G-3 or FN/FAL

[FiremasterGod]

Hey All:

I am trying to decide on a .308 "battle rifle". I am considering an HK G-3 clone by Vector Arms and an FN/FAL carbine. I really like the FN/FAL (I used to own a DSA STG-58). However I really don't know anything about G-3's. I like it's lighter weight but I know the FN/FAL to be a rock solid shooter. Can anyone offer any insight?

Thanks,


FireMaster

[BlenderWizard]

My only insight is that you should probably ask the people who would know in PerfectUnion's FAL forum. I have zero experience with either rifle, but I did research on buying one a few years back. I decided to get the G3 clone, but I have no info for you beyond that

[ryan_kalani]

My buddy in vegas is looking for a 308 battle rifle too. Let me know what you go with.

[FiremasterGod]

I thought about the FAL forum but I worried that the info might prove to be a litlle "biased". :-)

[LonePathfinder]

From my second hand internt message board research it seems to me a HK G3 or a quality clone are easier to improve the accuracy on. There are several military sniper/marksman rifle derivatives based on the G3. None from the FAL.

Both are quality weapons, and more a less in the same category as far as reliability and accuracy. FAL parts/accessories may be a bit cheaper.

Anything that has HK on it seems to command premium prices.

[SPARTEN117]

M14/M1A enough said:rolleyes: but out of the two Fal better ergonomics

[markw76]

I'm an M1A shooter, and between the two choices you are contemplating, I'd go with the STG-58. Mainly since its a reliable design and spare parts and magazines are still reasonable.

[Arizona Mikey]

I’ve owned all three: a G3 (genuine German HK-91) a FAL (StG-58) and a M1A.

HK-91: Robust and reliable (H&K's quality really shines - I don't know about the clones, though) and inherently very accurate, but awful human engineering! Standard sights are very marginal - would probably need to upgrade those. Trigger is usually terrible (heavy, creepy) and it can’t be easily fixed. Grooves left behind in fired brass make reloading more difficult (but it can be done).

FAL: Close to the HK-91 in handling qualities, but I think that the human engineering is better. Note that the Steyr StG-58 has a straight-comb stock, while others have a “humpback” stock. Handling qualities of the two are a bit different, so you should try both before buying. FAL’s are probably just as reliable as HK-91’s, but nobody’s going to claim that the FAL is a tack-driver. Trigger is usually rough, but that can be pretty easily fixed with something like a FSE drop-in hammer-trigger-sear set (you’ll probably never get it as nice as a finely-tuned M1A trigger, though). Magazines and spare parts are currently very inexpensive, but FAL receivers are scarce and pricey.

M1A: Very different from the HK-91 and FAL in terms of ergonomics, and MUCH more comfortable for me to shoot well. In match versions, it’s at least as accurate as the HK-91, but with a much better trigger - therefore, it usually offers better practical accuracy. Too bad Springfield Armory’s QC is the pits. My piece didn’t work right out-of-the-box, so I sent it back to SA for repairs. It worked better when it came back, but it never really worked right. Extremely disappointing.

However, my verdict: I’d like to buy a M1A, but only *if* I was assured of finding one that worked reliably! Otherwise, I’d probably gravitate towards the FAL over the HK-91. But, note that what feels good to me won’t necessarily feel good to you. Best to handle all three extensively (including test firing, if possible) before making your decision!

[cma g21]

If you decide to go with a G3 clone you should take a looks at the PTR-91. U.S. made (on HK machinery) with a heavy barrel. Mine is very accurate.

http://www.ptr91.com/

On sale at Sarco:

http://www.sarcoinc.com/ptr91.html#ptr

[mack63]

i had a centme and it seemed to have problems ejecting different brands of ammo at times,but when when you had right ammo it was a good shooter..i would go with the hk.

[cma g21]

i had a centme and it seemed to have problems ejecting different brands of ammo at times,but when when you had right ammo it was a good shooter..i would go with the hk.

Most of the problems people have with CETMEs seem to be more a reflection of the quality (or rather lack of quality) of the Century Arms assembly process.

If you get a good Century model (luck of the draw) of one of the better builds, they're good. They also seem to recoil less than the H&K model.

[markw76]

If I remember correctly, and I admit I don't always, the CETME was designed around a 7.62 NATO dimensioned cartridge of lower velocity and pressure, and there was some question as to the wisdom of shooting NATO spec ammunition in them and old bolt actions converted to their round (like the FR-8). Anyone know if that is accurate?

[cma g21]

If I remember correctly, and I admit I don't always, the CETME was designed around a 7.62 NATO dimensioned cartridge of lower velocity and pressure, and there was some question as to the wisdom of shooting NATO spec ammunition in them and old bolt actions converted to their round (like the FR-8). Anyone know if that is accurate?

Almost.

The CETME Model A was designed for a lower pressure version of the 7.62x51.

The Model B was also produced for this round, but was built to be easily converted to fire NATO spec rounds.

The Model C (the only version you'll likely ever find in the U.S.) were designed for NATO spec ammo.

http://world.guns.ru/assault/as60-e.htm

The FR-8 is built on a Model 1898 Mauser action and suitable for NATO spec ammo.

The FR-7 is built on the older Spanish (1893) Mauser action, and its safety with NATO ammo is questionable.

[markw76]

Thank you, Sir, for again proving I'm no better than 99% accurate. :lol:

[oneshotonly]

I have personall fired over 5000 thousand rounds with my G3 and G3 derivitives. It fires well and it is very stable in terms of rough usage. I recomend that you go with G3, and if possible, get a folding stock component, telescope and laser+torch.

[fire for effect]

In Rhodesia, the G3's were relegated to black troopers, while the Fn/fal.s were issued only to white troops. The Fal was considered far more accurate than the G-3, and was pressed into sniper rolls with just the addition of a scope.

Having owned both, I can tell you that the FAL is the superior weapon. Much more accurate, less felt recoil, Better trigger, and better sights. Now, the M1A's that I have shot are as much better than the FN/Fal as the FN is better than the G-3. The trigger is much better, and the Sights are superb.

[Der Verge]

I would go with the FAL. I am not a fan of imitation anything. IMHO, if I am looking to buy a corvette, I want a real corvette.

[markw76]

Just from shouldering both, I found the FAL ideal for balance and ergonomics. I consider it just slightly better than the M1A in that regard. I stuck with the M1A platform due to available parts at the time. Things have swung a bit in favor of the FAL since then, but I have established myself with the M1A as well as the other Garand-based actions. Too late to branch out. I'm addicted to BLO and Lubriplate!

[fire for effect]

Just from shouldering both, I found the FAL ideal for balance and ergonomics. I consider it just slightly better than the M1A in that regard. I stuck with the M1A platform due to available parts at the time. Things have swung a bit in favor of the FAL since then, but I have established myself with the M1A as well as the other Garand-based actions. Too late to branch out. I'm addicted to BLO and Lubriplate!

The M1A is a heck of a rifle. I would never pass one up if one falls in your lap.