HK 91 type or FAL type???

Status
Not open for further replies.
G

glockamolee

Member
Joined
Nov 7, 2005
Messages
179
Location
Mich
I'm having a tough time choosing between the FAL type or HK 91 type series of weapons.

I want at least 2.5 MOA, reliability, and good ergonomics.

Thanks in advance for the advice.
 
Both the HK and the FAL are more than capable of 2.5 MOA, and both are very reliable. The key is to get a well made one. The FAL seems to have the better ergonomics.

The best HK clones are made by JLD Enterprises. It's their PTR-91 model, and retail is about $750 or so for the basic model. I have one and love it. Mine is incredibly accurate.

The best FAL clones are made by DSA. Their STG-58 is built from Austrian parts kits manufactured by Steyr assembled on a DSA receiver (with the requisite number of U.S. compliance parts, of course). Their SA-58 is all new parts made in the U.S. Both are excellent rifles. The StG-58 retails for around $900-1,000, and the SA-58 starts around $1,500 and goes up from there.
 
Both are good. I like the HK91 style myself. I'd get the PTR-91 mainly because it's less and then maybe one of those trigger jobs.
 
dolanp said:
Both are good. I like the HK91 style myself. I'd get the PTR-91 mainly because it's less and then maybe one of those trigger jobs.
Click to expand...

Oh, yeah. Be forewarned that the PTR-91 trigger is awful. That's not JLD's fault, as all CETME's, HK91's and clones have uniformly awful triggers -- it's just part of the design.

The good news is that they can be fixed without too much trouble. You just field strip the rifle and send the lower (or just the FCG) off for a trigger job. A guy named Bill Springfield does excellent work with quick turnaround for about $45, including return shipping. He took all the slack, creep and overtravel out of my PTR-91's trigger, and got the pull weight down to just under 6 pounds (still a little heavy for a target rifle, but excellent for a battle rifle). Another outfit called Williams Trigger Specialties does both HK91-type and FAL triggers, and has a good rep for both, but they're more expensive.
 
Another vote for the PTR-91

I hvae the 91K and love it. I had a bad extractor at first(a burr on it), but after a little Dremel work I had it smoothed out and running like a champ. Even with the bad extractor I never had any reliability problems, just eratic ejection.

The mags are cheap ($1.20 ea from Cope's), the rifles will shoot better then 2 MOA w/o a problem. So far I've shot British Rad Way Green, Port, Aussi, and Argi ammo through mine with no problems. I'm going to try Wolf soon so I can save my good stuff!
 
glockamolee said:
I want at least 2.5 MOA, reliability, and good ergonomics.
Click to expand...

Both will give you 2.5 MOA. HK may have a slight edge but both should give you this level. My FAL will shoot 1 MOA with match, 2 with surplus. My G3 shot that well also.

Both are rock solid reliable. Some say HK's fluted chamber is more reliable. Other's say FAL's gas system lends itself to reliability in a wider range of environments.

Ergonomics tends to be a subjective thing. Me personally - I sold my G3 because I couldn't reach the safety with my thumb and there is no easy way to fix it. The mag release was inconvenient. The charging handle is way up by the muzzle. Takedown is more complex. FALs feel better to me...everything is where is should be. It breaks apart lickety split for maintenance/cleaning. That said, others like HK's and the way they are set up. (Heck, some people actually like the grip angle on Glocks and think that is natural...no accounting for taste ;) ) My guess is that if you polled people about the relative ergonomics, the majority would think that the FAL wins.

Hard to go wrong with either though if you want a time-tested battle rifle.

BTW - +1 on Bill Springfield's magic to the HK trigger. He brought mine down to about 3.5 - 4 lbs and crisp)
 
Often asked question. I have both a 91 and an FAL (real ones in both cases) and either will do, but the FAL just "feels" a little sleeker and faster in the hands. I like having both but would take the FAL if limited to one.
 
IIRC, adding optics to the HK clones can be a pain. There are lots of scope mount options for the FAL.

