HK G3 PTR91 Evaluation Advice Requested

[Seaspriter]

Mates, I'd like your advice.

I'm interested in a semi-automatic carbine in .308/7.62 NATO for under $999 USD, which is the limit of my budget. There are some nice commercial options, like a Remington 742, but they have aluminum receivers; there don't seem to be many milsurp options in this price range. (There are plenty of options for carbines firing AK47 ammo, but that's not my desire, as I have a nice M1 Garand outfitted in National Match .308 and want to use the same ammo)

The best I can find is the PTR 91, which is essentially a H&K G3 (the offspring of what would have been the STG45), produced on original tools and dies in the USA today. Because of its design it doesn't seem to suffer from some of the problems of needing a forged receiver. And the nice thing -- for my taste at least -- I can get a new one with real wood furniture (I'm just not into the Darth Vader look of most tactical stuff today).

What is your evaluation of the PTR 91? Pros & Cons. Is there a better option for a SLR in this price range and ammo?

Thanks, and Merry Christmas to all! Robert

Information

Warning: This is a relatively older thread This discussion is older than 360 days. Some information contained in it may no longer be current.

[Vincent]

I am partial to milled receiver guns, the FN FAL in particular. I have a G3 and there’s nothing wrong with it. It shoots fine. It’s a sheet metal gun and I knew that when I bought it. It feels like a sheet metal gun. It doesn’t have the solid feel of milled gun, like your M1. As long as you are good with that, it’s a good value for the money NEW gun. $850 CDNN SPORTS - PTR 91 308 16 INCH PARKERIZED WOOD STOCK 20RD

Plastic furniture doesn’t bother me. It’s just furniture. However, the plastic lower receiver is something I would change. robertrtg.com has steel lower receivers and selectors for them.

[Frederick303]

I have only fired one once but here is my comparison with the Century Cetme build and a real H&K 91 built in 1981 that I have had a bit more experience with.

Areas where the PTR has a slight edge over the other two designs:

1) The rear sight has a slightly better way of adjusting windage, on the Cetme you have to adjust the front post, on the H&K you need a Phillips screwdriver, on the PTR there is a small knob.

2) The plastic handgrip (so called navy pattern) on the PTR 91 seemed to me to allow a wee bit better access to the safety, whereas on the ergonomic H&K grip at least with my hand it is difficult to use the safety without removing you hand from the grip. On my Cetme there is a very old pattern grip that is like the MP 44 that allows easy access to the controls, but does not feel as nice as the PTR grip.

Disadvantages of the PTR 91

1) The barrel is not hammer forged like on the other two designs, as such it will not last as long, but not really an issue unless you plan to fire over 5000 rounds and shoot over 300 meters, at which time you might see some flyers.

2) While I did not experience it, a fellow I know said that while the G3 plastic grip is better from an ergonomic feel, it is not as good if you plan a long shooting session, he prefers to the older pattern grip if you are going out an shooting 120 rounds or more.



In all other ways the PTR91 seems pretty much like the G3/CETME/H&K 91. It seemed to be a well built rifle. If you replaced to the plastic trigger group with the G3 trigger shell it would be had to tell the difference except for the windage knob on the right hand side.

As to the G3 pattern of rifle, a lot of "how nice it is" will depend on the subjective aspect of the shooter themselves. In that regard let me give you a comparison based on how it is different compared to a M1/M14 deign, as I gather that is what you are familiar with.

1) the barrel is free floated (Handguard not connected to barrel) and so the accuracy with 7.62 NATO ball is quite good, under 2 MOA with good lots of Portuguese, Hinternberger, and German ball ammo.

2) The Germans then mount the sling to the barrel and not the handguard, so you cannot use the sling as you would on the US designs, as if you do you see your zero go to hell, the groups shifts low and too the left with any real sling tension at all: the barrel is not at all heavy so if you zero with sling pressure it is very hard to keep consistent pressure. Why they did not shift the sling location to the handgaurd/cocking tube is beyond me.

3) Because the sling is mounted to the barrel, it does affect accuracy and give a slightly larger group when attached.

4) You can use a sling and get very good results if you dismount the front sling (which the handguard clip allows) and use the sling to make a loop sling the supports the left hand upon which the rifle sits. The sling is not tight like with the M1907, but sort of just holds the entire thing up with the weight of you hand and rifle combined. Very comfortable and very easy to use. Notice how the G3 shooter has his rifle configured in the video below.



5) the Brass come out pretty mangled and dirty, a product of the delayed blow-back roller design. if you want to reload you have to buy a plastic buffer that you can put on the rear of the ejection port to avoid some of the more serious dents you get with the design.

6) The design, at least to me has a lot less muzzle lift than the M14 or the M1, I suppose as a product of the straight back stock design.

7) The rifle seems to have more felt recoil, most likely as the stock is short and it seems to give you cheek a nudge that does not occur with the M1/M14. I suppose that if you got an extended rear buttstock that would be mitigated somewhat.

