User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 1/24/2021 9:27:11 AM EDT
[#1]
Quote HistoryQuoted: HK 91 / G3 Optimal barrel length and handling (most FALs are like telephone poles) Adopted by police agencies in North America for decades (more parts, more gunsmiths / armorers familiar with them) More of them in circulation in North America Cheaper magazines Modular Lighter Greater inherent accuracy (~2 MOA) Easier scope mounting Where are you drawing the information from to come to this conclusion? |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/24/2021 10:46:07 AM EDT
[#2]
Quote HistoryQuoted: What forend is that? DSA It came with the quad rail. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/24/2021 10:50:03 AM EDT
[#3]
The HK91 was always my choice for my end of the world rifle but I have never held one.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/24/2021 10:55:20 AM EDT
[#4]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Where are you drawing the information from to come to this conclusion? Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: HK 91 / G3 Optimal barrel length and handling (most FALs are like telephone poles) Adopted by police agencies in North America for decades (more parts, more gunsmiths / armorers familiar with them) More of them in circulation in North America Cheaper magazines Modular Lighter Greater inherent accuracy (~2 MOA) Easier scope mounting Where are you drawing the information from to come to this conclusion? 2MOA is probably coming from his IME/IMO However, the roller lock is well known to be more conducive to accuracy than the tilting breech style FAL. Actual HK91s seem to be more consistently put together than a given manufacturer run of FAL, even if limited consideration specifically to factory FNH guns. My HK91 was much more accurate from the bench than my FAL. In practice the FAL was much easier to shoot from field positions/offhand and much easier to shoot well over the course of a full day of shooting. The HK91 has more felt recoil and a sharper impulse, IMO. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/24/2021 10:57:59 AM EDT
[#5]
Having owned both, I much prefer the FAL.
Among other things, the H&K 91 is a Rubik's Cube to disassemble and reassemble. The FAL is very AR like, it is a piece of cake, a much better design. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/24/2021 12:34:00 PM EDT
[#6]
 Had both at one time, kept this one for obvious reasons. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/24/2021 12:45:49 PM EDT
[#7]
From an investment standpoint I'd say the FAL. As previously stated FN did mark some export, civilian FAL's ".308 Match" for the reason stated.
I've shot the '91/PTR a few times and prefer the FAL by far as a shooter.  |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/24/2021 12:48:03 PM EDT
[#8]
Quote HistoryQuoted: The FAL was adopted by over 60 countries. The HK91???? just because everyone has it, doesn't mean it's the best. it's all about the money HK is the honey badger of mfg's don't like the price? don't give a fuck. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/24/2021 1:08:17 PM EDT
[#9]
Both. That way a couple years from now when President Harris gives ANTIFA a wink and a nod to check the privilege of those evil domestic terrorists in the rural areas you can hand the shitty one to your son.
https://images.app.goo.gl/oVJbH4M2aM6LcyXv6 I have a PTR91. Like it a lot. Dont have a FAL simply because I can't afford one. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/24/2021 1:20:15 PM EDT
[#10]
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/24/2021 1:25:05 PM EDT
[#11]
Quote HistoryQuoted: https://www.ar15.com/media/mediaFiles/33922/IMG_1673-R3-1794604.jpg Had both at one time, kept this one for obvious reasons. It moved a little. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/24/2021 1:29:41 PM EDT
[#12]
I believe the FN is a 50.00 model plus it is made in Belgium. That would be a nice score.
