Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Posted: 6/8/2001 5:59:34 PM EDT
So which one is better? I have seen arguments for both sides, but obviously this is the AR15 website, so the fight might be biased a bit. Anyway, I just want to hear the pros and cons of both and how they compare. I don't know if I can afford the price of a new 15, and the Cetme's and G3's are a bit cheaper, I just wonder about the quality issues and such. Anyone have any thoughts on quality assault rifles (any kind) for around $500-600?
Link Posted: 6/8/2001 6:04:31 PM EDT
Check out Special Weapons. Todd has some excellent HK clones. NOT!
Link Posted: 6/8/2001 6:24:17 PM EDT
I've heard some shit talking about Todd. Seems like an intersting situation. Is he anything like the guy at ASA?
Link Posted: 6/8/2001 6:35:50 PM EDT
If you're looking at the semiauto G3 clones in the $500-600 price range, I think you'd be far better off with an AR15. An HK is a great gun, but these cheapo knockoffs use cheaply made receivers and surplus parts from HK licensees in countries where weapon maintenance was next to nil. Some of the clones are pretty good, but you're going to have to spend $900-1300 for a good clone (like an FMP, early SAR8/3, etc). For $600-700, though youcan get a nice new postban AR15. Better parts availability, and more options for uppers, barels, etc.
Link Posted: 6/8/2001 6:43:57 PM EDT
Yeah, I reallllly want a post ban Bushy or RRA. I'm trying to see if I can fit it into the budget. The LEGP looks like a great deal, but I'd get it with the A2 upper, which for some strange reason costs $100 more. So I'm still paying the same as I would for a new Bushy A2 20", and no chrome barrel. Decisions decisions.
Link Posted: 6/8/2001 6:47:00 PM EDT
Take the AR. Parts and accessories are easy to get and available at most places. The G3 is good but finding mags and parts that works is very costly. In addition, which is easy to clean: AR or HK? I gotta clean my HK along time to get rid of the crud which I am doing right now.
Link Posted: 6/8/2001 7:27:17 PM EDT
If value for your dollar is primary I'd go with a Bushmaster, maybe the new post-ban M4 copy. I'm a big fan of HKs and am currently having a G3KA3 built by a top-notch smith, but for what it's going to cost me I could probably buy two good ARs and still have cash to deck them out. From what I've heard the current G3 and CETME guns being offered are not that great with quite a few of them having to be sent back for various repairs. If you want the HK then save your pennies and buy a preban 91 or have one built by one of the pros, but my advice would be to stay away from the $500-$600 knock-offs. When I see those guns advertised bailing wire and duct tape comes to mind.
Link Posted: 6/8/2001 7:41:30 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 6/8/2001 7:40:26 PM EDT by MG_ME]
[b] Check out Special Weapons. Todd has some excellent HK clones. NOT![/b] [left]I finally got to experence the infamous Special Weapons. man the machining top notch(Sic), i especially like the welds they look like they were brazed with a torch(again sic)! wow! so i love my Bushmaster always have always will.[/left]
Link Posted: 6/8/2001 10:05:59 PM EDT
I think I'm the only one that has a Century made CETME without any problems. Sights are dead on, no problems with the bolt rubbing against the ejector rod, or any of the other infamous CETME problems...got lucky I guess. Price has dropped to $469.99 at Wholesale Guns & Ammo (http://www.gunsnammo.com/) for the CETME's, might be worth looking into...wood looks beautiful, less than expected recoil, fun shooter. Oh and by the way I love my 2 AR's - 1 LEGP, and 1 Cav Arms Lower w/ a RRA upper.[heavy]
Link Posted: 6/9/2001 1:56:01 PM EDT
Tredawg, these are not assault rifles, they are sport utility rifles. Assault rifles must be capable of full auto (select fire). Only anti's call an AR15 'assault rifles'.
Link Posted: 6/9/2001 2:21:51 PM EDT
As someone who has owned and used both weapons I feel that The G3 is a more reliable weapon. I am not talking about some piece of junk copy here. I had a registered receiver H&K G3. It was a beast to fire on full auto. It never missed a lick and was deadly accurate. I also own a Colt M16. The M16 is lighter and easy to carry. It does not have the stopping power or range of the G3 but you can carry more ammo. I like the M16 better since it has all kinds of really usefull accessories available for it, Also I have a Colt factory 9mm upper and mag block. 2 calibers on 1 receiver is a big advantage if you want to own class 3 stuff. If I had to choose between the 2 I would go with the M16 and never look back.
