So, I just picked up a wide handguard for my Cetme. It doesn't

File: 1474061646744.png (2MB, 1279x712px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 1279x712px

>>31520655
pics? Put the handguard up to the underside and post pics of where it's not fitting.

>>31520655
How do you like your Cetme? Is it the 308 or 556 one?

Just started looking at them in 308, seem to be easier to find and cheaper than a FAL. Is your's century arms?

File: 1410586.jpg (35KB, 411x309px) Image search: [Google]

35KB, 411x309px

>>31520750
Get a PTR, the welds on the Cetme are shitty. I didn't believe it until I compared the two at my local fun store. The PTR welds are much cleaner and the rear sight on the Cetme is cringe worthy.

>>31520750
It's okay. Not bad, BTW not great.

I'd recommend saving an extra 200 or so and get the PTR. I've had to do a lot of work to mine to get it right. The irons are useless as there usually not even lined up properly. The cocking tube gap usually is off as well and will crack the welds after 1k rods or so. The blind pinned muzzle break is a Bitch to remove and two things will happen, either A: you'll take it to a gun smith (don't do it yourself. Experience talking) or B: you'll do what I did and cut the barrel down an inch or two and retread it.

Accuracy is on par for a standard issue military rifle. Nothing to write home about. The finish is surprisingly good. I've heated this thing up to literally smoking off the outside of the barrel several times. Finish still looks look. No blemishing.

But seriously. Get the PTR. The factory 5/8 thread and paddle mag release are worth it on its own. Especially as having a paddle mag release install is usually around 300 or so.

Oh, and it will eat ANYTHING you feed it.

>>31520696
I'm not at the house, but I did do that last night. I could see from where the finish is rubbed off of the inside of the front collar where it's rubbing and it looks like it's bowing out a little when I try to mount it.

>>31520772
>I already have a gun
>let me ask a question about this gun
>some faggot: "Get a new gun, I don't have either gun but I know from browsing /k/ constantly that the one you have is inferior"

>the cycle of shitposting continues

>>31520953
>Oh, and it will eat ANYTHING you feed it.

As a PTR owner I am going to have to correct you on this one, cheap under powered stuff will usually FTE every 7-8 rounds or so as the blowback is too weak to move the bolt. While this mostly applies to rejected ammo that gets passed off as "surplus" there is some commercial ammo such as Mexican made Aguilla that is under powered. You can see this in the C308 torture test video and the inrangetv mud test if you watch the weak ejection pattern of the spent casing. Those guys are using Austrian surplus without knowing that the stuff was rejected for being under powered.

>>31523078
I was talking about my Cetme. I own one. And shoot it regularly. Haven't found a batch of ammo yet that it won't shoot.

Also, 7.62x51 NATO is underpowered .308 WIN to begin with. It was deemed that the hotter .308Win hunting loads were over kill for killing people so they reduced it a little. Then you add on to the fact that if there's enough movement at the front of the trigger housing when firing, the ejector won't hit the casing.

>>31523183

When you come across a bad batch of ammo you will notice how weak the recoil feels due to the reduced blowback. You can also tell from the ejection pattern as properly loaded ammo will eject in a high arch to you 2 o'clock while weak ammo will eject right out to the 3 and not go very far

>>31523210
If it ejects, it ejects. If it runs, it runs. What's the issue?

File: SAM_0006.jpg (2MB, 1728x2304px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 1728x2304px

>>31520655
Better get that bipod if you get it to fit bruh

>>31523413

>he didn't watch he videos or read the post

The point is that it doesn't, one FTE in every 7-8 rounds is bad considering the ergonomics of the G3 system and the fact that Wolf, Tula and Brown bear still hold a 100% extraction record

So yes, if your ammo is worst than Russian steel cased, it literally fails at the one job its supposed to do

File: 14425509_1491660007527611_884711186598166620_o.png (56KB, 1161x196px) Image search: [Google]

56KB, 1161x196px

>>31523078
>>31523454
>the stuff was rejected for being under powered
Source?

>>31523519

PTR used to have a list of bad ammo on thier site that they removed for whatever reason but I will still post it

We have found that some of this ammunition has caused problems in our rifles because they use a tar like sealant in their water proofing. When this ammunition is used in our rifles the sealant melts and coats the chamber. This causes failures to extract and to chamber. Afterwards any ammunition that is used will have the same problem if the chamber and the bore are not cleaned thoroughly. At this time we have identified the following types of ammunition that are known to cause problems in our rifles:


i.South African

ii.Winchester white boxes marked 7.62,

iii.Venezuela Cavim

iv.Austrian (Hirtenberger)

v.Some lots of German

vi.British (under powered) will not cycle action

vii.Indian (Over powered)

If you have used this ammunition and have had problems you need to clean the chamber and the bore out thoroughly before using any other ammunition. Then try commercial .308 like Federal 150gr fmj or Remington 150 gr fmj to function test the rifle.