The HK 91 it depends on extras that comes with rifle or not. Both are great rifle to own. It is a toughie. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/24/2021 1:36:57 PM EDT
[#13]
Quote HistoryQuoted: The HK91 I had in the 80s left flute marks on the brass so the brass was not reloadable. It was not as reliable as I expected it to be but once you dial in the ammo with the gas system you should be ok but why you would buy that over a LaRue OBR is beyond me. It is a MYTH that cases from an HK-style roller locked/fluted breech cannot be reloaded. Assuming one has an ejection port buffer installed, so that the brass does not become severely dented in the middle of the body when it strikes the back of the ejection port, the fluted empty cases are QUITE reloadable. Here are some tricks: 1. cases will need to be lubed heavily to insure sizing pressures are not excessive. 2. once sized, cases will need to be trimmed for length AFTER EACH FIRING. The roller lock allows substantial case stretch. 3. choose FAST BURNING PROPELLANTS for your reloads. This will keep the case swelling to a minimum, as the roller lock system opens at the same speed, regardless of propellant type. You want the pressure as low as possible once the rollers are completely retracted, since this will lessen swelling. With these guidelines, you should be able to get at least 3 reloadings out of each case. I did this sucessfully on an HK91 for many years. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/24/2021 1:37:40 PM EDT
[#14]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Atlantic Firearms had PTRs for $1k yesterday in stock. GIs and GIRs. As of yesterday afternoon they had -zero- PTRs in stock. I was going to grab a GI (non-railed) for my third G3 clone project. And the only reason I was doing that was because I couldn't find a DSA Para in stock anywhere. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/24/2021 1:59:04 PM EDT
[#15]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Nobody asked about third place. Of the three main battle rifles produced in 7.62NATO, the M14 is the most "shootable" for the reasons noted in the relevant post. The main reason that many posters look upon the M14 with disdain is the traditional stock is uses. Most modern shooters have grown up with military rifles that have a pistol grip, and that makes the M14 feel weird to them. None the less, it still shoulders well, and has a great sight picture and better trigger than either of the other rifles. HOWEVER.....the wood stock is/was archaic for actual combat use, due to inherent issues with wood in adverse environments. The M14 does not like sandy environments, but I doubt that any more that 0.01% of those in this thread will be using it under those conditions. Before someone spouts back about how few countries used the M14, and thus is proof it sucks, just remember this: The M14 was the most expensive of the three rifles to produce, and the DOD had trouble meeting Army requirements to begin with, so they were unlikely to be selling M14's anywhere else at the same time. Had Uncle Sugar been able to produce them in sufficient volumes, it's possible some allies around the world might have carried the M14, at least more than just Taiwan. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/24/2021 2:06:17 PM EDT
[#16]
Quote HistoryQuoted: My HK91 was much more accurate from the bench than my FAL. In practice the FAL was much easier to shoot from field positions/offhand and much easier to shoot well over the course of a full day of shooting. The HK91 has more felt recoil and a sharper impulse, IMO. The highlighted part is absolutely true, at least in my experience having owned both. The stock HK trigger is truly HORRIBLE, mainly due to goofy Bundeswher requirements for rifle drop tests. Mine measured TWELVE pounds before I sent it off for a trigger job by Williams. (They reduced it to eight.) The HK also has a weird stock shape, at least for me. The drop of the stock causes me to get bopped in the nose by the rise right where the stock joins the receiver. If I am not careful, it can really hurt. The length of pull is OK, but the drop is all screwed up. That, coupled with the recoil impulse of that 2 pound bolt carrier slamming into the buffer in the stock, makes it tough to do follow up shots fast. The FAL does not have either of those weird traits. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/24/2021 2:43:11 PM EDT
[#17]
FAL, although if I had a shot at a factory para FAL I'd go for that, instead. The factory FALs I find most desirable that got commercially imported are the lightweight G-series and the Rogak 50.64 imports. The only factory FAL I can legally own here, though, is the FN 50.63 from the 1980s that were marked as FN 308 for the model, since they are not on the ban list here.
