Archived Posts » 59,821,464
FN FAL vs. H&K G3. What is a better battle rifle?
11/15/2011 6:31:47 PM
What do you guys think?
Thanks,
1981
Thanks,
1981
11/15/2011 6:53:08 PM
11/15/2011 8:58:35 PM
hands down FAL
11/15/2011 9:27:48 PM
Right now I have a fal. My brother-in-law has my FA91 and I gave my nephew my CETME, pretty close to a G3, wish I had them back. All great rifles with about the same accuracy and reliability.
11/15/2011 9:33:09 PM
11/15/2011 10:07:16 PM
But if i had to choose: FAL.
11/15/2011 10:47:02 PM
Originally Posted By gargamel:
But if i had to choose: FAL.
But if i had to choose: FAL.
If I won the lottery I'd get one of those SBR folding stock versions I've seen in Shotgunning News.
Then again, for the time and trouble I'd probably just skip it and get a SCAR 17S.
11/16/2011 2:12:58 AM
FN FAL has more positives than the HK91. Read Bostons gun bible for his take on the best 308 battle rifle.
11/16/2011 11:16:55 AM
I've never seen a FAL out of action for a dent in the receiver. Each company of the German Army had a mandrel for pounding out such dents in their G3s, it was such a common occurrence. Especially among the Panzergrenadieren, where rifles get banged up in contact with armored vehicles.
With the HK-type rifles, ammo with cases that are too hard or too soft won't work reliably. If you stick to NATO-spec, you'll never have an issue. But some commercial brass is too soft for these rifles. Lastly, it might just be me, but the sights on CETMEs and HKs just suck. The FAL sight isn't great. But it's much better than the HK. And the CETME 'ferris wheel' is just silly. Finally, the ergonomics and balance of the HK/CETME are poor.
With the HK-type rifles, ammo with cases that are too hard or too soft won't work reliably. If you stick to NATO-spec, you'll never have an issue. But some commercial brass is too soft for these rifles. Lastly, it might just be me, but the sights on CETMEs and HKs just suck. The FAL sight isn't great. But it's much better than the HK. And the CETME 'ferris wheel' is just silly. Finally, the ergonomics and balance of the HK/CETME are poor.
11/18/2011 12:51:08 AM
Plus for HK: Mag button drop,
Plus for Fal: Receiver can't dent, bolt stays open on last shot, cocking handle easier to reach, sights.
Plus for Fal: Receiver can't dent, bolt stays open on last shot, cocking handle easier to reach, sights.
11/18/2011 1:04:25 AM
I have both. Like both but if I had to choose just one I prefer the G3
11/18/2011 2:48:29 AM
Owned both types, still own and prefer the FAL.
11/18/2011 10:00:09 AM
I've had several of each in different configurations.
The HK91 is a distant third on almost any level.
I'd have a hard time choosing between an M1a and an FAL. It depends on what your personal preferences are. If you want optics, the FAL gets the nod. If you might want to shoot service rifle (with a .308) of course the M1a is the choice.
Given as equal as they are, it would come down to which one you could get a better deal on. The M1a will tend to be a bit more accurate but either will shoot fine and both can made to be accurate enough. An AR10 would be the choice if accuracy was an overriding concern.
The HK91 is a distant third on almost any level.
I'd have a hard time choosing between an M1a and an FAL. It depends on what your personal preferences are. If you want optics, the FAL gets the nod. If you might want to shoot service rifle (with a .308) of course the M1a is the choice.
Given as equal as they are, it would come down to which one you could get a better deal on. The M1a will tend to be a bit more accurate but either will shoot fine and both can made to be accurate enough. An AR10 would be the choice if accuracy was an overriding concern.
11/19/2011 1:35:56 AM
+1 for the AR10
11/19/2011 7:37:27 AM
Owned both types.
FAL is still in the safe and will stay there until the day I die... or buy a better one.
