Armory Sponsor
Posted: 4/27/2008 3:40:06 PM EDT
| I came across a gun this weekend on my mission to find some ammo for my Krag. A new CETME sporter from Century Arms. They have it for $595. I have been wanting to get a .308 semi-auto platform for a while. I don't really know a whole lot about these rifles or what they are worth. What do you guys think? Deal or no deal? |
|
If you really like the Cetme in ergos and feel than just buy a PTR91. They make a high quality rifle and CDNN still has them for $899 I believe. PTR91.com |
|
PTR91 rifles are closer to true HK G3/HK91 rifles, the only difference being that the PTR has a better heavy barrel than the HK91s. The CETME is a different earlier rifle that the G3 is based on. It has paddle type rear sights where the PTR91s have rotating drum diopter sights. The original Spanish CETMEs are great rifles, but the Century ones are notorious for having severe problems. I bought one back in 2003 (I think it was...) for $250 bucks. It shot very nicely and was extremely accurate until one day I went to check the bolt gap and there was none, meaning the rifle was dangerously far from being in proper headspace tolerance. A few of them have blown up as a result of Century doing a poor job putting them together. PTR91s are going for only $899 from CDNN right now and are a MUCH better investment. |
|
+1 to what SKSLover said. The difference in quality is easy enough to see just by looking at them side by side. Just the other week at the range the guy next to me had a brand new version Cetme which he paid I believe 595 for. The rear sight was just a flip aperture non-adjusting for windage rear sight. From the finish to fit it's just not as high quality a rifle as the PTR91. True the PTR91 does have a heavier contour barrel but they make a very nice barrel and it's a plus to the accuracy. Mine was a 1 to 1 1/2 moa depending on the ammo and the day for me. It was also ultra reliable and the only thing that would have made it nicer as far as non-furniture/accessory addition would just have been a trigger job. I searched out quite a few Cetme's before I bought my PTR91 and they just made me see how much nicer the PTR's were. Now if the ergo's only fit me better, I would still have it, but it didn't fit me right. I'm an M1A/M14 guy.  An M1A/M14 will cost you a little bit more to start and build on if you want to take it further, but there a hell of a rifle and worth taking a closer look at too as a choice. 
|
| Go with either a PTR-91 or a FAL. I have a PTR and if I were to do it all over again, I think I would have gotten an FAL. Don't get me wrong, the PTR is a great gun and mags can be had for cheap, but the FAL seems like a little bit better gun. YMMV. Either way you will get a good gun though. I would just break it down to ergonomics and how much $$ you are willing to part with. |
|
I have a Century cetme it is an early one on the stmaped reciever not the cast reciever that looks like a big wad of gum. It shoots federal pretty good but gets consistent light strikes on surplus ammo. I would most likley skip it because even though mine is a good rifle it is hard to clean, the chamber is fluted so the brass is not reloadable, and finally there are better 308s out there for $600 try a century FAL that is a pretty good rifle. Or a Browning BLR in 308 |
|
"Better" with respect to the PTR barrel is highly subjective. IMO, a heavy 18" button rifled 1:12 barrel is not better than the hammer forged military G3 barrel. ETA: to the OP, I'd pass on a CETME for that price. the HK is obsolete, MUCH better rifles in 308 out there than that, like the Chinese M14s and DPMS LR308. |
| the cetme came frist then hk tweaked it a bit and made the HK G3 it was adpoted by the german army then for the civilian market hk made the semi auto hk91 series rifle, the hkg3 is a full auto machine gun, just like the full auto " hk mp5 " hk made a semi auto verison of the "mp5" called the hk94 |
how is a chinese m14 "better" than a g3? they are both equally heavy, equally accurate, and equally reliable. both can be made into match grade shooters. they both have their little shortcommings: M14's optic mounting sucks, cant be fired left handed, and has more expensive mags G3's damage brass, and have no LRBHO. Ill grant that the DPMS is more accurate and slightly lighter, but is most likely less reliable (YMMV). |
