Home Forums Hunting & Shooting AR and Tactical Rifles For users who have experience with both. HK 91/93 VS. AR10

I've not fought with a rifle, but I've come very, very close to using one on a man. Didn't have to, thank God!

i applaud you kevin. well said in all area's.

cept the match ammo part, i'm talking issue ball.

yes i have had a few fal's that shot at and under moa. but for a general purpose rack grade, ball shoot fal. 2moa is about average.
and i won't regret haulin around a 2 moa rifle if it would ever get ugly. i can consisantly hit an 18" gong at 500 meters with my para's, both the 308 and 223 .

the facts and observations are layed out on what some people know and think about the mentioned rifles, let the original poster decide for himself what he'd like.

oh, and i do like g3's...

Many times politics and ecomomics decide more on a battle rifle than actual performance.If a government has a choice of battle rifles and are given free of charge or much cheaper one choice over another then that can be the deciding factor. Miltary equipment like many other items are often used to barter.

I have owned the original CETME, original AR-10, HK-91, HK-93, PTR-91, and Armalite AR-10T, starting back in 1970s.

My HK-91s shot very well. I happen to like the drum sight, and with a tree for a rest, offhand can hit a milk jug at 400 meters.
The HK and JLD are very simple, rugged rifles. Their are few parts, and you don't need to completely take them apart, just field strip them. Like the USP handguns, they just keep working.

The AR-10T, like the AR-15, has way too many small parts.
But you can do most maintenance with just field stripping.
My AR-10T is a very heavy rifle, with its 24-inch Walter Lothar bull barrel. It groups into one tiny cloverleaf.

The HKs are just normal heavy.
All battle rifles have to have some weight to them. Hoist a Garand or M-14 or FAL.

My AR-10T is like new, and for sale.

I built a saG3 from a POF HKG3A3 kit rifle. Used only hi quality fire control parts and PTR91 receiver, all 922r compliant. Great reliable rifle, good accuracy. I use it for brush hunting deer. That's the gun slung up in my avitar pic.

I do like the simplicity of the roller locking bolt. Dead reliable, shoots M80 ball as well as my handloads that are M80 clone and 165gr Win PSP with never a malfunction.

I like the 91/G3 better than the FAL. Not that the FAL is a second class rifle at all. Both are lighter by a smidge than the AR-10 and clones.

I prefer an AR-15/M-16 to both of them.

Yeah, right.


Care to share with the group how to adjust the rear sight on an H&K Roller Locking rifle (91,93 etc.)? Oh, wait...give him some time to google that one and suddenly he's an expert.

I was wondering if that was a 55 gallon milk jug

is it in the classifieds?

Doesn't sound any more far fetched than some of the other claims I've read on here.

Terry

Yeah,

It's actually tame when you consider the source. The fact that David Tubb couldn't hit that shot with an open sight 91 probably doesn't factor in.

Tell you what Lee24. Come out to my neck of the woods and hit that shot for me. I'll give you my Westley Richards shotgun. You have two weeks from today to collect.

Oh, and if you don't have a 91, I'll provide one for you. Okay, it's technically a G3, but other than that, it's the same gun.

Technical point: "offhand" and "tree for a rest" are conflicting terms.

Offhand means no rest at all.

BMT

Don't know about L24, but I have hit a 10" diameter gong plate @ 400 yards 50% of the time. This was with my Imbel Fal, prone w/bag front rest, M80 ball, 400 meter rear sight setting.

The gong was painted blaze orange, and at 400 was a meer tiny dot to my old eyes. We set the gong out to 500 and the hit percentage dropped to 20%. Still doable though.

Off topic but I note the lack of ability to hit at 400 and more with the mighty 7.62x51. Yet there is a push by some for a "long range" chambering for the M16-lol.

How you adjust the sight on an HK G3 or its variants (91, 93, etc) depends on the type of sight. The later ones have a windage screw and a lock down screw. The earlier drum sights, like on my 1970s models, only have a locking screw, which you loosen and then drift by hand. Once you zero these rifles, my experience is that you never have to touch them again - just rotate the drum to match the range.

In the 1970s, when HK first imported their rifles through the office in Alexandria, each one came with a test target. Some were available with the polygonal bore, instead of conventional rifling. I bought both types, and they came with test targets showing groups under .65 MOA.

They are accurate enough that one of my friends used his more daily high power practice, then switched to his M-14 just before the match.

I think any experienced shooter knows what "offhand with a tree for a rest" means: standing with the rifle beside the tree truck.

Any good shot has to be able to hit 10 inches offhand at 400 meters to even place in decent match. Top shooters can place 19 or 20 out of 20 shots offhand into 10 inches at 600 meters with an M-14 using iron sights.

Anyway...back to the comparison with the AR-10.
My first comments were about the current AR-10s, which are mostly heavy rifles for bench play. The military configuration AR-10s are a much more fair comparison in size, weight and function to the HK G3 and FAL, as they were all contemporaries.

I owned an original AR-10 battle rifle, then later a US legal semiauto one. They were solid, and felt a lot like the HK. Since some of the AR-10s from the late 1950s were still seen functioning on television in the Sudan as recently as 5 years ago, with no spare parts, it speaks to the inherent reliability and toughness of the original Stoner design.

I had AR10A4, FAL, H&K 93, M1A and now it's down to the M1A and some FALs. They're all fine rifles, wish I still had the H&K. The AR10 was abit heavy in my hands, the FALs are great but not that ergonomic to me. I like the M1A, wish I had more of them.

When speaking of the original AR10's, they originally were a bit backwards from other battle rifles of the era in that they had aluminum barrels and steel magazines. Later, they decided to go the other way around and used steel barrels and aluminum magazines, although many would later say that they really should have stuck with the original steel magazine design; it was a much better design. I've shot both and I would have to say that if I were relying on the AR10 for anything, then make mine a steel magazine.

Stoner designed the AR-10 with a steel barrel.
The military built an experimental barrel of alumimum swaged around a steel liner with rifling to reduce weight. In an extended firing test, the barrel heated up, the aluminum expanded away from the liner, and the barrel ruptured.

There were also fiberglass magazines for the AR-10, as a compromise between the flimsy aluminum mags and heavier steel ones. The HK also has very light aluminum magazines with a waffle pattern, the "paratrooper magazine".

I remember when those H&K aluminum magazines were like $60.00 per magazine, now they can be had for $5.00.

By chance, with your original AR10, do you remember who the maker/marketer/importer was? Armalite never made a semi-auto AR10, but there were a few companies who brought in parts kits, mostly from Denmark and then made lower receivers and assembled rifles out of them. Also, which magazine did your AR10 have, steel, aluminum or both?

And do you remember if yours was early style with the big can style muzzle break, or late style with a flash suppressor more like a modern AR? Black or brown furniture?

Reason I ask is, I worked for one of the companies who made AR10's in the '80's. We made up a grand total of 1,000 rifles and sold them. I have NEVER seen one since we sold them...kinda makes me wonder if they just fell into a black hole somewhere.

The one's we made up were absolutely PERFECT, I'd love to see one again. You don't by chance still have yours do you?