CETME L..... discuss

[chadio]

Hi folks,

chadio here..... dreaming of yet another rifle that I find interesting. It is the modern version CETME L, some are being produced by Marcolmar and some by "Hill and Mac" or some such.

I've watched reviews by klayco47 and Military Arms Channel... these rifles are interesting, different, and the cool factor is high with me. The 'roller - delayed blowback' system is interesting as well...

[chadio]

Centro de Estudios Técnicos de Materiales Especiales

(had to look up CETME)

Here is the vid with klayco47 - Klay does nice work

https://youtu.be/JT8zp6DFLLs

[doofus47]

thanks for sharing. I should have picked up a Cetme before the magazine ban.

[44 AMP]

After the end of WWII some German designers moved to Spain so they could continue their work on the "roller locked" delayed blowback system they had been developing.

This resulted in the CETME rifle, chambered originally for the SPANISH 7.62x51mm round, which is dimensionally the same as the NATO round but loaded to a lower pressure.

After production was well established and the concept "prooved" H&K brought the design (and some of the engineers) 'home" to Germany and did whatever was needed to adapt it to the NATO round, creating the G3 series of rifles for the Bundeswehr and the H&K 91 for commercial sale, along with creating their line of roller locked designs, in other calibers.

I had an H&K 91 in the mid 80s and found it to be a robust, durable, funtional design, with a number of features that I considered to be flaws, but others (and the militaries of several nations) didn't.

Most of those were in the ergonomics, but not all.

First off, the gun is NOT reloader "friendly". The action is hard on the brass. And I'm not referring to the fluted chamber, but the violence the action cycles with. A plus in military use, much less so for a civilian reloader. My rifle would seriously dent the body of the fired case as it "wanged" it off the rear edge of the ejection port. Deep dent, with a sharp edge crease at the bottom, to the point where I was scared to try reloading it.

Bought the "ejection port buffer", a hard rubber block rivited to a spring steel clip to snap on the action. This turned the deep knife edge crease into a shallow dent, and cases could be reloaded.

I also found that MY rifle ran well on European surplus 7.62NATO ammo but less well on USGI stuff, due, I believe to the "hardness" of the brass affecting the "hang time" in the chamber. Read about how some folks would give the loaded mag a shot of WD40 just before firing, which seemed to take care of the issue. Never tried it, personally. Wouldn't recommend it for storing loaded mags, either.

Another point I disliked was the safety. Located and sized so that I could not operate it with my hand in a firing grip. Just couldn't reach it without twisting my hand halfway around the pistol grip, and then having to reposition my hand to reach the trigger. Seems that many European gun designers think that the safety is something to be operated with the non-trigger hand.

Another point (and a "flaw" to me) is that the charging handle only works ONE WAY (back). It has the advantage of folding and lying flat and not moving after use, but does not give you the option of using it to close the action, the way an M1 /M14 does. The AR design added a forward assist to "cure" that problem (lots of discussion about how well that worked out there for your entertainment) but HK never did. (and no one seemed to demand one...)

And finally, the two take down pins at the rear of the action are "loose" meaning not captive pins, and so subject to loss in the field, unlike the captive pins of the AR design.

The weight of my HK was as much (perhaps a little more) than my M1A though the rifle was a good 6 inches shorter. (18 vs 22" barrel was a big part of that)

I see in the linked pic that the new version has a redesigned receiver including a rail and ears for the rear sight. Fine, if that's your thing (which for many today, it is..) what boggles my mind is that the rifle has the old three prong "wait a minute" style flash suppressor!

This design was used on the early M16s in Vietnam and discarded by the US military in favor of the solid "birdcage" style, and for good reason.

I've used the old prong type, and it absolutely does what troops complained about. The open prongs snag weeds and sticks, smaller tree branches, vines, and everything else that will fit between them (including your web gear), and one frequently has to stop and "wait a minute" while you clear them out.

Seems odd to me that today, DECADES after that problem was identified and resolved that someone would put it on a gun nowdays.

I never ran anything but milsurp FMJ in mine, so can't speak to its function with soft point bullets. I had other (and better) rifles for those bullets.

