That it ... put extra mud on the FAL
And...notice that he didn't put mud on the foregrips where the charging handle for the G3 is. Sink both completely in mud and see what happens.
See what happens when the rollers of the G3 get a tiny bit of dirt in them.
See what happens if the stamped metal receiver of the G3 gets a little dent in it

I'll take my FALs over a G3 any day. I have owned an HK91 also

For an American shooter buying one now?

G3 (PTR), no question.

Shit tons of cheap magazines available, unlike the FAL.

Coming with paddle release and welded optics rails these days.  Easy to mount optics, paddle takes care of the shittiest part of most US G3 clones.

For an issue gun for a big ass Euro army?  Tougher call.

Well, if you're industrially underdeveloped, lack enough trained and educated talent in the workforce, and are too poor to afford a properly manufactured M14...then G3 it is.

The G3 was and is a masterpiece of Teutonic engineering, designed to put an economical, high quality, durable rifle into the hands of well trained infanterie during wartime.  In fact, it's so well engineered that camel-fucking primates from 3rd world shitholes can cobble together G3s manufactured under license and they still work.  Yea, I'm looking at you, KSA.

The FAL is a great rifle too, but the G3 is shorter, more compact, and more practical.  At least our Teutonic engineering brethren designed the (stamped and welded) receiver to accept optical sights, unlike the longer FAL which was more expensive and labor intensive to produce.

I like 'em all, but I have a soft spot in my heart for the G3 because at HK (and Rheinmetall), form follows function and the rest of the untermensch suck sweaty balls.

What he said X100

You already know what I'm going to tell you.

FN FAL
The right arm of the free world!

I've owned several FN FAL's (not clones made in Brazil or the US), one HK 91, and one Galil AR. The best rifle out of these was the Galil AR 7.62 Nato, hands down. It weighed the lightest, had the least amount of recoil, was the most accurate, was the most reliable, was the easiest to disassemble/assemble, came standard with flip up night sights and folding stock, and had 25 rd magazines as opposed to the 20rd magazines of the FN and HK.

But, back to your comparison. I'd take an original FN Herstal FAL over an HK 91 any day of the week. FN FAL's were easier to operate and shoot than the heavier, bulkier HK 91. The FN FAL was also easier to assemble/disassemble compared to the HK 91. Accuracy wise, they were about even. I preferred the folding stock on the FN Paratrooper model over the HK 91's collapsing stock. The FN folding stock gave me a better stock to shoulder fit than the HK collapsing stock.

I came from the Falfiles.
500 and a L1A1 were my first guns.

but the G3 is shorter, more compact, and more practical


Really? Shorter than 2 ft long and with 30 rounds of 308. Didn't know that. My OSW must be a wet dream of mine then.

You really want to make that argument?

I've used the FAL a little bit with foreign armies training with them, as well as many different HKs, and also the Galil 7.62 ARM.

Of course, I also have played with Dutch AR10s and modern SR25s, AR10s, and LR-308s.

Of the 1950s guns, the Dutch AR10 feels and handles the best, smokes them all for accuracy, and is much lighter and almost perfectly balanced.

I have seen reliability issues with them on the last round in the magazine for some reason, maybe ancient mags, but Jim Sullivan said the AR10 was never as reliable as the AR15 even back then.

HK G3 is just unwieldy to me.  Yeah, I can handle it, but 7.62 NATO in that particular receiver really gets out of control quickly.

FAL has better ergonomics than the G3 by far, bolt hold open, bolt release right there for trigger finger, one of the best charge handles for location and shape, safety catch right where your thumb is.

Best workmanship goes to the Dutch, followed by Belgians and Germans.

The coatings on the G3 receiver and external metal parts are very tough.

AR10 has the best sights, followed by the G3.

I do like the gas system on the FAL for adjustability, but the AR10 has a much lighter gas system with in-line recoil of the working parts.

For cleaning in the field, the AR10 is the most user-friendly and easiest to train someone to do, followed by the FAL.

G3 is easy to start disassembly, but gets crazy with the rollers and BCG.  Pins also come out, which are convenient to place in the stock, but can still be lost by LBGs and noobs.

Of the HKs, I really like the HK33.  That is a fine rifle chambered in something more appropriate for the action size.

Would have been sweet for all of them to be chambered in something shorter, with less recoil, but higher BC bullets, at lower pressures than 7.62 NATO.