Note: If a rifle is returned to us for repair due to extraction and feeding problems and it is determined that it is caused by the use of these types of ammunition, the owner will be charged gunsmith time, ammunition cost and returned shipping.
Surplus is surplus for a reason, if it can't pass the already low bar for military acceptance then its pretty shit

>>31523541
So you don't have a source?

File: PTR_range_7-26-2016_B.jpg (790KB, 1280x960px) Image search: [Google]

790KB, 1280x960px

>>31523541
>ii.Winchester white boxes marked 7.62,
>iv.Austrian (Hirtenberger)
Both of these work quite well in my GI. I think the list is of limited application since PTR returned to using the proper G3-spec chamber fluting.

>>31523651

It used to be on PTR's website but you can find it in various places

But if you want "proof", next time you go shooting grab a box of Aguila 7.62x51 and see for yourself. Otherwise you are talking shit on a subject you have no experience in

>>31523695

I still have issues with Winchester white box in my PTR, not that it fails to cycle but that for some reason it doesn't want to make anything resembling proper grouping, now I did think I was shooting like shit until I loaded in a mag of Federal XM80 and that groups just fine

File: PTR brick bayonet.jpg (2MB, 2988x1681px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 2988x1681px

>>31523695
They only references I see to what that guy posted were from quite a few years ago so I believe you're right.

>>31523728
I actually grabbed a bunch of different kinds of ammo when I first took my PTR to the range, including a box of aguila. Didn't have a single issue with any of it.

File: 1468121061156.jpg (2MB, 2100x2702px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 2100x2702px

>>31523728
Doesn't aguila make ammo for the Mexican military which uses a bunch of G3s?

File: g3.jpg (119KB, 728x1059px) Image search: [Google]

119KB, 728x1059px

>>31520655
>Can I get it to fit by removing a little material from the hand guard?
yes

>>31523745

Well if if want a refresher, go get another box and compare it to Monarch (aka brown bear) from Academy

>>31523775

no they don't

File: the_g3_is_standard_issue_south_of_the_rio_grande2.jpg (108KB, 453x600px) Image search: [Google]

108KB, 453x600px

>>31523816
Which thing are you referring to?

>Nowadays, Aguila serves as Latin America’s foremost ammunition maker. Among other things, it serves as the primary supplier of ammunition to the Mexican military, and is one of the world’s largest producers of rimfire ammunition

>>31523836

I was referring to the G3 thing which has been slowly phased out for their G36 knockoff

File: Range.jpg (3MB, 2988x1681px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 2988x1681px

>>31523802
Brown Bear worked great for me too. I actually think I still have a box of it somewhere.

>>31520655
Yeah. You will need to cut an indent out for the barrel ring and a small tab on the tip of the handguard. I never got around to doing this but still have the handguard and files to do the job here.

File: G3_Bolt.png (33KB, 393x170px) Image search: [Google]

33KB, 393x170px

>>31523078
>Mexican made Aguilla that is under powered.
i have found it to work fine in my G3 hell i have yet to find an ammo that will not work in it
well my G3 is a frankenstein of G3, PTR, CETME, and shop made parts
also your rollers may be the wrong size or worn out if your needing overpowered ammo to cycle
take apart your bolt and clean it and check the rollers and the rollers fit to the camber

File: Capture.png (99KB, 962x758px) Image search: [Google]

99KB, 962x758px

>>31523861
They still use it pretty heavily though.

>>31523881

Considering that 8 out of 10 rounds cycled properly it could be a quality control issue, but my experience with that ammo has caused me not to use it for anything. Same goes with Fiochhi .308 that I found to have issued with bad primers but that was another gun and another story

File: G3_rifle_variants.jpg (37KB, 387x361px) Image search: [Google]

37KB, 387x361px

>>31523541
>they removed for whatever reason
cuz it was not the ammo that was the problem
see>>31523519 pic related

File: 1388432017401.jpg (121KB, 598x683px) Image search: [Google]

121KB, 598x683px

>>31523775
>worn down G3 and M203, AND collapsible stock
This arouses me greatly.