They are good at what they were built to do. A bit less so at anything else. and FYI, if you do plan on reusing your brass, do keep an eye on where it goes. Brass comes out HOT (like burn your hand hot), flies about 15km (or so it seems) and is very dirty, so it immediately "hides" in any kind of ground cover or even bare sand! A good thing to keep the enemy from seeing shiny brass on the ground and locating your firing position, but a pain in the butt for civilian shooters.
These are just my opinions, based on the rifle I had, and worth what you paid for them.

If you like what you see, get one. If you like what you get, fine. If not, trade/sell it and move on to something else.

I've had an HK, an FAL, an SVT-40, and an M1A. Still have the M1A, it suits me best. Go with whatever makes you happy, not with what someone else says you "need". Life is too short, to waste on someone else's idea of happiness.

Be safe, have fun. order unimportant as long as both are included.

[chadio]

Holy smokes, 44 - thanks for the history lesson....

I "need" another rifle just like I need a hole in my head, and I should just run what I got. They all run good, and their fuel tanks are funded ....

[chadio]

44 AMP and friends:

Just so you know, I fired the M14 in the Navy and it holds a very special place in my heart, for a few reasons. However, to buy one now, they are approaching 2 grand for a base model, and the rounds are approaching a buck per shot. It has become a rich man's rifle and caliber, if you get into one now....

(now everyone can tell stories of how they got one for $300 and .308 for 15 cents per round back in the day)

The CETME is still an interesting rifle, I love peep sights, and I already have ammo and mags for it if I chose to go for one.

[davidsog]

I had an H&K 91 in the mid 80s and found it to be a robust, durable, funtional design, with a number of features that I considered to be flaws, but others (and the militaries of several nations) didn't.

The G3 is still in frontline service whilst the M14 is not. For good reason too.

First off, the gun is NOT reloader "friendly". The action is hard on the brass. And I'm not referring to the fluted chamber, but the violence the action cycles with. A plus in military use, much less so for a civilian reloader. My rifle would seriously dent the body of the fired case as it "wanged" it off the rear edge of the ejection port. Deep dent, with a sharp edge crease at the bottom, to the point where I was scared to try reloading it.

Bought the "ejection port buffer", a hard rubber block rivited to a spring steel clip to snap on the action. This turned the deep knife edge crease into a shallow dent, and cases could be reloaded.

Very common in civilian rifles. Two issues found in civilian HK91's is the bolt gap out of spec and recoil buffer not functioning correctly.

Bolt gap is very important to the timing of the action as well as safety. Probably a horse that has been beat to death.

The other much more insidious issue that will cause the actions timing to be off leading to harsh recoil and bolt speeds that will damage brass is the recoil buffer.
The G3 employs a friction recoil buffer located in the buttstock. It is designed to operate reliably without maintenance for tens of thousands of rounds. In order to operate, it must have friction. It is that friction slows the bolt carrier down not only absorbing energy to lessen felt recoil but to put the carrier in the correct bolt speed range for proper function.

Civilians tend to over-lube the rifle and then store it upright in a gun safe. The leads to the excess oil pooling in the buffer eliminating the very friction that it needs to function.

A rifle without a questionable bolt gap and a malfunctioning recoil buffer will absolutely mangle brass with the violence of the action.

A properly maintained rifle will not damage brass at all and only leave carbon marks from the fluting on the brass. If your rifle is mangling brass then it is malfunctioning.

[44 AMP]

The G3 is still in frontline service whilst the M14 is not. For good reason too.

Yes, the West Germans didn't have the MacNamara Defense Dept ordering them to adopt a different rifle.

If your rifle is mangling brass then it is malfunctioning.

IF so, its doing it for someone else, as my HK went "under new management" in the fall of 1986.

(now everyone can tell stories of how they got one for $300 and .308 for 15 cents per round back in the day)

Paid $500 for mine, used, (the going rate at the time) came with half a dozen magazines, a spare stock, scope mount and scope. Surplus ball ammo was $0.013-$0.014 bought in case lots.

The CETME is still an interesting rifle, I love peep sights, and I already have ammo and mags for it if I chose to go for one.

I would think if you have ammo for the CETME, you have ammo for the M1A (7.62x51mm NATO / .308 Winchester...)

[chadio]

I failed to restate CETME L. The L is important to this discussion.

Which is 5.56....

[44 AMP]

ok, 5.56 DOES make a small difference...

That would make it a descendant of the HK 93 not the 91. The 93 is the same basic design as the 91, scaled down a bit.