In that the M14 has a longer barrel capable of stabilizing longer bullets than the 18" G3 barrel, as well as higher velocities, not to mention the existence of aftermarket barrels in different twists and contours to suit whatever requirements you desire. With the G3, you are stuck with 18" 12 twist. Also, the G3 weighs at least 1/2 a pound more than the M14, and the M14 is far easier and cheaper to accurize than a G3. Theres nothing difficult shooting the M14 left handed either, the gun ejects at 2 o'clock. |
maybe they never jam ever. I have never owned one. But they have a reputation for less reliability. known for tighter chambers and a need for lube. I dont own one, which is why I said most likely and YMMV. The G3 dumps just as much carbon into the receiver as a DI if not more. but then again the G3 has a fluted chamber with less surface area. more recoil as well though. |
You don't own one, so maybe you should not opine on it. I almost didn't buy my first AR10 (yeah, I know you are talking about the DPMS, but they fall into the same category) because of the "reputation" spouted on the internet by those who have never seen one, must less fired one. I have 5 AR10s and they are 100 percent reliable. I can't speak for DPMS owners, but they probably get as tired of hearing the crap spouted by those who don't own one as we AR10 owners do. I shoot all kinds of surplus through them, including my two 10Ts. I also shoot .308 match ammo as well as M118LR with no problems. They have a "reputation" and are "known for" only among those who haven't tried one. |
|
People are WAY to hard on Century Arms. They have improved considerably over the years and thier Yugo AK's and Galils have proven to be excellent and thier AR's have incredible promise IMO. They have struggled at times, but more or less they make good stuff. Minus select fire components, a Century rifles are identical/representive examples of military arms. Do you think Romanian soldiers are running around with milled receiver, custom shop AK's? Nope. Romania sells thier military AK's for 60.00 to 80.00 a piece to other governments under contract. If you have ever seen a captured military AKM, you would agree that Century AK's aren't very far off from the real deal. A PTR91 is a long way from an Iranian or African G3, made in the 60's and abused ever since. Even a new Century G3 is better than many of the military G3's still in service...With all the godlessness and insanity in Africa, it would seem that thier G3's are working just fine.  A decent Century G3 is a better rifle than what many soldiers are using on the battlefield. I would admit that Century G3's have had more issues than thier other rifles, but provided the trunion/receiver is okay, it wouldn't take much to correct the problems. Provided the trunion/receiver is okay, fixing the headspace isn't hard at all... Century makes a fine product at a fair price. They make exact copies of military arms, which aren't custom made/enhanced weapons. Personally, I wouldn't pay 600.00 for a Century G3 simply because thats PTR91 territory, which is a better gun out of the box. On a side note, I was reviewing an NRA publication from the 80's which tests/reviews a number of military weapons availible at the time. They reviewed the HK91 and provided accuracy results at 100 and 200 yards with a variety of ammo. The best groups thier HK91's printed were 3 MOA, while M80 ball was around 4 MOA at 100 yards. This is well within the realm of a military G3, like those made by Century. There is a difference between the PTR91 and HK, or the DSA and FN or Springfield M1A and M14. The NATO military rifles hover around 4 MOA with ball ammo, per specification. Accuracy of M1A's and HK91's are inflated by owners/fans IMO. The M1A is superior civilian rifle but inferior military rifle. The M14 has no advantage over either the G3 of FAL in terms of accuracy, durability or reliability. Its accuracy has been highly inflated as its accuracy is in line with other NATO MBR's. M14's shoot from 2 to 4+ MOA. I am not a M14 hater, rather an owner/admirer. I am just objective enough to admit that despite its strong points, its an iferior military weapon compared to the G3 and FAL. I get really tired of people riding thier high horse and correcting people around here for trivial shit. Correcting someone for calling a magazine a clip is one thing, but then again, did you really not know what that person was refering to? If you say Century G3, FAL or M14 I know exactly what you are talking about. Just like with flashider/flash suppessor, do you really not know what the OP is talking about? Its just plain concieded... Arfcom has gotten really, really snobby and petty... |