I don't mind the G-3, and they are more than serviceable, but I like the FAL better in almost every respect. For a shooter, I probably wouldn't do a factory FAL unless the condition was just right for that (such as to reduce collector value a lot, but still being in great condition serviceability-wise). I think doing a build or buying a complete rifle not made by FN, IMBEL, etc. is a better option for that, and you can also customize it more without having to worry about collector value, such as by going with a shorter barrel or a hiduminium lower (and other lightweight parts). These are the two builds I've done:  
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/24/2021 2:57:00 PM EDT
[#18]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Is Portugal really that poor that they still use that boat anchor? Didn't they switch to the 5.56 FN scar? I thought all that surplus port 7.62 was because of the switch to 5.56. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Don't forget Portugal, who is still using them. https://www.ar15.com/media/mediaFiles/6163/PortugueseG3_jpg-1793678.JPG Is Portugal really that poor that they still use that boat anchor? Didn't they switch to the 5.56 FN scar? I thought all that surplus port 7.62 was because of the switch to 5.56. They adopted the SCAR-L, but IIRC, the transition process is slow-going and it'll be years before the G-3 is removed from service. Not sure if they transition away from the Walther is going similarly slowly or not. As far as NATO countries go, Greece still uses the G-3, with the FAL being used by the National Guard and Coast Guard (and some civilian LE). Not sure if they still use Garands or not, but it wouldn't surprise me. Turkey has been gradually transitioning to the MPT-76, but still heavily uses the G-3 and I believe still has Garands in use, too. I think Norway and Denmark still make some kind of use of the G-3, and the Baltic states do as well. Most of the rest still use the G-3, CETME, FAL, BM-59, and M-14 as line throwing guns on warships, and sometimes more extensive naval use. Not sure how many countries still use their old battle rifles as DMRs. Portugal originally wanted the FAL and ordered some. However, the G-3 was much more affordable and they went with that as their main rifle, with the FAL being reserved for some of the more elite units, and AR-10 for other such units (mainly the paratroopers). |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/24/2021 3:20:23 PM EDT
[#19]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Of the three main battle rifles produced in 7.62NATO, the M14 is the most "shootable" for the reasons noted in the relevant post. The main reason that many posters look upon the M14 with disdain is the traditional stock is uses. Most modern shooters have grown up with military rifles that have a pistol grip, and that makes the M14 feel weird to them. None the less, it still shoulders well, and has a great sight picture and better trigger than either of the other rifles. HOWEVER.....the wood stock is/was archaic for actual combat use, due to inherent issues with wood in adverse environments. The M14 does not like sandy environments, but I doubt that any more that 0.01% of those in this thread will be using it under those conditions. Before someone spouts back about how few countries used the M14, and thus is proof it sucks, just remember this: The M14 was the most expensive of the three rifles to produce, and the DOD had trouble meeting Army requirements to begin with, so they were unlikely to be selling M14's anywhere else at the same time. Had Uncle Sugar been able to produce them in sufficient volumes, it's possible some allies around the world might have carried the M14, at least more than just Taiwan. Just playing devil's advocate here, but who could possibly order more volume than the good ol' US of A? Even at the height of the Cold War, we had a HUUUUGGEE military in comparison to every other potential customer. I would love to see a dollar-for-deutschmark-for-french fry comparison of the production costs of each of the 3 discussed here, but I would absolutely accept at face value your claim that the M14 was the most expensive to produce. That's totally believable. And isn't that one of the (non-shooter) factors that makes a huge difference in what we call a "success" among service rifles throughout history? |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/24/2021 3:27:37 PM EDT
[#20]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Just playing devil's advocate here, but who could possibly order more volume than the good ol' US of A? Even at the height of the Cold War, we had a HUUUUGGEE military in comparison to every other potential customer. I would love to see a dollar-for-deutschmark-for-french fry comparison of the production costs of each of the 3 discussed here, but I would absolutely accept at face value your claim that the M14 was the most expensive to produce. That's totally believable. And isn't that one of the (non-shooter) factors that makes a huge difference in what we call a "success" among service rifles throughout history? The U.S. wasn't marketing the M-14 to other countries to the best of my knowledge, so there's not much that can be inferred from its lack of widespread use. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/24/2021 3:59:20 PM EDT
[#21]
Quote HistoryQuoted: It is a MYTH that cases from an HK-style roller locked/fluted breech cannot be reloaded. Assuming one has an ejection port buffer installed, so that the brass does not become severely dented in the middle of the body when it strikes the back of the ejection port, the fluted empty cases are QUITE reloadable. Here are some tricks: 1. cases will need to be lubed heavily to insure sizing pressures are not excessive. 2. once sized, cases will need to be trimmed for length AFTER EACH FIRING. The roller lock allows substantial case stretch. 3. choose FAST BURNING PROPELLANTS for your reloads. This will keep the case swelling to a minimum, as the roller lock system opens at the same speed, regardless of propellant type. You want the pressure as low as possible once the rollers are completely retracted, since this will lessen swelling. With these guidelines, you should be able to get at least 3 reloadings out of each case. I did this sucessfully on an HK91 for many years. HK lol |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/24/2021 4:02:32 PM EDT
[#22]
Quote HistoryQuoted: The HK91 I had in the 80s left flute marks on the brass so the brass was not reloadable. It was not as reliable as I expected it to be but once you dial in the ammo with the gas system you should be ok but why you would buy that over a LaRue OBR is beyond me.  Attached File |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/24/2021 4:36:09 PM EDT
[#23]
Unfortunately most of you guys are too late for the 7.62 nato salad days bonanza that the late 90's early 2000's were. Brand new 10 packs of Belgan FAL mags for $25, German & Argentine FAL parts kits on Imbel receivers for $200, cases of Port or Argentine or south African for $120.
