MarColMar and HMG Cetme L a Detailed Comparison

Let me warn you right off the line....this is going to be a long photo essay. And bear with me in this first post because a fair amount of commentary is needed before we get to the gun porn. This write-up is really intended to be a detailed look at the recently released Cetme L by MarColMAr Firearms (MCM). In truth, this rifle is more of a reproduction than a semi-auto rebuild of the Spanish Cetme L from a parts kit. I say that because much of the rifle is newly manufactured including, but not limited to, the receiver, barrel, furniture, trigger pack, magazine and a few other bits (we'll get to the full list of US made parts in a bit). Now, that's not a put down of this offering in any way. In fact, according to the owner of MarColMar, Dave Bane, this new rifle is actually superior to the original because of various upgrades including modern polymer furniture, a hammer forged barrel, better quality springs, and a host of other small changes intended to make the design more robust and reliable. Given MarColMar's track record, I tend to take Mr. Bane's word for it. I'll find out though once I get it to the range for testing and I will update this essay at that time.

Ideally, I would have an original rifle to compare this one to but, unless one of you guys has one lying around I can get my grubby paws on, we'll have to settle for one of the Hill & Mac Gunworks (HMG) specimens released back in late 2016. Unfortunately, only 100 of those were made by HMG, although for a while they did also offer a "build from your kit" service and a "builder's kit" if you wanted to do it yourself. So, while they only officially produced 100, there is a fair, albeit unknown, number more than that floating around. These rifles were essentially a kit gun built from very good condition imported parts sets using only the minimum number of required US parts. As such, they looked fairly used right out of the box with scratched up furniture and worn finish on many of the parts. For many, myself included, that was OK though because you knew you were getting something as close as possible to the original form. Besides, a little patina added to the looks if you ask me. The best part of all is that, despite the slightly used appearance, the HMG rifle is very accurate (I get more accuracy with mine than I do my HK93) and generally very reliable. Mine is over 99% reliable so long as I use GI magazines with strong springs. However, old worn magazine springs is another matter causing all kinds of weird misfeeds or even no feeds when the magazine is near empty. But Brownell's will fix you right up with new springs cheap and your AMG (it's painted green so it's an Army Man Gun) will run like a top again; at least mine does.


Now, simply putting a parts kit back together to make a legal functioning rifle was not good enough for MarColMar. They have built a reputation over the years for crafting what could essentially pass for a new firearm out of a decades old retired and torch cut pile of surplus parts. They only select the best parts kits its to begin with. Then they carefully modify the design to make it an ATF compliant semi-auto while preserving the look and feel of the original. This includes in-depth testing and ongoing development until they are satisfied that the end product will look, feel and function at least as well as the original was intended to. While sorting through the kits and developing the prototypes, any components which do not meet their aesthetic or functional standards are reproduced using the best possible materials so that they are as good or better than original factory parts. Only once they have everything finalized and sourced do they move on to production. MCM feels it's far better to delay a release date in order to work all the bugs out of design and logistics than it is to release a flawed product on time. Production itself is done using the most modern methods (including a welding robot on the Cetme L) and materials. The end result is a firearm that looks and functions as good or better than the originals did decades ago. According to Dave Bane, that's always been their standard way of doing things and that's the standard they've held their new Cetme L to as well.


So, did MarColMar succeed? Well....I don't fully know.....yet; but I will once I get some rounds through it. I will say though, it LOOKS very, very nice; not perfect mind you, but it's pretty darn close. So far, I have no regrets about how I spent my money. There are a few things to nit-pick and believe me, I will. But that's my self-appointed job, to show every little detail, both good and bad, so that you can make an informed decision about whether or not you want to spend your hard earned money on one. I will not be discussing price. You can easily look this rifle up in any search engine and find both MarColMar's website and any vendors selling them. As stated, my intention is to show you this rifle in detail so that you can make up your own mind about whether or not you wish to purchase one. Also, as stated, the HMG rifle is no longer in production or available from HMG. I include it here for comparison purposes only so that you can see the obvious difference between a rifle put together out of a parts set and one remanufactured to be as new.

This pre-firing write-up will take some time and multiple posts to complete so keep checking back to see new material. I'll let you know when I'm done and I'll update with range reports once I get my wussy butt to the range.....I hate the cold and there's no revolution currently going on so I can be picky about weather. Let's get started shall we?

---------- Post added at 12:07 AM ---------- Previous post was at 12:00 AM ----------

I spent so much of my extremely limited intellectual capital crafting the previous post that this first round of pictures is going to be limited! I have somewhere around 100 to post though so prepared to be bored out of your mind. Also, when referring to MarColMar, I will often use the abbreviation MCM and, when referring to Hill & Mac Gunworks, I will often use the abbreviation HMG. Also, because these rifles are green and my favorite toys when I was a kid were army men with little green rifles, I will often refer to the Cetme L as an Army Man Gun, or AMG for short. Hey, the facts that it's green, is made out of stamped metal (AKA origami gun), and is a roller lock are the top three reasons I wanted one in the first place. It also has a cool '80s angular look and I had a blast back in then! I'm strange.


So, when you get to the gun shop and it's gun Christmas (any day you go to the shop to pick up a new firearm is gun Christmas day), this is the sight that will greet you:
https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...rx0csxsg-1.jpg
Yay!!! It's a brown cardboard box!


