PTR-91 vs M1A?

[Panzerschwein]

Hello everyone! So, as some of you may know, I'm in the market for a .308/7.62x51mm battle rifle. It's something that I'd like to keep close to an original military standard issue service rifle, no tactical rails and just iron sights.

At first, I was set on a Springfield Armory M1A, the standard version with 22" barrel and walnut furniture. I love the M14 series of rifles, and especially love their grandaddy the M1 Garand, but quite frankly the M1A is out of my price range. After shopping around locally, I have been able to get the model I want for about $1500 out the door with a military discount. Off various internet dealers, I could get one for the $1450 range. Still a bit expensive, I'd like to keep it under $1000 if at all possible.

I have also been a big fan of the Heckler & Koch G3 battle rifle. Some time ago I learned that a company called PTR Industries makes a copy of the G3 series. I have heard pretty good things about them, and am quite interested in their "GI" model which is most similar to standard issue German G3 service rifle and it has green furniture and iron sights, 18" barrel. One thing that's really nice about this rifle, is the fact that I've found it for as low as $850 off the net, new in box. That's a price savings of nearly $600... I could get a lot of ammo with that money!!!

But, is the PTR-91 GI model a good basic battle rifle for someone on a budget? I should explain what I want this gun for: I want a reliable, hard hitting rifle that will have combat accuracy out to 400 meters or better with iron sights. Yes, I know, I don't need a .308/7.62x51mm rifle for this range... but there's something about a battle rifle in a full size rifle caliber that just really turns me on. This rifle will be used for range shooting (not precision work), plinking, and maybe even self defense in an emergency.

Pure accuracy is no great concern, so long as it is capable of hitting a man-sized target at 400 meters or so. Reliability and durability, now those are important. How rugged and reliable are the PTR rifles? I don't plan on doing a huge amount of shooting, as .308/7.62x51mm ammo is fairly expensive and I don't reload, but I don't want the rifle to give out on me especially if I ever really need it.

So, if you were in my shoes, which rifle would you pick? As much as I love the M1A/M14, I also really like the G3 and if the PTR is a good gun than I think the significant price drop over the M1A would lead me to choose it instead.

Looking for any feedback and help on this guys. I bought two boxes of ZQ brand 7.62x51mm ammo from Wal-Mart last night, and I need something to shoot it with!

PS: I know the PTR rifles don't come with the original H&K G3 paddle magazine releases, but I intend to have one professionally installed if I get the rifle. It will set me back about $150 but that still will save me $450-$500 over the cost of an M1A.

 

[splithoof]

I own both (original Hk) and M1A, and can say that while the HK (or it's clone) is less $$ than the M1A, it is ergonomically inferior, recoils harder, and is genarally not as accurate. While magazines and spare parts for the HK are cheap, I don't believe either is more reliable under adverse use than the other. I'll take the M1A,

 

[nathan]

Try to find a Polytech version of the M14 at gunbroker. Try to negotiate...

 

[steveracer]

M1a pricing has gone pretty nuts over the last decade or so, while other great platform prices have gone down. I USED to be a had-core M1A nutcase. Now....not so much.

 

[bannockburn]

Have to agree with splithoof: the HK91 I had really fell short in terms of it's overall ergonomics and ease of use. I would spend the extra money and get either an M1A or a FAL.

 

[Lord Teapot]

i was considering both of these, and an ar10, but after looking into everything settled on a fnar. but if i had to choose one or the other, m1a hands down.

 

[stubbicatt]

Having owned and shot both, I prefer the PTR. However, be warned, the starting price is just that. There are many modifications one will want to do to this rifle. In the end though, the ease of installation of a scope, and the more solid means of mounting it, is what leads me to conclude that the PTR is a better value *for me*. I no longer see so well to use irons.

I much prefer the M14 type rifle for ergonomics and its iron sights.

I have read many times that folks think the M1A recoils less. I don't find this to be true. With a properly gapped bolt the PTR and M1A seem the same recoil wise to me. This makes sense considering they are shooting the same ammo. To ameliorate the recoil impulse even more, simply change out the stock buffer for a better one, and perhaps a rubber recoil pad if you feel it desirable.

The many little gimcracks and accessories one can purchase for the PTRs is a lot of fun in itself, to include a pretty darn good night vision scope for not a lot of dosh.