FAL has it all over the HK for ergos, too. (for me)
 
Father Knows Best said:
That's not JLD's fault, as all CETME's, HK91's and clones have uniformly awful triggers -- it's just part of the design.
Click to expand...
...
Father Knows Best said:
The good news is that they can be fixed without too much trouble. You just field strip the rifle and send the lower (or just the FCG) off for a trigger job.
Click to expand...
So, it isn't the design then, and JLD could easily give it a decent trigger from their factory.
 
Adding optics to an HK clone couldn't be simpler. Just get a claw style mount from Tapco with a STANAG-to-picatinny adapter.
Click to expand...

Assuming the receiver specs to the proper dimensions for the claw mount, which I think some of the US made receivers do not. And you're still stuck with two components (mount and adapter), instead of one.

Do you have a link to the Tapco mount? I can only find the combo that includes the (doubtlessly cheesey) scope. A decent FAL receiver cover mount is practically bullet proof: durable, reliable, and returns to zero when removed and replaced. My old 4-plate DSA mount does.

I understand the claw mount, even when it fits, is much more finicky. But as I said, I have no direct experience with them.
 
I have both, and have enjoyed the FAL more, somthing about threads and machining:cool: vs stamping and welds:barf: .
 
FAL

I shot both from the age of 17, and the 1st gun I bought was not a .22 but a .308 battle rifle! I bought an FAL. Why? Because it was more accurate (on average), felt better, and shot better, had better ergonomics, a bolt hold open, and was COOL!!!

Granted, H&K is a good gun. Extremely reliable (no gas system, uses roller delayed blowback), and will work even if exposed to sand, mud, etc. (almost as reliable as an AK).

But the FAL to me beats it. :)
 
The best HK clones are made by JLD Enterprises. It's their PTR-91 model, and retail is about $750 or so for the basic model. I have one and love it. Mine is incredibly accurate.
Click to expand...

+1 to all of the above.

I do have to agree that the ergonomics are horrible though, the charging handle is a pain (it wouldnt be so bad if you could just pull it straight back instead of having to flip out the handle first), the mag release is in a useless place (but I guess thats apparently easy to replace with a flipper type release), and the safety is just a little too high for me (not out of reach but far enough to be uncomfortable).

Mounting optics is very easy. I got a low profile mount from Cheaper than dirt for about $20. Its no where near as slick looking as the JLD one but Im just a poor Private. Id post a picture but this isnt my computer.

Cant beat the magazine prices. They cost less than Ammo. I have 15 or so, I usually add a couple to the cart whenever I order something.
 
VorpalSpork said:
...
So, it isn't the design then, and JLD could easily give it a decent trigger from their factory.
Click to expand...

I dunno. All I know is that every G3/CETME/HK91/clone I have ever seen had a brutally heavy and creepy trigger in stock form. My understanding is that JLD makes them to the original HK blueprints using tooling they bought from a Portuguese arms factory (that previously used the tooling to make the G3 for the Portuguese military). I'm guessing that the fixtures and tools produce heavy triggers designed to keep weary, nervous and/or poorly skilled soldiers from accidentally shooting their squad leaders in the back. Anyone with a little skill can obviously improve the trigger, but one built to the original design specs won't be anywhere near target quality.
 
Mumbles_45 said:
the mag release is in a useless place (but I guess thats apparently easy to replace with a flipper type release)
Click to expand...

Replicating the G3's paddle style mag release is not easy or cheap. It requires welding in a false front hinge pin for the paddle to rotate on, and refinishing the lower. There are 'smiths that do it, but the cost is around $150 plus parts and refinishing.

A better option (for me, anyway) is the Tac-Latch II. It's a drop-in for most clones (requires just a little grinding on the drop-in parts to fit in a PTR-91). It gives you a paddle style mag release in the same location as the G3's (right behind the mag), but it moves side-to-side instead of fore and aft. Cost is around $40, you install it yourself, and no refinishing is required.

Mumbles_45 said:
Mounting optics is very easy. I got a low profile mount from Cheaper than dirt for about $20. Its no where near as slick looking as the JLD one but Im just a poor Private.
Click to expand...

The JLD mount is indeed slick. The only real downsides compared to a claw type mount is that you can't easily remove and replace it, and it blocks the iron sights. The claw type mount still allows use of the irons, and you can remove and replace in seconds without losing your zero.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top