PTR-91 .308 Battle Rifle - U.S. Made HK-91/G3

[blhseawa]

Simple answer?

NO.

Why, because all gas operated systems a delayed blow back. What you are arguing whether you realize it or not is whether roller-block locking is better than another locking system.

I don't believe that it is. There are more moving parts and more wear points than other locking systems, frankly, from a engineering view-point it is a complex locking system, and complex is never the best design approach. In engineering the "KISS" principle is alive a well. Simple is always better. As a reference point, look at the AK-47 locking system.

Thus, this comes back to point about I made before about ammo and weapon maintenance.

But, as a counter-point to your argument assuming for a moment that HK engineers are smart guys and have done a lot of testing, why then have their new weapon systems gone to a different design? Further, if roller-block locking is best, why was there so many design changes done to the MP5 locking components. I'm not saying the roller-block locking is a bad system, all I saying is I would not call it the best, a good design sure, the best, no way, the best has been invented yet.

Frankly, I have not seen a single gas operated system that can compare to the reliability of the Mauser 98 bolt action design, but that is a horse of another color.

Now taking another tack on this subject, which you have not addressed yet, every gas system was designed with a vary specific cartridge in mind. Thus things like bullet shape, gliding metal (jacket), barrel friction, powder pressure curve, etc all factor into the the design and operation of gas systems. Changes in powder charge alone, not to mention using different powders with different pressures all impact the performance of the system. In my previous post I said all gas systems have issues with cartridge/ammo used. That statement is still true!

Regardless of the locking system, the bolt release is a function of the bullet passing the point in the barrel where gas is vented back to bolt carrier which causes the action to unlock. Actually, strictly from a engineering point of view the stoner design is better as the moving mass is inline with the barrel. There is torquing effect that interferes with follow-on shots on the HK-91/PTR-91 and the AK-47.

And while you may disagree, my combat experience tells me that empty mag bolt hold open impact is a serious design defect! You are entitled to disagree, I'm just expressing my opinion, which I claim is no more or no less valid then yours. As my battle rifle, I agree that the kind of home defense combat I might experience it probably is not a big issue. However, on a real battle-field, it would be an issue for me, and that includes places like Iraq and Afghanistan.

I hope I never see real combat again, and I am grateful to all of the men and women who do or have served. I honor their service!

In closing, as before ....

YMMV

[smartwhois]

I don't think you saw my post directly preceding your first.

What we are talking about is the difference between funneling high temperature gas back through an additional system, with the associated delay, in order to cycle the action -- versus direct cycling of the action. The simpler and more consistent action is definitely the blowback. This is why it is successful in both full automatic weapons and highly accurate semi-auto sniper rifles.

Originally Posted by blhseawa

Regardless of the locking system, the bolt release is a function of the bullet passing the point in the barrel where gas is vented back to bolt carrier which causes the action to unlock. Actually, strictly from a engineering point of view the stoner design is better as the moving mass is inline with the barrel. There is torquing effect that interferes with follow-on shots on the HK-91/PTR-91 and the AK-47.

Actually, you've got the engineering backwards with regard to the Stoner M16 design and the H&K. The H&K bolt is direct and in-line, it is the Stoner design that twists to lock and unlock and vents gas back to do so. You do realize that the H&K does not feed any gas back? That's why it is a blowback design and not a gas design.

From your reply, I can see you don't really understand how roller-delayed blowback works, nor the M16. I made a simple explanation earlier.

[MTMilitiaman]

I didn't do your homework because, regardless of how simple it is, it is still your homework. And because it was so simple, you should have posted it, at the very least, about two pages ago when you were first asked. Now...

You do realize that these gases do not just disappear in the HK system, nor does the HK system magically eliminate the need to control over 50,000 PSI, and the corresponding stress on operating components, right?

And you do realize that none of the people you are addressing are stupid, or uneducated, right?

