User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 10/2/2016 8:36:34 PM EDT
[#1]
G4 is best G
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/2/2016 10:00:48 PM EDT
[#2]
 |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/2/2016 10:35:12 PM EDT
[#3]
Quote HistoryQuoted: lol no Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Anybody that actually shoots both knows the FAL is superior. Not overly so, but enough to matter. lol no |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/2/2016 10:39:59 PM EDT
[#4]
I'm always taken back that the German chose a gun that used stampings, press jigs, welding, and inaccurate tuning. It just seems very un-German. I figured they would have had machinist make standardized parts and assemblers build the rifle to spacing and torque specs.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/2/2016 11:04:24 PM EDT
[#5]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
lol no Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Anybody that actually shoots both knows the FAL is superior. Not overly so, but enough to matter. lol no Lol. Yes. Had both. Shot both. Carried the HK bruiser as a duty rifle for a while. Carried a FAL as a duty rifle (LEO) for longer. Was an armorer on the HK, self-taught on the FAL. Oh, yeah, the FAL is better in ways typical users never know. You can service a FAL easily, even replace barrels. G3-type rifles are nowhere near as easy. Rebarrel a G3? Machine shop with a press. Rebarrel a FAL? Vise, barrel clamp, receiver wrench, and five minutes. Headspacing go long? Not something easily fixed in a G3. FAL? Knock out the locking shoulder, gauge for the new LS, then install a new locking shoulder of the right size with a hammer and punch. Done. And the adjustable gas system allows on-the-fly changes. Fouling in the gun? Clean the HK. FAL? Close the gas a notch or two. And replacing roller cams is a stone cold PITA. Also, the bone-stock trigger in the HK SUCKS. The FAL has a much better trigger. The rotary drum rear sight on the HK is REALLY nice. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/2/2016 11:13:19 PM EDT
[#6]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Our DMRs are more accurate than 2 MOA, and I've never noticed any flyers that weren't due to the shooter. The FAL didn't perform as well as the G3 in our trials, though I will concede that it has better ergos. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
My DS ARMS 18 inch FAL will outshoot my PTR-91 with 79 Port Ball. The PTR usually has one flyer every five rounds. The FAL does not. The FAL will shoot 2MOA with ball ammo and an unmagnified optic. Regarding reliability, the FAL is more than reliable enough and is stomps the HK pattern on ergs. Mag release and Bolt Hold Open. And I only have to mount optics once on either. Our DMRs are more accurate than 2 MOA, and I've never noticed any flyers that weren't due to the shooter. The FAL didn't perform as well as the G3 in our trials, though I will concede that it has better ergos. BIG difference between standard issue patterns and "massaged" DMR types. DSA has a DMR version of the FAL that consistently shoots 1moa. I'm guessing your DMR-style G3 is actually akin to the MSG-90 HK came out with to bridge the gap between the PSG-1 and standard G3. FYI, the MSG-90 DMR had the internal bracing added like the PSG-1 had to keep the receiver from flexing. It also used an improved mounting platform for optics (rather than the clamp-on abortion that could pinch the receiver). It also had a heavily massaged trigger and usually an adjustable stock with improved forearm. Standard G3 rifles had a stamped trigger that could only be described as "mushy". |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/2/2016 11:15:35 PM EDT
[#7]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
We/NATO had forces using G3 as late as the current war on terror in the middle east. No one brought FALs to fight al qaeda but the Sweds and Nords brought out there G3s/AK4/borka borkas to kick some ass.  Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
West Germany purchased test lots of the FAL in 1957 and were very happy with the guns. They called their version the Gewehr- 1 or G1. The government had every intention of adopting the rifle to completely rearm the Bundeswehr, Germany’s defensive army. However, when the Germans approached the Belgian management of FN to obtain a manufacturing license, it was summarily denied. It is pretty clear that the denial was the result of grudges held against the Germans for the Nazi invasion and occupation of Belgium. The Germans began to look for other options and decided to go with the Spanish CETME rifle, which was based on German designs brought to Spain by refugees of the Nazi arms industry. The West German government easily obtained permission to manufacture and market