8) The sights are pretty much like the M1 sight picture, except that the rear aperture is pretty large, the slight radius is shorter and you cannot easily get a smaller aperture. For older eyes the best results seem to be obtained by using a center of mass hold with a suitable +3/4 diopter adjustment to your normal prescription. This seems to give best results with +50 year old eyes.

9) The trigger is not like the crisp trigger of the M1/M14. more like a gritty creepy mess. For some reason post WWII the Germans seemed to have given up on nice triggers on their P1 and G3 rifles. That said I have handled a CETMRE that was adjusted by a smith and it was about as nice a trigger as I can recall. That trigger was smooth and though it had movement, it was more like the roll that is popular on NM M9 pistols that are adjusted to Gunny Zins ideals. That is some movement with not final stage, but very smooth, one the trigger starts moving you get a clean release.

10) If you fire the rifle for 20 rounds or so you will realize you should be wearing a glove. The exposed metal trunion right by the magazine gets really hot. Not really an issue as the Germans trained the soldat to use the same hold on the handguard in all positions, but be aware one hot you can burn you hand if you try to hold the rifle action just in front of the magazine.

11) Because of the high front sight and cocking tube over top of the barrel you do not get the mirage that you see with the M14 when you have put 22 rounds down range. In that regard I like the G3 design more.

12) There is no bolt hold open when the last round if fired like on the M1/M14. I kind of wish they had done that.

13) The G3 is set up to have the magazine change and cocking of the action done by your left hand, not with the trigger firing hand like we US caps are used to. Different philosophy, they did not see the solders being slung up like we did.

14) Like the M16, it is very dirty, the powder fouling in the receiver is ..well there is a lot of it and there are lots of nooks ad crannies to clean. Drill instructors torture device.

15) Overall the G3 is more like a 8.8 pound assault rifle, developed for a machine pistol point of view to give it a rifle capability, rather than the M1, which was developed from a self loading service rifle to give it more magazine capability. It is well designed and works like a charm, but conceptually is different from what most US shooters are used to.

Summary: the price of 850 from Cheaper than dirt and 825 from SG makes this a decent buy. I paid around 800 or 900 for my H&K 91 back in 1989. I notice I do not see any for sale on the used market, so it seems it is a rifle the owners like enough to keep. That said it is not the rifle I tend to take if I am going to go to the range for fun, not because of any defect, it is just not as suited to NM type of shooting as most other designs and if I am plinking and want to shoot just for fun the FAL just seems a be more ergonomic to me and takes a lot les time to clean. But like the AK, it s a rifle you kind of want to have, and I would not sell either my CETME set up as a very early build) or my G3, set up as a 1981 service rifle.

[Seaspriter]

Thanks Vincent and Frederick 303 for your insights.

Frederick, you have outlined a very thorough analysis -- something I did not find on other sites; thanks for the details -- enlightening and thought-provoking.

The gory tales of the Century CETMEs by users leads me to the PTR91 -- their reputation is quite solid based on what users said. There are a lot of very happy PTR91 owners out there, and a lot of disgruntled CETME owners. Virtually everyone I found on other sites who had both a CETME and a PTR proclaimed the greater value, reliability, quality, and service of PTR. Apparently PTR stands by their barrels, now offering a 25,000 round guarantee. PTR91 owners consistently said they were getting very accurate placement at 100-200 yards. Perhaps not NM level, but darn close. And apparently the PTR quality is as good or better than the German HK from what users are reporting. PTR is building in the U.S. on equipment that came from Portugal that was licensed from HK. Unlike Century, PTR has invested in world class machinery, engineering, and technicians, and just opened up a new plant in South Carolina.

I checked

CDNN SPORTS - PTR 91 308 16 INCH PARKERIZED WOOD STOCK 20RD

and ordered one for $850 USD -- as you said, it's a good value for a quality made carbine. When hunting around for a SLR in .308/NATO, there isn't much out there in military grade in this price range. (the French MAS 49/56 conversion by Century to .308 can be found for $300, but too many people said it was a total crap shoot to buy one because Century botched so many you couldn't count on getting a good shooter).

While every military gun I've owned has had a milled receiver, apparently the simplicity of the inertial roller-lock has withstood the tough military testing in combat for many years without any abnormal failures from being housed in a stamped receiver (much like the AK). Also the availability of parts at very reasonable prices is a real asset. I was amazed to find an abundance of surplus 20 round mags for $3-5 each.

the plastic lower receiver is something I would change. robertrtg.com has the older style steel lower receiver housings and selectors for them.

100% agree -- I'm not a lover of plastic [they call it polymer] as a foundation for the Trigger Group (even if they called it the "Navy" spec). So I ordered the older metal Trigger Group housing, into which the trigger assembly will just drop in, along with the older selector lever. This should make the carbine look and feel the way I like.

Thanks for your excellent input. I will report back after Christmas to let you know how things turned out.

[jlacy]

I purchased a GI model a few months ago. It's used but it has the rail welded on, Bill Springfield trigger job, flapper mag release, and G3 metal trigger group. It's a shooting machine. I have an HK 93 and I think the PTR is every bit the product. Get one!