FAL vs. PTR91 - Page 2 - Gun Hub
Gun Hub

Go Back   Gun Hub > Battle Rifles > Semi Auto

Closed Thread
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 02-16-2005, 02:05 PM   #21
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 136


If you have to do that to a weapon before you feel like you can trust it, than you may want to consider a diagnosis of OCD, or do you beat your wife to see how long she'll put up with your ass? Absurd enough for you? Good now you see my point.

Weapons that deal better without lube are weapons that have looser tolerances, chrome-lining and more basic operating systems (e.g. the AK). Mechanically speaking the FAL is superior in that regard to both the M-14 and the G3.

Your claim that your FAL "ran great so long as it was lubed" is not only counterintuitive, but also contradicted by years of experience with the weapon. The only weapon I've ever seen that ran reasonably well without lubrication was the AK, the only weapon that comes close to that performance is the FAL.

I'd submit to you that your standards are a bit unrealistic.
8404 is offline  
Old 02-16-2005, 08:37 PM   #22
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 3,362
Post edited:

Experience based content on direct observation and opinion deleted, as it's obviously not my position to save anyone the expense and effort of doing what I've already done myself.

Added:

Buy one of each, and figure it out your own damned self.
Bravo762 is offline  
Old 02-17-2005, 07:09 AM   #23
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 136
Never said studies were worthless.

You're certainly not saying that no study has ever been wrong? or that every study is completely objective?

Studies serve a purpose and help paint a picture, but they are not the end all be all.

You made grandiose generalizations, that you can't back up by anything than talking about your "own experience", which is directly contradicted by mine. Add to this, that you have little idea how the FAL functions and what different things accomplish mechanically. Your statements about the sand cuts, and the Izzy FA belies your stated experience.

Do I have to abuse my weapon as you do yours in order to know what I'm talking about? Nope. Have you abused a DSA in such a way? No? According to your own standard that means you're unqualified to judge.

Double-bleck is right. Don't be a ninny.
8404 is offline  
 
Old 02-17-2005, 08:09 AM   #24
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 136
I was wrong about the DoD 20000 round test. It was an excessive pressure test. Instead however I found this.

http://www.findarticles.com/p/articl...48/ai_87564352

Hope this helps.

A milled receiver is "generally" more robust than either a cast or stamped receiver. It is easier to maintain quality control over solid blocks that are milled, than an irregularly shaped casting. While there are plenty of good cast receivers, the DSA milled receiver remains superior.

To further illustrate that point...

http://www.thegunzone.com/m1akb/762r.html
8404 is offline  
Old 03-04-2005, 08:02 PM   #25
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 27
the ptr-91 is a well made hk clone for a reasonable price
brass is launched a ways, dont expect to reload; recoil was kinda stiff
accuracy was good

dont know on the FAL
AlphaGhost is offline  
Old 03-10-2005, 11:02 PM   #26
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 1,665
What about the fact that the FAL has a milled receiver, the G3 is stamped metal? This leads me to believe the FAL is more durable and dependable.

MIke
ltcboy is offline  
Old 03-11-2005, 07:12 AM   #27
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 3,362
Post edited:

Experience based content on direct observation and opinion deleted, as it's obviously not my position to save anyone the expense and effort of doing what I've already done myself.

Added:

Buy one of each, and figure it out your own damned self.
Bravo762 is offline  
Old 03-11-2005, 06:45 PM   #28
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 2,198
As long as you don't squish either reciever, they'll both last a long time. And, if you do put some dents (not too bad though) in the stamped reciever, you can always have a gunsmith push them out.
skslover is offline  
Old 03-12-2005, 10:39 PM   #29
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 136
Quote:
The AKM is no more "unreliable" than the forged / milled version, actually the opposite.

But that's comparing apples to apples.

Comparing a HK91 to a FAL is comparing oranges to potatos.
You're totally overstating your case.

Comparing an HK to a FAL is precisely comparing an apple to apples. They are two semi-auto .308 battle rifles...if such a comparison is invalid...then the whole purpose of this site, this thread and the question are equally invalid.

Comparing a FAL to an HK is akin to comparing a MacIntosh to a Golden Delicious. Comparing an HK to a brown bess would be akin to comparing apples to oranges.

Apples to potatoes???? You're talking about a FAL and a crossbow. Do you understand how absurd your statement sounds??? While you might be knowledable, you lose your credibility by making such statements.

While many factors can be involved, as you say, you can indeed make that statement broad spectrum. Generally speaking, metallurgy, quality machining and skilled labor are the maing factors you need to be concerned about. While there are exceptions as you say, they are exactly that.
8404 is offline  
Old 03-13-2005, 08:33 AM   #30
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 3,362
Post edited:

Experience based content on direct observation and opinion deleted, as it's obviously not my position to save anyone the expense and effort of doing what I've already done myself.

