Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Site Notices
1/25/2018 7:38:29 AM
Posted: 3/8/2006 5:35:35 PM EST
[Last Edit: 3/8/2006 5:37:46 PM EST by KnightofTheOldeCode]
Which of the Main Battle Rifles have the least perceived felt recoil. Also controllability?

I heard People say the FAL has a "soft" recoil compared to say the HK G3 which is said to be a fairly violent recoiling action. I don't have a problem with recoil at all but have not shot all the common Battle rifles and was curious if there was indeed a noticeable difference between them.

Out of the M1A, The HK G3/Cetme, The FAL and the AR10 I have only had the opportunity to shoot the Cetme/HK G3 and the M1A. The two of them seemed pretty close but I shoot them on different occasions.

I actually get more felt recoil and pain when shooting a 7.62x39 Wasr AK then my M1 Garand. I believe that's due to the AK's short stock and sharp recoil of it's short stroke piston.

As far as controllability in rapid fire/full auto I've seen the HK and it seems to be the only .308 rifle capable of firing full auto with any short of decent control.. With the M14 being second and the Fal picking up the rear. Recently I'm heard the Fal was more controllable then the M14 but if so why did many counties that adopted it eliminate/refuse the select fire option.

Anyone know How good was the AR10 was on full auto? Anyway any thoughts on the recoil and controllability of main battle rifle.
Link Posted: 3/9/2006 2:37:17 AM EST
Ive shot most of them. Id say: From best to worst on recoil:

AR10 (Ive shot the Stoner variant)

Full auto fire in battle rifles never worked out very well. It was hoped that a battle rifle would be able to replace both the standard infantry rifle and the light machine gun. In all examples, you are still talking about a relatively light 7.62 weapon capable of full auto fire. Ive fired the G3 and M14 in full auto, just not controllable in my opinion, I dont particularly see how the AR10 would be any different. Most countries that actually want to use full auto in their standard infantry weapons have gone to the 5.56 as most examples are relatively controllable with full auto fire. 7.62 weapons are pretty much relegated to the medium machinegun role (similar to our use of the 240B) and sniper weapons. When I served with a coalition SOF task force in Afghanistan, only the Norwegians/Danes still used a 7.62 MBR(the G3). I love 7.62 rifles and they are superior in most applications (except for carrying....) but those Norwegian troops must have had a heck of a time humping a 7.62 combat load thru those dang mountains...
Link Posted: 3/9/2006 3:23:43 AM EST
I don't think the recoil of my HK91 w/sear is bad.

Of course, I like long, slow, root canals, too.

IMO, no 7.62 "Battle Rifle" is controllable (read 'accurate') in full auto fire.
Other than in a medium, belt-fed MG, the 7.62x51 (in full auto) would only make sense in a true SAW, say a BAR type (heavy gun, fired from a bipod, used for suppression).


They are a HOOT to just blast away with.

Link Posted: 3/9/2006 10:20:23 AM EST
[Last Edit: 3/10/2006 12:09:26 AM EST by Sodie]
I've shot my FAL back to back with my friends HK-91 and his Rem 700 with a Bull Barrel. In terms of weight, the FAL and the HK were about the same, but the gas system on the FAL makes it much softer to shoot. The HK and the heavy Rem 700 weren't that much different in felt recoil. I could shoot my FAL all day but he didn't like shooting his HK very long and stuck with the AR-15 for the rest of the day.
Link Posted: 3/9/2006 1:11:36 PM EST

Originally Posted By Sodie:
...but the gas system on the FAL makes it much softer to shoot...


Link Posted: 3/9/2006 3:43:08 PM EST
FAL is definately the softest felt recoil
Link Posted: 3/9/2006 4:38:08 PM EST
The FN P90 is supposed to have 2/3 the recoil of a 9mm.
Link Posted: 3/9/2006 5:21:09 PM EST
I remember the CETME that I fired was one of the softest feeling 7.62 rifles I've ever shot. Definatly softer than the Garant I was also shooting right before/after. Maybe the muzzle break had something to do with it, but it was real pleasant to shoot. My Brothers FAL feels like it recoils harder than my M1A.