This is a forum about guns and shooting. All of us are here because of our interest in these hobbies. As a whole, we are much better informed about firearms than the general public. So believe it or not, what you are discussing as if it is some secret that you are letting us in on for the first time is actually widely regarded as common knowledge around here. So yes, for the last time, I and the vast majority of the people you are addressing here as if we are simpletons are well aware of the differences in operation of the rifles being discussed.

If you look on Youtube, there is a video of a CETME extracting with the extractor removed. The empties are extracting, even if they aren't always ejected from the rifle. You are probably aware that the chamber of the CETME/HK roller-locks are fluted. And you probably are aware this is to aid in extraction. If you've put two and two together, you realize this is accommodated using the same hot dirty gases used to cycle the mechanisms of the gas operated rifles. So while your rifle doesn't rely on these gases to cycle the mechanism, ours don't rely on these gases to extract the case.

What you have done is list theoretical advantages of the G3 without acknowledging that in practice, all three rifles have demonstrated remarkable reliability and durability. None of these rifles are known to be finicky, unreliable, or especially fragile. This is why torture tests in general are so worthless--because most modern designs are close enough in intrinsic mechanical reliability that which is better is not really a matter of design so much as production and minute variances within individual rifles. You can nitpick all you want about unquantifiable advantages your rifle may or may not have in reliability due to the differences in its operating mechanism, but all you end up doing is pointing out the differences in your rifles design while apparently assuming that everyone agrees different is automatically better. But here is a newsflash for you--everybody probably holds a belief that the differences in their rifle's design makes it better too. This probably relates to the desire most have to believe that what makes them different makes them better than everyone else. But different does not automatically mean better. Your rifle is different. That is all.

[Tucker 1371]

However, regarding the design, you don't think the roller-delayed blowback design is superior to gas operation?

No. More moving parts = less accuracy and more things that can break. That's why the M16 family of weapons are so accurate and people aren't flocking in whordes to get piston ARs, blowback is more accurate and accuracy is the forte of the M16 family of weapons. Apparently this system also causes the rifle to recoil worse. So if I weigh the pros and cons of both:

Roller Delayed Blowback
Pros:
Reliable
Good for multiple types of weapons

Cons:
Not as accurate as gas operation
Causes significantly more recoil

When in a combat setting, I can have a gun that is just as reliable (if not moreso) that recoils less and is accurate enough to make a kill out to 300yds or so, give me an AK, 7.62x39, 5.45x39, either will do. If my job is designated marksman, give me an M14.

If I'm shooting for fun or trying my accuracy at a civilian range, give me an AR15. More accurate, lighter, cheaper ammo, less recoil, easier on cases. The only thing the G3/PTR91 has on the M16/AR15 is that it is more reliable, which isn't too huge of an advantage if you just clean your M16 daily (at night, downtime etc.)

I don't see the M16 and AK-47 even competing with the .308s overall.

Overall? Sure the .308s may be much better than both at ranges past 500yds, but in an urban environment? Would you really like to have to clear a room with a G3 as opposed to an AK or M4? Even if you count the MP5 as a little G3 I'd still rather have an AK because it has better stopping power.

But different does not automatically mean better. Your rifle is different. That is all.

+1, this should be the end of it.

[smartwhois]

MTMilitiaman, yes, differences can just be differences, but in many cases differences can also make one thing better than another. If differences never made any difference, we would not make any progress. Flintlocks are different than current rifles, but by no means are they on equal ground.

The force that acts on the case in roller-delayed blowback occurs in the chamber, and on the case itself, not in the rifle action. It also only occurs after pressure has dropped to a safe level and the bullet has already fired from the barrel.

GSUeagle1089, the roller delayed blowback design has less moving parts than the M-16. You've got that backwards. The blowback design is also more accurate because the action is more direct and consistent, so you've got that backwards too.

Lastly, how often do individuals clear houses? That's the job of armies and police forces, not the individual rifleman. As an individual, it's much more beneficial to own a .308 rifle that is effective at greater ranges, and for hunting, rather than a short range combat assault weapon.