Link Posted: 6/9/2001 6:58:22 PM EDT
Originally Posted By LARRY G: Tredawg, these are not assault rifles, they are sport utility rifles. Assault rifles must be capable of full auto (select fire). Only anti's call an AR15 'assault rifles'.
View Quote
Okay then, so tell me what the "AR" in AR15 stands for. Is it "assault rifle," "automatic rifle," or what? Playing these word games is an utter waste of time. According to you I must be a very rare "anti" indeed because I've got a gun safe full of "assault rifles."
Link Posted: 6/10/2001 4:30:43 AM EDT
I believe "AR" stands for either "Armalite Registered" or "Armalite Rifle", not sure which one. I think this is the original tag Gene Stoner put on it.
Link Posted: 6/10/2001 6:22:19 AM EDT
these are not assault rifles, they are sport utility rifles. Assault rifles must be capable of full auto (select fire). Only anti's call an AR15 'assault rifles'.
View Quote
Two points here... 1. There ARE some select fire AR15's. Would you be an anti if you described one of these as an "assault rifle"? (I didn't think so) 2. There may be several definitions which may be in play here. In common gun-lingo, "assault rifle" means a select fire weapon, but under the US Code, an "assault rifle" is defined as a semi (with certain features). Generally, when I speak of an "assalt rifle", I'm talking about the statutory definition.
Link Posted: 6/10/2001 6:54:32 AM EDT
I think "AR" stands for the first 2 letters of "AR"malite
Link Posted: 6/10/2001 9:25:51 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 6/10/2001 9:24:21 AM EDT by Ross]
Good CETMEs and G3s seem to be a very good value indeed. The comparison with the AR is a bit odd though. It's the old apples and oranges thing. I've owned both a HK-91 (preban Saco import with polygonal rifling I sold way before the ban[:(]) and many ARs of all configurations. I found both rilfes to be about as effective over the same range. I didn't find the HK to be a better long range shooter, and in fact I thought the sights kinda stunk for long range stuff compared to my match M-1A or my shooter Polytech M-14s. I was confident that I could connect with either rifle at usable anit-personel ranges of 400m and less. The AR is lighter and the ammo weighs about half and is cheaper. The HK kinda beat me up when shooting it compared to any of my FALs (a big reason I sttill have those and no HK). As far as quality, reliability, workmanship, etc, they're about the same. If you want to shoot through cars, I'd go with a .308. Other than that, it's really a personal preference thing. Try them both out and decide what you like. $500 is a great price for a G3/Cetme, unless you don't like it. Then it's stupid to pay that kinda money even if you can't afford anything else. It's better to wait and get what you like best, and get the best you can afford. Ross
Link Posted: 6/10/2001 10:03:32 AM EDT
As stated above ...sledgehammers and tackhammers...Ive owned four H&K 91s and an SR-9 and many AR-15 variants...The H&K has only one flaw (other than weight and optics platform) thats the sheet metal receiver it flexes too much..so much that H&K's last improvement was to reinforce it..AR is lighter cheaper a better optics platform ..many variants ...its accurate..parts readily available...mags cheap by comparison..With the same amount of money you could by a Rock River AR-15 and a Rem PSS and scope both of them buy ammo and mags...just my .02
Link Posted: 6/10/2001 10:05:02 AM EDT
NordicG3k, the AR stands for ARmalite. Go to [url]www.armalite.com[/url]. The history is explained there. It does not stand for automatic rifle or assault rifle. Shaggy, the US code is one of the things that riles me. Under Clinton, an semi AR15 was defined incorrectly as an assault rifle. The true definition of an assault rifle means select fire. You are correct that there are some converted AR15 select fire and the very first AR15's were select fire. The first one's bought by the Air Force under Gen. LeMay's direction were AR15's as well as the first one's the advisers in 'Nam got. This was before the adoption of the M16 designation. My mistake on that part. The vast majority of Americans refer to semi AR15's as assault rifles in a fearful manner and I just cringe when I hear it. They believe, because Feinstein and other morons tell them, that because it looks like an M16, it must be select fire. I have had people see mine and ask me why I need full auto. After I tell them that it is none of their business why I need full auto, I then explain that mine are not full auto. The term 'assault rifle' makes most people think they are full auto and thus I don't like the term applied to semi's. Sorry for being so touchy about the subject.
