Quoted: Did anyone actually read all of this shit?? Looks like two junior high school nerds having the GREAT DEBATE CONTEST.

Geeze another one.


Ok pay attention...

I offered a simple and short opinion on Century CETMEs.

Then WarDawg posted some ridiculous history of the CETME. I corrected WarDawg.

Then protus tried to call my facts into question with his copy/pastge wizardry apparantly without realizing my facts do not contradict those of the CETME source but he simply failed to realize all the facts involved.

Then YOU showed up to help.

Well excuse the fuck out of me for trying to make sure that factual information is presented here.

Tell you what, let's just forget about facts and we'll just spew the standard bullshit so we don't look like nerds and can be cool like you.

M16s always jam.

AK47s will work even in wet cement.

The SKS can shoot 1" groups at 200m.

.50 BMG rifles can shoot down a sattelite.

Assault rifles have a pistol grip and are meant to be shot from the hip.

You don't need to aim an assault rifle, you just spray the target.

There you happy now? Everyone is now as fucking dumb as you. But at least they aren't nerds.

i have one and so far it has been ROCK SOLID. I did go through it with a fine tooth comb before purchasing. It's a decent rifle and resonably accurate for what it is. With milsurp ammo mine does anout 3-4 inches. would probobly do better with optics and usable sights.

Don't let SA scare you off. He is as rabid anti century as i am anti glock . A CAI CETME in good shape is worth every bit of 350.00. As long as you understand what you are buying and that it is NOT a new rifle you will be happy with it.

As for the HK/CETME debate. Frankly i have never been that impressed with anything HK builds. IMHO they are overpriced and under built.

mike

Quoted: """"""Germany H&K refined the CETME design into the rifle that would be the G3 (Gewehr 3) when it was adopted by the German military in 1959"""""" this was your quote not mine,,

Hard to tell your post is copy/past hell.

Quoted: this whole deal wasnt even the  jist of the orignal ?,,, yet it seems that every time some HK freak,, gets his pants up that cetme made the rifles frist and  that HK,,  copied it they get all ,,,upset... so what if they were german,, they came to spain since they had no where to work,, do you actuallythink that they solely made the cetme or G3,g2 or whatever by themselves without spain there wouldnt be either rifle!

Geeze you are the most dedicated idiot I ever met. CETME MADE THE RIFLES PRIOR TO GERMANY. What you don't understand is that it was GERMANS FROM MAUSER who made the CETME in Spain. Arms production wasn't legal in Germany at the time. The Germans did not copy it, they built it is Spain THEN built it in Germany.

Quoted: ""Also there is a big differene between a preban and a postban CETME. The preban in on par with the HKG3, the postban is not even close. "" i clearly know the difference between the two and that isnt  the arguemnet here,,,,, and i am not wrong...

You said and I quote... "a real post ban cetme or mars is just as on par as a G3 of the era,,, "

Of course there are no "real post ban cetme" so I assume you meant a CAI.

Quoted: spain made the freakin rifle,, made it for germany BEFORE Hk was even  started,,,  its all there  the info is there,, only for some reason you HKfanatics belive that mauser engineers=HK enigineers,,, the germans(not HK) adopted the cetme  before 59',,cetme made the g2,g3 for them  till after 61' ,,,how elese do you see differently????

Nobody is arguing they were first made in Spain. I SAID THEY WERE FIRST MADE IN SPAIN.

Once again SLOWLY.

Mauser engineers WENT TO SPAIN. MAUSER ENGINEERS ARE HK ENGINEERS. You do know H&K was started by Mauser guys right?

And if you read what I told you, yes the CETME WAS THE G2. It was the German rifle PRIOR to the G3 being adopted in 1959.

I cannot believe what an idiot you are.

Why don't you give me the link to the page your are copy/pasting from and I will try and make you understand what I'm telling you.

Here is what you need to understand, some of us actually know this crap. We are not just copy/pasting shit from CETME.com or something.

I will try and present this on a grade school level so even you can grasp it.

Karl Meyer and Ludwig Volgrimmler were both involved in the MAUSER Stg45M project during Wolrd War II. This was the GERMAN prototype that would eventually go to Spain with the MAUSER engineers named above and become the CETME. Mauser engineers and the Stg45M went to Spain because Germany lost the war, the Mauser factory was detroyed by the French and arms production was illegal in Germany.

