Why did the Germans go from FN-FAL to G3/HK91?

S

Skorzeny

New member
From what I gather, many folks prefer the FN-FAL over the G3 or its civilian clones.

Then why did the Germans replace their FN-FALs with G3/H&K91? What benefits do the G3s have that FN-FALs lack?

Just curious...

Skorzeny
 
The story I heard (I think on fnfal.com) was because the Belgians wouldn't reduce the licensing fees to the Germans like they did to most other countries using the FAL design. Seems the Belgians were still a little upset over what were, at the time, quite recent events.
 
I found the text I was remembering.

From http://www.fnfal.com/falfiles/combat2.html :

German Denial
West Germany purchased test lots of the FAL in 1957 and were very happy with the guns. They called their version the Gewehr- 1 or G1. The government had every intention of adopting the rifle to completely rearm the Bundeswehr, Germany’s defensive army.

However, when the Germans approached the Belgian management of FN to obtain a manufacturing license, it was summarily denied. It is pretty clear that the denial was the result of grudges held against the Germans for the Nazi invasion and occupation of Belgium.

The Germans began to look for other options and decided to go with the Spanish CETME rifle, which was based on German designs brought to Spain by refugees of the Nazi arms industry. The West German government easily obtained permission to manufacture and market the CETME rifle and soon had it in production by Rheinmetall and Heckler & Koch (HK) as the Gewehr 3 or G3.

HK marketed the G3 aggressively against the FAL. The G3’s major appeal was its relatively inexpensive tooling and the ease to manufacture in an unsophisticated or small industrial base. Also, licenses to manufacture it were easier and cheaper to obtain.

As a result of this aggressive marketing by HK, many countries that perhaps would have adopted the FAL, instead opted for the G3. Indeed, some 38 countries that purchased FALs ended up switching to G3s, not because the gun was necessarily better, but largely because it was cheaper.

Very likely, if the West Germans had been licensed to produce the FAL in the first place, they would have instead marketed the FAL around the world and the FAL would have dominated much more than it did.

Nevertheless, the FAL was still used by more nations than the G3, even though the G3 was manufactured in slightly more countries.
Click to expand...

According to Blake Stevens in The FAL Rifle, the Bundeswehr ordered 100,000 FAL's (G1's) in 1956, which were produced at FN Herstal 4/57 - 5/58. In 1959 the Germans adopted the G3.

The stamped metal handguards and folding bipod that are found on many of the FAL's now seen in the US are generally built from Austrian STG58-model FAL's. This handguard/bipod arrangement was originally a German design for the G1 and was adopted by the Austrians.
 
From what I gather, many folks prefer the FN-FAL over the G3 or its civilian clones.
Click to expand...

While I personally prefer the ergonomics of the FAL over the G3, it is also the case that FALs are much more common. It is possible to buy or build a FAL which has essentially original-design parts. Imbel receivers are available "new" for purchase, and there are many manufacturers of "new" US-made parts.

As far as I know, there are relatively few original-type upper receivers for the G3 available, as opposed to the aluminum monstrosities some of them have (Federal Arms?).

-z
 
So, what I am reading is that the H&K out-marketed the G3 over the FAL with favorable licensing arrangements and was also helped by the simplicity of manufacturing.

As for the gun themselves, what makes the FAL more likable to most of the yay-voters here? Ergonomics? Accuracy? Reliability? Durability? Price? What is it?

So, say if I can get a FAL-clone (Entreprise or DSA StG) for about the same price as a G3 clone (say, from Springfield Armory), which one should I get?

It would be for fun & plinking, not for matches or self-defense.

Skorzeny
 
Yes, yes, yes, yes, and yes!

Ergonomics are a personal issue, but I've found little that throws up to the shoulder and balances as well as an 18" FAL.

Accuracy? A match-grade FAL, stock barrel, with handloads, will group 1"/100 yards fired semi-auto. A standard one will shoot into 3" (maybe less) at the same distance.

Reliability? Yes. FALs are uber-reliable.

Durability? Well, I haven't put too many rounds through mine (it's waiting on a new barrel) but FALs have a good rep for lasting a long time.