Link Posted: 6/10/2001 10:30:08 AM EDT
the "assault rifle" moniker started in california, and it refers to semi-auto rifles with 3 or more of the following: bayonet lug, flash hider, pistol grip, magazine-fed, folding stock. of course, banning these rifles and limiting magazine capacity has done NOTHING for the crime rate, they are bad and cause people to have violent thoughts, and thoughts imply intentions, and intentions manifest actions so owning one of these assault rifles makes you a bad person, and if you own one, you need to serve a mandatory 25 year sentence in prison, just to make sure you don't go out and kill somebody. [kill] and i would rather have a G3. (preban hk91) [heavy]
Link Posted: 6/10/2001 10:36:11 AM EDT
jnewman, never mind that less than .2 percent (two tenths of one percent) of ALL guns (legal or otherwise) in this country are ever used in a crime and of that .2, less than 1 percent of those are AR's. Really screams for more laws, doesn't it. Maybe that's why the 'assault' weapons ban has not made a difference. I had a cop tell me that in his 15 years, he has only confiscated 1 AR and it wasn't being used in a crime, it was just in the house of a wanted felon during a raid.
Link Posted: 6/10/2001 11:47:13 AM EDT
To be classified as an Assault Rifle, it has to be selective fire and fire an intermediate power cartridge like 5.56x45 or 7.62x39. A Submachine Gun fires pistol ammo and a Battle Rifle fires a full power rifle cartridge like 7.62x51 So an AR-15 is a semi-auto only version of an assault Rifle and a H&K 91 is a semi-auto only version of a Battle Rifle. By the way I am not sure if a Battle Rifle has to be selective fire. Sniper for Justice VINCE AUT MORIRE (Conquer or Die)
Link Posted: 6/10/2001 11:57:28 AM EDT
And one other thing the reason they are called Assault Rifles is because they were meant to be used for an infantry assault on a position or on a beach head. And the troops would use them to lay down a large amount of firepower to keep the enemies heads down during the assault. Ammo capacity and rate of fire was considered more important then long range capability. Sniper for Justice VINCE AUT MORIRE (Conquer or Die)
Link Posted: 6/10/2001 12:05:51 PM EDT
I call them assault rifles. I think it's a great term. Rolls off the tounge easy. Defines just what it's really supposed to do in my mind. I don't call mags clips, but I call an AR, AK, or anything else that's "evil" looking and assault rifle just because it makes a statement that I'll own any damn thing I please. Ross
Link Posted: 6/10/2001 12:08:57 PM EDT
The term 'assault rifle' makes most people think they are full auto and thus I don't like the term applied to semi's. Sorry for being so touchy about the subject.
View Quote
Larry - No problem. I didn't mean to bash you on semantics; that wasn't my intention. Sorry if it came off that way. I just wanted to point out that some of us use the term "assault rifle" when speaking about semis, because thats the way they're defined in the law. I'm often found debating points of law, so I have to use the lingo of the law. I know...I too cringe at the improper use of certain terms, but from my perspective (as a lawyer) the definitions and exact wording in the law can be critical, so I have to roll with it.
Link Posted: 6/10/2001 12:28:10 PM EDT
Since we're on the subject of correct terms, the G3 is select-fire and has a grenade launcher ring mount on the barrel. The HK 91 is the semi-auto version without the mount. Any knockoff of the 91 is a 91 clone, not a G3 clone.
Link Posted: 6/10/2001 6:03:46 PM EDT
Originally Posted By ARowner: Since we're on the subject of correct terms, the G3 is select-fire and has a grenade launcher ring mount on the barrel. The HK 91 is the semi-auto version without the mount. Any knockoff of the 91 is a 91 clone, not a G3 clone.
View Quote
So what would you call a gun built from a G3 kit? Is it a semi-auto G3, or is it an HK91? I'm having a G3KA3 built and the smith will mark it as a G3K. Other than the receiver (FMP) all parts are select fire G3 parts modified for semi only. Larry G, hope I didn't come off too harsh. It just bugs the crap out of me when people try to change something by simply altering the way you talk about it. I agree with you when you refer to an assault rifle being a select-fire weapon. I also agree with you on the point that it was the anti's that started calling guns like ARs, HKs, etc. "assault rifles" just to try and demonize them. What they are are semi-automatic rifles that use a detachable box magazine, nothing more, nothing less. It doesn't make a damn bit of difference if it has a pistol grip, flash surpressor, collapsable stock, bayonet lug, etc. I'd still like the anti's show me an example where a criminal entered a business by collapsing the stock on his "assault rifle" and hiding it under his coat, then proceed to use the pistol grip to shoot accurately from the hip, empty his magazine and have to resort to the use of his bayonet, leave the business and then fire on pursuing police officers without being detected due to his flash surpressor. Yeah, and maybe the bullets did more damage because the gun was black too. What a bunch of crap!!!
Top Top