In 1948 Edmund Heckler, a Mauser plant manager during the war, Theodore Koch another Mauser manager and Alex Seidel started the German factory Heckler & Koch on the old Mauser site and produced sewing machines. This was because arms production was still illegal in Germany. The MAUSER ENGINEERS that would soon work for the German Arms factory H&K went to Spain to develop the rifle while the owners started and managed the German factory.

Do you finally understand?

Bunch of Mauser guys started H&K. The managers stayed in Germany to set up and manage the facility and the engineers went to Spain and built the CETME. As soon as it was legal to build guns in Germany, the old Mauser engineers returned to the German H&K factory.

Good lord I hope you finally grasp the above.

Quoted: i have one and so far it has been ROCK SOLID. I did go through it with a fine tooth comb before purchasing. It's a decent rifle and resonably accurate for what it is. With milsurp ammo mine does anout 3-4 inches. would probobly do better with optics and usable sights. Don't let SA scare you off. He is as rabid anti century as i am anti glock . A CAI CETME in good shape is worth every bit of 350.00. As long as you understand what you are buying and that it is NOT a new rifle you will be happy with it. As for the HK/CETME debate. Frankly i have never been that impressed with anything HK builds. IMHO they are overpriced and under built. mike

I seem to recall you have an early cast SS model which I made a noted exception for. Correct?

Quoted: Whatever makes you feel better.

That's what Fonzie would probably say. The important thing is you are not a nerd.

nope new style on the SW cast.

you know i just have to rib you over CAI, your to easy

Quoted: nope new style on the SW cast. you know i just have to rib you over CAI, your to easy

The SW cast receivers are the SS cast receivers I spoke of.

The new CETMEs are crap grade kits on a stamped receiver. They are much, much worse than the rifle you have.

Quoted: I have the stamped reciever and G3 mags work great. My understanding was CAI uses the same stamped reciever for both their G3 and their Cetme. Personaly I am not super fond of the whole design be it a CAI Cetme or an expensive H&K rifle. However thought of reaching all the way up near the muzzle to charge a weapon must have been drunk.  But hey every weapon can't be a Garand or M14. We all have our favorites. Heck I would take an M16 over a FAL or a G3 if I had to hump the ammo around. Oh and  SteyrAUG do you have to use such profanity to make a point? Do you feel you have to be the bully on the block? Man if you know you are right it should be easy to keep your cool. This reminds me why I seldom  frequent this forum.

The charging handle is located in that position because of the European habit of charging with the non shooting hand. When prone with the G3 it is rather natural.

As for how I address people, I reply to them the way they deserve to be addressed. It has nothing to do with being a bully.

When someone like WarDawg posts something so ridiculous as factual history it deserves to be immediately addressed and I corrected him with the same amount of respect I provide a liberal promoting less than accurate facts about guns. Perhaps now he might research his history a little more carefully.

Then protus took it upon himself to challenge my facts. He didn't do it to try and clarify matters further but was a direct attempt to discredit me and I replied accordingly. I did get a bit frustrated when he proved incapable of understanding basic concepts.

Then another guy showed up and branded me a 'nerd.' Just exactly how do you think I should reply to him?

And if I were here posting some ridiculous crap about a certain firearm group I know nothing about I would expect the same kind of harsh correction.

I do not know everything. You won't see me in the AK forum challenging Campybob to a duel of Kalashnikov facts. But I do know a bit about Hk rifles. And the saddest thing is there is more misinformation about them, mostly due to source material such as publications by Duncan Long and Gene Gangarosa Jr., then there is factual information. As a result I go to great lengths to provide actual information whenever possible.

In the many cases where someone has a simple misunderstanding or lack of knowledge there is never a problem. But when someone is promoting pure fabrication as fact I do deal with it accordingly.

Honestly if someone was here posting that the Lorcin was every bit as good as a 1911 or that the Desert Eagle was the best gun ever made, how do you think they would be received?

Quoted: Quoted: Spain did produce a rifle for the Germans, the G2 NOT the G3. And they may very well have produced it until 1961, but the G3 was adopted in 1959. Hey Aug, can you provide proof of this statement.  It's in complete contradiction of anything ever discussed over at HKPRO. hkpro.websolv.com/ubbthreads/showflat.php?Cat=&Board=UBB5&Number=69342 And you are the only one I've ever heard being around a CETME clone owner with stress fractures in a receiver.

