natedog
Member
I hear people raving about the paddle style magazine, over the standard style. Why is it more preferable, and what kind of release is the standard?
HK roller-lock series magazine release.
- Thread starter natedog
- Start date
- Status
Badger Arms
Member
What do you mean by standard? More autoloading rifles utilize the paddle style than any other type. That means that the paddle style IS the standard style. It's not a 'roller-lock' series magazine release, this mag release has been around a long time. BTW, who has said it is superior? It's ambidexterous, positive, and functional but I don't think that anybody has 'raved' about it. Far to the contrary, many including myself have tried to defend ourselves against those who claim the pushbutton AR-15 magazine release to be the best thing ever and how DARE we step down to a lowly paddle release!? They are two ways of getting the same job done. Make a cheap, reliable ambidexterous pushbutton magazine release and I'd be happy. Until then, I'd rather have a paddle.
natedog
Member
By "standard" I was meaning "standard" for HK. I thought the bushbutton was standard on roller-lock series rifles, like
and that the paddle was a replacement option. I've heard from many that the paddle release is superior, and I wanted to know why.
You may have heard it is superior, because you can't reach the mag release button on the HK G3/91 with your finger. You have to practically release your grip on the pistol grip to reach it. It's a poor design. With the lever release, you can maintain your grip on the pistol grip and change mags with your left, like on an FAL, M1a, AK, etc. (The mag release on an M16/AR-15 is the best, though.)
In my opinion (and the reason I no longer have an HK rifle) the HK 91 and 93 have poor ergonomics and balance. They are not as fast handling in loading and reloading as an FAL or M1A and have no last round bolt hold-open. They are very rugged and reliable rifles, though.
Steve
In my opinion (and the reason I no longer have an HK rifle) the HK 91 and 93 have poor ergonomics and balance. They are not as fast handling in loading and reloading as an FAL or M1A and have no last round bolt hold-open. They are very rugged and reliable rifles, though.
Steve
Badger Arms
Member
I, too, sold my HK91 years ago but not just for that ergonomic reason. I have long enough fingers to operate the mag release but the stock was poorly shaped and smacked me in the face when I shot. On the range, I had to single-load for high-power matches and got tired of pulling that darned handle back each time. Besides, at 600 yards, them 400 yard sights didn't do a darn bit of good.
Still, the HK91 would feed and fire ANY ammo that could be fed and fired. I often joked that you could beat the bullet in on a 270 Winchester, load up a magazine, and the gun would function fine!
Still, the HK91 would feed and fire ANY ammo that could be fed and fired. I often joked that you could beat the bullet in on a 270 Winchester, load up a magazine, and the gun would function fine!
Destructo6
Member
HK ships G3s, MP5s, HK-33s, etc, with both the flapper and button mag releases.
The reason it was eliminated on HK-91s and their non-nfa kin is that the flapper pivot on the same pin/tube that normally serves as the front push-pin receptical. The presence of that hole makes the receiver a machinegun in the ATF's eyes.
BTW, the flapper simply actuates the push-button. So, you really can't have a flapper without the push-button.
As said, the flapper is much easier to manipulate than the push-button. With the flapper, you simply grab the magazine and your thumb tends to fall on the flapper naturally.
As for the desire factor, to install a flapper on a HK-91, you have to drill the receiver's clip-on ledge. If you do it improperly, you've made a machinegun. If you do it properly (weld over the blind hole), you'll most likely need to refinish the receiver. Most people have a HK-oriented gunsmith do the job, so you're talking money and time put into it that a run of the mill push-button HK doesn't.
When I had my Portuguese HK built up, I had the flapper installed. It cost an extra $100 to do it with the build and it was worth it. With the clipped and pinned plastic SEF frame, it looks just like a G3.
The reason it was eliminated on HK-91s and their non-nfa kin is that the flapper pivot on the same pin/tube that normally serves as the front push-pin receptical. The presence of that hole makes the receiver a machinegun in the ATF's eyes.
BTW, the flapper simply actuates the push-button. So, you really can't have a flapper without the push-button.
As said, the flapper is much easier to manipulate than the push-button. With the flapper, you simply grab the magazine and your thumb tends to fall on the flapper naturally.
As for the desire factor, to install a flapper on a HK-91, you have to drill the receiver's clip-on ledge. If you do it improperly, you've made a machinegun. If you do it properly (weld over the blind hole), you'll most likely need to refinish the receiver. Most people have a HK-oriented gunsmith do the job, so you're talking money and time put into it that a run of the mill push-button HK doesn't.
When I had my Portuguese HK built up, I had the flapper installed. It cost an extra $100 to do it with the build and it was worth it. With the clipped and pinned plastic SEF frame, it looks just like a G3.
Feanaro
Member
The actual standard, as others have mentioned I think, is the paddle/flapper magazine release. The HK91/3/4 had to be neutered for importation. The flapper is prefered because it is easier to operate, to most. It is located behind the magazine, so you can grip the mag and push the paddle towards the mag and then just pull away. With the push-button that came with the HK9X series, some people have trouble reaching the button and can't work it as fast as the flapper style.
- Status