Opening the box reveals your new toy well nestled in foam with a bunch of other stuff:
https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...nd0fskqn-1.jpg
The magazine is a current production aluminum one made by Okay Industries, a government contractor as far as I know. Also included was a warning card telling you that you can shoot your eye out if you aren't careful, a warranty registration card, sample bottle of gun lube, a gun lock and the owner's manual.



Let's take a closer look at the manual. I'm not going to post every page but trust me, it's well done. It's actually two manuals in one. The first half was done by MCM and covers some really interesting stuff. Besides the usual how to disassemble and how to clean sections, there is one on the History of the original rifle and some really informative text about the production of this new AMG including which parts are new US made. The second half is an English translation of an original Spanish manual complete with lots of pretty color pictures.


Some examples of the MCM half:
https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...ub1myoic-1.jpg

https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...d1igegm3-1.jpg

https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...u1ecd739-1.jpg

https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...diaxigtt-1.jpg




Some examples of the translated Spanish half:
https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...gocawpks-1.jpg

https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...a6picssc-1.jpg




Next up is a general side view of both the MCM AMG (top in each picture) and the HMG version (bottom in each picture):
https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...dt9zer1a-1.jpg

https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...gv4nur2o-1.jpg


That's it for tonight. I'll be back at it tomorrow evening. See you then!

Interesting rifle for sure. I remember well the CETME of past, saw a couple overseas. I'd like to have the chance to wring these out or carry for a bit under field conditions. They look good...

Before we get into looking at the rest of the AMG, lets start with magazines. It is well known that the Achilles heel of the original rifle was the steel magazines. Apparently, quality control on them was less than stellar and it was common for troops to try and get ahold of as many foreign magazines as they could when on field exercises with other nations. It seems to me that part of the problem also comes from the fact that the magazine well is so deep and has zero flare to it. I imagine it's kinda like wearing a pair of skinny jeans....there isn't much room down there for anything larger than twig legs. Consequently, there is very little tolerance for a magazine less than perfectly sized. Polymers generally won't work. Theoretically, steel magazines should work (remember that the original ones were steel) and any properly made aluminum GI magazine should as well. Now, according to my research, which could well be wrong, the geometry on original Spanish magazines was ever so slightly different than the geometry on magazines used by other NATO countries. MCM says that they have changed the design ever so slightly to accommodate US made aluminum GI magazines but they recommend in the manual that "new AR-15/M-16 STANAG magazines be used with your CETME L, from the same provider we have packaged with your rifle." An OKAY Industries magazine is what was provided and, while it is a bit snug and will not drop free, it pulls out pretty easily once you depress the magazine release button and there is no discernible rock when seated. Sooooo let's see what we get when we try other GI magazines made from both steel and aluminum in both AMG's


Including the magazine provided by MCM I tested a total of 28. The breakdown was as follows:

Steel:

FN x4
Beretta x2
CETME x2
Aluminum:
FN x1
Colt x5
D&H Tactical x2
Sanchez Enterprises x1
Center Industries x4
Adventure Line x5
Parson's Precision Products x1
OKAY Industries x1

Below are the results of my HIGHLY SCIENTIFIC and NASA QUALITY testing facility.


In the HMG AMG:
https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...4s9cwfw2-1.jpg
All 28 fit and locked in. All 28 ranges from almost drop free to ever so slightly snug. All ranged from zero to minimal rocking when seated. Will all 28 reliably function? NO. I have no interest in testing all of these magazines for function. I've put about 300 rounds through this rifle so far. 100 of them were through 5 random used magazines. I had one or two stoppages but the main problem was that the rifle simply stopped stripping rounds out of the magazines when they were down to about 2-4 rounds left in them. The other 200 rounds were through new D& H tactical magazines. I had 2 stoppages and had no problems running the magazines down to empty. I have some new springs on the way from Brownell's and I'll start trying them out in in used GI magazines in the spring. I also plan to try the steel FN and CETME magazines out too.


In the MCM rifle:
https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...19np6gur-1.jpg
13 aluminum and 3 steel magazines seated. They ranged from slightly snug, through pretty tight to gorilla tight. The OKAY Industries one fit the best of all. None exhibited any rocking when seated.

https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...minpfobk-1.jpg
12 would not seat, including both original Spanish magazines. Some would almost seat and couple I could probably force to seat but I would pay hell trying to get them out. Some would barely start into the magazine well.


Here's the front of the OKAY Industries magazine after a few insertions:
https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...ote4tmwe-1.jpg


And the rear spine:
https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...v2mklhuc-1.jpg
The finish is already worn down to the metal.


Here are a few view into the magazine well of the MCM after trying out all the magazines:
https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...m2s4fdph-1.jpg

https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...aspv5tbe-1.jpg

https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...38nzu8xq-1.jpg



And the magazine well of the HMG after a whole lot more magazine insertions:
https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...f6xayuco-1.jpg

https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...mcqnnm5f-1.jpg

https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...zyrdotch-1.jpg


Notice that, while both show rubbing, especially along the front surface, the MCM one shows a lot more overall black marks from rubbing the finish off the magazines whereas the HMG shows more wear to it's own finish. Also, there seemed to be no rhyme or reason to what would and what would not fit into the MCM well. For example, two of the Center Industries magazines fit while two would not. Some of the Colt magazines fit while others would not. Three of the steel ones fit while five did not. The fact is that the MCM rifle has a substantially tighter magazine well than the HMG offering. The good thing is, OKAY Industries magazines are cheap and readily available. Besides, this is a range toy, not something you are going to take into combat and MCM recommends that you use the OKAY magazines anyways. So just buy yourself a few and forget about it. That should eliminate any problems regarding magazine fitment and save you a lot of potential frustration.


