I have mind mind made up that I am buying one or the other as a just in case situation. For those of you who have used both, which would you recommend? The HK would be a the high quality clone, and the AR 10 would most probably be a DPMS.

Trigger on the AR is better,
Integral scope rail on flat top AR is better,
DPMS AR-10 uses FNLAR magazines,
AR-10 design is easy to home-gunsmith,
Genuine H-K 91 chambers ruin brass,
DPMS parts routinely available, easy to come by,
Lots of custom builders and accurate uppers for AR-10,

No brainer AR is way to go.

HK91,
1.) Stocks are too dang short.
2.) No last shot hold open.
3.) Throws your brass about 30 feet unless you have the port buffer installed.
4.) Because of the fluted chamber, the brass is ruined anyway.
5.) I think they are hard kickers, probably because of 1.).
6.) They have the rotary style peep sight, which in my case is usable only at the 300 meter settings and above, because I can't get my cheek low enough to use the 100 and 200 meter settings.
7.) Genuine HK accessories are incredibly expensive, altho there are much cheaper alternatives available now days.
8.) They are now going for, what?, $3000 or so! Give me a break! Heck, they were over-priced when you could buy them for $600!!

One good thing about HK 91's, I made a substantial profit on mine when I sold them!

If you do decide to go the HK91 route, I still have some accessories laying around, shoot me a PM if you could use the actual original HK claw lock scope mount, a 1000 meter sight, port buffers, carrying handles and such! Before I put this stuff on eBay.

I have fired both weapons and prefer the AR-10. The AR is a much more accurate weapon .

The clones don't scar up brass like the original HKs . Doesn't throw them as far either.

I own a DPMS LR-308 , I am looking to buy a SOCOM for my MBR.

get a fal !
wayyyyyy, better than either.

mags are everywhere, cheap compared to ar10's, and the rifle itself is way more reliable and easier to use than either.
no moving your face to charge the rifle, it's on the side. no destroyed brass. and it has lots of acc's and cool things avaiable, that won't break the bank.


para's are the only way to go....

Mudstud has it right on all the negatives except for the brass

First off, real H&K 91�s do score up the brass, but it is reloadable. The PTR�s use much shallower fluting of the chambers, which does very little scoring of the brass; again, it�s completely reloadable.

The real down side of the AR-10 is that it�s not a real military rifle. It�s based on a military design, but it�s not built to any military spec because none exists. The real AR-10�s that did see military service were poor performers and most were phased out within a few years of adoption.

Splattermatic has it correct. Of the .308 battle rifles, the FAL is the clear winner. It was adopted by most of the free world and has won out in most every military test it has ever been put in. The Germans only adopted the G3 over the FAL because of licensing issues, not because of performance. The US had to re-design the US military rifle tests a few times in order for the M14 to come out ahead of the FAL.

There�s a reason the entire free world adopted the FAL; it works. Out of the box, a FAL is more accurate than a G3 or M14 and the original AR10�s. These days, a good FAL is every bit as accurate as a standard grade M1A, more reliable, parts are much cheaper and more readily available, so are magazines. The DPMS AR10 is a proprietary design for many of the parts, so if you have parts breakage, you have to depend on DPMS being in business and continuing to make that model forever.

Parts availability for the PTR is much the same as the FAL, cheap and available.

It all depends on what you�re looking for. If you�re looking for a battle rifle, then the PTR is clearly the better choice over the DPMS AR-10. The G3 design, warts and all, is a very proven design and it works. I don�t care for it much, but it really does work.

Still, I think the FAL is the best of the .308�s hands down; again, talking about true fighting guns.

If you�re looking for a range toy, then the DPMS is the clear winner, because it will make smaller groups, easier to mount optics on, and the triggers are better.

Problem with American shooters is, they will always opt for more accuracy over more reliability; which is why the AR and M1A�s reign supreme in the US.

Hey, I resemble that remark!



BMT

"just in case" = 22lr + 12 guage + 308 Bolt action + AR-15 clone.

Battle Rifle = FN.

I bought my DPMS 308 in order to reduce knowledge requirements. Its just a big ar-15.

(and It shoot little bitty groups).

BMT

The AR-10 is in service with of our troops. It's known as the M110 Semi-Automatic Sniper System. It's an incredible rifle built by the Knights Armament corp. I would love to own the version DPMS summited for the bid, the DPMS SASS.

Having owned two FNFAL's I never found them to be anything special except in the looks dept. They aren't uterly reliable nor very accurate. This was the general feeling of most that carried it for thier country. BTW, DSA summitted a sniper style FAL rifle for the SASS bid competition. Thier submission wouldn't shoot MOA which was one of the requirements and they were rejected early in the competition.

Since you aren't going to be fighting with this gun I would opt for the most accurate of the lot.

