Are there any good builders for the G3? I’ve got a receiver in back and need to get it built out.

Alternatively, price check for a PTR receiver in the white with rail?

Except when his information is bad...his acolytes then parrot the "bad" info as gospel truth.  Then when you say the info is bad..the acolytes say no..gun jesus knows more about guns than anyone...

It's not hard to get correct info..or even say "hey there are two theories on this xyz thing...I don't know which is true.." etc...  

About what I expected.

Which is the case with any cult of personality. Jeff Cooper was definitely one of those. Mas Ayoob is another that has spread a ton of misinfo and boomers take it and run with it. We have members here that are like that as well. If they make a claim, it's not questioned by their fans. Just human nature.

The difference with Forgotten Weapons is he's mainly covering antique shit that potentially has conflicting source material. He's got to make an educated guess at what's right and roll with it. At the end of the day, it's entertainment with an educational lean.
His shit about what weapon systems are better, etc. are just opinion pieces. Take them for what they are worth.

I suspect cost is also why a number of the cost-conscious Western countries that went with the G-3 have continued to use it instead of switching to new 5.56 or 7.62 weapons.  Heck, some still use even older weapons like Garands and Thompsons (looking at Greece and Turkey here).

I watched the whole vid and found nothing wrong that he said. I also own a HK91 (G3 clone) and a Aussie L1A1 (FAL). The G3 has shown to have modernized best out of the 7.62 (.308) battle rifles.

Easy to tell in this thread who actually watched the whole video before commenting.

FAL has fallen almost completely by the wayside.

G-3 is still in wide use and still will be in wide use for some time to come.

FAL got the hype as "Rifle of the Free World".   G-3 got the actual task of being the Western (Non-Combloc) Standard Combat Rifle used in combat all over the world. (Vs. the Horde of Godless Heathen Commie AKs).

Which nations were sending their troops into Combat in Afghanistan & Iraq armed with FALS?  ... and that was nearly 20 years ago.

I've owned several FALs & G-3 types (HK-91 & PTR) for many years & fired many many many rounds.  

If I could only take one, I'd hands down take the G-3.   Especially if I could take the "Modernized" rail top version.  Even a good product can be improved!



EDITED - If you REALLY like the FAL, then fine - I don't want to say bad things about your true love.  

but in the Real World, that old but dear girl has been passed by the crowd of "modern" 5.56 / 7.62x39 / 5.45 intermediate cartridge crowd, or for the 7.62x51 users, the G-3 still doing it's thing all over the world.

AKA Ghillebear


He’s considered to be the best

I agree especially if he's talking about something with little info available.and he makes a speculation...

but not when it's things that are commonly known and he gets it wrong.  Inexcusable...period

Jeff Walters, aka Ghilliebear on HKPro aka Parabellum Combat has built G3 and HK33 clones for me out of kits, with RCM (U.S. made, hammer-forged, nitrided) barrels. They are outstanding shooters.

Jeff was apparently involved with Unity in production of recent MP5 mags, per a thread here. He also makes a few parts sold at RobertRTG.

He also un-f’d a Turkish MKE AT-43 conversion I bought here. (I didn’t realize I like roller-locks that much!)

Does great work and a pleasure to deal with.

I watch his stuff intermittently, what has he gotten wrong that makes y'all react so strongly?

No question both were used heavily but that isn't the topic. The video makes the point that the G3 was more successful because it was modernized more whereas the FAL wasn't. That simply isn't true. Outside of Brazil they might not have had an official modernization program or name, but a number of countries have put scope rails, rails, and new stocks and continue to use them. Often in the DRM role.

They're also seeing some big use in Syria and the like as of late.

Wookie ergonomics HK?


LOL.


No.

Isn't that the lead singer from Rage against the Machine?

That FAL looks like it has a cheap ass Leapers scope on it.

The FAL is still in use in large numbers, and by many countries, just not by many that sent troops to Afghanistan (I think only New Zealand sent troops with FALs in DMR roles, although more recently they have been replaced in this role; the RNZN still makes some use of them).

Large numbers of countries in Africa and Latin America, some in Asia, and some in Europe, still use them to varying degrees.  They still see action in those countries involved with external  conflicts, problems with drug cartels and violent poachers, or issues with terrorism or insurrection, as well as those in the thralls of civil war.  The Netherlands donated all of its FALs owned by the Army and Air Force (Navy still uses them for some purposes, and so they kept theirs) to the Kurdish Peshmerga for the fight against ISIS (I got to see some pictures of Dutch troops taking them out to shoot one last time before shipping them out).

I'd take a modernized FAL over a modernized G-3, easily.  Put a railed scope mount on it, a set of MLOK handguards on it, set it up for QD swivels, put a Minimi/SAW grip on it, an extended selector, and, if using a folder, putting on one of those cheek rests I've seen for the FNC which can help with optics.  Put it in its lightweight configuration (trigger housing, magazines, and several other parts being made of hiduminium instead of steel; a 17" Para FAL in a basic configuration like this can come in under 8 1/2 lbs. with magazine, maybe even down to 8 1/4) and utilize sand-cut components.  For some extra weight, the DSA BRS can be used, which gives it a stock with functions similar to the type on SCARs and other 7.62mm combat rifles of the latest generation.  I find the ergonomics of the FAL to be quite superior to the G-3, and I find them to have better triggers, and so modernized, the FAL really doesn't fail to offer anything substantial which a similarly modernized G-3 does in fact offer (the modernized G-3s basically have similar upgrades; modular handguard, rail for mounting optics, some changes or additions to the stock to make them better for optics, etc.).