FAL is still in the safe and will stay there until the day I die... or buy a better one.
11/19/2011 7:43:07 AM
4 FAL's in my safe. 2 Paras, 1-50.00, and a G1.
Not a single HK 91. I own a H&K Mp-5....so not against H&K. Just find the 91 / G3 was not in the same league as the FAL. Keep in mind.....the German army settled on the FAL first....but switched to the G3 / HK series after the snub FN gave the German government.
Not a single HK 91. I own a H&K Mp-5....so not against H&K. Just find the 91 / G3 was not in the same league as the FAL. Keep in mind.....the German army settled on the FAL first....but switched to the G3 / HK series after the snub FN gave the German government.
11/19/2011 3:24:13 PM
The mystic behind H&K always has me looking at their pistols and I like the cool factor behind their G3. However, the ergonomics just didn't feel right to me and I do believe if the firearms doesn't feel right in your arms, select something else. In this case, I chose the FAL. Once in a blue moon a see a G3 clone at a good price. When I tried to convince myself to give consideration, I hold it and then remember why I still prefer the FAL. 
Just my 2 cents.
Just my 2 cents.11/19/2011 5:29:56 PM
The FAL can built & maintained by almost anyone with minimal tools in their garage. The same cannot be said for the HK. Both are awesome rifles.
My vote is FAL.
My vote is FAL.
11/20/2011 5:42:37 AM
Fal's are built to drop ,run over ,get shot ,drop in the mud and still look like and shoot like new.
G3's are not.
Just picking up the 2 rifles is enough to know which is better made.
G3's are not.
Just picking up the 2 rifles is enough to know which is better made.
11/20/2011 11:51:27 AM
Originally Posted By bigjunk1:
Fal's are built to drop ,run over ,get shot ,drop in the mud and still look like and shoot like new.
Fal's are built to drop ,run over ,get shot ,drop in the mud and still look like and shoot like new.
11/20/2011 7:30:19 PM
Basically have both.
Prefer the FAL.
Prefer the FAL.
11/20/2011 10:05:57 PM
FAL is more reliable IMO
11/21/2011 5:10:26 PM
Have Both, Love Both!
11/21/2011 5:21:47 PM
dont even know why this is debated
everyone know the FAL is a better weapon with the AR10 and M1A in close second
I do like the G3/HK91 but not my first choice
everyone know the FAL is a better weapon with the AR10 and M1A in close second
I do like the G3/HK91 but not my first choice
11/24/2011 10:53:04 AM
Having shot and handled both, I prefer the FAL for a number of reasons.
1. Recoil is much better with the FAL. The G3 beats on you.
2. Charging handle location. The G3 sucks. It is unergonomic and a pain to get too. Run both from prone and see which you prefer.
3. Safeties. Actually, about the same. Maybe an edge to the G3.
4. Mag release. With a paddle, they are about the same. The mag button on the G3 is nearly useless. Unless you have a trigger finger like an orangutan, you can't reach it. Because of the magazine size, reaching around it to push the mag button with the weak hand is also difficult. I put an L1A1 mag release on my FAL and it's even easier.
5. Folding/collapsing stock. The G3 is definitely easier to switch from a fixed to a collapsible stock, and collapsed, it is more compact. But that's all you can say. The struts aren't comfortable against the cheek at all and you get a lousy cheek weld. The FAL para stock is actually comfortable to shot with and gives a good cheek weld. The folding mechanism however, is overly complex and really should be as simple as the Galil. Very small gripe.
6. Optic mounting. The FAL mount gives a lower mount than does the HK so again, you keep the cheek weld.
7. Sights. Ok, on this one, I give it to the G3 if you are talking factory iron sights. The wobble in the standard FAL rear is atrocious, especially if you combine it with a well used rifle and play between the upper and lower receivers. I like the Para rear sight, especially the aftermarket variant with the windage adjustment.