Terry

TC1, AR10 is a term only applicable to Armalite rifles, and the M110 SASS is a turd that doesn't function as advertised.

Besides you who say's so. All I've read was good.

Terry

My father was a big fan of the FAL. He built several from parts kits . As I remember it took quite a bit of gunsmithing to assemble. These guns were good shooters and fairly acccurate.

wow, a 5 year old could screw a fal together... or at least a guy or gal with an iq of 15.

it aint rocket science to screw a barrel on, use a few simple methods to time the barrel correctly, head space it with a locking shoulder gauge, or if a good supply of bolts are on hand, keep swapping em out til hs is obtained while using the kit supplied locking shoulder installed im the upper.

as far as utterly reliable..... i'll put the above para against ANY battle rifle in a toture test (you supply the ammo).

in the years that i have owned it, it has never ever burped in any way shape or form..

and when i show up to battle rifle shoots with it, the guys roll their eye's and make some comment about oh great, splat and his para are here....

it's a kit built, not factory. started life as an imbel fal, the barrel was cut to 17 3/8" the same as an fn 50.63. the upper and para lower, as well as the springs top cover and carrier, are imbel. throw in the required us made parts, and there she is.
wwouldn't sell or trade her for anything.

and yes fal's may not be the most accurate battle rifle 2 - 3 moa, but there is some reason 93 countries around the world adopted it as their main battle rifle... they are utterly reliable...
g3's are decent, they are not real ergonomic,, must reach forward to recharge it, no bolt hold open, and are made of welded sheet metal.

308 size ar's are well.... nice, big, clunky, heavy, can be had in all 308 class cartridges, plus 300 remmy saum, and i've seen em even in the wsm's.
i am getting a matched upper and lower in with a side charging handle, and my 07 buddy and i are going to make matching 243's !
yeah, i'd own one for plinking, varmints, coyote's and such. but to depend my life on it... never...


anyone ever see a 223 factory imbel fal ? uses ar mags.....

There have been several recalls already. Some I heard about online, some I heard about from a guy I know who screws guns together for SOCOM. He told me he thinks Reed Knight should be tried for Treason.

I happen to like the G3/HK91. They are a damn fine battle rifle not light weights but as light as the FN, and lighter than the AR10 types.

It's not a general issue weapon, it's a specialty weapon. It has not had the benefit of years of military service and weapons development. It is a very small production number item that is cantankerous at best. It was built as a sniper rifle, not a fighting rifle; with the emphasis on accuracy over reliability. Parts are not readily available, and the weapon is largely (IMO) unproven.

That statement is so very contrary to my personal experience, and the overall military service reputation of the FAL. If yours weren't very reliable, I would first ask which one did you have? Next I would ask, what were you feeding it, and then I'd ask, what was your procedure for adjusting the gas mechanism?

I've worked with, and talked to soldiers who have carried the FAL...talked to a former British Infantryman last month who carried the FAL in Norther Ireland, he had nothing but the highest respect for the weapon; never failed him when it all hit the fan...and if you remember Northern Ireland in the '70's, it hit the fan often.

I'd like your source on that one, because a properly built rack grade FAL's (Like my Brazilian IMBEL) will shoot MOA with match grade ammo, so my bet is, the DSA submission shoots a might bit better than that. Still, where semi-autos are concerned, NOTHING will outshoot the Armalite design because you don't have any moving parts connected to the barrel to muck things up; that was one of the design parameters. Stoner knew that the Springfield Armory (the military one, not the commercial company we know today) felt the moving parts connected to the barrels of gas action guns was a real hindrance to accuracy (and it is), so Stoner found a way around the problem (and created some new ones in the process).

Well, he didn't state what the intended purpose was; and we all pray that your statement is right. But that statement really drives home my statement about American shooters.

Terry [/quote]

That may be true with an IMBEL receiver, but that's most certainly not the case with other receivers, especially in the past. Most of the early US made FAL receivers were VERY challenging to build guns on, so I think his statement is probably fairly accurate. The current DPMS receivers are very good and I hear that much of the pains have been ironed out on the Enterprise recievers. Still, the IMBEL receiver is THE way to go if you're building from a kit (and an IMBEL kit, ain't half bad either).

Agreed, but I think your average FAL will run closer to the 2MOA mark with any ole .308 and between 1-1.5MOA with something like Federal Match. Generally speaking, the FAL out of the box will out shoot rack grade M14's which were always considered to be accurate (few non-military folks have any idea how accurate, or not, the M14 really was - Typically 2-3 MOA). And another problem with American shooters is they don't realize that 2.5 MOA is accurate enough to do most any military job you can imagine with the execption of sniper shots past 700 yards. If I have a weapon shooting 2.5 MOA, I won't compromise one iota of reliability for more accuracy...people just don't get that.