I'm not sure where this whole "FAL has completely fallen by the wayside, while the G-3 soldiers on around the world" thing common here came from, as it is not rooted in reality.  Both see continued use in substantial numbers, and both are really good enough to be able to do so and continue to do so.  I believe both are still produced to some extent [IMBEL, at least, for the FAL (not sure if FMAP shut down its production again, or if Nigeria shut down its production), and I'm fairly certain at least one licensed producer of military G-3s still makes them].  Some countries use both side-by-side (Greece, Pakistan, Mexico, etc.).

Something like these, but perhaps with more modular handguards (or even as-is) would seem to be plenty serviceable:









And then there are these private efforts at modernization, using what's on the market, as well as a picture of one of Brazil's modernized configurations:

Simple things...

He thinks the D stamp on Finn mosins is so they could shoot russian heavy ball type D ammo...it's not.

He thinks the extractor on a P38 pistol is the loaded cartridge indicator....it's not.

He thinks the garand was designed for M2 ball....it's not.

All very simple things and not difficult to research at all.

In the Finn Mosin video, he says the D stamp is for different profile ammo. He may have said something about russian ammo later in the vid, I was jumping around. Someone made a comment similar to yours and the reply was "what ammo is best for a D stamp rifle? Russian..." I don't know if that's correct or not, but it gives him an out on that if so. Remember the editing thing I brought up?

I watched a couple videos on the P38 and he pointed out the extractor and differences between them on multiple variations. So I may not have seen the same video as you are talking about.

I couldn't find a review on the basic Garand, and didn't really feel like watching any more at that point.


So I just wasted way too much time looking at this stuff, lol. I have less than a cursory knowledge of the guns you referenced, so I had to google the points you made. The D stamp and M2 ball issue is probably gun lore, because I saw those same inaccuracies on multiple forums and gun pages. I could see him trying to find info and making the wrong call.
At the end of the day, it still seems like y'all are being really pedantic and he's just trying to do God's work.
Cut him some slack or start your own channel and I'll be your first subscriber.

I looked around for a Garand video myself, closest thing I could find is his video on the T3E2 trials and points out the original .276 caliber Garand.

Another error on his behalf...

The original was in .30cal then .276 then BACK to .30 cal
Simple research would have avoided that...now everyone thinks it was .276 first... thanks to his confusion.

Yep

That actually was my fault, I threw the term "Original" in there instead of stating the "trials version for the requested .276 cal round requested by the military".

No offense but thus far you haven't proven any of the falsehoods you claimed he pushes.

ETA: In the video for the T3E2 trials, he mentions a 30 cal version was being developed at the same time as the .276 just in case there was a push to keep with what they had.

Perhaps he is referring to that garand ammo testing inrange tv did a while back

I like forgotten weapons, but sometimes Ian jumps to conclusions that defy conventional knowledge, like when he went on about how great totally fixed sights on combat rifles are, then completely got wiped at his 2 gun match with a fixed sight carcano.

His/karls WWSD is just a nothing special AR wrapped up in ego.

And saying the G3 modernizes better than the FAL. Easier, sure, but the G3 is still an ergonomic clusterfuck, and the FAL is still seeing significant use around the world

Sure...
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCPPyBJ_pFmQ39G4FXBQxUPA

Perfect example...I have to go back "proving" he's false...  this is exactly what I mentioned earlier when he gives out bad info...people have to go back and debunk his false info to people (like you) who don't bother to do any research yourself and want it all spoon fed for you.

Everything I said was true and you can easily verify it...just like he could have with a few minutes of google...or if you are concerned ask on many of the gun forums that are specific to the firearm in actual question and the real subject matter experts will give you the correct info.

Is that you? If so, I'm on it, lol.

To all the hardheads in this thread:

Ian did NOT say the G-3 the G-3 modernizes better than the FAL, he said (and the God-dammed title to this fucked-up thread SHOULD say, OP)
"The G-3 modernizes better THAN YOU THINK." The title of the video is called "Modernizing the G3."

Here, dammit:

Actually your own proclamation was debunked by information from his own videos... So again, you haven't exactly come across as the virtue of accurate information but rather twisting things to fit your box of "He's bad" or "Wrong" for the sake of feeling better about yourself.

I treat his videos as entertainment and if I genuinely am interested in looking further, I do my own research. Also you're the one laying the claim of things "he said" but haven't exactly pin pointed out the items. Usually when an individual lays a claim, it is incumbent upon them to prove that claim.

Not my proclamations...they are the documented facts from historical books...such as hatchers ...etc.