Added:

Buy one of each, and figure it out your own damned self.
Bravo762 is offline  
Old 03-13-2005, 09:22 AM   #31
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 2,198
Well, if the guys who are watching want my honest opinion (which it is an opinion, and nothing more), there is a good way to maximize your value and hopefully fun.

It's been so long I can't remember why this thread was started, but since both guns are roughly $1000 (more for a super-nice DSA FAL), I'd guess that the primary factor behind this was cost. Once again, this is my guess, not a fact.

The best way to maximize cost to fun would be to buy a CAI CETME and have a gunsmith build you a FAL. You can buy all the parts needed to build a compliant STG58 for roughly $680 if you play your cards right. A CAI CETME costs about $300-$350 if you look hard enough (and they are selling no-ban versions which are higher quality because CAI didn't have to chop them as badly). Add the gunsmithing fee for building the FAL and you're only out the price of a good DSA gun. I have yet to build my STG58 kit, but so far everything appears to be superb quality.

So, you'll have 1 definately good FAL (especially if you get Mark at ARS to build it), and 1 probably good CETME. CAI CETMEs are mostly diamonds in the rough, and you can get free basic gunsmithing/tuning info here and at perro's CETME forum. So, in the end, you'll have 2 good guns, will become an expert at fitting parts, and will have broadened your understanding of the mechanical aspects of firearms. All for the cost of 1 DSA FAL. Now that's maximizing the effectivness of your money!
skslover is offline  
Old 03-16-2005, 12:45 PM   #32
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 136
Quote:
Sigh. As it would appear, here we go again
Whose fault is that? You were expecting me to sit still and be quiet like a good little boy perhaps, and never disagree with you?

You must have me confused with one of your children. That being said if we're "going again" its because you fundamentally didn't pay attention either then or now.

Quote:
But specifically, what I was stating in my previous post is that one CAN NOT say as a rule that a machined receiver is any more reliable or durable than a sheet metal receiver on a completely different design. It can be depending on the designs cited, but it doesn't necessarily HAVE to be in EVERY case.
9 out of 10 times it is true. This then would be a rule. The 1 out of 10 times is the exception.

Perhaps you can show me, where myself or anyone else said that it HAS to be in EVERY case? I never said any such thing. Pay attention if you're going to have a debate and don't put words in my mouth.

I said that as a general rule it is true, and while there are exceptions to that rule...tautologically they are still EXCEPTIONS...not the RULE.

Quote:
Should I take this as a blatant personal attack, or just unwarranted rudeness? Oh, and thank you for being so much more concerned with my "credibility" than I am. I've got an easy way of keeping my "credibility". I do things with others. Lots of others. Witnessed.
Wow...all that means exactly nada to me. You can take it as a personal attack if you wish, I'd say you're just thin-skinned.

You establish your own credibility, character "witnesses" are relevant in this regard, as a rule, only in a court of law. If you make absurd statements, nitpick over minutiae, put words in others mouths, and engage in nonsensical hyperbole, than you lose credibility, not just on this subject, not just on this website, and not just with me.
8404 is offline  
Old 03-16-2005, 01:54 PM   #33
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Pennsylvania
Posts: 1,645
Lighten up fellas.

State your opinions about something once or twice, but let's not beat things to death.

Get back to a debate without the cheap shots.

Otherwise, I'll be locking this thread.
Soda Pop is offline  
Old 03-16-2005, 06:21 PM   #34
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 47
I am actually interested in both rifles. I have a DSA arms FAL and am looking at getting a HK or clone there of. I appreciate the information, and look forward to some more substantive viewpoints.

MOderator, Please don't throw the adults out of the room because their is a child throwing a tamtrum. I would suggest, that the unprovoked, unwarranted, and childish attacks, wife beating metaphors, and general tone of some of the responses are a little silly. Lets talk rifles, not fruit (although I guess potatoes are actually a root).

My two cents are as follows: I have a DSArms carbine and its been a super rifle. Reliable and reasonably accurate. I picked up a PTR91 at the local shop the other day. It seemed like a nice rig and may be a valid alternative to a real HK. I was a little concerned that there were no heat shields in the handguards, but that was my only negative impression.

Damien
KTR03 is offline  
Old 03-16-2005, 08:26 PM   #35
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 3,362
Holder of the Marc stick (KTR Dudeski)... there's some "problem areas" on the HK91 types by design that you ought to check out before you purchase. Just a once-over, for the big things. If they're good, odds are you'll have a good stick. Understand though, the triggers on these things are designed to withstand the German drop test. Not what would commonly be considered "rifleman triggers". If you get a gem, odds are you should purchase a lottery ticket RIGHT THEN LOL! Oh, and as far as the heat shields, don't sweat it. HKG3 handguards go for CHEAP-CHEAP. The only question for Victor would be what the American parts count is on them, so you don't accidentally do a no-no (I haven't asked him that one yet......)