7.62 NATO is the weakness across all of these rifles, and what causes most of the problems for them all.

A short little 6mm, 6.5mm, or 7mm running at 50ksi with mags not too much bigger or similar in size to HK33 or Sturgewehr mags would have been sweet.

Instead, Army Ordnance bent us all over and screwed us with the T65/7.62x51mm "light rifle" cartridge.

sure  
https://www.dsarms.com/p-13270-dsa-sa58-fal-pistol-825-barrel.aspx

As you can see from the poll ... the FAL is a better weapon
As someone who has owned both HK91 and FAL .....and M1A


FAL
more reliable and durable - stamped metal doesn't compare and doesn't have as many small parts
easier to work on or build
easier to find parts for
easier to mount optics
Accuracy is about the same
FAL has better stock options that I know about....DSA is coming out with a new one this summer too

15 to 20 dollar mags are not that expensive

Not even a question...the FAL is a better battle rifle than the G3

They guy put extra mud on the FAL and he didn't put mud on the forgrip area where the G3 charging handle is.

I have both of them. Hands down, the FAL is better.

FAL mags used to be cheap as chips.

Either one works for killing commies.

The m14 fucking sucks. 

And this is all about Europe best battle rifle,  one versus one

I agree with everything you said.

I really like my PTR 91 but if I hand it to someone who's a shooter but never used one before, and don't go through how it works first, they're likely going to have an issue operating it. I've had more than one of my friends who own ARs and AKs but never fired a G3 type rifle have to ask me how to charge it before they shoot it.  My girlfriend hates the thing even though she knows how to operate it, the selector isn't really compatible with small female hands. She even shoots it pretty well, she just hates the living shit out of it.

Normally I go through how everything works on a gun before I let someone shoot it, but with the PTR with my gun guy friends who haven't used one before, it's become my unofficial case study on how user friendly it is and my non-scientific survey says: Not as user friendly as a FAL let alone an AR or AK. The only rifle I have/had that is more confusing for someone to just pick up and use is a Tavor, but I think that's not so much a matter of bad ergonomics so much as totally different than expected ones. Some people just have problems with bullpups even if they "get" them too.

I voted FAL but I also really like the G3/PTR 91, but the FAL is much more ergonomic and "logical" to operate. But like you said everyone should learn how to use both, along with an AR and AK.

The Right Arm of the Free World-----FN FAL

Agreed. The USA should have adopted the FAL in its original cartridge, or adapted it to fire 5.56

But still, we kept the dumb M14

One of my uncles had an M-14 through basic training and then carried one for part of his first tour in Vietnam, he loved it because it was a "shooter's rifle", and he was a good shot with it. So he had a preconceived bias and thought the M-16 was an inferior weapon...until he got one. He said that it was obviously much easier to carry along with a useful load of ammo so he liked that aspect of it right off the bat, but it really clicked for him once he wrapped his head around the fact that the kind of fighting they were doing meant he really didn't need to have a weapon that could make shots at 500 meters on a multiple times per day basis.

The original FAL testing when the Army was running the trials (that the M-14 won) were sort of screwy if I'm remembering right too.

And yeah a FAL in .280 British would have been a very good weapon, and much more suited for Vietnam than the M-14 was.

Great post. Always wondered how the SIG SG 540 compared to them. Seems about a pound lighter. Ever happen to use one of those? I've seen people reload the 550 very quickly, and from what I can tell going off of images, the 540 had the same control layout.

The FAL has the most perfect charging handle location of ALL modern military weapons.  I wish Stoner had copied that part of the FAL.

Here is a weird one.  Who knows what this is?

Dupe, oops.

Imbel 5.56 FAL variant, too lazy to look up the model number.

Imagine that the US Army had accepted the FAL, and accepted the proposed .280 British version of it. The AR or 5.56 would probably not exist, or at least have gone past the prototype stages. We'd all be shooting some super advanced FAL derivative here.

One is still issued and used by first world nations, the other? Not so much.

Army brass was addicted to that age old myth of a single rifleman inflicting heavy damage on the enemy from 1,000 yards. It was a damn shame.

.308 could be the worst cartrodge ever pushed into US sericemen. And we forced all those European countries to use it. 

It barely gives you a range advantage over 5.56 and weighs almost 3 times as much.

 I could say a ton of more downsides to .308 as a MILITARY round. But im at work,  and I shouldn't derail the topic.