Well if you looked at the topic you linked you would see this...

cybershooters
Senior Member


Reged: 06/10/00
Posts: 121
Loc: Staffordshire, England   Re: What's a G2?  
     #69339 - 12/27/01 08:24 PM   Edit     Reply     Quote    



I was under the impression the G2 was the old CETME rifle, which the G3 was based on. Originally it used greased cartridges in order to function, H&K redesigned it with the fluted chamber in order to provide better extraction. Eventually CETME came up with something similar so the Spanish Army didn't get greasy fingers loading the mags. In any event, the story is true even if it isn't the G2!

So it hardly contradicts what is being discussed at HKPro. I've seen it referrenced in a few places and one that comes to mind is Project 64 by Frank James.

Now onto the StGw 57 aka SIG 510-4 in 7,62x51, it would seem that it is ALSO a G2 and was sorta a transitional rifle. I think this causes much of the confusion regarding the CETME and as a result it is often classified as both a G2 and early G3.

But if you look at HK history specifically the rifle adopted in 1959 was the H&K G3. Another source of confusion is early HKG3s had wood stocks like the CETME so they are often mistaken for CETMEs. But if one examines them closely they would see they are in fact H&K G3s with wood stocks.

An example of early H&Ks with wooden stocks can be seen on this HK54.



Regarding the cracked receivers, I have seen two and they were both Century stamped G3 receivers, the stamped CETMEs haven't been on the market as long so I imagine in a few years those with lots of use will manifest the same weakness.

The first CETME receivers were the cast SS ones and I do NOT think those will have the same issue, but since the stamped CETMEs are made just like the stamped G3 receivers I don't see how they will be any different.

Further documentation of the CETME G2.

remtek.com/arms/hk/mil/mp5/choice/coang.htm

Initially equipped with the MI Garand rifle, the resurgent West German Bundeswehr moved in 1957 to the FN FAL, made in Belgium. Eventually, 350,000 of this German model, called the GI (for Gewehr, or rifle) were manufactured. The Germans were well pleased with the GI and approached FN for a license to manufacture the rifle in Germany. The Director-General of Fabrique Nationale, the late Rene' Laloux, refused and rudely insulted the German Ministry of Defense officials. The German government immediately contacted the European licensee for the Spanish CETME (Compania de Estudios Tecnicos de Materiales Especiales) rifle, which was NWM (Nederlandsche Wapen-En Munitiefabriek) in the Netherlands. An arms agreement was reached quickly.

NWM was to provide, in exclusivity, the Bundeswehr with 20mm ammunition, in return for which Germany was given a license to manufacture the CETME (called the G2). The West German government granted the contract to both Rheinmetall and Heckler & Koch. Rheinmetall removed themselves from the scene, as they were occupied with manufacture of the MG3 (7.62x 5 1 mm NATO version of the MG 42 GPMG ). H&K refined the design further and it was adopted by the Bundeswehr as the G3. The rest is a history of worldwide acceptance and success known to all.

Now the above is kinda easy to confuse as it implies the CETME (G2) was manufactured under license in Germany. It never was. License was granted to both H&K and Rheinmetall but no CETMEs or G2s were ever made in Germany. Rheinmetall never produced any G2 or G3 rifles and H&K prior to production refined the design into the current G3.

Quoted: I was one of the lucky ones and got a very early S.S. receiver with like new barrel,furniture,internals etc.It shoots great and I've never had a problem.Would I get another one???Not unless I could get one just like I already have.I've heard to many horror stories about the Cetme kits they started using after they used up the like new kits.

And again THAT is the big difference and the original point I tried to make.

There is NOTHING wrong with original pre ban CETMEs and even the first postban CAI CETMES (cast receiver and NEW parts) were a decent gun for the money. The receiver is stong and the parts were NRA grade (exc. to new).

The problem is the current CETMEs is the stamped receiver is pretty bad and the parts used are NRA grade fair to good. They also aren't assembled as well as the orginal cast receiver guns.

And it has nothing to do with CETME vs. G3 as the CAI G3s are just as bad as the CAI CETMEs.

Quoted: WOW!  You are full of firsts on this thread.  I've read most if not all the discussions at HKPRO including the thread I linked.  As I recall it's only non-German sources that refer to anything other than the StG57 for the G2.  The Germans designating a certain number to a new model for evaluation is believeable.  Using two numbers for one model is pure bullshit.

