Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Site Notices
1/25/2018 7:38:29 AM
Posted: 8/1/2002 6:49:52 AM EST
Dear All:

I have seen two examples of the new Century G3's with stamped receivers, and they have beautiful bores, nice parts, and the original HK style baked on finish. Outside of their good looks, does anyone know if they have it where it counts?

I noticed that when I dry fired one, the bolt moved forward about 2 or 3 milimeters when the hammer struck it. Is this due to it having an empty chamber, and the empty space normally filled by the shell permits the bolt to move forward, or is this just part of the delayed blowback system and the roller-locking lugs? Thanks. JOE
Link Posted: 8/1/2002 11:51:46 AM EST
Anyone???? Past experience, or comments from owners of REAL HK G3's would be appreciated, especially about the bolt movement that accompanies dry firing. Thanks.
Link Posted: 8/1/2002 1:24:28 PM EST
When the first Century FALs came onto the scene I bought two. One worked and one didn't.

When Century was selling MAADI AK's for a song I bought two. Both had mis-indexed barrels. (Allegedly due to the process involved in turning the barrels to remove the threads.) In addition to this one of the rifles was shipped without the advertised cleaning kit and cleaning rod. I've been waiting two and a half years for Century to ship this item to me. They said it was "in the mail" the last time I called them... last year!

When century first introduced the G3 kit gun built on a clunky Federal Arms aluminum reciever, against my better judgment, I bought one. The muzzle brake went soaring down range after a box of ammo. The magazine as supplied by Century was dented and would not hold more than seven rounds. And it repeatedly failed to cycle.

I hope that this gives you a good indication of Century's quality.

Personally I no longer buy anything that Century offers. My experience has been typical. Save your money. Buy a real HK.
Link Posted: 8/1/2002 7:17:29 PM EST
Originally Posted By Ouch:
Dear All:

I have seen two examples of the new Century G3's with stamped receivers, and they have beautiful bores, nice parts, and the original HK style baked on finish. Outside of their good looks, does anyone know if they have it where it counts?

I noticed that when I dry fired one, the bolt moved forward about 2 or 3 milimeters when the hammer struck it. Is this due to it having an empty chamber, and the empty space normally filled by the shell permits the bolt to move forward, or is this just part of the delayed blowback system and the roller-locking lugs? Thanks. JOE
[/quote/

Just checked My 91. If you ease the bolt forward and pull the trigger it dose move, if you pull the bolt back all the way and let the spring do all the work, and pull the trigger, the bolt dose not move.
Link Posted: 8/2/2002 4:50:18 AM EST
PINGi3,
Did you ever find out what the exact problem with your G3 was? I ask because I am also guilty of lusting over one of the old "Congo Carbine Rifles" with the FAC aluminum receiver and long "can" on end of 16" barrel. I have already been very sternly lectured by Gunplumber after I made the mistake of asking his opinion.(whew!)
I had a post last weekend over on FAL Files, "Decisions-G3 or Cetme". Harlan of FAC posted about them doing a torture test on this receiver before releasing it on market and said "it held up very well".
Anyway, I know what you mean about Century. I also had/have same concerns. Gunplumber (www.arizonaresponsesystems.com) has the authentic HK's for sale. If you can afford one of these, I'm sure it is the way to go. Many people (like me),unfortunately, simply do not have that much money available. So, my reasoning is, which may be questionable, buy the Century now and then later, when budget permits, either tweek it yourself or have it professionaly done by good "smith", which is what I plan to do.
About the stamped CIA receiver, I am also curious about them, but on the latest CETME's.
I'm sorry I wasn't of any help on the original question.

slider
Link Posted: 8/2/2002 5:48:58 AM EST
Slider,

I don't know why it failed to feed. I also noticed that disassembly was a bit of a bear too. After losing the muzzle break and dealing with the wonky magazine and the failures to feed I simply traded it (with full disclosure of said problems) for a box of assorted AR parts.