One of the main places is where the cocking tube is welded into the receiver. They're two different parts, and they need welding such that the tube is in perfect allignment. Unfortunately, it's not as easy as it sounds...... Vollmer didn't even always get it right.

The cocking tube has a welded "plug" in the end, for the cocking handle to cam against. It's dimension, in relation to the barrel face, is pretty critical.

The timing has to be right on the bolt carrier, for the headspace to be right, as far as the cocking tube in the aft direction. If the bolt carrier extension touches the cocking handle support when it's in battery, and the support is pushed up into the cocking tube plug I mentioned, you've essentially prevented the bolt from going completely home all the way. Results can include excessive headspace and / or battered cocking tube induced weld failure.

If the cocking tube is too far fore, the cam of the cocking handle doesn't have enough push to get the rollers unlocked. This doesn't cause the headspace problems, but getting the bolt back now either requires a mallet for the cocking handle (GRIN), or buttstroking something solid while you're pulling back on the cocking handle LOL! We're talking thousands of an inch here. 9 to 11 thou makes it difficult to open. After that, good luck.

Here's the test: take hold of the carging handle, and pivot it out. Now take your hand off completely (if it wants to fall back into the forward lock, just hold it out under minimal pressure for a second) and then try to pull the handle back. If it slides EASY-EASY (just compression of the spring), then that stick isn't set up with problems too fore. If it's in battery, and you can see a SLIVER of light between the cocking handle support and the carrier extension, you're good for the aft. Minimum tolerance is "free wiggle", maximum tolerance is about the width of a box cutter blade. If you can see a dime thickness (or anything really near it) between the two, you've got problems.

If you push the two stock pins out, you can pull the butt off rearward. The recoil spring and guide will be attached. Set it to the side. With the barrel pointed to the sky, and your hand underneath the receiver (don't have your hand on a table or anything though! HA! The moving assembly of the HK91 is at least half again as heavy as the FAL, if not close to double, and the long receiver lets some momentum build before you can catch it), just CAM the cocking handle. That's it. If you get the cocking handle all the way out, and the carrier falls nice and smooth (like a freefall) out of the receiver, that's a GOOD thing. If it doesn't fall free, the receiver has problems.

The last two tests require a dummy round and feeler gauges, to test the other critical dimension on feeding and headspace. It's surprising how "uneasy" it is to get the mag latch and well dimensions just right so you can actually feed from that mag on BOTH sides of it. Let me know if you want to go into that.

And for your comfort, understand that there are two different buffers. You want the full-up G3 buffer. The one I had without such battered me around. My current one is G3, and it's similar to a FAL / '14 in recoil impulse.

Your turn (GRIN), since you've had your Marc stick for a pretty good while now, have you noticed any loosening of the top cover? Just wondering how long the sights will stay rock solid. Gotta say, I love the upgraded sights

Lock it down? Personally, I don't care one way or the other.
Bravo762 is offline  
Old 04-02-2005, 05:19 PM   #36
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 217
I have had one or more of each over the years and have sold/traded my 91s and clones years ago. I have not sold any of my FALs! Or M1As for that matter. G3s kick like a mule, poor controls but are WW3 rugged and I did not recall ever having one jam as long as the ammo was decent.

Just my 02cents.
preban336 is offline  
Old 06-02-2005, 06:53 PM   #37
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Posts: 253
My brother had a HK91 back in the mid 80's. Boy, it was a bitch to clean, we took it apart and had to get the guy who sold it to put it back together!!! Shot ok, trigger sucked more than my FALs. Smacked the hell out of the brass, weird but REALLY expensive scope mounts. Whats not to like?

Bill
Another Bill is offline  
Old 06-02-2005, 07:24 PM   #38
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Pennsylvania
Posts: 1,645
Old thread...

If anyone still wants to discuss this topic START A NEW THREAD.

Let's retire this thread and start over with a new tone.

Thanks!
Soda Pop is offline  
Closed Thread

  Gun Hub > Battle Rifles > Semi Auto


Search tags for this page
dsa fal vs ptr 91
,

ptr 91 vs dsa fal

,
ptr 91 vs fal
,
ptr 91 wood furniture
,
ptr-91 dry without lube
Click on a term to search for related topics.

Thread Tools
Display Modes


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
More spare parts available for PTR91 or M1A ? CenterMass Semi Auto 1 12-08-2005 10:45 AM
PTR91/ HK91 etc ammo? RedRyder21 Semi Auto 6 09-03-2005 06:13 PM
Fix HK91 or buy PTR91? Bravo762 Semi Auto 15 03-28-2005 08:53 PM
Feedback on Choate Folding Stock for PTR91? chmielewskil Semi Auto 1 03-27-2005 03:41 PM




Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright © 2002 - 2020 Gun Hub. All rights reserved.
vBulletin Security provided by vBSecurity v2.2.2 (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2020 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.