In the next post, we'll start taking a close up look at the furniture.

I'm wondering if that's a powder coat finish? That could by it'self cause the mag binding issue... As you say, this is for range...

Next up is furniture. When I heard MCM was going to replace all of the furniture with US made bits, it did not sit well with me because I was concerned they might try to "improve" the ergonomics or make some other change for one reason or another. According to Dave Bane, much of the original furniture was not only beat up but was degrading. Obviously, I didn't see any of it but I can understand his position and take him at his word. Plus, MCM wanted to bring a new condition product to the market, not something that looked like it had already been used right out of the box. I get that. While I personally like patina on a firearm, I understand that many people expect to receive a new condition item when they pay new condition prices. Well, I'll say right here before even posting the comparison pictures that, in my opinion, MarColMar has knocked the ball out of the park with their reproduction of original CETME furniture. In the end, I was worried about nothing and the final result exceeded my expectations. Let's start with the stock.


In these first two photos, the MCM part is shown below an original:
https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...9odjf3fw-1.jpg

https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...2vdegqb9-1.jpg
I included the recoil springs too in the first picture. I know that MCM had new springs produced and I believe that the HMG springs were new made as well. The rubber butt pad is shaped a little differently but I have seen slightly different butt pads in pictures of original rifles so there must have been some variation including ones that looked like the one MCM has produced. The color is slightly different but I have seen all kinds of variation on originals too so the MCM color looks fine to me. The MCM exhibits less shine but it's not made of the same polymer either so I can't expect it to have the same shine now can I? Look at the form though! As far as I can tell, every single angle, every nuance of the various edge radii has been reproduced perfectly.


Here, are looking into the front of the stocks with the MCM on the right:
https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...uqaamfii-1.jpg
Again, everything is perfectly reproduced.


One is a mirror image of the other. MCM is on the right:
https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...yrj0g7lr-1.jpg
Besides the geometric features, this picture also illustrates the slight difference in surface texture between the two. While the Spanish stock is not perfectly smooth either, the MCM is just a hair more textured. Without both in hand though, I doubt most people would notice a difference.



This picture illustrates the fact that even the mold ejector pin markings or in nearly the same place:
https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...n1xbtxdl-1.jpg
If you look very carefully you may notice that an original stock has a perfectly uniform color while the MCM does exhibit just a hint of hue variation here and there.


Even the sprue mark is in about the same place along the bottom of the stock:
https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...i2txgmrj-1.jpg
This shows some real attention to detail and things like this really matter to purists. A big thumbs up to MarColMar here!


The MCM butt pad is at top:
https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...8o13xzhl-1.jpg
MCM used allen screws for attachment. The flat head screws shown on the original pad are HMG replacements. Originals would have been slotted too but with a phosphate finish.


Butt pad removed:
https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...wahf8cv6-1.jpg
The "80" seen on the original stock was put there by HMG and denoted the rifle serial number. Both stocks have brass inserts for the screws with the originals being hex shaped and the MCM one being round. The lower cavity is identical between the two but there is some slight variation in the shape and size of the upper two. Meh, you never see it anyways.


Manufacturer's mark:
https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...cgsbmx3e-1.jpg


Interior side of butt plates:
https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...l5xgsvft-1.jpg
Both have steel inserts.

Next up in furniture on floor two we have handguards. Before we look at the handguard itself, I want to say something about the finish on the steel heat shield and the take down pins.

Here is the heat shield with the MCM above:
https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...zlpd2xd7-1.jpg
Both have a phosphate finish but the MCM one is a dark grey while the HMG is much lighter. I'm positive that the HMG one has the original finish but I don't know about the MCM and the manual is silent on this point. There are a very few scratches here and there on the exposed surfaces (not shown) so I am inclined to believe that it is sporting the original finish too but your guess is as good as mine.


The take down pins look awfully good too:
https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...qglzsiqp-1.jpg
Compared to the HMG pins on the left, the MCM pins look new. Maybe they were from an essentially unissued rifle or maybe MCM refinished them. Maybe some poor lost HK is out there in the wilderness looking in vain for its take down pins with absolutely no idea that they were stolen long ago by the Spaniards. I don't know. The two longest ones are for the stock and the shortest one holds the front of the trigger box in place. The remaining one is for the hand guard.


Moving on to the polymer part of the handguard, here we see the rear with the MCM on the left:
https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...xzjuv5bc-1.jpg
Notice that the mold is clearly different from the original as is evidenced by the mold lines. However, unless you are crazy detail oriented like me, the two are going to look identical. Again, MCM has done a wonderful job here at staying true to the original form.


Front with MCM still on the left:
https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...knzdrxgp-1.jpg
Mold lines between the two are near identical but the left ventilation hole on the MCM is slightly smaller than the one on the right. No biggie.


Right side view. MCM is on top:
https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...3c1lyfxs-1.jpg
Notice that the mark where the sprue attached is in almost the exact same place.


Left side view MCM on top:
https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...kzxwuybf-1.jpg
As with the stock, the mold ejector pins are in the same area. The various details are almost dead on with the largest difference being the ends of the small finger grooves. The ends of the MCM grooves rise up like ramps to meet the main surface of the handguard while the original ends stop abruptly in a 180 degree radius. This is an example of one of those things that matters not one bit but I did say at the beginning of the write-up that I was going to nit-pick.