[stubbicatt]

smartwhois...The force that acts on the case in roller-delayed blowback occurs in the chamber, and on the case itself, not in the rifle action. It also only occurs after pressure has dropped to a safe level and the bullet has already fired from the barrel.

GSUeagle1089, the roller delayed blowback design has less moving parts than the M-16. You've got that backwards. The blowback design is also more accurate because the action is more direct and consistent, so you've got that backwards too.

The force that acts on a case acts in the chamber in all firearms, I'm pretty sure. If it is acting on the case outside of the chamber, the case will easily rupture, being capable of withstanding maybe 5,000 psi of the 50,000 psi generated. That there is little if any force in the Vorgrimmler action dedicated to extraction is an arguable benefit, as the case is forced out the back by the action of firing, not by the action of the bolt group.

If we count the parts in the bolt/bolt carrier group, this is what I come up with:

M16: Bolt. Extractor, extractor spring, extractor pivot pin, Ejector. Ejector spring/plunger, ejector roll pin, cam pin, firing pin, firing pin cotter key, bolt carrier (and gas key maybe). 11 parts, maybe 12 parts?

G3: Bolt, extractor, extractor spring, rollers (2) roller retaining plate, roller retaining plate retaining pin, locking piece, locking lever, locking lever pivot pin, locking lever spring, firing pin, firing pin spring, bolt carrier. 14 parts?

To look at the action of these two devices, they work in line with the bore/chamber of the rifle, and act by parting the bolt from the bolt carrier in each instance, with the added twist of the AR perhaps inducing a little torque to the whole thing. Moving parts include the bolt assembly and bolt carrier assembly on the G3, and the bolt assembly and bolt carrier assembly on the AR. Perhaps including the pivot pin as an additional moving part is justified. So, grossly, 2 moving parts in the G3, and 3 moving parts in the AR.

ACCURACY

As far as accuracy in these designs, the difference in parts between the really accurate PSG rifle and an issue G3 is both the length of the barrel trunnion, which offers more support to the barrel in the PSG, and the reinforcing plates on the receiver to reduce flexing. Both already have floated barrels.

The accuracy in the DI AR15 is enhanced by adding a float tube. Little else. The receiver parts are stiff as can be, not needing additional reinforcement to arrive at great accuracy. While folks are concerned about movement between the upper and lower receivers, a properly made AR rifle will still shoot exceptionally well even with the movement.

I've owned and shot both. I prefer the Vorgrimmler action as to me it is easier to clean, and lubrication isn't as critical as it is in the Stoner action. But if I were to pick one as more accurate, it would be the AR series.

RECOIL

Contrary to what people keep saying, I have never noticed the so called increased recoil in the G3. Simple physics suggests that Newton's law applies. Given a rifle of the same weight, shooting the same projectile, at the same velocity, one will get the same recoil. The moment of recoil in the G3, if properly gapped, is spread over a longer recoil impulse, IME than say the M14. Some find this objectionable, but the recoil is not, nor can it be, any greater... in fact I'm pretty sure the G3 weighs more than the M14 in stock trim, so physics suggests that the recoil transmitted to the shoulder of the shooter in the M14 is greater...

BETTER COMPARISON

When comparing more of apples to apples, the HK93 vs. the M16, the Hk93 has a much more pleasant recoil impulse than the M16, and it doesn't bounce as much on auto fire, IME. HK got it right with the angles and particulars of the HK93 action. Again, properly constructed, the HK93 with good ammo will shoot as well or better than the standard M16A2. When you put the float tube on the AR series, the equation changes. I don't think this is due to the action per se, but due to receiver flexing and the length of the barrel trunnion of the HK. Fortify these two parts like in the PSG, and I feel confident that the rifle will shoot right alongside an accurized AR.

Either design can be made to shoot exceptionally well. Both designs have an action that acts in line with the bore, and that is where they excel. The mechanism for unlocking the breech in the AR or the HK differs in detail, but accomplishes the same linear unlocking action, which is what makes them such stellar rifles, from the standpoint of inherent accuracy potential.