the CETME rifle and soon had it in production by Rheinmetall and Heckler & Koch (HK) as the Gewehr 3 or G3. HK marketed the G3 aggressively against the FAL. The G3’s major appeal was its relatively inexpensive tooling and the ease to manufacture in an unsophisticated or small industrial base. Also, licenses to manufacture it were easier and cheaper to obtain. As a result of this aggressive marketing by HK, many countries that perhaps would have adopted the FAL, instead opted for the G3. Some 38 countries that purchased FALs ended up switching to G3s, not because the gun was necessarily better, but largely because it was cheaper. Very likely, if the West Germans had been licensed to produce the FAL in the first place, they would have instead marketed the FAL around the world and the FAL would have dominated much more than it did. Nevertheless, the FAL was still used by more nations than the G3, even though the G3 was manufactured in slightly more countries. http://www.beim-alten-bgs.de/Zu_den_Kameradenseiten/38_Horst_Schneider/3_Ausbildung/Schneider_Horst__160_.JPG The G1 rifle was given to Turkey which eventually led to them being brought over here as parts kits.....After decades of abuse. The G3 was also manufactured in much greater numbers, and the users have held on to it for longer. We/NATO had forces using G3 as late as the current war on terror in the middle east. No one brought FALs to fight al qaeda but the Sweds and Nords brought out there G3s/AK4/borka borkas to kick some ass. Commonwealth (Brits) brought out L1A1 rifles. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/2/2016 11:16:51 PM EDT
[#8]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Thread needs more porn. Looking forward to stamping my G3k clone to keep my 18" gun company. http://i24.photobucket.com/albums/c32/antiarocking74/BC4EBC15-7AB6-4168-B2AA-2109146C7A33_zpsyreom7gh.jpg Nice welds on the cocking tube. THAT is what separates quality from CAI....
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/2/2016 11:55:17 PM EDT
[#9]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The FAL is shooting 2MOA with 37 year old Portugese surplus. Hardly match ammo. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
My DS ARMS 18 inch FAL will outshoot my PTR-91 with 79 Port Ball. The PTR usually has one flyer every five rounds. The FAL does not. The FAL will shoot 2MOA with ball ammo and an unmagnified optic. Regarding reliability, the FAL is more than reliable enough and is stomps the HK pattern on ergs. Mag release and Bolt Hold Open. And I only have to mount optics once on either. Our DMRs are more accurate than 2 MOA, and I've never noticed any flyers that weren't due to the shooter. The FAL didn't perform as well as the G3 in our trials, though I will concede that it has better ergos. The FAL is shooting 2MOA with 37 year old Portugese surplus. Hardly match ammo. Port surplus 7.62 is widely known to be VERY accurate for battle rifle ammo, even better than Radway or Australian 7.62 surplus, second only to the German Hirtenberg surplus. It's not going to outperform Black Hills ammo in a precision sniper rifle, but you would not notice a difference between Port and Black Hills in a National Match M1A, certainly not in an FAL. I miss the mid-2000s, when surplus ammo flowed like a mighty river... |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/3/2016 9:03:09 AM EDT
[#10]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I'm always taken back that the German chose a gun that used stampings, press jigs, welding, and inaccurate tuning. It just seems very un-German. I figured they would have had machinist make standardized parts and assemblers build the rifle to spacing and torque specs. They were denied what they really wanted, the FAL, so they went with 2nd best. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/3/2016 10:17:44 AM EDT
[#11]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Lol. Yes. Had both. Shot both. Carried the HK bruiser as a duty rifle for a while. Carried a FAL as a duty rifle (LEO) for longer. Was an armorer on the HK, self-taught on the FAL. Oh, yeah, the FAL is better in ways typical users never know. You can service a FAL easily, even replace barrels. G3-type rifles are nowhere near as easy. Rebarrel a G3? Machine shop with a press. Rebarrel a FAL? Vise, barrel clamp, receiver wrench, and five minutes. Headspacing go long? Not something easily fixed in a G3. FAL? Knock out the locking shoulder, gauge for the new LS, then install a new locking shoulder of the right size with a hammer and punch. Done. And the adjustable gas system allows on-the-fly changes. Fouling in the gun? Clean the HK. FAL? Close the gas a notch or two. And replacing roller cams is a stone cold PITA. Also, the bone-stock trigger in the HK SUCKS. The FAL has a much better trigger. The rotary drum rear sight on the HK is REALLY nice. