Ok, so what's the big difference between the G3 and the CETME? There's the wood stock on the CETME, and a different rear sight post, but is the G3 sight post significantly better? Are there quality issues with one and not the other? I've heard that the US receivers on the G3's and CETME's are crap. What is your opinion on the matter?

I don't know, but I can tell you what's similar about them -

they are BOTH not 1/4 the rifle that the FAL is.

The CETME is the early verison of the G3.  HK got the go ahead to improve the CETME and produce it uder their logo.  The current post ban receivers that are on the market do suck.  The finish on some of them sucks really bad.  It looks like someone just got a spray gun and half-assed the job.  In addition, it is not an easy thing to build from the parts that are available on the market.  If you want a G3 clone, just get a HK 91.  Do not have the moolah. Buy the CETME.  It is the only post ban G3 I would recommend.  At least, the ones I have saw are way better than the G3 flattops.

I just bought a CETME...it's OK for the money (about $500). But the ergonomics suck (mag release is inconvenient as hell, 100 meter sights suck, and the finish sucks, and it shoots to the left and I need to send it back to Century for adjustment. What's so much better about the FAL?

The main difference is the G-3 has adjustable sights for windage. The CETME does not. I like this feature the most.

Actually, I don't even have a problem with the front sights.
FAL is the way to go for sure. For all of the reasons mentioned above, especially reliability and cheap mags.
Also, FAL is more accurate out to longer ranges with longer barrel. Though you can get FAL's with 18" barrels.
For the money, FAl, is the way to go.
Not enough of a differance between the CETME and G3 to make much of a differance between the two.

On the Hk-91, the safety sweeps down to move from Safe to Fire.  I think I remember that on the CETME, you have to move it UP.  Down is a much more natural motion.

You are correct on this and I agree with you!

Ok, well it sounds like an FAL is the way to go, and I am definitely ok with cheap parts and mags. Now where can I find a good deal on an FAL? I haven't seen one around the Seattle area, and the shotgun news isn't a whole lot of help. Are they as accurate at short ranges as the Hk 91? How do they compare to, say, a bushmaster AR 20"?

Whoa!  One more thing.  It is my understanding that gas operated 7.62's are not as reliable as the Hk action when it comes to feeding a variety of ammunition at various pressures.  You might have to make adjustments to gas ports in FAL's or M1A's to insure reliability.  No such problem on an Hk.  Mix 'n match, rock 'n roll.  I would rather SHOOT an FAL or an M1A, but I would rather BET MY LIFE on an Hk-91.  Well maintained and or quality manufacture, they are ALL more accurate than I am -- and I'm a good shot!

Yes the CETME is the father of the G3, it was made by folks from Mauser who left the country after the war, they later returned to Germany to start up H&K and make the G3/HK91.

However, remember that if you buy a "CETME" in the US (unless it is a really old preban, don't know how many imported) it is just a US gun made from a US receiver.

It is not a REAL CETME.

If you have the cash, get the real thing, a preban german HK91.  If not, get a FMP (HK contract) receiver and parts kit, and have a qualified smith build you a wonderful postban HK91 clone that is almost identical to the real thing.

Jim Gravitt does good work. [url]www.protech-engineering.com[/url]

Anything else is just junk...