Interior of handguard:
https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...gge5gn47-1.jpg
Again we see that the original used hex shaped brass inserts as opposed to round ones on the reproduction. I didn't bother to take a picture but the heat shield is held in by hex screws on the MCM and simple slotted screws on the original. They will not interchange as originals used metric threads as opposed to standard on the MCM. I didn't try them out but I would wager it's the same story with the butt pad screws.


Manufacturer's mark:
https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...yeucsjuu-1.jpg


That's it for tonight. I'll pick it back up tomorrow. Have a good night!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by browningautorifle

I'm wondering if that's a powder coat finish? That could by it'self cause the mag binding issue... As you say, this is for range...

---

It's Cerakote .

---------- Post added at 09:50 PM ---------- Previous post was at 09:49 PM ----------

The last piece of furniture we need to look at is the pistol grip. As with the rest of the polymer parts, they did a fantastic job and only real sticklers for detail will notice any differences between the MCM made part and an original.


First up is the left side. MCM part is on the left:
https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...wkugmeux-1.jpg
The raised ribs between the grooves are slightly rounded on the original while they are flat on the reproduction. Also notice that the original has a mold ejection pin mark starting in the fourth groove down, running over the fourth rib and into the fifth groove while the MCM has no such mark.


Right side:
https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...phdkrywq-1.jpg
The MCM grip has two ejector pin marks, one large one above the grooves and one small one at the bottom front. The original has no such marks.


Looking down into the top of the grips, we see that they are pretty much identical. MCM is still on the left:
https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...9ifdqxxj-1.jpg


Front of grip. MCM is on top:
https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...d6rkwoek-1.jpg
Both show a mark in approximately the same place where they were removed from the sprue.


Bottom and bottom/rear 3/4 view of grips with MCM on top:
https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...famdtjkg-1.jpg

https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...u6vhwsw2-1.jpg
Mold lines differ somewhat between the two but all of the contours are dead on.


Last grip picture showing the manufacturer's mark. The star shaped pattern around the allen head bolt hole is where a star shaped lock washer digs in:https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...mpgnwang-1.jpg


Moving on to some internal parts now. I'm not going to tear the bolt assemblies apart and show you each part because both are original and, as far as I can tell, both have an identical rough phosphate finish which leads me to believe it's the original finish as applied in Spain. There are a couple things of note though.
First up is a picture looking at the bottom of the bolt assemblies with the MCM one on top:
https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...0utb4zxu-1.jpg
Notice the HMG milled away the right rear corner of the carrier while MCM left it alone. This is the part of the carrier that trips the full auto sear. Interestingly, pretty much every roller lock manufacturer removes this area on semi-auto only firearms whether it be made by HK, MKE, or POF but MCM decided it wasn't necessary and the ATF clearly approved it this way so it's good to go.


In this picture, we again see the MCM unit on top:
https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...ijlzts3i-1.jpg
The salient thing to notice here is the fact that the finish on the extractor springs differs between the two with the HMG being in the white while the MCM is either blued or nitrided. I assume that both manufacturers have replaced the factory springs with new ones. Although it is not shown, I believe both have replaced the firing pin, recoil and buffer springs as well. The "80" on the nose of the HMG carrier was put there by them and is the serial number of the rifle.

Next up is the fire control box. HMG used an original box and simply modified it to semi-auto only purposes. Conversely, MCM went full bore and manufactured an entirely new box body while still using original internal parts (except for the springs which are new) which were modified to operate in semi-auto only mode. The intention of both manufacturers was to make sure that an original full automatic box would not fit into the receiver. This was, of course, and ATF requirement. Let's see how they did it.

First up is a left side view with the MCM on top:
https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...kt2cjzt9-1.jpg
Both are aluminum and both look almost identical except that the MCM looks brand new because, well, it IS brand new. Look carefully at the HMG box and you will see a illegible ghost of the original factory serial number starting just behind the hammer pin and running just above the trigger pin. Looking at them from this side, both look in form as the did from the factory.


The right side is where we see just how much both boxes deviate from the original design:
https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...ntjsjbsc-1.jpg
How? We will consider each one separately in a moment. But before we do, notice that, other than the aesthetic condition, there is one obvious difference between the boxes. Notice that the empty hole where the fire selector axle fits is smaller on the MCM box. This was done so that a full auto selector switch will not fit into the box. We'll look at the MCM modified selector lever in a bit. Another thing I want to bring to your attention are the two tabs, one sticking out the front of both boxes and another at the rear, with holes in them. These holes are where retaining pins pass through the receiver to hold the box in place. The rear pin also passes through the front bushing in the butt stock.



First, is the HMG box close up:
https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...uy57nlaf-1.jpg
If you look at the top edge of the box, you will see that it steps down starting slightly forward of the trigger pin and continues all the way to the front of the box. This was done by HMG to create clearance for a blocker bar that was welded up inside the receiver.

