crisp clean trigger. Not match grade, but certainly fine for its purpose.

I've owned/used 2 Fals, 2 M1A's, a Vepr .308, FN FNAR, PTR-91 and a Norinco M14. I currently only own the PTR. A few upgrades (extended charging handle!, scope rail, steel lower and recoil buffer) and a stack of mags later, I'm into it for about $1000. Yes, the manual of arms is slower than most other rifles and the mag changes are less than ideal. However, I'm not worried or concerned about instant mag changes/charging with a DMR style rifle. It would never be my first choice for close range work. I have a sub 6lb Colt AR for that. I dont dislike the Fal in any way, but to get one on par with my current PTR setup would run me in excess of $1500. I sweat for my money and $500-$800 in sweat isnt worth it to me.

 

[leadcounsel]

Guess I'm just slow tonight. The original was:


If we fix it to correct the error it reads:
FAL has the best ergos of all, and the safety/fire switch is in the perfect position just like the AR15 platform. Good trigger. I love the non-reciprocating left-side charging handle. Adjustable gas system is cool and an advantage.

While I wouldn't call the G3 trigger good by any stretch the G3 does have a left side, non-reciprocating CH. And although it doesn't have a gas system to adjust, you can get close to the same effect by swapping locking pieces to change the delay in opening.

BSW

It's on the left side, for fast right handed shooters to charge it. It is non-reciprocating so it doesn't hit you in the face if you're left handed shooter.

The HK forward charging handle is IMO awkward, slow, and loud.

 

[dancitizen]

"The HK forward charging handle is IMO awkward, slow, and loud."

What were they thinking?

"we should design the cocking handle for soldiers with a 4' left arm"

 

[dancitizen]

"It is a good thing that it is just your impression. other wise some might think that you were looking for rationalizations."

I have a personal preference for the G3, and a personal dislike for the FAL. This does not require rationalization. When I was afield both rifles were common place and seen as roughly equal.

My personal preference is based on several things:

We were strongly encouraged to shun anything that could snag, and the G3 is smoother, so via conditioning I saw that look as more appealing.

The extra few inches in the FAL length was just enough to make it troublesome in vehicles.

I found the G3 recoil more manageable and much more controllable in full auto.

I found the G3 more reliable under field conditions, the simple and overpowered action suffered less from nasty conditions. No gas system to deal with either. It may be brutal on brass, but when dirty and dusty, firing ammo that had not been stored well, it always ejected.

Ergonomically, the gun fits me perfectly, I pick it up, point... and I am on target. Whereas for me the FAL just never fit me that well.

The FALs commonly found in civilian possession in the US are more typically made by an original manufacturer, or at least a licensed factory.

I'd be interested to know what you are basing this one.

As for my impressions of USA FALs being factory and HK clones being aftermarket, that is because that is what the ones I have encountered here have been. The shooters I know who have FALs have original factory models, I have seen some kit builds (all excellent), but I have encountered less of them.

In contrast the Hk clones I have seen at the range, especially in recent years, have been knockoffs of mediocre to decent quality, but not in the class of original German rifles.

The question was between the FAL and the G3, I presumed this meant a real FAL and a real G3, and spoke as such. Due to the construction of the G3 I do not believe a kit build will equal the quality of the original, I do believe the FAL kits can match the original as the construction lends itself more to this. But as I have not personally built any, I cannot say so with certainty.

As to the STGW57... I used to know some Swiss soldiers that thought very well of theirs, and the Swiss are known to make some very fine machines. I myself have not handled one enough to add to the discussion.

 

[Ash]

Having owned superb FAL's and shot my uncle's Hk Semi-auto G3, I gravitated towards the LRB M14 I have now. However, having had a DSA FAL, I prefer that design over the G3.

But, some of the comments about which one feels better are made out of solid convictions that seem equal to facts such as the nominal range of the boiling point of water or the edge-retaining charactersics of 440c stainless steel.

A man's build is part of the equation when it comes to how a rifle feels. For some, the Hk design may feel better because of their overall physical build. For others, the FAL. Evidently for me, the m14 fits best because I shoot that the best. That may be perhaps the reason why I have never kept any of the AR's I have owned (original Bushmaster, Rock River, or Stag) but hang on to my Mini-14. No matter how hard the Stoner's Witnesses knock on my door, I just don't seem to be swayed.