If you preferred delayed roller blowback (ala HK91) systems there were Cetmes for similar prices. Shame it had to end! |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/24/2021 7:39:32 PM EDT
[#24]
 Get both. Hunt, Eat red meat, smash weights. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/24/2021 7:44:15 PM EDT
[#25]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Unfortunately most of you guys are too late for the 7.62 nato salad days bonanza that the late 90's early 2000's were. Brand new 10 packs of Belgan FAL mags for $25, German & Argentine FAL parts kits on Imbel receivers for $200, cases of Port or Argentine or south African for $120. If you preferred delayed roller blowback (ala HK91) systems there were Cetmes for similar prices. Shame it had to end! Oh I was there back then, if my memory services me correctly, seems like I remember buying 1000 round cases of Hertinberger 7.62 for around $160ish from AIM Surplus. Salad days for sure. Back then I had an Armalite AR10A2, an M1A and an FAL. The H&K91 was gone by then. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/24/2021 8:13:15 PM EDT
[#26]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Of the three main battle rifles produced in 7.62NATO, the M14 is the most "shootable" for the reasons noted in the relevant post. The main reason that many posters look upon the M14 with disdain is the traditional stock is uses. Most modern shooters have grown up with military rifles that have a pistol grip, and that makes the M14 feel weird to them. None the less, it still shoulders well, and has a great sight picture and better trigger than either of the other rifles. HOWEVER.....the wood stock is/was archaic for actual combat use, due to inherent issues with wood in adverse environments. The M14 does not like sandy environments, but I doubt that any more that 0.01% of those in this thread will be using it under those conditions. The problem with the M14 is not just that the stock is made of wood. To try to dismiss the importance of a pistol grip for a modern combat rifle is silly, IMO. There’s a reason everyone is accustomed to a pistol grip in their military rifles. Furthermore, a reciprocating handle on the side, and an opening in the receiver that allows debris into the mechanism is unacceptable, demonstrating the “early” origins of the design. The M14 remained an upgraded WW2 rifle, and the FAL and G3 were post-WW2 designs, incorporating important lessons. I agree it’s definitely a better shooter, and if I was going to a shooting competition, I would absolutely prefer the M14. I assume it is at least twice as accurate as a G3 or FAL, if not 3x. But as a generalist military rifle, it is clearly inferior. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/24/2021 8:26:42 PM EDT
[#27]
Quote HistoryQuoted: The problem with the M14 is not just that the stock is made of wood. To try to dismiss the importance of a pistol grip for a modern combat rifle is silly, IMO. There’s a reason everyone is accustomed to a pistol grip in their military rifles. Furthermore, a reciprocating handle on the side, and an opening in the receiver that allows debris into the mechanism is unacceptable, demonstrating the “early” origins of the design. The M14 remained an upgraded WW2 rifle, and the FAL and G3 were post-WW2 designs, incorporating important lessons. I agree it’s definitely a better shooter, and if I was going to a shooting competition, I would absolutely prefer the M14. I assume it is at least twice as accurate as a G3 or FAL, if not 3x. But as a generalist military rifle, it is clearly inferior. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Of the three main battle rifles produced in 7.62NATO, the M14 is the most "shootable" for the reasons noted in the relevant post. The main reason that many posters look upon the M14 with disdain is the traditional stock is uses. Most modern shooters have grown up with military rifles that have a pistol grip, and that makes the M14 feel weird to them. None the less, it still shoulders well, and has a great sight picture and better trigger than either of the other rifles. HOWEVER.....the wood stock is/was archaic for actual combat use, due to inherent issues with wood in adverse environments. The M14 does not like sandy environments, but I doubt that any more that 0.01% of those in this thread will be using it under those conditions. The problem with the M14 is not just that the stock is made of wood. To try to dismiss the importance of a pistol grip for a modern combat rifle is silly, IMO. There’s a reason everyone is accustomed to a pistol grip in their military rifles. Furthermore, a reciprocating handle on the side, and an opening in the receiver that allows debris into the mechanism is unacceptable, demonstrating the “early” origins of the design. The M14 remained an upgraded WW2 rifle, and the FAL and G3 were post-WW2 designs, incorporating important lessons. I agree it’s definitely a better shooter, and if I was going to a shooting competition, I would absolutely prefer the M14. I assume it is at least twice as accurate as a G3 or FAL, if not 3x. But as a generalist military rifle, it is clearly inferior. Well said. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/24/2021 8:42:04 PM EDT
[#28]
Quote HistoryQuoted: The problem with the M14 is not just that the stock is made of wood. To try to dismiss the importance of a pistol grip for a modern combat rifle is silly, IMO. There’s a reason everyone is accustomed to a pistol grip in their military rifles. Furthermore, a reciprocating handle on the side, and an opening in the receiver that allows debris into the mechanism is unacceptable, demonstrating the “early” origins of the design. The M14 remained an upgraded WW2 rifle, and the FAL and G3 were post-WW2 designs, incorporating important lessons. I agree it’s definitely a better shooter, and if I was going to a shooting competition, I would absolutely prefer the M14. I assume it is at least twice as accurate as a G3 or FAL, if not 3x. But as a generalist military rifle, it is clearly inferior. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Of the three main battle rifles produced in 7.62NATO, the M14 is the most "shootable" for the reasons noted in the relevant post. The main reason that many posters look upon the M14 with disdain is the traditional stock is uses. Most modern shooters have grown up with military rifles that have a pistol grip, and that makes the M14 feel weird to them. None the less, it still shoulders well, and has a great sight picture and better trigger than either of the other rifles. HOWEVER.....the wood stock is/was archaic for actual combat use, due to inherent issues with wood in adverse environments. The M14 does not like sandy environments, but I doubt that any more that 0.01% of those in this thread will be using it under those conditions. The problem with the M14 is not just that the stock is made of wood. To try to dismiss the importance of a pistol grip for a modern combat rifle is silly, IMO. There’s a reason everyone is accustomed to a pistol grip in their military rifles. Furthermore, a reciprocating handle on the side, and an opening in the receiver that allows debris into the mechanism is unacceptable, demonstrating the “early” origins of the design. The M14 remained an upgraded WW2 rifle, and the FAL and G3 were post-WW2 designs, incorporating important lessons. I agree it’s definitely a better shooter, and if I was going to a shooting competition, I would absolutely prefer the M14. I assume it is at least twice as accurate as a G3 or FAL, if not 3x. But as a generalist military rifle, it is clearly inferior. The M14 is the pinnacle of 1930's firearm engineering. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/24/2021 9:05:16 PM EDT
[#29]
Honestly, all 3, the G3, FAL, and M14 were a step backwards in military rifle technology. The Stg.44 and AK-47 had advanced to the select fire intermediate cartridge concept, while the US Pentagon forced an obsolete 762NATO down everyone's throat .....only to dump it for the 556 M16 a decade later. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/24/2021 9:07:23 PM EDT
[#30]
Had both and kept the FAL.