[MTMilitiaman]

MTMilitiaman, yes, differences can just be differences, but in many cases differences can also make one thing better than another. If differences never made any difference, we would not make any progress. Flintlocks are different than current rifles, but by no means are they on equal ground.

Do you really think the differences being discussed here resemble in magnitude the differences between a modern rifle and a flintlock? Differences can be improvements, and indeed, we find that all improvements generally occur as differences from contemporary. So all improvements are differences, but not all differences are improvements. Most of the time, as is the case here, we find that changes made to solve some problems create problems of their own. Despite their differences, the FAL, M14, and the G3 all demonstrated very good reliability, and exhibited excellent durability. The designs might not have identical reliability and durability, but they are close enough in that regard that the differences don't matter. They have no practical applicability to the individual rifleman in the field. Any advantage one design has over another is minute enough to be nearly impossible to quantify. If something can not be measured or proven, and has no literal effect in practice, it's theoretical.

The force that acts on the case in roller-delayed blowback occurs in the chamber, and on the case itself, not in the rifle action. It also only occurs after pressure has dropped to a safe level and the bullet has already fired from the barrel.

SO, by your logic, there is no forces acting on the bolt group, receiver, or locking surfaces of the rifle until the bullet has exited the muzzle? And this is accomplished in your little mind, how, I wonder? A secret application of German Pixie Dust? The Germans can just defy physics now? Cause making forces just disappear...that is a neat trick.

In truth, energy in a system does not just disappear. Conservation of Energy is a well accepted physical property.

Indeed, as these images from HKPro demonstrate, forces are clearly at work on the bolt and locking rollers. From: http://www.hkpro.com/technical.htm



Where:
F1 = Bolt Head Face Force
F2 = Receiver Force
F3 = Bolt Force
F4 = Bullet Force
F5 = Cartridge Shoulder Force
F6 = Resulting Maximum Force

It should follow, logically, that since this is a closed system, the forces that act on the case are then transferred to the bolt head, and from there, into the rest of the system.

Look, the G3 is a fine rifle. It is. It's durable, it's reliable, and it's more accurate than it needs to be. But all the rifles being discussed are durable, reliable, combat proven platforms. While I am not discounting that each design may have advantages in either over the other systems, I am strongly supporting the notion that these advantages are semantic until quantified, and that all are at least adequate in each of these areas. So any theoretical advantage the differences in your design give it compared to the M14, FAL, AK, M16, ect., is irrelevant until it can be applied appreciably and measurably in use. When dealing with designs so closely matched in practical performance, i.e reliability, accuracy, durability/service life, it becomes prudent to consider other smaller factors that may tip the advantage to one design or another. And when you consider things like sights, trigger, recoil impulse, control placement, ergonomics, and so on, the G3 doesn't compare to most of these designs in many of these factors. The AR and the M14 both have much better stock triggers than the average roller lock, as well as better sights. The AR, FAL, and M14 all have better control placement than the G3, and most find the G3's ergonomics inferior to all but the AK in the designs being discussed.

Now many, if not most of these things can be fixed, at least to a degree, with aftermarket support available for the roller locks. But the question still then becomes, why? What advantage does the G3/HK91/clones offer over an M14, a FAL, or an AR? Why buy a PTR-91 and then pay to have a trigger job done to it, a paddle style mag release, an ambi safety, and a port buffer installed on it, and still be stuck with a stamped receiver rifle that produces felt recoil many find excessive for a rifle of its caliber, an inconveniently placed cocking lever, and no bolt-hold open? By the time the modifications are done to it, hundreds of dollars are likely to be invested, which largely eliminates the initial advantage in cost the roller lock might have. I can spend a few hundred dollars more than the initial price of the PTR-91 and get an M1A (or a ________) that is going to be functionally at least as reliable, durable, and accurate, with better placed controls, a BHO, and is what is universally regarded as among the softest shooting rifles of its caliber.