It really is absurd to say which is more controllable of the rifles encountered with any kind of certainty because a man's build goes into the mix. As to quality of build, it's hard for me to see how an Hk can in any way be superior to a butter-smooth FAL. And the protrusions on an FAL are no worse in my experience at the uncluttered range than an HK. From my own experience, given the choice of the two, I would pick the FAL without a second thought - but that is due to experiences with utterly reliable FAL's and a complete knowledge of how they they work and how to take them down. A man who picks an Hk based on experience and not Call of Duty can hardly be faulted either.

In either case, the real trouble lies in dealing with a fanboi.

 

[bannockburn]

Have had both and definitely prefer the ergonomics and design features of the FAL over the G3 (HK 91).

 

[dvdcrr]

The high price of the HK relative to the PTR is as much due to the fact that a very limited number were imported.

 

[stubbicatt]

Having owned an original FN G1 and a HK G3, I prefer the G3. The options for mounting a scope available on each tilts in favor of the G3, as the claw is easy to use and returns to zero. The slip on dust cover for the FAL is just not as good.

Most importantly, whoever put that stamped steel fore end on the FAL never did a 20 round mag dump and tried to hold on to his rifle afterwards. One needs a tactical oven mitt to hold on to the thing.

I will say that in prone automatic fire, I think the FAL was more controllable. I think the length of the FAL maybe made it better at this task. Good thing it had a handle to pick it up with afterwards, else one would burn the skin off the support hand. Also, the narrower trigger shoe on the FAL was not as pleasant to use as the wider trigger shoe on the G3.

The adjustable gas system is considered a feature to most, but the roller locker just plain works. No adjustments needed. Period. Never experienced any failures to cycle with the G3, I cannot say the same for the FAL.

I do appreciate the now out of favor rock in magazine design on both of them, as I have never heard of a bolt over jam in either of them. The robust magazine of the G3, especially the feed box, is a feature I like.

Lastly, I find the G3 easier to clean, as no piston or gas cylinder to clean with hard deposits to remove, and cleaning the knurled gas adjuster ring just is no fun. G3, wipe down bolt and carrier with a rag, wipe out the trunnion and receiver, reassemble. IME, the deposits on the G3 bolt group don't seem to become hardened carbon on the G3 like they do on the FAL gas piston. Bore cleaning chores on either of them equal out.

But hey! To each his own poison. Some like Mac, some like PC. Both allow us to communicate on our favorite forum.

 

[MachIVshooter]

The options for mounting a scope available on each tilts in favor of the G3, as the claw is easy to use and returns to zero. The slip on dust cover for the FAL is just not as good.

DSA makes the best FAL scope mount, but others also produce clamping covers. I have the B-square mount on my CETME, and much prefer the FAL mount.

Most importantly, whoever put that stamped steel fore end on the FAL

I've only ever seen/encountered wood and polymer, or aftermarket aluminum quad rails. Any pics?

I do appreciate the now out of favor rock in magazine design on both of them, as I have never heard of a bolt over jam in either of them. The robust magazine of the G3, especially the feed box, is a feature I like.

G3 is a straight insertion, albeit much more fickle than the AR. I wouldn't call the FAL rapid on mag changes, but I can manage it much more quickly than the CETME, as the CETME/G3 mag release is just about out of reach even for those of us with long fingers, and aligning the magazine with the well on the G3 is more difficult than the FAL. AR platform trumps both, of course.

As for G3 magazines themselves, yeah.........robust is probably not a word I'd use to describe the easily dented aluminum mags.

 

[ttarp]

G3 is a straight insertion

Hmm, I've always rocked mine in, and it works pretty well.

As for G3 magazines themselves, yeah.........robust is probably not a word I'd use to describe the easily dented aluminum mags.

Aluminum sure, but I could use one of the steel mags as a hammer though if I wanted to.

 

[stubbicatt]

G3 is a straight insertion, albeit much more fickle than the AR.

Actually, no. It is a rock in magazine insertion. There is a tenon on the bottom of the trunnion which engages a indented notch on the front of the feed box. If you slam it straight in, you will deform the magazine.

 

[stubbicatt]

As for G3 magazines themselves, yeah.........robust is probably not a word I'd use to describe the easily dented aluminum mags.

Actually, no. There is a tenon on the bottom of the G3 trunnion which engages a notch or indentation on the front of the magazine feed box, when the magazine is properly rocked into place. Perhaps your incorrect usage of the "direct insertion" method is what is crumpling your magazines at that location?

If you have a sacrificial magazine, look closely at the forward part of the feed box. See the notch? Now slap the magazine home, and retract it. See how it is mashed in now? That was caused by the trunnion tenon. Now try another new magazine, and rock it in. Withdraw it and notice no damage to the notch.