Link Posted: 3/10/2006 12:21:22 PM EST
I have a 16" PTR-91...its really not that bad, just different. Instead of a sharp violent explosion type recoil its more of a steady push straight back because that heavy carrier. I kind of relate it to shooting a 45ACP (more push) vs a 40S&W (more flip).
Link Posted: 3/10/2006 12:54:50 PM EST
I have never thought the HK91 had much recoil, or at least no worse than my FAL or M1A.

I use my battle rifles for deer hunting, so I do not worry about recoil at all. On my DSA FAL, I have the gas turned wide open so I won't run the risk of having a jam.

The HK91 (which is my main rifle) has so much weight with the scope and claw mount that I can't feel any recoil.

The M1A and Garand have mild recoil too.

If you are worried about recoil......just shoot more, or do a lot of 12ga shooting.

Link Posted: 3/10/2006 3:35:59 PM EST
[Last Edit: 3/10/2006 3:36:35 PM EST by HKOVERKILL]
(begin hijack)

Ya'll wanna FEEL recoil, and have a useless arm for three days?

Benelli Super 90, loaded full with 3" magnum SLUGS, dumped as fast as you can yank the trigger.


Filed away under "Don't do that ".


(end hijack)
Link Posted: 3/12/2006 8:19:58 AM EST
I've a Cetme that had the CAI brake on it which was VERY effective. After I removed the noisemaker and put on a fake f/s, the felt recoil went up considerably...
Link Posted: 3/12/2006 8:48:57 AM EST
[Last Edit: 3/12/2006 8:50:03 AM EST by Achilles1]
Alot of the felt recoil difference is going to be how the rifle is setup. I've shoot FAL's that weren't any lighter in felt recoil than my M1A because of the rounds being used and the buttplate. My PTR91 has a lower felt recoil than my M1A with the same ammo being shot because it has a Tapco T6 on it with a recoil pad. My M1A has a sharper felt recoil with the same ammo because it has a usgi flipup buttplate on a usgi fiberglass that you can't get the same grip support as you do with the pistol grip/ vertical the PTR has also. It really matters on the setup and if whatever rifle you have is too heavy for you, than modify it to become better.
Link Posted: 3/12/2006 12:06:10 PM EST
The PTR and Cetme have differing barrel profiles do they not? I think I've read that the PTR has an HBAR... Could be wrong though...
Link Posted: 3/12/2006 12:19:33 PM EST

Originally Posted By HKOVERKILL:
(begin hijack)

Ya'll wanna FEEL recoil, and have a useless arm for three days?

Benelli Super 90, loaded full with 3" magnum SLUGS, dumped as fast as you can yank the trigger.


Filed away under "Don't do that ".


(end hijack)

Lean against a tree when you try that.

Link Posted: 3/12/2006 1:00:19 PM EST
The stock HK-91 has been known to have a good kick.

That's the sacrifice for it's more dependable action.

That being said ,the PTR-91s have a heavy barrel that has 10
internal flutes instead of the 12 in a standard HK-91/G3 barrel.

JLD did this in an attempt to reduce the recoil slightly without effecting
the PTR-91's dependability.

Stock ,my PTR had a slightly lower kick than an HK-91.Just barely,
but it was noticeably heavier to carry.

As for dependability ,I've never had a jam in well over 1,000 rounds.
I've used ammo that most wouldn't even think about putting in their
FALs or M1As.

If you don't like the kick on the HK-91 /PTR-91 there are 3 easy
ways to reduce it.

1.Get a soft rubber recoil pad .HK made these for the HK-21 belt fed.
Aftermarket slip ons are also available .
2.Muzzle break.Some of these are quite effective.Unfortunately they
effect night vision devices and some dot/holographic sites.
3.(My personnal favorite) The G3 Heavy buffer .This is a 2 stage
buffering system.With one of these on my PTR-91 ,my wife enjoys
shooting it ,where as before she was affraid of the recoil.

To be honest ,if you include the HK heavy buffer,an HK-91/PTR will
shoot with far less recoil than any of the other 3 ,and maintain it's
Top Top