Here is a picture of the blocking bar:
https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...t4po8stq-1.jpg
We are looking up into the bottom of the receiver. To the left is the rear of the magazine well. The spring we see to the left provides tension for the magazine release mechanism while the spring seen on the right is the tensioner for the bolt hold open device. The blocking bar is in the middle of the photo. If you were to try and fit a select fire box up into the receiver, it would hit this bar and stop. The step HMG cut into their semi-auto only box allows it to seat without hitting the blocking bar. Got it?? I hope so. While we're looking at this picture, I want to point out a design detail; one that is part of the original rifle as designed by CETME. Notice that the area where the fire control box retaining pin and magazine release bar passes through the receiver is strengthened with additional metal for durability. If additional steel had not been added in this area, it wouldn't hold up to use for very long. In fact, the entire rear of the magazine well is a milled block welded in place and these strengtheners are part of that block. A lot more goes into the design and production of origami firearms than meets the eye. I love little details like these.



MCM did essentially the same thing but went about it a different way. Here is a closeup of the front right side of their fire control box:
https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...y6uy8hjq-1.jpg
Notice that, instead of milling away part of the top edge, they milled away part of the entire front side of the box.


And here is the corresponding area within the receiver:
https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...o87psfzd-1.jpg
Instead of a bar, MCM chose extend the milled strengthener block toward the rear of the receiver thus creating what I call a "restrictor plate" because it restricts an unmodified select fire control box rom fitting into the receiver. In addition, it (in theory) does double duty as an aide in reassembly of the rifle. The idea is that there is supposed to be a precision fit between the restrictor plate and the corresponding cutout in the fire control box. When they are fit together, the holes in the receiver and the hole in the box should align perfectly so that the retaining pin pops right through. I say "in theory" above because it doesn't quite work out all the time with my rifle. It's close and sometime the retaining pin presses right through the holes and seats perfectly. But sometimes, it just ain't going for love nor money. Then, you have to remove the pin and wiggle things around a bit before reinserting the pin. With enough fidgeting, it goes together. Whatever you do though, DO NOT beat on the retaining pin if it doesn't easily slide through. It's not designed to be beat on and you WILL screw up your rifle sooner rather than later. You have been warned!
To be fair, my rifle is new and clearly pretty tight. I expect things to loosen up with use and maybe this issue will correct itself as things wear in. Whatever the case, it is far less fidgety to reassemble than the HMG design but some amount of frustration is always going to be there. It's just an artifact of the original CETME design. When you buy an AMG, you just have to embrace the fidget...….no matter who made it!


Here is a detail shot showing the milling marks on the side of the MCM box:
https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...4shpfuu6-1.jpg
I like it because it reminds me of the purely aesthetic jeweling you see on the inside of many nicer Quality mechanical watches. Whether they did it this way in order to cust production costs or for some other reason I do not know. I only know that I think it looks neat.


Here is a comparison shot of the finish difference on the steel trigger guard between the MCM on the left and the HMG on the right:https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...kuhaz6wx-1.jpg
I know without question that the grey phosphate finish on the HMG part is original. I do not know if the much darker finish on the MCM is original or whether it has been refinished. What I do know is that it matches the finish on the handguard heat shield.



The last things we are going to look at in this post are the safety selectors.

Here is the HMG:
https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...4q3tsf6l-1.jpg
As far as I can tell, this is exactly as it left the factory.


And the MCM:
https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...vfc7f1ul-1.jpg
Theirs appears to be modified in two ways. First, was the addition of a pin running parallel to the axle shaft. I assume this was done so that it will not interact with full automatic parts should they be fitted to the fire control box. The second modification was turning down the circumference at the end of the axle where it fits into the right side of the box. This precludes fitting of an unmodified full auto selector switch into the box.


This last picture of the night shows the two selector levers side by side for easier comparison. MCM is on the left:
https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...me09bkt1-1.jpg


That's it for this post. The last things we will be looking at are all external. This will include receiver details, sights, barrels and a couple o few other things. it will probably take to ro three more posts but we'll get there. As always, thank you for your time!

Alrighty then. I've been drinking whiskey this evening and I'm feeling a bit like Jim Morrison but we're going to make a go at it! Let's look at some stuff!!


We'll start with the 3 pronger flash hider thingees.

This first picture has the HMG produced jobber in focus:
https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...6cdoe3gu-1.jpg
It works fine and looks nice but it's nowhere near what an original looks like. It came loose the first time I was out at the range so I put it back on with blue Loctite and it hasn't come loose since.


The one on the MCM rifle is an original:
https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...zphb8ug3-1.jpg
It's clearly different than the HMG offering and, because it's original, it's more neato!


Tis is just a general shot of the barrel finish. The MCM is on the right:
https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...ck6iclfi-1.jpg
I don't know much about the HMG barrel but I can tell you, it's more accurate than my HK93 in my hands. The MCM barrel is hammer forged, nitride and has a 1in 7 twist. I expect it to perform admirably.


Here we see the new made MCM front sight post on the left and an original on the right:
https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...cuh42o6b-1.jpg
Notice that they have made it thinner for more precise aiming. They have also modified the design so that the adjustment detent engages only along the bottom of the post instead of running up along the side. I haven't taken it apart but I assume there are more positions built into the post so that it can be dialed in more accurately. It's a nice feature.



While we are looking at sights, here is an original rear sight aperture set to 200 meters:
https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...7snb2oed-1.jpg


And the MCM aperture set to 200:
https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...nm5u7we4-1.jpg
Notice that it's larger. That's because MCM has reamed it out a bit to give you a better sight picture. It's a small thing but trust me, it's nicer with the slightly larger aperture. The 400 meter apertures are both as they left the factory. I wish MCM had painted in the "2" and "4" like it was originally but they did not. It's an easy fix though.