8. Accuracy. On the whole, I think the G3 has better accuracy on average. FAL's can be accurized, but an out of the box G3 is more accurate than the same FAL. However, for normal combat distances, practical accuracy is about the same.
9. Magazines. This is a toss up and is more subjective I think. The aluminum HK mags are lighter when loaded, but aren't as durable. I like the bolt hold open on the FAL, so I prefer that over the non-hold open of the G3 or L1A1.
10. Stock comfort. I find the standard FAL stock to be much more comfortable than the G3. The receiver hump on the G3 is much too close to my face on the G3 and I have to be careful on cheek position or I get smacked in the face by the hump during recoil. Not enjoyable at all!
1. Recoil is much better with the FAL. The G3 beats on you.
2. Charging handle location. The G3 sucks. It is unergonomic and a pain to get too. Run both from prone and see which you prefer.
3. Safeties. Actually, about the same. Maybe an edge to the G3.
4. Mag release. With a paddle, they are about the same. The mag button on the G3 is nearly useless. Unless you have a trigger finger like an orangutan, you can't reach it. Because of the magazine size, reaching around it to push the mag button with the weak hand is also difficult. I put an L1A1 mag release on my FAL and it's even easier.
5. Folding/collapsing stock. The G3 is definitely easier to switch from a fixed to a collapsible stock, and collapsed, it is more compact. But that's all you can say. The struts aren't comfortable against the cheek at all and you get a lousy cheek weld. The FAL para stock is actually comfortable to shot with and gives a good cheek weld. The folding mechanism however, is overly complex and really should be as simple as the Galil. Very small gripe.
6. Optic mounting. The FAL mount gives a lower mount than does the HK so again, you keep the cheek weld.
7. Sights. Ok, on this one, I give it to the G3 if you are talking factory iron sights. The wobble in the standard FAL rear is atrocious, especially if you combine it with a well used rifle and play between the upper and lower receivers. I like the Para rear sight, especially the aftermarket variant with the windage adjustment.
8. Accuracy. On the whole, I think the G3 has better accuracy on average. FAL's can be accurized, but an out of the box G3 is more accurate than the same FAL. However, for normal combat distances, practical accuracy is about the same.
9. Magazines. This is a toss up and is more subjective I think. The aluminum HK mags are lighter when loaded, but aren't as durable. I like the bolt hold open on the FAL, so I prefer that over the non-hold open of the G3 or L1A1.
10. Stock comfort. I find the standard FAL stock to be much more comfortable than the G3. The receiver hump on the G3 is much too close to my face on the G3 and I have to be careful on cheek position or I get smacked in the face by the hump during recoil. Not enjoyable at all!
11/24/2011 2:25:40 PM
Somewhere around 90 nations adopted the FAL. Nowhere near that many adopted the H&K. I'd go with the FAL.
11/24/2011 3:47:08 PM
Originally Posted By Dorsai:
Having shot and handled both, I prefer the FAL for a number of reasons.
1. Recoil is much better with the FAL. The G3 beats on you.
2. Charging handle location. The G3 sucks. It is unergonomic and a pain to get too. Run both from prone and see which you prefer.
3. Safeties. Actually, about the same. Maybe an edge to the G3.
4. Mag release. With a paddle, they are about the same. The mag button on the G3 is nearly useless. Unless you have a trigger finger like an orangutan, you can't reach it. Because of the magazine size, reaching around it to push the mag button with the weak hand is also difficult. I put an L1A1 mag release on my FAL and it's even easier.
5. Folding/collapsing stock. The G3 is definitely easier to switch from a fixed to a collapsible stock, and collapsed, it is more compact. But that's all you can say. The struts aren't comfortable against the cheek at all and you get a lousy cheek weld. The FAL para stock is actually comfortable to shot with and gives a good cheek weld. The folding mechanism however, is overly complex and really should be as simple as the Galil. Very small gripe.