I'd just advise anyone to steer clear of Century.
Link Posted: 8/2/2002 5:57:43 AM EST
Ouch,
I bought a Century G3 1095X, just like this one: http://www.gunbroker.com/auction/ViewItem.asp?Item=4798226

The bore looks very good, came dirty but cleaned up well. The bolt carrier and other pieces are well used, but seviceable. The stock, pistol grip, and fore end and two HK mags are new. The stamped sheetmetal receiver is not the greatest...I think I could have done a better welding job, and I've not done any for 22 years!

I've not shot it yet, as I broke a bone in my left hand two days before the rifle arrived at my ffl, and I'll be in a cast for a couple of weeks more. If it does shoot well I may keep it, clean up some of the poor welds and refinnish it. If it does not function well I'll be sending it back to CIA for another one.

If it shoots well I think it is a bargain (I paid about $470), but it'll never win a beauty contest.

Regards, Pepper
Link Posted: 8/2/2002 7:33:25 AM EST
pepper,
I've heard the same thing about the welding on the stamped CIA receivers. It's like PINGi3 said, you're taking a chance when you buy CIA gun.
The one thing about the FAC aluminum receiver is, that since it requires no welding, their is one less thing for Century to mess up.
Sorry about your hand.


Ouch,
I wish I knew more about G3's. I'm pretty knew to this also. I just happened to see the G3 I mentioned in my previous post at a local dealer the other day and the temptation was just too much (layaway). Oh well, $400 over time. Maybe I'll get lucky. I'll let ya'll know later.


slider
Link Posted: 8/2/2002 9:09:02 AM EST
I've spoken with one guy who's gun had a barrel that was off kilter, and fired consistantly to the left, even with the sights maxed out to the right. Turned out the barrel was warped.

Another guy said that while at the range his buddy's Century G3 had the barrel fly out of the receiver since it was only anchored using rolled steel pins and four hex-nuts. Judas Priest!!!! How can they legally get away with this sort of thing????? OUCH
Link Posted: 8/2/2002 4:07:24 PM EST
Slider,

I read somewhere that the aluminum G3/91 receivers didn't stand-up to shooting large ammounts of mil-surp and commercial .308, something about the aluminum receivers being gradually deformed by the recoil. This may be nothing more than a rumor, as I haven't seen it first-hand.

Also, I know the aluminum FAL receivers earned a very poor reputation for deforming during use, cracking, and even catastrophic failures! Go perform a search at falfiles.com for more info.

Other than the AR10, I can't think of any MBR in .308 that uses an aluminum frame. (I know, some will say that the AR10 isn't a real MBR since no nation's military has issued it to the troops.)

I believe that you need a 10-ton press to install the barrell, I'd really be surprised to see it come out while shooting! I've heard that the barrel is easily bent during installation because of the force required.

Owen, go over to HK91.com and HKPRO.com for all of the info you'll ever want, even on the clones.

I'd say go for the steel if possible, but you should really inspect it before you pay for it, and get your local dealer to keep sending it back to CIA until it works to your satisfaction.

Regards, Pepper
Link Posted: 8/5/2002 5:00:28 AM EST
[Last Edit: 8/5/2002 5:03:14 AM EST by Slider]
pepper,
I had the same reservations about aluminum receivers so I posted over at FAL Files under "general discussion" titled "Harlan...FA91 receiver verses FAPSG1" so I could get the straight scoop on these receivers. Since Harlan is spokesman for FAC (who makes this receiver) and has excellent reputation for honesty and technical knowledge, I decided to get his input.
Like you mentioned about the AR10, this receiver is based on same technology and is said to be 20% stronger than original steel stamped receiver. Harlan says, refering to strength of receiver, that it has to do with design parameters and thickness of material. Also, the steel trunions take the main pressure anyway.
Harlan also mentions extensive torture testing prior to market release. Also, this receiver is still being made and reported to have had no returns due to manufacturing defects.
Anyway, I hope this helps.

slider
Link Posted: 8/5/2002 9:50:49 AM EST
Slider,

Is that FAC aluminum G3 receiver the same one that Springfield used on thier SAR8 (HK91 clones)? It looks about the same, with the scope rail on top.

Pepper
Link Posted: 8/6/2002 5:08:27 AM EST
pepper,
I have been told that it is the same receiver, but I will need to verify that with FAC to be sure. Get back with you later.

slider
Top Top