An interesting difference between my HMG and the MCM is the fact that the MCM has retained the divot in the rear sight base allowing the mounting of a scope rail while HMG filled this space in.
https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...qsmqw77a-1.jpg
Now, it's entirely possible that HMG had nothing to do with this and the sight base on my HMG rifle may simply have never been cut for a scope rail to begin with. I simply do not know. Whatever the case, I can mount a scope on my MCM rifle with the proper scope mount but I will never be able to do so on my HMG. That's OK though as I really don't plan to mount a scope anyways.



But I'm getting ahead of myself. I'm supposed to be starting at the front and working my way back. so let's get back to that plan, shall we?


Here we see the cocking handles. The MCM, is at the top:
https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...wzothtmu-1.jpg
Other than the fact that the MCM is either refinished in a darker phosphate or has a better darker original finish, notice that both plastic bits, while original, are different. The plastic on the HMG slightly wraps around the steel front part of the handle while the plastic on the MCM stops at the handle. One is not better than the other and it's an insignificant thing but it is a variation. Neat!


Here, we see a comparison of the welds on the two rifles. To be specific, we are looking at the weld where the cocking handle meets the front of the receiver. The MCM is at the top:
https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...gay6lt6l-1.jpg
Notice that the HMG has a better weld here. Not only is the MCM weld aesthetically inferior, but it also shows an ugly void. I'm sure it's plenty strong but it is unsightly. In fact, it's the most unsightly weld on the entire rifle. While we are on the subject of welds, let me say that, in my opinion, the rifles are equal. In some places the HMG is better while in others the MCM is the winner. I'm not going to call out each and every detail but I am going to show the same areas on each rifle so that you can make up your own mind about who has done the better job. I will say that I think both exhibit sufficiently strong welds and I have no worries about failure on either rifle.



Here is a shot of both rear sight bases from the oblique front with the MCM on the left:
https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...a1xldnfb-1.jpg


The rear of both receivers with the MCM on the left:
https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...kor5rncd-1.jpg
Both are shaped pretty much identically but MCM has taken the time to fill in the voids along the lower edge and at the corners where the reinforcing block sits. While it has nothing to do with the overall strength of the receiver, attention to little details like this are both noticed by consumers and welcome. Good job MarColMar!


Let's stay at the lower rear of the receiver for a moment and look at there the stock mounting pins pass through. Here is that area on the HMG rifle:
https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...xoyxhfqu-1.jpg
Notice that the holes are egged out. It works but it shows less than perfect jig alignment. Its just the kind of thing you would half expect to see on a kit gun. I did a write-up about this rifle a while ago and, after corresponding with various owners, have come to understand that some rifles have egged holes as seen here while others do not. Again, it works but it's evidence of a less than perfect build.


Here is the same area on the MCM rifle:
https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...jkuties6-1.jpg
No egging; it looks as good as an HK. I would bet that all are this way. If you have an MCM Cetme that has egged out holes, I'd like to hear about it. Now, I will say that sometimes these holes do not line up perfectly with the stock and I have to fidget them through a little bit and sometimes they slide through slick as anything. I NEVER have this problem on any HK I have; they consistently slide home perfectly. BUT, they do fit and maybe they will fit better when things wear in; time will tell. Regardless, MCM seems to have done a much better job here than HMG did.


Here is a view of the bottom rear with the MCM on the left:
https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...gvpmat2p-1.jpg
There is simply no comparison which looks more professional.


HMG:
https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...vyhf9iwi-1.jpg


MCM:
https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...iy8kamui-1.jpg


That's it for tonight. That whiskey is catching up and I'm a little too dizzy to type striaght! HAHA!! I'll pick this up and continue on in the next post. Nighty nite!!

Well, we're in the home stretch. One more after this post and we're done for a bit. In this post, we'll look at and compare various receiver details. I wish I had access to an original for comparison (I'm working on that) but using the HMG for that purpose is still useful because they are out there on the second hand market and available to us average guys. So, this will at least give you a basis for comparison. We'll start with the markings.


Here we see the right side showing the manufacturer's marks:
https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...xa5krlwx-1.jpg

https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...fzgle26i-1.jpg
The HMG has crisp easy to read markings but I guess they were laser etched because they are so shallow. The problem is, they are so shallow you can't really fill them with paint. I only care about that because originals were filled in so, if you ask me, the reproduction should be too. MCM seems to understand that and their receiver shows nice deep roll marks well filled in with paint just as an original was. I also like that they didn't fill in the writing below their logo because that stamp wouldn't even be present on an original. I do prefer the looks of the spot weld near the takedown pin hole on the HMG over the arc weld on the MCM. Also, while all of the reinforcement ribs on both rifles are quite crisp and very well executed, the HMG stamping is ever so slightly more crisp throughout. The various ribs also differ slightly in detail between the rifles. I do not know which detailing is more accurate though I will figure it out once I find an original. But I assume the MCM is the more accurate since they had an original in hand while working up the dies.


Serial number and selector markings:
https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...m8geq2gl-1.jpg

https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...reexcacy-1.jpg
The HMG markings were not filled in when it was new. I did that but they are so shallow that it took me several tries to get even the marginal quality shown here. Fortunately, the pathetic paint job is not so obvious in hand because the letters are much smaller in the flesh. There is no such problem on the MCM. In fact, it's no problem at all since it came that way. Yay!