I will agree that they work and work remarkably well. When something goes wrong though (which is admittedly very rare), it goes very wrong. Let too much gunk accumulate in a G3 chamber, and the gun will rip the case head right off the case...that's one you can't fix in the field.

Still, if I were going into battle, my second choice would be the G3 if I'm packing someting in .308; because it's more reliable than the M14.

And I don't want anyone to get the impression I'm an M14 basher; nothing could be farther from the truh. I think the M14 is an outstanding battle rifle.

The reality is; where .308 battle rifles are concerned, the FAL, G3 and M14 were ALL good, and anyone armed with any of them, were well armed.

Well, it's absolutely ridiculous to assume anything different. He's not going to be fighting with the weapon and you know it. How much fighting with a rifle have you done lately? None. You may have enrolled in some type of training coarse but that's not fighting. He'll take the rifle out and shoot it on occasion just like the rest of us. That's it.



Most sniper rifles would be considered "specialty weapons." You said it wasn't in service, I just said it was, that's all. It may not be an AR-10 but for most folks AR-10 is the generic term used for a .308 AR-15 style rifle. Unproven? It's only your opinion, that's all.

As far as the reliability of the FAL is concerned, it's documented. Israel finally flushed their version of the FAL because it wasn't reliable in the desert. They went to the Galil after repeated jams in combat with the FAL. I've owned two, one worked great and one was a little temperamental. But in all honesty I don't consider two examples to be enough to draw a conclusion. I do trust Isreal on this matter though.



Here is the rifle DSA summited for the SASS bid.
DSA Sniper rifle

I don't have the text in front of me about the rifle not performing up to specs but that's what I read. The rifle would not shoot MOA and was rejected early in the compitition. I could probably find the the text if I cared enough to look for it. I can assure you I have no reason to make it up.

I'm not completely knocking the rifle. It's neat design. I really enjoyed the time I spent with both of mine. One was a Para model built on a Coonan receiver and the other was a run of the mill Imbel model. I just don't think it's the end all of .308 battlefield rifles. I also know most rack grade FNFAL rifles won't shoot MOA!

Like I said, if I was going to buy .308 rifle, the AR style would be my pick because of it accuracy potential. Maybe an M1 but it would be for other reasons. I'm not going into combat anytime soon. The original poster isn't and you aren't either. with the price of ammunition and reloading components I get little enjoyment out of shooting less than accurate rifles.


I'm sorry if I ruffled any feathers here. That's all I have to say on the matter.

Terry

Well Terry, I have experience with a LOT of FAL's in both civilian and military guise. I have carried them in "for real", so you're making assumptions on what I do (okay, did) with my FAL, and you're making the same assumption for the original poster.

Yes, Israel did have some reliability issues with the FAL but that's not the reason they dropped the FAL (those issues were later addressed by the Brits and it went away...those are developmental issues, every weapon has them.) Israel made their choice on wether to keep the FAL the same way they chose to dump the Galil; economics, pure and simple. If it was based on performance, then they would have never dumped the Galil which was probably the second best military rifle ever issued to a soldier (the first beign the Valmet M62/76, which the Galil was based upon).

As for whether the AR10 is a proven system or not, well that is left to opinion. My opinion is formed because when it WAS a military rifle, it was very quickly put out of service for performance related issues, most of which were reliability issues. Not one nation chose to stick with the AR10 to further develop it. So the AR10 did not see the kind of development that a long serving rifle gets in military service. Widespread military service will expose every flaw in a weapon, and if a nation is committed to the weapon design, then the weapon becomes all but perfected. The AR10 never got this sort of development. Making the assumption that all lessons learned in the M16 applies to the AR10 is a big assumption.

Now for all I know, the original poster may take his rifle south of the border on protection details like I did with mine (and other weapons). Or perhaps the orignal poster is in law enforcement and may seee a purpose there; again, I make no assumptions. This is why I made the strong distinction between a fighting rifle or a range toy...give him all the information and let him decide.

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?

Oh, and you're right about the aluminum barrels, they were steel inner barrels with an aluminum outer; just like an AR7 barrel. It was that ruptured barrel incident that bumped the AR10 out of the running for the US service rifle, leaving the FN and M14 to fight it out.

Oh, still remembering details...did yours have a chrome bolt and carrier? Did it have the cocking handle in the carrying handle?

Gene Stoner was working for the engine division of Fairchild when he designed the AR-10. They produced some armaments.

I have owned an AR-10 with slick black furniture and with the brown stocks that had the cross hatching, both made by Artillerie Inrichtingen of Holland for the Portugese Army.

I only own one now, and it is on loan to a friend, who wanted to check it out.

So then the yours is select fire...Okay, I thought there was a slim chance you may have had one of the ones I built...I guess the search continues. Out of curiosity does yhour Inrichtingen have aluminum or steel magazines, and does it have the grenade launcher feature?