Better shooter all around for me. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/24/2021 9:19:15 PM EDT
[#31]
I prefer the HK91. Shorter overall length. Collapsable stock is drop in. The claw mount is rock solid.
Very easy to take apart. The only drawback for me is the safety position. You either have to shift your grip or have thumbs like an orangutan to operate it |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/24/2021 9:22:57 PM EDT
[#32]
The FAL is a better rifle by nearly any objective metric. I sold one during the Sandy Hook panic & always regretted it. That said I have $700 in my PTR & the $5 mags are a nice bonus
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/24/2021 9:37:11 PM EDT
[#33]
Until this past September, I owned both a German HK91 with all the German bells and whistles and a Belgian FN-FAL 50.50.
I sold the FAL after 27 years and loved the rifle. Pure elegance. I kept the HK because while it’s a brute, I have a lot of extras, including a German A3 meat grinder, so it’s a much smaller package. I already miss my 50.50, but $3500 is $3500. Chris |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/24/2021 9:40:18 PM EDT
[#34]
I'm not reading through all of the comments but I will just tell you my experience. I've owned an FAL rifle. The 21 in GI version. Austrian kit on a Coonan upper. Mine was an inaccurate, heavy piece of equipment. The only FAL rifle I would be considering to own nowadays is a 16 inch folding stock modernized version.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/24/2021 10:04:06 PM EDT
[#35]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I'm not reading through all of the comments but I will just tell you my experience. I've owned an FAL rifle. The 21 in GI version. Austrian kit on a Coonan upper. Mine was an inaccurate, heavy piece of equipment. The only FAL rifle I would be considering to own nowadays is a 16 inch folding stock modernized version. Not my experience with my reloads, but mine was Belgian. With monkey builds, all bets are off. Same with the HK91. Chris |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/24/2021 10:33:06 PM EDT
[#36]
Do those of you with folding stocks like them?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/24/2021 10:35:21 PM EDT
[#37]
<--------------------------- FAL all day long.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/24/2021 10:38:20 PM EDT
[#38]
Quote HistoryQuoted: The highlighted part is absolutely true, at least in my experience having owned both. . Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: My HK91 was much more accurate from the bench than my FAL. In practice the FAL was much easier to shoot from field positions/offhand and much easier to shoot well over the course of a full day of shooting. The HK91 has more felt recoil and a sharper impulse, IMO. The highlighted part is absolutely true, at least in my experience having owned both. . I own a PTR-91 with a collapsible stock and I literally have no idea why people keep complaining about the recoil of the HK91 system. I was expecting horrific things the first time I shot it, and it was only a little more bouncy than my 11.5" AR. I dunno what everybody keeps whining about. I also assume the FAL wouldn't be that bad either. ETA: Same with the safety. I only have to adjust my grip to go from F to S, but it's fine going from Safe to Fire. but then again, I like the 92FS safety. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/24/2021 10:44:02 PM EDT
[#39]
FALLOL
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/24/2021 10:51:39 PM EDT
[#40]
Quote HistoryQuoted: If youre talking about the BCG, it's still easy. although reassembling the BCG can be a pain if you dont know how to Yep. Pretty much everything is difficult if you don't know how to. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/24/2021 11:17:06 PM EDT
[#41]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Do those of you with folding stocks like them? The HK A3 is nicknamed the ‘meat grinder,’ but it’s not too punishing on my 5’8” frame, but I don’t consider myself a pussy, either. Never tried the Para FAL setup. Chris |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/25/2021 12:12:38 AM EDT
[#42]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Do those of you with folding stocks like them? The stock on the L1A1 and pistol grip as well as the safety I find very comfortable. I posted a pick of my para earlier, you'll notice it has an Ergo grip and L1A1 safety. Your mileage may vary, no warranty real or implied, etc. Been shooting FALs since 1993.....used them with StG58, Metric humpback, L1A1 and para stocks and some people don't mind the StG58 stock where it gave me really bad cheek slap with its taller comb. Don't have the same issue with the para... And I really miss Hirtenberger 7.62mm for $120.00 a case from Samco! Those were the days. Sorry, typing on a tiny keyboard |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/25/2021 12:42:08 AM EDT