While I generally agree with most of your post, I would not describe the M14 as inferior to the G3 or FAL; all these rifles have their strengths and weaknesses, I'd not describe any as inferior in general to any of the others. Different, but not inferior. Mechanical accuracy is generally the same across all these in their standard military issue configuration, but there is more to a weapon than mechanical accuracy, durability and reliability. Weight and effective range for instance; both of which the M14 is superior to the FAL and G3. |
That statement is completley WRONG i reload all the brass that comes from my PTR. I have had zero problems most of the lines are just soot. You will usually have a dent on the case from ejection and that irons right out. That is when you can find your brass 30ft to the right and 20ft forward of where your standing    I love mine with silver bear and iron sights i can keep a mag centered in a Q target @ 100yds standing with sling. |
|
While I generally agree with most of your post, I would not describe the M14 as inferior to the G3 or FAL; all these rifles have their strengths and weaknesses, I'd not describe any as inferior in general to any of the others. Different, but not inferior. Mechanical accuracy is generally the same across all these in their standard military issue configuration, but there is more to a weapon than mechanical accuracy, durability and reliability. Weight and effective range for instance; both of which the M14 is superior to the FAL and G3. Actually, the FAL and M14 have less intrinsic accuracy than both the AR10 and G3. Concentrating on just the M14, it has an operating system and stock interface that is detremental to accuracy. You can most certainly make M14's ultra accurate, however the work required to accomplish this degrades reliability in the field. This is why the M25 was DOA and the M21 was phased out long ago. Current M14 based DMR's as used in Iraq are essentially M14's with optics/bipods. They lack Camp Perry accuracy, but they are accurate enough for thier intended purpose and are still reliable. The M14 shooting M80 ball has the same effective range as a FAL, G3 or AR10 shooting the same ammo. the M14 has excellent "match" type sights, but all of these guns fire 7.62 NATO and thus, have the same effective range when using the same ammo. An AR10 with "A2" sights and an M14 both have "target" sights which would make for more "effective" shooting at distance, provided you know the range/wind. You can dial that into your sights and be right on, where as FAL's and G3's lack that level of precision, which is good or bad...depending on your preference. More effective first shots at distance doesn't mean that the M14 can shoot farther. Weight/handling are entirely subjective and IMO, they all suck. They have the ergonomics of a shovel IMO. Still, the FAL, AR10 and G3 have straight line stocks which reduce muzzle climb, even on semi-auto. M14's also lack pistol grips, which are exceedingly usefull/advantageous on a military/defensive rifle. I know it might seem like I am bias, but I really don't think so. I have owned one of each MBR and the M14 was the last on my list. Its reliable/durable and accurate enough, but its lacking compared to the AR10, G3 or FAL. The FAL trounced the M14 in US Army testing. You could say that the tests were flawed...and you would be right. They unfairly gave SA several bites at the apple, and stacked the deck in its favor. Besides that, despite the oppertunity to adopt it, nobody adopted the M14 outside of the US. They were availible, they could have had them if they wanted...Why did they pass it up for the G3 or FAL...or even AR10 in some instances? The M14 certainly isn't a bad rifle, its just not better than the competition. Honestly, its not even the best altered/late model/.308 Garand. That honor goes to the Beretta... |
|
|
