Curious about some opinions on OS comparison between the FAL design and the HK91....
Although they are both excellent rifles, I will take the side of the HK91...
From studying the mechanicals perspective, I actually would think the hk91 to have a few distinct advantages:
1. The fluted chamber on the 91 eases extraction, allows dirt a place to go and would seem to keep a stuck case from occurring. Additionally, I have seen a video on youtube showing a cetme (same basic design) that was used without extractor. Slower, but the cases would not stick even with no extractor!
2. The roller delayed blowback design means no gas assist parts to fail or become fouled.
3. I have read that the 91's are generally more accurate.
4. Although both are relatively easy to strip and clean, the 91 has independent and hot swapable trigger group.
5. Trigger groups easily modified for minimal creep and light, clean break on 91.
6. No recoil assembly components behind receiver, allowing the extending stock to go forward all the way to the rear of the receiver for minimum length.
7. All 91's share the same parts to the best of my knowledge (aside from the AL rec. models that are uncommon anyway).
8. The sights on the 91's are the best factory sights I have ever personally used, as opposed to loose and less precise sights which I have tried on a couple of FALs.
9. Cheaper magazines and all high quality.
10. Quick release optical mounts (which though quite expensive), do no obscure view of iron sights and are well known as zero repeatable after removed and replaced.
I respect the FAL design as well so no offense to any FAL owners. Just looking for some educated dialogue on the pro's and cons of each. Let's hear it... from both sides!!



Reply With Quote