[#43]
FAL kicks a lot less
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/25/2021 12:45:07 AM EDT
[#44]
Scar 17
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/25/2021 4:16:33 AM EDT
[#45]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Of the three main battle rifles produced in 7.62NATO, the M14 is the most "shootable" for the reasons noted in the relevant post. The main reason that many posters look upon the M14 with disdain is the traditional stock is uses. Most modern shooters have grown up with military rifles that have a pistol grip, and that makes the M14 feel weird to them. None the less, it still shoulders well, and has a great sight picture and better trigger than either of the other rifles. HOWEVER.....the wood stock is/was archaic for actual combat use, due to inherent issues with wood in adverse environments. The M14 does not like sandy environments, but I doubt that any more that 0.01% of those in this thread will be using it under those conditions. Before someone spouts back about how few countries used the M14, and thus is proof it sucks, just remember this: The M14 was the most expensive of the three rifles to produce, and the DOD had trouble meeting Army requirements to begin with, so they were unlikely to be selling M14's anywhere else at the same time. Had Uncle Sugar been able to produce them in sufficient volumes, it's possible some allies around the world might have carried the M14, at least more than just Taiwan. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Nobody asked about third place. Of the three main battle rifles produced in 7.62NATO, the M14 is the most "shootable" for the reasons noted in the relevant post. The main reason that many posters look upon the M14 with disdain is the traditional stock is uses. Most modern shooters have grown up with military rifles that have a pistol grip, and that makes the M14 feel weird to them. None the less, it still shoulders well, and has a great sight picture and better trigger than either of the other rifles. HOWEVER.....the wood stock is/was archaic for actual combat use, due to inherent issues with wood in adverse environments. The M14 does not like sandy environments, but I doubt that any more that 0.01% of those in this thread will be using it under those conditions. Before someone spouts back about how few countries used the M14, and thus is proof it sucks, just remember this: The M14 was the most expensive of the three rifles to produce, and the DOD had trouble meeting Army requirements to begin with, so they were unlikely to be selling M14's anywhere else at the same time. Had Uncle Sugar been able to produce them in sufficient volumes, it's possible some allies around the world might have carried the M14, at least more than just Taiwan. One thing you left out, when the M14 was mothballed by the US they couldn’t give them away. No one wanted them except a handful rifles went to Taiwan, Lithuania and Israel. From a military perspective the M14 was a complete failure. I kinda like the rifle, I had two at one time but in order to get a good one (Bula) you can get an LMT or something so much better. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/25/2021 4:57:51 AM EDT
[#46]
The HK 91 mags are available at RTG parts in very good condition for $6 a piece if you buy 10 or more.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/25/2021 5:00:57 AM EDT
[#47]
Quote HistoryQuality post, right here.  
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/25/2021 6:40:25 AM EDT
[#48]
Quote HistoryQuoted: The HK91 I had in the 80s left flute marks on the brass so the brass was not reloadable. It was not as reliable as I expected it to be but once you dial in the ammo with the gas system you should be ok but why you would buy that over a LaRue OBR is beyond me. Wrong. It can be reloaded. I reloaded the brass shot from my Cetme. Which is basically the same thing as the HK. That's an another internet myth. And I even reloaded the brass with Berdan primers. I built my FAL using a Chilean kit and a DSA LMT receiver. Still have that cheap SA ammo in the battle packs and Win. NATO 7.62x51. At times I get the urge to build a Cetme but that passes. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/25/2021 6:57:49 AM EDT
[#49]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Not my experience with my reloads, but mine was Belgian. With monkey builds, all bets are off. Same with the HK91. Chris You see . . .. that's just it . With true german HK 91s , there are NO monkey builds . Stiff factory triggers perhaps , but no monkey builds . 
|
|
|
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.
Attached File