^^^this guy gets it^^^

FN FAL, without a doubt.  It is superior in most respects, and mostly comparable otherwise.  Ergonomics are way better (I actually like them better than the AR, too, especially with the extended selectors and less rakish pistol grips).  It feels better when you shoot it.  I haven't had a chance to shoot either on full auto, but if one used such a feature, my understanding is that the FAL is at least a bit more controullable than the G-3.  For compact models, I like the FAL's folding stock better than the G-3's collapsible stock.  I also think the FAL has better sights and benefits from having multiple sight options available (including diopter sights, for those who like those).  The FAL also has a lightweight version and can be made surprisingly light (the G-3 only has lightweight magazines AFAIK).  The lightweight model with a lightweight magazine weighed 8lbs and 7 oz., and that was with the long barrel, wood furniture, and the long flash suppressor; considering that, it is possible to get a FAL under 8lbs. without reducing functionality.  Methods of attaching a sling for use as a shooting aid without significantly altering POI were also developed for the FAL; not sure that was done for the G-3, but the G-3 is inherently better configured for use with modern tactical slings (not that the FAL can't be adapted for such use, and in fact some variants are just as well suited as the G-3).  Good (albeit kinda heavy) scope mounting options for the FAL have been developed over the years.  FAL is also easier to strip.  Both have rock solid magazines and are comparably reliable.  Both are sufficiently accurate for their intended use.  The FAL also doesn't destroy brass and looks better, but those are very minor attributes.  G-3 is better for use with a suppressor.  The FAL is hardly perfect, and arguably is not the best in its class, but it is preferable to the G-3 by a considerable margin, all day, every day.

When viewed in the context of why those nations still use the G-3, it really doesn't mean much of anything.  Some of those countries still use Garands, Thompsons, F-4 Phantoms, etc.

Development was contemporaneous to that of the FAL.  Heck, the AR-10, FAL, and M-14 were in competition to be the Army's next rifle back then (from what I understand, an AR sent for testing had an experimental barrel which burst under some sort of testing which would not have occurred with a standard barrel, but which doomed it with respect to U.S. adoption).  In Germany, the AR-10, FAL, G-3, and SIG-510 were all in competition as well (AR-10 was the G-4, the SIG the G-2, and the FAL the G-1, IIRC); the FAL won out, but when FN wouldn't license HK to build the FAL, Germany went with the G-3.  The Portuguese adopted the FAL and AR-10 for some troops alongside the G-3.  There were in fact Portuguese soldiers who got to use all three in combat. From what I understand, the most common order of preference for those asked was the AR-10 first, followed by the FAL, with the G-3 last.  The Portuguese ordered 10,000 AR-10s, as I recall, and used them in the 1960s and 1970s; they saw combat in Africa with paratroopers.  

Regarding preferences, the Rhodesians and South Africans used both the G-3 and the FAL.  The bulk of them preferred the FAL over the G-3 and the G-3 was relegated to being secondary, used only when FALs were not available.

 That's awesome.

"hard to mount optics on a G3"




Master Chief Urgayle disagrees with your assessment

I much prefer the G3. Mainly because most of the examples you encounter were not built by booger eaters in their Garage with a pipe wrench-- unlike the typical American FAL.

A clear cut case of Not-invented-here.

I like them both, but if I had to pick one it would be be G3.

Did I make it before the Swede and his unlogical love of the G3?

Your FAL variant is a one-off, not standard issue.  

I'm working on my third FAL-type rifle, so I truly like them.  The standard G3 is still shorter.

Let me know when a comparable FAL exists to match the awesomeness of the HK51B

The drawback with the fal for me is the bolt lock up system. That said I like both guns for various reasons .

If you look at the Rhodesian bush war both guns were used heavily and just ran which speaks to the design of both weapons.

Why did Ban All The Fun make HK-USA remove the paddle magazine release from the HK?

G3, FAiLs feel and shoot like overgrown AKs IME with minute of man accuracy.

I really don't see much of an ergonomic difference between the two other than the charging handle and I don't mind either.

I will say the FAL is softer shooting though.

IIRC HK didnt want to screw with making it work with the sear block

The ergos on the FAL are night and day better than the G3:
charging handle is quicker to engage, and the izzy version was a fwd assist
mags drop free and most can operate the release with the trigger finger (especially the izzy release)
last shot hold open (trumps all, IMO)
mag well relief cut makes reloading under stress easier/quicker
selector is a little easier to manipulate