Individual civilian riflemen don't normally bust down doors or clear rooms. Many, in fact, shoot relatively little at all, and when they do are content to sit their butts down on a bench and turn money into noise sending rounds at a controlled rate down what it in reality a tragically short 100 to 200 yard range. Then they pack it up, clean it up, and put it away. With the reputations any of these rifles have established under much more adverse conditions in the field, it is foolish to assume any of these rifles is going to have much of an advantage in reliability. All are going to run fine. Likewise, most riflemen, myself included, are unable to practice enough to maintain a level of competence capable of shooting most of these designs to their potential in terms of accuracy. This is especially true of those who fail to practice shooting field positions. The AK is the least accurate of these designs, but most are still capable of 3 to 4 MOA and easily capable of 200+ yards from field positions, even if most shooters are barely capable of blasting a 10 inch pattern on a target less than half that range. The AR and the Big Three can all probably hold 2 MOA or less with most ball rounds and much better with match ammo. That is enough to take the operator out to 500+ yards if he/she is able, as I've confirmed with my factory stock M1A Loaded. And of course, with proper maintenance, none of these rifle will normally see enough use by its original owner to not be passed down for several generations in good working order. I just don't see where the PTR-91 has many advantages. Mags are cheaper. But, ahhhh that's about i-no wait...yep. That's it. Mags are cheaper. I'll take $25 to $30 mags and second-to-none iron sights as an acceptable trade...

[stubbicatt]

The AR, FAL, and M14 all have better control placement than the G3, and most find the G3's ergonomics inferior to all but the AK in the designs being discussed.

Please be more specific. Which controls? How about comparing the ease of selecting mode of fire for the G3 and the M14? On the M14, first tip the rocker switch, then disengage the safety to get on automatic. Two steps versus only one on the G3. Ever try to take a FAL off auto? Yeesh! Gotta pull that lever all the way back around almost 180 degrees to get it on safe, and you would need a thumb as long as ET's to accomplish it without removing your hand from the grip.

What is it specifically that "most find" about the ergos of the G3 to be inferior? The paddle mag release is about the only item that leaps out at me. Without it, the magazine release button requires ET fingers to actuate. Other than the paddle mag release, which is standard on the G3, but omitted on the civilian counterpart, HK91, the ergos of the G3 are quite well laid out. Seems to me that the lack of the paddle is critical, but deemed necessary to obtain permission to import the civilian rifle, so the lack of that feature in the context of this discussion is not relevant.

As far as sights go, for combat sights the G3 have no peer. So much more useful.

As far as what one does to a rifle after purchasing it to make it more suitable to his needs/desires, how does adding an ambi safety to a G3, or a paddle magazine release to correct a deficiency in the design of the civilian legal rifle, compare to glass bedding the M1a? How about unitizing the gas system on the M1a? Adding a spring loaded firing pin to the M1a for safety to prevent OBD? Perhaps reaming the flash hider on the M1a? Or exchanging the flash hider for one with a bayonet lug... an accession to governmental regulations sorta like the paddle mag release on the G3? What about the 1/2 MOA sight with hood that many install on their M1a? Oh let's not forget the 1/2 MOA windage knob. Then there's installing a plate and glassing it behind the front sling swivel. Maybe a heavy barrel?

There is no way, for a couple of hundred dollars more than the PTR91, you get all these things that owners of M1a's often do. A thousand dollars more, yes. Not a couple hundred dollars.

[MTMilitiaman]

Considering that by your own admission, we were discussing these rifles in the terms of civilian ownership, automatic fire hardly seems relevant to the discussion. All three of these battle rifles were eventually issued with automatic fire capability removed in some versions even as military weapons.

Between the AR, FAL, M14, AK, and G3, only the AR has its charging handle in a more awkward position, IMO. Then there is the lack of the paddle style mag release on civilian rifles, which again, as they are the rifles being discussed, are absolutely relevant to the discussion at hand. The safety on the M14 is ambi. It is the only rifle to offer this feature as a standard item. Meanwhile, the safety on every G3/HK91/clone that I have handled has seemed unnecessarily high and farther out of reach than it needed to be, and I have pretty big hands. The safety on the FAL and the AR both seemed more accessible to me.