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Anybody that actually shoots both knows the FAL is superior. Not overly so, but enough to matter. lol no Lol. Yes. Had both. Shot both. Carried the HK bruiser as a duty rifle for a while. Carried a FAL as a duty rifle (LEO) for longer. Was an armorer on the HK, self-taught on the FAL. Oh, yeah, the FAL is better in ways typical users never know. You can service a FAL easily, even replace barrels. G3-type rifles are nowhere near as easy. Rebarrel a G3? Machine shop with a press. Rebarrel a FAL? Vise, barrel clamp, receiver wrench, and five minutes. Headspacing go long? Not something easily fixed in a G3. FAL? Knock out the locking shoulder, gauge for the new LS, then install a new locking shoulder of the right size with a hammer and punch. Done. And the adjustable gas system allows on-the-fly changes. Fouling in the gun? Clean the HK. FAL? Close the gas a notch or two. And replacing roller cams is a stone cold PITA. Also, the bone-stock trigger in the HK SUCKS. The FAL has a much better trigger. The rotary drum rear sight on the HK is REALLY nice. +1 on both based on partner unit shoots with the Germans and Dutch in the early '90s-IMO the FAL also has better front to rear weight balance. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/3/2016 10:49:31 AM EDT
[#12]
Thanks for the history lesson, I love the old pics.
DSA made the first fal I ever owned and I think the DSA quality is a lot of why I like the fal rifle to this day. Once the clinton ban ended I got in the great big long line of orders for DSA stuff. Para fal with night sites and a scope mount. The larue acog mount and a 308 acog for a 16 inch barrel were easy to get compared to waiting for that parafal to show up. I need to finish my ar salad days projects and let the piggy bank fill up for another para fal. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/3/2016 12:07:06 PM EDT
[#13]
We have clones of both (DSA/Imbel FAL & PTR-91 with paddle mag release). I like both equally well but each has it's strong points. The FAL has better ergonomics. The G3 has better sights and may be slightly more accurate. Both are soft shooters, even the G3 with telescoping stock is not at all unpleasant to shoot. I really like the compactness of the G3 with telescoping stock. Will stow in places a fixed stock FAL would never fit and is still as reliable as with the fixed stock. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/3/2016 12:24:04 PM EDT
[#14]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Both are soft shooters, even the G3 with telescoping stock is not at all unpleasant to shoot. I agree. I always chuckle when people whine about it. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/3/2016 12:31:35 PM EDT
[#15]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The G3 is also more accurate. I agree, and more reliable as well. The G3's practical accuracy, however, is compromised by that 20m drop trigger. Also, the recoil impulse is worse. I think in practice most shoot the FAL better. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/3/2016 12:37:41 PM EDT
[#16]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I'm always taken back that the German chose a gun that used stampings, press jigs, welding, and inaccurate tuning. It just seems very un-German. I figured they would have had machinist make standardized parts and assemblers build the rifle to spacing and torque specs. The Germans really advanced sheet steel guns during WW2. Their skill in that was used to help Spain set up to produce CEMTE. The USSR had trouble with getting sheet steel AKs working right. I think the problem with sheet steel is that with long term use it is more likely to fail. Ease of mass production more than makes up for that. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/3/2016 12:40:28 PM EDT
[#17]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I agree, and more reliable as well. The G3's practical accuracy, however, is compromised by that 20m drop trigger. Also, the recoil impulse is worse. I think in practice most shoot the FAL better. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
The G3 is also more accurate. I agree, and more reliable as well. The G3's practical accuracy, however, is compromised by that 20m drop trigger. Also, the recoil impulse is worse. I think in practice most shoot the FAL better. Trigger is the heart of a rifle, barrel is it's soul. Which is why I'll take my M1A over any other battle rifle, warts and all. Except for a rugged reliable AR10. I miss my MWS... |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/3/2016 2:37:35 PM EDT
[#18]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Immigrant Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Anybody that actually shoots both knows the FAL is superior. Not overly so, but enough to matter. lol no Yes. no que? |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/3/2016 2:39:46 PM EDT