6. Optic mounting. The FAL mount gives a lower mount than does the HK so again, you keep the cheek weld.
7. Sights. Ok, on this one, I give it to the G3 if you are talking factory iron sights. The wobble in the standard FAL rear is atrocious, especially if you combine it with a well used rifle and play between the upper and lower receivers. I like the Para rear sight, especially the aftermarket variant with the windage adjustment.
8. Accuracy. On the whole, I think the G3 has better accuracy on average. FAL's can be accurized, but an out of the box G3 is more accurate than the same FAL. However, for normal combat distances, practical accuracy is about the same.
9. Magazines. This is a toss up and is more subjective I think. The aluminum HK mags are lighter when loaded, but aren't as durable. I like the bolt hold open on the FAL, so I prefer that over the non-hold open of the G3 or L1A1.
10. Stock comfort. I find the standard FAL stock to be much more comfortable than the G3. The receiver hump on the G3 is much too close to my face on the G3 and I have to be careful on cheek position or I get smacked in the face by the hump during recoil. Not enjoyable at all!
Having shot and handled both, I prefer the FAL for a number of reasons.
1. Recoil is much better with the FAL. The G3 beats on you.
2. Charging handle location. The G3 sucks. It is unergonomic and a pain to get too. Run both from prone and see which you prefer.
3. Safeties. Actually, about the same. Maybe an edge to the G3.
4. Mag release. With a paddle, they are about the same. The mag button on the G3 is nearly useless. Unless you have a trigger finger like an orangutan, you can't reach it. Because of the magazine size, reaching around it to push the mag button with the weak hand is also difficult. I put an L1A1 mag release on my FAL and it's even easier.
5. Folding/collapsing stock. The G3 is definitely easier to switch from a fixed to a collapsible stock, and collapsed, it is more compact. But that's all you can say. The struts aren't comfortable against the cheek at all and you get a lousy cheek weld. The FAL para stock is actually comfortable to shot with and gives a good cheek weld. The folding mechanism however, is overly complex and really should be as simple as the Galil. Very small gripe.
6. Optic mounting. The FAL mount gives a lower mount than does the HK so again, you keep the cheek weld.
7. Sights. Ok, on this one, I give it to the G3 if you are talking factory iron sights. The wobble in the standard FAL rear is atrocious, especially if you combine it with a well used rifle and play between the upper and lower receivers. I like the Para rear sight, especially the aftermarket variant with the windage adjustment.
8. Accuracy. On the whole, I think the G3 has better accuracy on average. FAL's can be accurized, but an out of the box G3 is more accurate than the same FAL. However, for normal combat distances, practical accuracy is about the same.
9. Magazines. This is a toss up and is more subjective I think. The aluminum HK mags are lighter when loaded, but aren't as durable. I like the bolt hold open on the FAL, so I prefer that over the non-hold open of the G3 or L1A1.
10. Stock comfort. I find the standard FAL stock to be much more comfortable than the G3. The receiver hump on the G3 is much too close to my face on the G3 and I have to be careful on cheek position or I get smacked in the face by the hump during recoil. Not enjoyable at all!
any issues with the FAL you listed can be improved with aftermarket parts
safety ... get an FAL extended safety sold at DSA
mag release ... they have longer mag releases for the FAL and its easy to put on
accuracy of my DSA FAL is pretty good
collapsing stock... you can get a folding or AR type of collapsing stock
11/27/2011 11:46:36 AM
Am extremely familiar with both, both excellent rifles but I prefer the FAL for ergonomic and weight reasons.
11/28/2011 1:44:50 PM
I have both rifles:
I would pick the FAL anytime
I would pick the FAL anytime
11/28/2011 5:23:48 PM
Originally Posted By myitinaw:
http://images.cheezburger.com/completestore/2010/4/18/129161241205636600.jpg
http://images.cheezburger.com/completestore/2010/4/18/129161241205636600.jpg