In terms of sights, I haven't messed around with them much but I fail to see how the HK sights have a single advantage over the sights of either the M14/M1A or the AR--not in speed, not in precision, not in adjustability, not even really in durability. Not a single advantage. Without peer? Hardly. They are adequate, but not exceptional--a lot like the entire rifle, really.

And those modifications I listed for the civilian roller lock rifles are modifications that must be done to make the rifle in comparable to the standard M1A. You can buy a standard M1A or even a Polytech or Norinco and not have to do a single thing to it to get it to be on the same level in terms of reliability, durability, or accuracy, as an OTB HK.

Now yes, there are a lot of modifications that can be done to the M1A, but none of them have to be done to compare to the quality of any single component or function of the HK rifle. Not the gas bedding, not the NM mods, not unitizing the gas system...

And even with these mods, you're still looking at a rifle at least as capable as an MSG-90 or PSG-1 for hundreds, possibly thousands of dollars less.

[Tucker 1371]

M16: Bolt. Extractor, extractor spring, extractor pivot pin, Ejector. Ejector spring/plunger, ejector roll pin, cam pin, firing pin, firing pin cotter key, bolt carrier (and gas key maybe). 11 parts, maybe 12 parts?

G3: Bolt, extractor, extractor spring, rollers (2) roller retaining plate, roller retaining plate retaining pin, locking piece, locking lever, locking lever pivot pin, locking lever spring, firing pin, firing pin spring, bolt carrier. 14 parts?

GSUeagle1089, the roller delayed blowback design has less moving parts than the M-16. You've got that backwards. The blowback design is also more accurate because the action is more direct and consistent, so you've got that backwards too.

= counting FAIL, smartwhois

More moving parts = less consistent = less accurate

I'll buy a $2500 match grade AR or M1A LONG before a stock PTR or $10k PSG1 any day.

[Tucker 1371]

Originally posted by SPUSCG: http://thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=360717


Look familiar?

Let this one die folks, and I suggest mods put this thread to the same fate its predecessor faced.

Request to lock

[Palmetto-Pride]

Let this one die folks, and I suggest mods put this thread to the same fate its predecessor faced.

Request to lock

I have not posted anything on this thread because I feel it has all been hashed out, but I have to strongly disagree with you and your "request to lock"

If you don't want to discuss the topic any more why don't you simply not post in it yourself anymore. If the people posting in this thread want to keep the debate going why does it bother you so much. (Rhetorical please don't feel the need to answer)

[onthejon55]

I have heard the 91's eat brass case rims for breakfast. Any truth to that?

Absolutely! My best friend has one and it eats the rim, dents them really bad about half the time, and throws them a good 15-20 yards away!

[Tucker 1371]

If you don't want to discuss the topic any more why don't you simply not post in it yourself anymore. If the people posting in this thread want to keep the debate going why does it bother you so much. (Rhetorical please don't feel the need to answer)

It doesn't but smartwhois is obviously trolling, did you even bother to look at the link SPUSCG posted and read the OP? They're identical and the original got locked after the first 3 or so posts. It's an advertisement for the PTR91.

[smartwhois]

GSUeagle1089, what are you so afraid of?

You have literally been trolling and bumping this thread right from the beginning, cheering on or making obvious troll posts such as;

1) "HK. Because You Suck. And We Hate You."

2) "Americans do guns best" - GSUeagle1089

3) Posting a 788px × 630px off topic image.

4) "Request to lock" - GSUeagle1089

5) And last but not least; "Maybe I'm just a stubborn, closed minded American, but I'm proud to be one." - GSUeagle1089

I would say you probably got that last one ^ correct!

How ironic of you to call me a troll.

Anyway, I ask again, what are you afraid of? Learning something new? Or just H&K in general?

Seriously, take a step back and look at your own posts in this thread.

[smartwhois]

Originally Posted by 2how

And you would buy this over a real precision rifle why ? A CETME would be a cheaper choice for a battle rifle at 599.00 I guess I'm missing you're point."