 

[briansmithwins]

The current PTR-91s don't seem to have a lot of the problems associated with the earlier models, like shallow flutes causing stoppages.

I'd look at getting the model with a picatinny rail welded to the top of the receiver, you don't have to use it but it will still be there if you change your mind.

The G3 that the PTR-91 is based on was pretty much 'the other arm of the free world' as almost all countries that didn't adopt the FAL went with the G3. M14s weren't really used by anyone else (besides the U.S.) in a my significant quantity.

Another factor is that there are a lot of G3 parts (that fit the PTR-91) available right now, so picking up spares or changing parts is easy and cheap.

BSW

 

[X-Rap]

I've had both, still have the M1A1. The G3 I had was the Springfield version called the SAR8, never a happier day than when I parted with it.Function was fine, reliability fine, magazines are supper cheap, accuracy certainly nothing to write home about, ergonomics and basic likability was horrible.

Both were emotional/nostalgic based purchases, I too wanted a "real" battle rifle. I still have the M1A1 and don't foresee parting with it (one of my sons likes it and I've got a lot of mags collected). I might someday take it hunting just to say I have but in almost all scenarios I can generate in my I feel I have better options with a bolt gun, or either an AR 10 or 15.

 

[joem1945]

Get a AR10, DSA or other. Around $1200.00 at least that was my cost. Realiable and accurate. If you decide to scope it, it's easy done.

 

[Robert]

Of the two listed, M1A. If it were my money I'd get an FAL. Wait, that's exactly what I did.

 

[Nature Boy]

Cooldill, not sure if I understand. You want the M1A, but can't afford it. What's the poll supposed to do to fix that?

 

[eldon519]

The M1A is probably the better target/range rifle just because the sights are so good and easily adjusted. It also has a nice trigger. I'd take a good look at an FAL though. I think it has better ergonomics, especially with a SAW grip, but the sights are worse for range use and the trigger is so-so.

 

[Rio Laxas]

If it were my money I'd get an FAL. Wait, that's exactly what I did.

Me too.

 

[Jackal]

I have owned a couple of each. M1A's ergo's are better, but the PTR/HK is no slouch in other areas. If you run either rifle scoped, than the ergo issue pretty much goes to the wayside. Sights are a practical toss up. Once they are adjusted, both peeps perform very well with their long sight radius.

Cheap mags, great accuracy, lightest recoil of any .308 semi I've ever used (recoil is a long push, not a sharp smack), boring reliability, easy takedown that doesnt affect bedding, great price, etc.

Downsides to PTR: Gets super dirty, which doesnt affect function. Almost requires upgrades right out of the box (larger charging handle, heavy recoil buffer, steel lower/HK grip). Flute marks on cases, but still re loadable.

I sold my M1A's simply because they just were not good enough performers to justify the cost. For $1500, you can have a very upgraded PTR, 25 mags and 800rds of ammo.

 

[Wildbillz]

While I voted for the M1A. It don't sound like you can do that. If you can find a Springfield gun for 1K grab it and run. I think I paid about that in 1984 for mine.

The PTR is a good rifle and there are lots of points for it. Surplus mags are dirt cheap, parts are still pretty reasonable and still around (can't much say that for M14 parts). Ammo is going to cost the same for either. years ago I had a real H&K91. I sold it because it kicked like a mule. I don't think I even fired 100 rnd through it. Earlier this year I bought a PTR for the reasons I stated above and, well cause I could. I have not fired it yet but hope to soon.

Now if you were to toss a FAL into the mix? A well built clone there would be my first choice. You should be able to find one for around $1000. to $1200. But mags are going to be more expensive then the PTR ones.

WB

 

[Sunray]

Neither of those are battle rifles. They're both civilian copies of battle rifles. A real surplus FAL is a battle rifle.
"...didn't adopt the FAL went with the G3..." Even the Germans used FALs but wanted their own industry. G3's were copied from the Spanish Cetme.
However, any such rifle that had anything to do with Century Arms run away from. Century is well known for assembling rifles out of parts bins with zero QC. To the point of not even checking headspace to ensure the rifle is safe to shoot.