[#19]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Lol. Yes. Had both. Shot both. Carried the HK bruiser as a duty rifle for a while. Carried a FAL as a duty rifle (LEO) for longer. Was an armorer on the HK, self-taught on the FAL. Oh, yeah, the FAL is better in ways typical users never know. You can service a FAL easily, even replace barrels. G3-type rifles are nowhere near as easy. Rebarrel a G3? Machine shop with a press. Rebarrel a FAL? Vise, barrel clamp, receiver wrench, and five minutes. Headspacing go long? Not something easily fixed in a G3. FAL? Knock out the locking shoulder, gauge for the new LS, then install a new locking shoulder of the right size with a hammer and punch. Done. And the adjustable gas system allows on-the-fly changes. Fouling in the gun? Clean the HK. FAL? Close the gas a notch or two. And replacing roller cams is a stone cold PITA. Also, the bone-stock trigger in the HK SUCKS. The FAL has a much better trigger. The rotary drum rear sight on the HK is REALLY nice. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Anybody that actually shoots both knows the FAL is superior. Not overly so, but enough to matter. lol no Lol. Yes. Had both. Shot both. Carried the HK bruiser as a duty rifle for a while. Carried a FAL as a duty rifle (LEO) for longer. Was an armorer on the HK, self-taught on the FAL. Oh, yeah, the FAL is better in ways typical users never know. You can service a FAL easily, even replace barrels. G3-type rifles are nowhere near as easy. Rebarrel a G3? Machine shop with a press. Rebarrel a FAL? Vise, barrel clamp, receiver wrench, and five minutes. Headspacing go long? Not something easily fixed in a G3. FAL? Knock out the locking shoulder, gauge for the new LS, then install a new locking shoulder of the right size with a hammer and punch. Done. And the adjustable gas system allows on-the-fly changes. Fouling in the gun? Clean the HK. FAL? Close the gas a notch or two. And replacing roller cams is a stone cold PITA. Also, the bone-stock trigger in the HK SUCKS. The FAL has a much better trigger. The rotary drum rear sight on the HK is REALLY nice. The difficulty of rebarrelling it isn't really an issue for a military organization. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/3/2016 2:40:46 PM EDT
[#20]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
BIG difference between standard issue patterns and "massaged" DMR types. DSA has a DMR version of the FAL that consistently shoots 1moa. I'm guessing your DMR-style G3 is actually akin to the MSG-90 HK came out with to bridge the gap between the PSG-1 and standard G3. FYI, the MSG-90 DMR had the internal bracing added like the PSG-1 had to keep the receiver from flexing. It also used an improved mounting platform for optics (rather than the clamp-on abortion that could pinch the receiver). It also had a heavily massaged trigger and usually an adjustable stock with improved forearm. Standard G3 rifles had a stamped trigger that could only be described as "mushy". Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
My DS ARMS 18 inch FAL will outshoot my PTR-91 with 79 Port Ball. The PTR usually has one flyer every five rounds. The FAL does not. The FAL will shoot 2MOA with ball ammo and an unmagnified optic. Regarding reliability, the FAL is more than reliable enough and is stomps the HK pattern on ergs. Mag release and Bolt Hold Open. And I only have to mount optics once on either. Our DMRs are more accurate than 2 MOA, and I've never noticed any flyers that weren't due to the shooter. The FAL didn't perform as well as the G3 in our trials, though I will concede that it has better ergos. BIG difference between standard issue patterns and "massaged" DMR types. DSA has a DMR version of the FAL that consistently shoots 1moa. I'm guessing your DMR-style G3 is actually akin to the MSG-90 HK came out with to bridge the gap between the PSG-1 and standard G3. FYI, the MSG-90 DMR had the internal bracing added like the PSG-1 had to keep the receiver from flexing. It also used an improved mounting platform for optics (rather than the clamp-on abortion that could pinch the receiver). It also had a heavily massaged trigger and usually an adjustable stock with improved forearm. Standard G3 rifles had a stamped trigger that could only be described as "mushy". Our DMRs are standard AK4s, but we generally pick the best ones to use as DMRs. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/3/2016 2:42:09 PM EDT
[#21]