[dgludwig]

the West Germans didn't have the MacNamara Defense Dept ordering them to adopt a different rifle.

Which reminds me of what Barry Goldwater said when he was running for President in 1964, after a reporter asked what he would change at the DOD if he was elected. Goldwater replied (paraphrasing): " I'd send MacNamara back to Ford where he can start building Edsels again."

[Destructo6]

I failed to restate CETME L. The L is important to this discussion.

Do a search on this site or THR for it. Somebody did a very nice write up of one within the last year or so, iirc. From memory, the poster had a couple different versions and compared them.

Forgotten Weapons also did something on them a few years ago. They built some themselves and shot a Marcolmar version.

The CETME L is a little odd, but very cool at the same time. I'd love one, but probably not for the $1,500 price tag.

[kymasabe]

I'm not into the Cetme thing, but it got me wondering, didn't Century Arms build some .308 or .223 Cetme's a few years ago?
https://www.iammo.com/century-arms-c...k-ri1531x.html

[zaitcev]

Forgotten Weapons also did something on them a few years ago. They built some themselves and shot a Marcolmar version.

Ian and Karl built kits by Hll and Mac Gunworks (HMG). Marcolmar wasn't even in the business back when they did it. I bought and built the same kit and there are some differences, primarily in the stamping of the flat.

[4V50 Gary]

Century did build some stuff based on the G-3 action. I wouldn't trust it. They are the Fed Ordnance of our time (Fed Ord was a big schlockmeister back in the '70s-'80s).

[Willie Lowman]

That would make it a descendant of the HK 94 not the 91

That would be 93. Or rather the 33 as the 90 series were civilian versions of the G3 (91) the 33 (93) and MP5 (94)

[highpower3006]

I wanted one when Hill and Mac first made them, but my finances were a little shaky at that time, so I had to pass. I do want to get one of the Malcomar produced ones sooner or later, but I have other financial fish to fry right now, so I will have to wait.

I have a HK 91, 93 and a PTR MP5. I think that the CETME L would be a nice addition to the set. Since I don't have any experience with the "L" model, I can only speak from my experience with the HK93, and it is a great shooter. It's heavy as all get-out but because of that it has virtually no felt recoil.

One advantage that the L model has is that it uses standard AR15 magazines vs the HK93 which uses proprietary (and expensive) HK magazines.

[44 AMP]

That would make it a descendant of the HK 94 not the 91

That would be 93.

You're right, my bad, meant to say 93, typed 94, and didn't catch it. Will correct my post.

Thanks!

[deadcoyote]

If you want a cetme L I encourage you to “follow your bliss” as my hippy wife would say. Personally, if I was gonna do a non .308 roller pattern rifle I like the PTR 32 (7.62x39 that uses AK mags).

[davidsog]

Yes, the West Germans didn't have the MacNamara Defense Dept ordering them to adopt a different rifle.

There is a reason why no modern army fields an open action design for their 1st line Infantry and despite my personal love for the rifle along with its nostalgic popularity; attempts by the US Military to find a role for it have not been a resounding success.

[davidsog]

Roller Locks on the other-hand are still serving in 1st line capacity and expected to do so well into the future.

The MG3 is short recoil operated and striker-fired, with a roller-locked bolt carrier, and fires from an open bolt.

https://www.military-today.com/firearms/mg3.htm

Bundeswehr still uses MG3 as a universal machine gun in all possible roles: handheld, with a bipod, mounted on armored vehicles, military navy machine gun (for defense against fast torpedo boats), and in remotely controlled battle stations. However, despite the proven solutions, field units kept sending suggestions for minor improvements. The suggestions were gathered, and based on them, a project revolving around improving its combat properties was started – the MG3 KWS project.

https://stateofguns.com/mg3-machine-gun-1586/

[chadio]

Why do they have to look so good? Are some rifles like some women? Sorry...

[Ignition Override]

And so..(in 2022) Several of you guys wasted gobs of time discussing the 7,62/.308 CETME, or HK-91 (I have a clone: the PTR-91), which are already extremely widespread and familiar throughput the Internet…

…instead of Googling what the CETME L actually is….ok.

As with one or two other people here, I’m quite curious about the L (.223) and enjoyed the thorough review by the ER surgeon Dr. Will Dabs/ prolific gun reviewer/ former Army aviator, in Oxford MS.