And the fact remains that both guns are frequently designated a G2 by many sources so save your bullshit proclomation for them.

Quoted: What isn't confusing is you choose to believe what you like from that article and disregard the rest.  And Reinmetall did produce G3's.  Feast your eyes.... www.mg-42.net/sniperone.htm This tanker model has the early G3 flip site, different from the Modelo C paddlewheel.

Good lord read your own material. Very rare Rheinmetall produced prototype G3.

They never went into production.

Quoted: Steyr I love your history lessons on guns, but you went and pissed on the wrong tree on this one.   MWDG3, in case anyone doesn't know, is one of the "gods" of Cetmes over at the Cetme site.  He lives, drinks, sleeps, crys..... with Cetmes.   In other words he knows what the hell he is talking about.  Not that I think Steyr doesn't, but we all have our specialties.  This one is MWDG3's.   BTW, MWDG3 welcome to AR15.com!   IMHO, my Cetme is a good rifle, reliable, accurate, and fun.  Did I spend too much(in new parts) to get it there? Yes.  It was built of very used parts, but that does not make it a bad gun, only used.  Would I buy another?  Not with out looking and taking it apart first.  I think MWDG3 has similar opinions as this on the condition of CAI Cetmes.

All I did was correct him about Rheinmetall G3 production with his own source.

Doing a bit of research regarding the G2 as the StGw 57 or CETME and it seems I got it backwards.

The StGw 57 was the first G2, the CETME was the transitional rifle. It was adopted to become the G3 but was never produced by HK. Instead the design was refined and the new rifle produced was the HK made G3.

So it would seem the CETME was adopted, but never produced. Thus it would never correctly be a G2 or a G3.

Also data abou the German army actually using the StGw 57 (or even teh CETME for that matter) is sketchy as well. My research up to this point almost suggests they went from the G1 directly to the G3.

Quoted: Quoted: And the fact remains that both guns are frequently designated a G2 by many sources so save your bullshit proclomation for them. That doesn't change the fact you pick and choose between much of the contradictory non-German information as you see fit.  Like I suggested, if you find a photo of a G2 send it to Tom over at HKPRO.  He doesn't have one.  Well...he never will.

So do you. And I don't pick and choose, I noted that both rifles are variously classified as the G2. Find me a German source stating specifically the StgW57, I'd like to see it.

Quoted: Good lord read your own material. Very rare Rheinmetall produced prototype G3. They never went into production.

Oh right, my bad, dawg.  I thought you said this....

Quoted: Rheinmetall never produced any G2 or G3 rifles

 





Prototypes and production are two different things. HK has LOTS of prototypes that never went into production.

Quoted: Quoted: Doing a bit of research regarding the G2 as the StGw 57 or CETME and it seems I got it backwards. The StGw 57 was the first G2, the CETME was the transitional rifle. Where in the hell is this coming from?  Correct me if I'm wrong here, but none of your previous sources even mention an StG57.  Now, speaking of transition, you have a source that confirms that at least the StG57 was the FIRST G2?  Can you scan it a post a photo?  Or at least send it to my email addy?  [email protected]

Go back a page or two and I mention the Stg57. And I don't have a photo of a G2, i don't think anyone has a photo of a rifle marked G2.

And as for the statement "Rheinmetall never produced any G2 or G3 rifles" you have disproven NOTHING.

Protypes of tanker models are NOT "G2 or G3 rifles." Find me proof of a G3 rifle used by the German army made by Rheinmetall and you will have disproven my statement, until that time you have disproven nothing.

Quoted: Other than people in Germany from the HKPRO discussion, that's all I have.  As you stated there is little information available on the G2.  HKPRO doesn't even mention it in the World of HK.  You are the one giving the grand history lesson here.

No I am the one correcting the statments made by WarDawg, go read them and tell me if YOU think they are accurate.

Quoted: Simple play on words.  HK has produce lots of prototypes that never went into production(HK52).  You did not mention Reinmetall mass production, you made a blanket statement that Reinmetal never produced ANY G2 or G3 rifles.  You can't except the fact you were wrong. I'm out of this mess.

Not a play on words, I stated that Rhenimetal never produced a G3 rifle [in context for the military] and you show up with a tanker prototype to try and catch me on some technicallity. Go find me a Rheinmetall G3 rifle (not a tanker) issused to the German military and I will be wrong.

You can't accept the fact that you are wrong.