Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Durkin Tactical Franklin Armory
User Panel

Posted: 4/30/2001 2:21:21 PM EDT
im pretty sure that this question has been asked before on this board, but i missed it [:)]

im concerned with stock rifle specimens, not custom rifles. i have not had a chance to fire either weapon. i have shouldered both rifles and find both to be fairly comfortable. ergonmics is not my concern. there are plenty of aftermarket parts to change grip and stock.

.308less lib
Link Posted: 4/30/2001 2:27:27 PM EDT
Link Posted: 4/30/2001 2:30:44 PM EDT
A rack grade select fire G3 is probablly more accurate than a rack grade select fire FAL.

For civilian consumption, the same is probably true, but the difference in accuracy isn't enough to compensate for the other advantages a FAL has over a G3.  Mag Price, Ease of cleaning, Ergonomics,...

I say Ergonomics, because you said you shouldered both, but you probably haven't yanked back the charging handle on a G3 while in an akward position.  The FAL wins without competition on the charging issue!  
Link Posted: 4/30/2001 2:32:40 PM EDT
is it possible to build a stock g3 into a capable sniper rifle? if so how could this be done?

same question for the Fn Fal, but i'd imagine it would just be easier to purchase a DSA fal with all the trimming. what accuracy could be expected from a target model DSA Fn Fal? sub-moa like on a target ar-15?

something-something lib
Link Posted: 4/30/2001 2:45:28 PM EDT
Link Posted: 4/30/2001 2:48:27 PM EDT
I have not shouldered or fired the rifles.
To answer your ? you should look at the sight
system on each. Which has the best? That rifle
should be more accurate. What determines wether
you can hit your target is the sighting system.
The M1 has a superior sight system hence it
can engage targets at considerable distances.
Take the sighting system on a Rugur Mini 14;
install it on the M1. What was once a very accurate rifle is now a very inaccurate rifle.
The M1 sighting system was given to the American soldier so he could engage targets at
distance. Marksmanship wins at the end of the
Ergonomics is important  and can be a determining factor in marksmanship. Hence a
lot of custom stocks are offered and purchased.
There are businesses making and selling after
market parts to make the FAL a more accurate
rifle. New sighting systems, bullbarrels, etcccc
Link Posted: 4/30/2001 3:08:59 PM EDT
I agree with what is being said here. The G3 probably has a slight edge in accuracy, but there are many advantages that the FAL has over the G3 to make the FAL a better choice for us.  Look at the prices for mags and parts for example.  Additionally, if you reload, the G3 really beats up the brass.
Link Posted: 4/30/2001 3:29:11 PM EDT
I had an original H&K 91 a few years back and today I have an ARS FN-FAL/STG-58 and I like the FAL a LOT better. I don't see much difference in the accuracy department, but (and this is a long but) there is a lot of things much better about the FAL. Among which are: The brass is beat to hell and back on the H&K, The H&K is a bear to dis/reassemble (FAL could not be any easier), FAL has the last shot hold open and all the little switches are in the right places.


Happiness is a warm gun...
Bang bang, shoot shoot...
Link Posted: 4/30/2001 4:11:58 PM EDT
I would say the HK91 has more potential accuracy, but the FAL has more practical accuracy, mostly due to the heavy trigger pull on the stock 91.
Link Posted: 4/30/2001 4:22:57 PM EDT
IMHO the HK-91/G3 is the more inherently accurate rifle.  The roller/delay blowback mechanism lends itself to improved accuracy better than the "tilt bolt of the FAL". In addition if you look closely at a G3 you will notice that the barrel of the G3 is free floated.

The PSG1 sniper rifle was developed from the G3
The MSG90 is a poor cousing of the PSG1.  In order to improve the G3 the receiver was strengthen. A longer match barrel and a much better trigger pull were also designed.

Nice extremely expensive toys.


Link Posted: 4/30/2001 5:14:37 PM EDT
I think the HK 91 is probably the more accurate of the two, but why not consider the M1A1 by Springfield Armory?

When people tell me how accurate their HK 91 is, I just remind them of Camp Perry.  When's the last time that event wasn't won by an M1A1?

Oh no, here come's the answers...

Eric The Hun
Link Posted: 4/30/2001 5:19:32 PM EDT
Link Posted: 4/30/2001 6:19:35 PM EDT
I suppose I'm the exception here. I had two HK91s and they shot the same, I had a few FALS and they did about as good as the HKs, the one FAL that showed promise outshooting the HKs I kept and still have, although today it has a SS heavy barrel free float system and nice glass. I souped it up in protest of the BS gun laws here in the PRK. The rifle is now a sign of my individuality. Screw the Antis...
Link Posted: 4/30/2001 9:01:33 PM EDT
[:)]i know this may sound retarded, but i just cant like the M1a (M-14). i dont really know why. it has good sights, a smooth action, and an evil pistol grip stock is available for it. it just does'nt seem to feel right. perhaps its just all in the head and i havent found the "one".

actually i like all three .308 battle rifles. the G3 seems lighter than the others. the Fn Fal has a more comfortable stock than the others. the M1a has better sights than the others. comparing the three rifles is like comparing apples to oranges to pears. i'm also forgetting the AR-10. (the banana)

i dont like the rear sight of the Fn Fal, its to loose and the mag well sucks. i dont like the mag catch on the G3, its too far away and the stock is too short, but fixable with spacers. i dont like the M1a because of its open action, weight, and the standard stock does not have a pistol grip for better leverage, but is fixable with an aftermarket stock. i dont like the AR-10 because parts are hard to find, ten round mags are only available, and its very expensive.

are bull barrels available for the G3?
i thought G3's had mag catches. does'nt the 91/93/94 have mag catches?
are AR-10's capable of sub moa like match target AR-15's?

fruit eating, M1a disin' lib
Link Posted: 4/30/2001 9:45:24 PM EDT
The FAL is probably more accurate then the H&K 91
I had an H&K 93 that was very accurate but I was told by someone on the H&K pro forum who said they used to be the Customer Service Manager for H&K USA that the 91 was not extremely accurate and that it was only supposed to group in the 2 - 3 MOA range. And that even the PSG-1 would not always shoot one MOA. I believe it has something to do with the stamped steel receiver flexing when the rifle is fired. The 93 does not have as much recoil so it does not cause the receiver to flex as much so it is more accurate.  The FAL can be very accurate if you do some work on it, or so I have read.
Link Posted: 5/1/2001 7:52:03 AM EDT
im sure this has been said before but ITS A M1A!!!!!!!!!!! NOT A M1A1!!!!  geeze that bugs me. besides if ya want an accurate rifle get a rem 700 and a good scope. run ya about the same price as a new DSA FAL. imho i like the FAL better outta the 2 u mentioned.
Link Posted: 5/1/2001 8:11:20 AM EDT
Link Posted: 5/1/2001 8:31:01 AM EDT
Link Posted: 5/1/2001 8:46:10 AM EDT
You're talking about a real HK G3 and a real FN FAL?

Otherwise you throw into the mix the dozen companies that make the clones. For the $3500 or more these rifles cost I'd rather have a handful of AR-14's or Remington PSS 700's or a few Springfield Armory M1A NM...
View Quote

I assume you mean $3500 for a FULL AUTO G3 or FAL, because the semiauto versions cost about $1500 less than that.
Close Join Our Mail List to Stay Up To Date! 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.

By signing up you agree to our User Agreement. *Must have a registered ARFCOM account to win.
Top Top