 

[briansmithwins]

Neither of those are battle rifles. They're both civilian copies of battle rifles. A real surplus FAL is a battle rifle.

Unless you have a full auto FAL, you're shooting a civilian copy of a battle rifle too.

BSW

 

[hamp sandwich]

I've owned a variation of all three... M1A, G3 and FAL. Honestly, I found that I liked all three. I recommend trying to find someone/somewhere that would let you try them out. Otherwise, go with your gut. If you decide that one is not for you, sell and try another. Considering price, I'd start with the PTR..

 

[Numeric]

I think my PTR-91GI was worth the $900 it cost me. I have shot groups of 2.5MOA and possibly better with the iron sights: I had one group that was 1.625", but a flier brought it out to 2.75". I think it's capable of better with a more experienced shooter or a low-magnification optic -or I could just put my glasses on. The only real flaw is the omission of the paddle-style supplemental magazine release, but even a proper HK91 is going to suffer from the same fault.

 

[Panzerschwein]

I think my PTR-91GI was worth the $900 it cost me. I have shot groups of 2.5MOA and possibly better with the iron sights: I had one group that was 1.625", but a flier brought it out to 2.75". I think it's capable of better with a more experienced shooter or a low-magnification optic -or I could just put my glasses on. The only real flaw is the omission of the paddle-style supplemental magazine release, but even a proper HK91 is going to suffer from the same fault.

I know, I'm not sure why PTR doesn't include the paddle release. I've found a couple people who modify these rifles to have the original style paddle releases:

http://www.triggerwork.net/paddlemag.html

Altogether would cost about $200 counting FFL fees and the labor/parts. I would probably get it done if I do pick the PTR.

 

[stubbicatt]

They are both really neat rifles. I like them both.

I must have lucked out or something, I have one of the early JLD models with the tight chamber and the sticky shallow flutes, but no joke, using 155 Amax and H4895 loads, I have achieved some impressive accuracy with this rifle.

I do not know whether the later PTR91, Inc., rifles are built differently, but I have read that they are. This is why it surprises me to hear of 2.5 MOA results.

The rifle is a natural point shooter for me also.

Too bad it is as heavy as it is.

 

[WC145]

I had a Century FAL, wanted a better quality 7.62 semi-auto 'battle rifle', one gun that would do it all. Looked at the better FALs, the PTR-91s, the M1A variants, everything out there. Bought a new Loaded M1A and I'm glad I did, it feels right, shoots great, and is more accurate than I expected. Money well spent in my book

 

[Slamfire]

But, is the PTR-91 GI model a good basic battle rifle for someone on a budget? I should explain what I want this gun for: I want a reliable, hard hitting rifle that will have combat accuracy out to 400 meters or better with iron sights.

If this is your criteria, the PTR 91 will meet your needs.





I have little complaints about my PTR. The issue trigger felt like an issue trigger, so the trigger pack went off to Bill Springfield.

> [email protected] wrote:
>
> I can set you up with a pull that has virtually no creep in the 4.75 area. I
> also remove all the take up slack. Price runs $XX and return postage is
> included. Only the trigger pack is needed, personal check is fine. My address
> is:
>
> Bill Springfield
> 4135 Cricket Ct.
> Colorado Springs, Co 80918

Bill sent back a tuned trigger that is as good as any match service rifle trigger that I have ever used.

The rear irons are outstanding once they are set. But zeroing the darn things for elevation is difficult (I like the 100 yard setting to be on at 100 yards) and windage adjustments are hit or miss. The sights are rugged and easy to use, but they are not as adjustable as the M14 rear.



My stock is a bit short. Brass gets kicked a country mile and I installed a port buffer which drops brass within 20 feet, instead of 20 yards without.

My rifle does not like bullets heavier than 150 grains. Recoil gets worse as bullet weight increases.

I compared my PTR to a bud's HK. The HK looked rougher, welds not as smooth, etc. Don't know if that means anything in the big scheme of things, but I do like shiny and smooth surface finishes.

I did get my Distinguished Rifleman Badge and a Regional Gold with a M1a, I love the rifle, but as a rough and ready battle rifle, a good roller bolt will fit the ticket.

 

[Panzerschwein]

Will the PTR shoot steel-cased ammo well? I plan to shoot quite a bit of that as I don't (can't) reload right now.