The point of a battle rifle is not specifically a "precision rifle." The point is to have a powerful, durable, very reliable, all-around full size rifle. That is what the G3 is. It does happen to be very accurate too as a result of it's design.

The CETME is the old design, H&K has made improvements to it. And in turn, PTR-Inc. has further improvements. If someone was interested in an M1A, you wouldn't necessarily recommend that they just purchase an M1 Garand instead, would you?

[smartwhois]

Originally Posted by Carryabigstick

I have yet to shoot a ptr-91 but I really like what I see. I do not mind recoil so that isn't much of an issue. I also do not reload so the smashing of brass is not a biggy. What kind of consistency do these things maintain? Are they pretty reliable out of the box? Also, how much does it cost to have trigger jobs and other modifications done? Again, I love the looks and feel of them but I'm still trying to get some more info.

I just wanted to hit on a few topics that have been brought up, by not only you, but a few others too:



1) Recoil. Recoil is often exaggerated, especially by those used to shooting .223 or 7.62x39mm. Several years ago, some of the earlier JLD rifles came with different buffers which didn't reduce recoil as well. All PTR rifles now come with standard G3 buffers. As with most rifles, you can buy special or heavy buffers and butt pads:

Stock Extension and Buffering End Cap

http://www.robertrtg.com/g3stockextension.html



Rubber Butt Pad
http://www.hkparts.net/shop/pc/viewPrd.asp?idproduct=914&idcategory=9

As a .308, it is going to kick though, and the kick is longer than on an M1A. It's a matter of learning how to shoot it - you need a proper stance. Here's full auto firing of a .308 HK51, which is a G3/HK-91 cut down to only a 8.3" barrel - you would think this would be impossible to control, but notice the proper stance he takes - left foot forward, slightly leaning into it;

Right hand stance, HK-51 full auto .308 8.3" barrel

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L66ThY8WTvk



Left hand stance, G3 paratrooper model full auto

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mr14_2Z2m0A

Of course, semi-auto is easier.

2) Brass. As far as brass, if you want to reload, there is a port buffer you can buy and a brass catcher. The port buffer will reduce damage to the brass, but it will still damage it more than other .308 rifles. The G3 rifle was simply designed for combat, not reloading.

Port Buffer

http://www.robertrtg.com/pofport_carry.html


Brass catcher

http://www.hkparts.net/shop/pc/viewP...6&idcategory=8

3) Consistency and Reliability is very good. For the price, the PTR-91 is one of the best semi-auto .308 rifles right out of the box. The roller-delayed blowback design gives it unusually good accuracy for a semi-auto .308 and excellent reliability.

There are certain types of surplus ammo that PTR Inc. does not recommend though: South African, Venezuela Cavim, Austrian Hirtenberger, Indian, and Winchester white boxes marked 7.62.

Recommended surplus ammo is: Lake City, Argentine, Australian, British, Portuguese, Spanish, and Lithuanian.

And, PTR Inc. states that Remington and Federal American Eagle 150 grain FMJ work very well.




4) Trigger Work. Bill Springfield does trigger work for $55, which includes shipping:

"Trigger creep reduced up to 97%+, rough feel is smoothed out, pull weight reduced to about 4.75lbs from the factory 10 to 12 lbs pull. All trigger slack, take-up, and overtravel eliminated. $55. Only the trigger pack is needed"

http://www.triggerwork.net/hk9xrifles.html

5) Mag Release. As far as the magazine release goes, it is a little too far, but I can reach it with my trigger finger without releasing my grip on the rifle. I'm about average size at 6' 180 lbs and my hand is about 7.5" from the base of my palm to the tip of my middle finger. If your hand is smaller than that, then you would have trouble reaching the magazine release, and would have to take your hand off the grip. I'll take some photos and post them later.