Only a fraction of M14's used in the GWOT have had modifications/improvements done beyond the "unit" level. Friends of mine in the 10th Mountain Div. at Fort Drum were issued M14's, however they weren't trick by any means. They were issued a rack grade, locked-selector M14 with one magazine. No other accessories/support/parts were avialible or provided, and this is the 10th Mountain...not some NG unit. The majority of M14's are rack-grade, with the exception of a scope/mount and bipod. Some have rails and stuff, but mechanically they are bone-stock. The USMC has modified by M14's for thier EOD and Scout Sniper teams, though these weapons were always rare/custom models and were never suited for general issue. Again, as the military has fully understood and what civilian fans refuse to accept is that ultra accurate*or M14's capable of running with Mk11's* M14's aren't capable of combat reliability. Even if they were, which they aren't, they cannot be supported in-country at the unit level when they are hand built in Quantico. When this program started, it was intended to bridge the gap between the M21/M25 and M40 systems. The Marines took it upon themselves, and used up the last of the NM M14's for thier DMR's. They found reliability to be unsatisfactory under field conditions, which is why these rifles were used by EOD teams, not Scout Snipers as originally intended. The EOD's use them as a target rifle, to shoot CBU's at distance. No more NM M14's exist and fewer and fewer "choice" M14's exist at Anniston. The USMC still uses these guns but has largely transitioned to the SR25 system. The AMU has also modifed M14's for use in the GWOT and before. The obselesence of the M21 and the insuitibiity of the M25 left a huge gap in the militaries SASR supply. Both the USMC and Army adopted the MSG90 and SR25 as stop gap measures, but tuned M14's were used as interim weapons. Unfortunatly, out of the remaining M14 supply, the USMC/Navy ate up the best/NM guns, which is what the M21's were built on. The AMU has tuned M14's for combat/match use for years, and undoubtibly some of thier guns are used in combat. Given the cost, level of support, these tuned M14's are most probably only in use with select*or lucky* units/operators, most probably special operations units. SFC Shugart was using a non M21/M25, yet accurized M14 in Somalia. The Smith Crazy Horse has also been in limited use, as have those M14's modifed by the USAF, however tuned M14's represent a fraction of those actually used by boots on the ground. The majority of M14's are rack-grade in every respect, with the exception of a scope/mount or bipod/rails. The barrel/bolt/gas system/trigger are stock. Plenty of M14's are used without any optic at all... When it comes to "tuned" M14's in the GWOT there are serious shortcomings. First of all, the supply of M14's is seriously depleted. As mentioned, there are no-more NM models to serve as the basis of conversions. The best examples have been picked over by the Navy, not just the SEAL's in the 90's. Any potential modifed M14 is starting behind the 8-ball IMO, as M21's were atleast born of NM guns. Not only is there a lack of good chassis, but there is a lack of good military armorers. The M14 armorers/parts have been purged from the system long ago. The knowledge to fix/enhance these rifles and the parts necessary don't exist within the military, with the exception of just a few places like Crane, IN and Quantico, VA. Any other M14 would have to be sent out to be worked on/improved, which further increases the costs making it that much more unlikely that many would be "improved" or altered beyond the addition of a scope. An SA M25 or SE Crazy Horse isn't far off in terms of price from a Mk11... Besides, a M14 hardly needs to be accurized to perform as a DMR. It needs only a suitible scope/mount and rail or two. The Dragunov or PSL are qunitessential DMR's yet lack the performance of the M14. We have seriously slipped behind the curve in term of semi-auto sniper weapons. With the demise of both the M21 and M25, there were no weapons to fill the gap yet the requirement still existed. The MSG90 was an excellent interim weapon, as was the SR25. These weapons were first adopted in 1995 +/-, so this should have been worked out long ago. The SR25 hasn't been perfect eiether, but we can both agree that the SR25/AR10 is a WAY better choice for a DMR or semi-auto sniper system than the M14, G3 or FAL combined. The performance difference of M80 ball out of a 22, 20 or 18 inch barrel is negligent. G3's and FAL's come in all different barrel lenghts, some longer or shorter than the M14. Whatever potential advantage the 2 inches would give you in terms of range would be irrelevant on the battlefield. None of these guns have the accuracy to be effective at extreme range in thier standard coniguration anyways. DMR G3's and FAL's all have atleast 20 inch barrels anyhow... We can definatly agree that the SR25/AR10 is a way better choice for a DMR or sniper weapon. We can also agree that there are way more people/parts to modify a M1A than the G3 or FAL. |
Armory Sponsor