Using his videos of bad info to "debunk" what I said was wrong is circular logic...and laughable

Go open some books yourself and you will see his errors yourself....

Wrong.

FN did not want to license production of the FAL to Germany.  FN wanted to sell them all the rifles that the Bundeswehr wanted but balked at Germany building their own.

Sorry man but discussions don't work that way. It's incumbent on the individual that makes the claim to back up their claims, always has been and always will be. What you proclaim as "basic fact" other individuals may not know and it is a benefit to educate others. Your attitude on the matter isn't helping anything either, in that you come across as arrogant or straight up jealous of those that you're attempting to critique. You're clearly an educated individual, so I know you understand the basics of discussion and what tends to fly in debates as opposed to getting to make claims with no data.

I was not using his videos as evidence to debunk statements but rather pointing out that most of what you stated "He" said as fact was in fact twisted by you to fit your box and wasn't an actual verbatim of what he stated, hence my "debunked" comment. I do not treat the information from his videos as gospel or the hard truth but merely was wanting you to give the videos in which he made the exact claims that you posted, especially considering it's a bitch to find some of them given the amount of videos he has now and some of them being auction house demonstrations as opposed to detailed stripping/detail. Keep in mind, "InRange TV" is not Forgotten Weapons, despite Ian having a presence on it. The fool Karl will be the first to tell you that it is HIS channel and that Ian is merely a guest on it. Information stated on that channel should truly be treated as nothing but entertainment.

The bulk of them ended up going to Portugal, Turkey, and Rhodesia.  I think most of the G1 kits that came in to the U.S. came from Turkey.

BGS continued using the FAL for a couple more decades or so.

Regardless of the channel if it comes out of Ian's mouth then he owns it.
Maybe if I have time tomorrow I'll go and link all the vids for you.

And I haven't twisted his words....I find it odd that you say I twisted his words when you then admitted that you want me to link the videos where he said what I say he said... since you can't find them.

Sheesh....


But I'm sure it won't matter as you will probably make up another weasel answer for it.

Probably mis-stated the year a MKII Enfield sling swivel changed. The horror.  

ETA - yeah, pretty much exactly that pedantic.  Ya'll know that just because it's in Hatcher or some other book doesn't mean it's any less fallible, right?  Those guys were also working from the sources they had available, same as Ian does today.  In some cases being closer to the events made for more accurate info, other times subsequent investigation from parallel sources contradicts the old common knowledge.

None of this would be an issue if a university would have the balls to stand up a firearms history department, right?

Some videos were found with information from it ran contrary to your statements of what "he" said, hence my request for you to find the one that you proclaimed it was made in. Sheesh, is that such a ridiculous request? Again, given the plethora of his content, I won't be able to track down every single damned video to pinpoint the exact one he -may- have said it. I was actually trying to give you the benefit of the doubt here, as the other videos found didn't have a verbatim statement that you posted.

Assuming you actually find the videos and do post/give them in some way showing the exact claims on all that you posted, I'll give a thanks and accept the man gave out incorrect information. I've read books with incorrect information printed in them too, no one is perfect.

The ones slinging the most mud appear to be the ones jealous of what he gets to do. I don't blame them, must be nice to travel the world and make videos with some surface level and potential deeper level information on rare as well as common firearms of the world.

Wouldn't that be nice.... A university with a firearms history department.... I'd pay for that.

He really should start citing his references.
Then we could all argue whether he should use APA, MLA or Chicago....

Well Considering General Julian Hatcher was directly involved with the production of the M1903 , development of the M1 and its production,  and is a firsthand source of information concerning the M1 and M1903 rifles   no he wasn't fallible when it comes to the subject of the M1 or M1903.

In fact Julian Hatcher is what many folks would refer to as a subject matter expert.

Some of you should try producing a 10-20 minute video every day for years without getting the occasional piece of trivia wrong.

Yep.
Loss of documentation is what got him started on the journey. He's trying to save this stuff for the future.

you guys get bent out of shape over really trivial shit

Tis the arfcom way.

Dude, they are all perfect. Never made a mistake. Not even once.

Fuck you. Get both.

Nah I'm just going to refrain from selling myself as an all knowing gun expert.

He's also been dead for sixty years, so he can't curate his own website about the topic.  He also wasn't the only person involved.  He also didn't document *everything* (just a shitload).  He was also human.  History is messy.

And some people are insufferably jealous & bitter.

You know, Ian has comments open on his site; maybe drop your encyclopedic knowledge there to correct him when he's mistaken on occasion.  God forbid he ever misstate one figment of minutiae on a huge, sprawling, highly technical topic, for your unpaid entertainment.



It's not a matter of fanbois & haters, this is just...sad.  Comic book nerd shit times a thousand.

I don't think "trivial" nearly does it justice.

He does, huh.  Are you one of those guys who's actually pissed he didn't reject the 'gun Jesus' joke years ago?  In prior threads such people;
-Assured us he made it up himself
-Claimed it was actual sacrilege/heresy
-Said he used it as a false claim of infallibility

The British SAS enjoyed the G3 in different guises for a long time including the MC51 which was in effect a MP5 in 7.62.