However, you can install a Tac-Latch quick magazine release near the magazine for about $60:

Tac-Latch

http://www.taclatch.com/


Instructions are here: http://www.militaryfirearm.com/Forum...read.php?t=246

[seanie]

From the first link you posted with the HK being fired full auto came this little guy in the related section. The title: "Kicks Like A Donkey"

Strangely ironic

[smartwhois]

Yes, look at his poor stance. If anything he is leaning back a little.

A good stance is needed for any full auto fire. The G3 is not unique in this regard.

[Ignition Override]

Did the German GSG (Grenzschutzgruppe: special forces) use an identical version, of course fully automatic -("F")reiheit on the selector-when they were flown to Mogadishu in the late 70s, to liberate the passengers/crew on the hijacked Lufthansa 737?
When used by special forces, must not a weapon be very effective for its designated mission, even if partly selected based upon national pride? looking at Wikipedia for just a minute indicates how many countries ordered deployed them.

Still a novice with guns, If I could buy the ammo as cheaply as x39 or surplus .303 (one of my major hang-ups with guns), owning/shooting this rifle would be more rewarding than an AR in .223.

A guy who had trained with it in the German Bundeswehr some years ago let me shoot several rounds at a club range last winter in northeast MS. His rifle was marked with all three military selections: ("S")icher, ("F") and maybe ("E")inzelfeuer ?

[onthejon55]

1) Recoil. Recoil is often exaggerated, especially by those used to shooting .223 or 7.62x39mm. Several years ago, some of the earlier JLD rifles came with different buffers which didn't reduce recoil as well. All PTR rifles now come with standard G3 buffers. As with most rifles, you can buy special or heavy buffers and butt pads:

Amen! I would hate to see some of these people shoot a .308 bolt gun or, God forbid, a 12 gauge pump

[MTMilitiaman]

These mods have already been brought up. The question has already been asked, why bother, when you can buy a FAL or M1A, not have to do these mods, and still have a rifle that is just as reliable, just as durable, just as accurate (or at least accurate enough in the case of the FAL), better ergos and less felt recoil (by general consensus), and neat little bonuses like better sights (M1A) and a BHO? Still waiting on an answer...

And regarding recoil, we were speaking in relative terms here, comparing the G3 only to other battle rifles, and we are discussing felt recoil, which is subjective. Actual recoil is much easier to measure. I don't think many people would say the .308 out of an 11 pound rifle is unbearable, but compared to other battle rifles, it is not uncommon for people to feel the G3 recoils more. That doesn't mean it's a lot of recoil, and it is a battle rifle. It just means it has more.

Honest question here; how much does a HK91/PTR bolt weigh?

[Slamfire]

The PTR91 is an excellent choice for a cost effective 308 battle rifle. I prefer the M1a, then the FAL, but high quality examples of these cost significantly more.

As far as weight, I just weighed mine on a postal scale, in this configuration minus the magazine.

Weight, including sling, 9 lbs 13 ounces.

[waterhouse]

Amen! I would hate to see some of these people shoot a .308 bolt gun or, God forbid, a 12 gauge pump

Some of these people have .308 bolt guns, and 12 gauge shotguns, and 45/70 lever guns, and .338 bolt guns, and even .50 caliber bolt guns. I personally have had all of the above, although I sold the .50 and the .338 becaue I didn't shoot them enough. I am not recoil sensitive. I don't mind it one bit.

That being said, when shot next to the .308 semis (as mentioned earlier, I have owned PTR-91s, FALs, M1As, AR-10s, and shot them all next to each other) it is my opinion (once again, no scientific pressure gauges or anything were used, simply user feedback) that the 91 series has the most felt recoil. I don't find it to be bad, or horrible, or anything like that, only more than most other semi automatic .308s.

[smartwhois]

Here's the photo of a PTR-91 magazine release. The U.S. government, (BATFE) has infringed upon the law - dictating the removal of the original G3 paddle release next to the magazine, among other worse crimes.

However, as you can see, if your hand is at least 7.5" in length, you can reach the PTR-91 magazine release with your trigger finger, without releasing your grip. If your hand is shorter, then you are going to want a Tac-Latch for quick magazine changes.

Make sure to thank your government for breaking the law!