Magazine well, left side:
https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...yjypr4qe-1.jpg

https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...08zazwja-1.jpg
The MCM marking are again far superior to the HMG ones. MCM even stamped it "5,56" just as it should be.
While we are looking at this area, I want to point out some other things of interest. These two pictures are the best ones I have showing the fact that the HMG reinforcement ribs are more crisply stamped. Notice especially the upside down "L" shaped rib running in front of the script parallel to the front edge of the magazine well. On the HMG, the main "field" of the magazine well is perfectly flat until it reaches the edge of the rib. On the MCM, the field slightly curves up to the edge of the rib. This is accentuated (on purpose) by the glare . Still, this in no way diminishes the MCM work in my eyes. It's still extremely well done; I'm just nit picking again. Also notice the bottom of the rib that runs up to the magazine catch. The MCM has the proper rib on top of a rib detail present in all pictures of original rifles I have seen. This is completely absent on the HMG unit.
There are significant differences in weld patterns/techniques too. It appears that HMG used spot welds on the side of the trunnion whereas MCM used an arc welder and then ground the welds flush. MCM also filled in the exposed area at the back of the trunnion where it seats against the guide rails while HMG did just the slightest tack weld at the top and bottom of this opening.
Lastly, you can clearly see the barrel retaining pin hole on the MCM AMG. This detail is completely lacking on the HMG AMG. While it's true that the chances of ever having to fiddle with removing the barrel are pretty remote, it still should be there. That's the kind of goofy thing Century Arms would do.


Magazine well, right side:
https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...chd3bvog-1.jpg

https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...i4dsjh5a-1.jpg
Here again, we see a big difference between the two with regards to the area where the trunnion seats against the front of the guide rails. HMG has placed only a tack weld at the top and bottom of the opening while MCM has filled almost the entire thing in. One of the biggest oversights HMG did was to exclude the flare around the top and rear of their ejection port. Why in the hex did they not put it on there? I'm not going to wade into speculation about why it was omitted but the fact is.....it ain't there. MCM put one on there though. Do you know why? I do. It's because there is supposed to be one, that's why.

Here's another view of the flare on the MCM:
https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...t9oppqbf-1.jpg
It has a little waviness to it along the top edge. And, comparing it to the original rifle shown in the Forgotten Weapons video titled "CETME-L History & Disassembly", it might run forward a little farther than an original but hey, at least one is present. It looks fine to me.



Weld along front of magazine well:
https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...vfmbls6w-1.jpg

https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...yov9bywj-1.jpg
Again, I have purposely placed a glare on the weld to accentuate it. While the HMG looks cleaner, the more pronounced weld on the MCM looks more like what I have seen in pictures of an original. Notice the little defect at the bottom corner of the MCM magazine well right where the front turns to become the side. This is steel, not a defect in the cerakote and it is sharp; sharp enough that you can easily cut yourself on it. Mr. Bane, if you're reading this, check the bottom edge of your magazine wells just closer before sending them to the paint shop and dress them if necessary. Thank you sir.


Front of trunnion where the barrel plugs in:
https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...n6gart5q-1.jpg
https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...uqdh9apv-1.jpg
Note again....no exposed pin on the HMG. What the hell were those guys thinking??


Rear of magazine well:
https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...h4erkacw-1.jpg

https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...hytkxxtg-1.jpg
As explained earlier, this is a milled block welded into the receiver shell. So, three sides of the well are formed from stamping and the rear is a block. You can see the machining marks on the MCM. I like machining marks. They give a rifle more of an industrial, no nonsense look. It also reminds me of a late war German rifle......maybe something designed by Mauser......maybe something that operates in a very similar or even identical manner as the Cetme L. Are you listening here MarColMar? A guy can dream can't he??


That's it for this post. One more and we're done until I get to the range. See you soon!

Well, we've arrived at the last post until I get this jobber to the range. I wanted to go today but it's just too BLAH outside. I'll get there though.

The original rear sight windage adjustment on these rifles (elevation is done with the front sight) was not well thought out and prone to breakage. In fact, the HMG one was broken right out of the box and could not be adjusted. CETME generally copied the early rear sight on the M16/AR15 but, instead of having the roll pin passing through the shaft of the axle pin as on the AR, they decided to simply cut a slot in the end of the axle shaft for the roll pin. This created two fingers that tend to snap over time. So when you try to adjust windage, instead of the adjustment dial turning with the axle, it instead either tries to screw farther onto the axle or it simply unscrews and falls off. In effect, you can move the sight leaf to the right but not to the left. How nice.

Here's a closeup of the original CETME arrangement:
https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...wsbeywfo-1.jpg
Look closely and, in the center of the adjustment dial, you can just make out the cross pin with the two ears of the axle shaft on either side. Both of those ears have sheared off the axle. What I did to fix it was to disassemble, degrease, slurge some blue locktite in the back, reassemble and then let it sit for the night. BLAMMO!! Good as new. Not really but it's worked so far and it'll probably continue to work until I'm dust. How often do you readjust your windage anyways? Not very often.



Here's another picture including the hold open button and the welds holding the sight base to the receiver:
https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...8nphpkx5-1.jpg

And roughly the same area on the MCM AMG:
https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...vy7rwdzl-1.jpg
Notice that MCM has designed the adjustment dial in order to correct the breakage problem. There is no longer a pin and ears arrangement.