Quote HistoryQuoted: It was a matter of timing the bundeswehr were very impressed with the AR10, but with the Soviets breathing down western Europe back, they didn't want to wait 3 years for the AR10 production to ramp up http://weaponsman.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/Julia-AR-10-38-right.jpg Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: They should have selected the Dutch Artillerie Inrichtingen AR10 http://www.firearmstalk.com/images/5/8/0/6/3/west-german-soldier-test-firing-a-dutch-made-armalite-ar-10-designated-g4-during-trial-at-meppen-in-1957-photo-by-forgotten-weapons-2799-full.jpg http://i45.tinypic.com/1z4zhh1.jpg http://i50.tinypic.com/24eanmc.jpg It was a matter of timing the bundeswehr were very impressed with the AR10, but with the Soviets breathing down western Europe back, they didn't want to wait 3 years for the AR10 production to ramp up http://weaponsman.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/Julia-AR-10-38-right.jpg |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/3/2016 2:54:40 PM EDT
[#22]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
lol no Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Anybody that actually shoots both knows the FAL is superior. Not overly so, but enough to matter. lol no This. The FAL is a great rifle. A little better ergos but as a whole the G3/HK91 is more PRECISE (not accurate) and one of the most reliable platforms fielded. I have significant time on, owned or own 2 late mfg SR25's, M1A, FAL, HK MR762, LMT MWS, and a HK SR9T. In my hands the SR9T has proven to be the one to beat peecision wise. That rifle just hammers. I have also spent some time on an HK 11e. It was also very precise. Says a lot when a platform with a quick change barrel that can be configured as a belt fed can hang with or beat some of the factory precision rifles on the market today. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/3/2016 3:01:56 PM EDT
[#23]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The G3 is more accurate, easier to mount optics to, and it's more reliable. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Anybody that actually shoots both knows the FAL is superior. Not overly so, but enough to matter. lol no Yes and my FAL set up the same is more accurate with the same ammo. Ergos give the FAL the nod. It is simply easier and faster to operate. The G3 is more accurate, easier to mount optics to, and it's more reliable. Another point overlooked. The 9x series was extremely modular for the time. You could take the same trigger pack from the PSG1/MSG90, swap the ejector and put it in a MP5SD, mount a 9mm designated optic on it and have what essentially the russians have with the VSS. Flexibility with the HK 11 in using it to lay down a ton of fire with a drum mag or slapping a scope on it and using it as a DM rifle. The whole series was ahead of many other platforms in what we look for today in modern arms. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/3/2016 3:03:27 PM EDT
[#24]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I agree that they're both good. I like that I have ~75+ G3 magazines for what 10 or less FAL mags would have cost me. Now that PTR is putting them out with the welded top rail and paddle release to boot, I'd pick the G3 over the FAL every time here in the US. Easier to mount optics, cheaper magazines, lighter, shorter, more modular... Now if only Geissele would make rails for them.... Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Very comparable rifles, but have their pros and cons, but very equal I agree that they're both good. I like that I have ~75+ G3 magazines for what 10 or less FAL mags would have cost me. Now that PTR is putting them out with the welded top rail and paddle release to boot, I'd pick the G3 over the FAL every time here in the US. Easier to mount optics, cheaper magazines, lighter, shorter, more modular... Now if only Geissele would make rails for them.... The Spuhr rail is pretty damn slick. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/3/2016 3:09:14 PM EDT
[#25]
Quote HistoryQuoted: The G3 is more accurate, easier to mount optics to, and it's more reliable. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Anybody that actually shoots both knows the FAL is superior. Not overly so, but enough to matter. lol no Yes and my FAL set up the same is more accurate with the same ammo. Ergos give the FAL the nod. It is simply easier and faster to operate. The G3 is more accurate, easier to mount optics to, and it's more reliable. Don't forget easier to detail strip also. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/3/2016 3:13:06 PM EDT
[#26]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I'm always taken back that the German chose a gun that used stampings, press jigs, welding, and inaccurate tuning. It just seems very un-German. I figured they would have had machinist make standardized parts and assemblers build the rifle to spacing and torque specs. This process yielded the PSG1, which was the premier SASS for years. |
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