Price? A kilobuck will get you a nice one, $600 will get you a Century frankengun built on an Imbel reciever. I took the later route, and have had one major problem. The barrel on my gun was mistimed, and it shoots two feet to the right at 100 yards. A cheap fix, but I like the 18" barrels so much that I'm just going to install and time one myself.

One other nice thing about the FAL: 20 round magazines? $8 each. :D

Get a FAL, play with it, shoot it, enjoy it.

Later,
Chris
 
Many reasons for preferring the FAL over the G-3:

1: The impression that the FAL was better because of favorable reviews when tested as the T44 agains the excellent M-14.

2: Less stamped parts on the FAL. Largely a falacy, many Americans are of the opinion that stamped parts are inferior.

3: Fluted chambers. Your brass looks like crap and, although you can reload it, most feel it's not a good idea.

4: Vigorous ejection. Unless you have a port buffer, the brass gets the crap beaten out of it and is sent out almost as fast as the bullet! :eek:

5: Availability. For many years and even today, the FAL in it's many incarnations is easier to get hold of.

6: Cheaper magazines and accessories.

7: Roller-Lock discrimination. Most (including myself) like a good, sturdy, simple gas system that's easier to clean and gives us more peace of mind.

8: Economics. H&K marked their gun in the US early on at very reasonable prices. As the world market made the Dollar and Mark exchange less-favorable, we got a 'cheap' gun that ended up very expensive. This transleted to accessories, spare parts, and magazines as well.

The biggest complaint I had was that, when I wanted a scope mount, they wanted $200 for it. The magazines were $40 and tools and parts were outrageous. I didn't mind the brass dentning or stamped parts. I did get perterbed when I tried to shoot 600 Yard slow-fire at a DCM match and found there was no 600 meter setting on the drum site. Apart from that, my gun (a Greek SAR-8) was quite well made, accurate, and ate anything I fed it.

That being said, I now own an AR-10 and an FAL... Hmmmmm.
 
How about recoil? Some of the shooters mentioned that FAL has a really soft recoil for a .308 while the G3 (or Greek SAR-8) has an above average recoil?

Is that true for most folks?

Skorzeny
 
I confess to having never shot the FAL, but my HK-91 is a bit of a kicker. I'd much rather shoot the M1 Garand, though I think a lot of the problem is the tiny buttstock that is harder on your shoulder than it needs to be. I also believe the roller action does nothing to damp the recoil like a gas action gun does, it may even enhance the kick. :)
 
Nitpick alert!

The FAL as made and tested here was the T48; the T44 became the M14. I found the T48 better in full auto but I liked the T44/M14 better in semi, maybe because I was very used to the M1 at the time. The T44/M14 was and is nearly uncontrollable in FA fire.

Jim
 
There are a couple of advantages in my opinion of the FAL. The FAL has less perceived recoil than the HK91. The HK91 lacks the bolt hold open of the FAL. The FAL is less ammo sensitive due to the adjustable gas system.

Given that I truly enjoy shooting my friends full auto G3.

TT
 
Nitpick accepted

My mistake on that one. Typing so fast I didn't think. YES, it was indeed the T48 and it was superior to the T44 in initial tests. The Army tweaked the T44 several times to get it to meet or slightly surpass the T48 in tests. If I've read it right (I wasn't there) the version tested was an American Made version, not the Belgium gun. It was being tested against an American Gun with over two decades of development time on American soil with American made copies instead of originals by Americans with an agenda... Whew.

I don't hate the M-14. I like the gun but feel it was the wrong gun at the wrong time. For WWII, it would have kicked some serious behind. Things changed and America chose to make the quantum leap to the AR-15 instead of chosing the superior FAL at the time. In looking back, we jumped on the McNamarra (Bastard) bandwagon too quickly. Shoulda held out for the AR-18 or at least a gun that didn't S#&% where it Ate.

WOW, where did that come from.

Anyhow, I think the G-3 kicks a little harder mostly because of ergonomics and weight than because of any mystical difference in the locking system. They are both bearable though. Try an afternoon with a case of 8mm and a K98!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top