What we now have is a hex screw that either tightens into or against the axle shaft:
https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...1zurdtha-1.jpg
I have not taken this apart nor do I intend to. But my guess is that, knowing MCM is generally known for attention to detail, there is a divot in the axle for the hex screw to fit into. That would be a much more secure arrangement than to have it simply have tighten against the axle. Other than this change, the rest of the rear sight design is the same as on an original.


Here is the other side of the sight base with the HMG illustrated first:
https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...ltezgra1-1.jpg

https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...wphyxhgn-1.jpg


The focus of the last two pictures is the single roll pin that holds the front sight base to the barrel. The handguard has been removed. First up is the HMG:
https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...aqeiqmsi-1.jpg
First off, CETME should have designed a longer base with more contact along the barrel. Second, they should have used two pins. And third, they should have been solid pins NOT roll pins. BUT, that's how it was designed so that's how it was rebuilt. The front sight base on my HMG AMG wobbles side to side pretty badly with the handguard removed. With the handguard in place, it's much less evident but it's still there. However, the rifle holds zero fine so I don't worry about it too much but it still bugs me. It's not evident in the picture but the barrel does bulge in this area so that the pin has a little more purchase. It didn't seem to work on mine though. Other owners have told me that theirs does not wobble so I guess I got a lemon.


And here is the same shot showing the MCM unit:
https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...w9v6lsc3-1.jpg
Now, I cannot say for sure and I'm not smart enough to own a micrometer but I think MCM has used a slightly larger diameter roll pin to provide extra purchase on the barrel. You can clearly see the thicker contour of the barrel here. Again, the HMG barrel has the same contour but it just doesn't extend to the rear as far so you can't readily see it. Whatever the case, the front sight base on the MCM is solid with no perceptible movement.



And that's it. We're done until I get to the range. When I do, I'll update.
I know some of you are asking, which one is better? In fact, I've already received emails asking me which one do I prefer and whether or not they should buy the new MarColMar CETME L. I'm not going to tell you to either buy or not buy one rifle or the other but I am going to tell you my personal thoughts about the two rifles I own. I'll start with the HMG.

I love this rifle. Yes, it looks more like a kit build done in someone's garage as opposed to something built in a factory. Well, that's because it is a kit build done in Hill & Macs garage or some such other building. Wherever HMG built them, it definitely wasn't in a factory. Yes, the egged out assembly pin holes at the receiver are unsightly but they work and you can't see them anyways when the rifle is assembled. Yes, the front sight base wobbles but it still outshoots my HK93. Yes, the furniture is scratched up but it's original. Yes, the rear sight was broken right out of the box but it was repairable. Yes, the markings are so shallow you can't fill them in with paint but at least they are there. Yes, the original factory parts show considerable wear but mechanically, they work fine. I'm sure there are other things I could point out but they escape me at the moment. So, with all the above, why would I want this rifle? Because of all the things above. It's as close to original as you can get without having an original. I like the patina on the parts and the wear on the furniture. It looks like a used rifle and I like the looks of a used rifle. It's acceptably reliable so long as I use magazines with strong springs and, as I've pointed out several times, in my hands, it's more accurate then my HK of the same caliber. It's green. My favorite toys when I was growing up were army men, a whole lot of which were green and holding green rifles. Now I have my very own full size and operating Army Man Gun aka AMG. In the end, this thing is a range toy. It doesn't have to be perfect; it just has to be FUN! My HMG AMG is that in spades.


So, what about the MCM?
I love this rifle. It looks like a brand new factory made rifle. Not one part on it looks like it has ever seen use. It feels like a new factory made rifle. Everything is tight and the entire build just feels like Quality. All of the pin holes are right where they should be and they are all perfectly round, just as you would expect of a factory made rifle. No, I haven't had it to the range yet but I know that MarColMar put thousands upon thousands of rounds through their development/test rifles to ensure that the finished product would be a Quality AMG. They invested in high speed cameras to observe what was going on throughout the firing cycle and used this information to tune the new made springs to their design. They obviously put a lot of time, effort and money into the receiver dies because the finished product is absolutely beautiful; every bit the equal of my HK's. And they finished it in a tough cerakote finish, guaranteeing that it will hold up to real use. They installed a hammer forged barrel with a nitride finish to guarantee long service life. The sights are redesigned to be more durable with increased ergonomics. They manufactured new furniture using the latest polymers and kept it looking so close to original you can only tell a difference upon the closest inspection. The front sight base doesn't wobble. It's green! If green wasn't my thing, I could have ordered it in black, grey, or flat dark earth instead. I could have ordered furniture in the same colors or even ordered the rifle in one color with the furniture in another. I could have ordered one with a picatinny rail on top the receiver so that I could add an optic. It's made right here in the United States of America by a company with a known reputation of producing Quality firearms that history has shown only go up in value over time. So, with all the above, why would I NOT want this rifle? I can't think of a reason, that's why I bought one!


I want to thank you all for taking the time to read this and I hope you learned something useful to you. I enjoy writing these things, partly because they give me a creative outlet and partly because I enjoy talking about and sharing this stuff with others. I was a History major in college and my mother always wanted me to get into journalism. I'm not sure I would have made a good writer but I do think I do an at least semi-competent job writing this stuff even if it is replete with grammatical errors. Besides, I write it on the fly with my dog Sasha as my proofreader and she's not much help. In the end, I think my mom would be proud so I guess, ultimately, I write it mostly for her. I miss you mom and you know I love you! Thanks again guys. Maybe I'll see you at the range!