>>31523922

Surplus is surplus for a reason, no need to get defensive to something that is in its nature inherently shit to begin with

File: 1458488867739.jpg (2MB, 2832x3965px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 2832x3965px

>>31523929

File: 242435243.jpg (3MB, 4000x3000px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 4000x3000px

>>31523958
The A4 collapsible stock is so fucking good looking, just not worth the hundreds of dollars from rtg

File: standard-7.jpg (71KB, 509x480px) Image search: [Google]

71KB, 509x480px

>>31523908
???
well your experience and my own differ wildly
it may be shipping storage before it gets to you
sometimes ammo that has to come in a truck from high heat desert to cold mountains and other extremes in shipping have problems

File: JHylD7gNfLbziTIxDqqB75Pp3BGy6ATuZCOhZOlp25Q.png (92KB, 265x258px) Image search: [Google]

92KB, 265x258px

>>31523958

oh shit

>>31523973

shit eye relief and smacks you in the face

>>31523980

I live in Texas, it didn't travel that far

File: SAM_0003.jpg (421KB, 706x1350px) Image search: [Google]

421KB, 706x1350px

>>31523986
I have personally had zero issues with my setup

I should say though the, G3A4 was my favorite fucking thing in Far Cry 2

Got every upgrade for it in online and it was so worth it

>>31524007
Is that a 30 round CETME mag on the bench there?

File: C93_Hensoldt2.jpg (99KB, 416x914px) Image search: [Google]

99KB, 416x914px

>>31524051
I wish, those are pretty unobtanium

Funny thing is, I don't even have a PTR or anything, it's just a C93 so those are 40 round magazines

Sorry to dissapoint bruh

>>31523936
>Surplus is surplus for a reason,
never heard of military stockpiling?
>no need to get defensive to something that is in its nature inherently shit to begin with
???
ok im not saying that its all good ammo
but in this case it was not the ammo it was the guns manufacture
you know the g3 the gun that when built correctly was designed to eat both good and bad ammo just as well, like its MG forefathers

File: 1474071322873.jpg (72KB, 956x960px) Image search: [Google]

72KB, 956x960px

>>31524075
Not disappointing at all bruh, That sexy bitch pictured will probably be my next raifu, and I aim to configure it exactly as you have yours set up. Nice shit senpai.

>>31524122
Albeit with the wide triangular hand guards. Also, Hensoldt scopes are God damn hard to source these days, so I will probably just throw a red dot up there and call it a day.

File: DSCN0251.jpg (1MB, 2400x1800px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 2400x1800px

>>31524135
>>31524122
Really? Shit bro, alright. Well, just letting you know it isn't cheap. And Hensoldts were like 800$ on RTG.

I'm no HKfag but fuck it, it's robust and doesn't lose zero. Tried a bunch of shit to mount a rail but I couldn't find anything that worked. I wasted money on UTG shit.

I mean, it's decent, but there aren't any brass deflectors that will work with the mount on. And be careful, keep checking the bolt gap because most of the kits obtained have shitty trunnions and you have to keep buying larger bearings. Also, some have shitty barrels too. Thankfully mine wasn't a dud.

>>31524203
Also, it looks fucking sexy with the bipod, see >>31523447

>>31524203
Yeah, I already learned the hard way about UTG with one of my AK's. Scope wise, I would love to do a Hensoldt but they are sold out everywhere I look and the ones I can find on gun broker are used and look iffy. I figure the rifle itself will run me around $750.00 with FFL transfer, tack on another $120.00 for the spare MEK mags and about as much for an ATI collapsing stock. I don't typically shill ATI shit but the original HK collapsing stocks are God damned expensive (I don't have to tell you, lol) and the ATI stocks get good reviews on line. I bought a PTR-91 in the A3 configuration last year and now I have a serious hard on for roller delayed blow back.

>>31524103

Surplus ammo that gets sold isn't from stockpiles especially if its a NATO nation, ammo nearing the end of its service life will get taken on a "training exercise" whose sole purpose is to get rid of aging ammo so the bean counters can justify buying a new lot in the same amount

"Surplus ammo" is usually rejected lots from the factory that failed the already low bar military inspection in order to qualify for service. The manufacturer will usually sell these rejected lots in bulk to the civilian market at a discount just so they can recoup some of the production costs


So yes, surplus ammo is literally the shit that failed to pass quality control

>>31524430
Source?

>>31524502

Its common knowledge, everyone in the military has been on ammo dump exercises. Rejected lots being sold on the cheap is a well known practice

>>31524526
>Its common knowledge
Then it should be easy to provide a source.

>>31524537

I'm not writing your college paper, if you can't accept that you have been buying literally rejected ammo then fuck off

>>31524586
Are you mad because you get called out when making things up? I'm not asking for an annotated bibliography, just a source for your claims.

>>31524617

You can literally google this shit, this entire thread is just you know understanding the mechanics of roller blowback and then questioning everyone who has experience with the system

If you want to keep buying rejected ammo go on ahead, most of the time it will be fine due to the testing process going off a percentage base anyways

>>31524640
>You can literally google this shit
Then why can't you find a source?

>>31524668

Why can't you prove you aren't a cock sucking homo?

>>31524704
Because the burden of proof is on you to show your claims are true, not for me to find something that doesn't exist. If it's so common knowledge and easy to find, then you would have done it already.

>>31524730

Jesus Christ you are worst than the guy who had a 100 post thread dedicate to him not using the charging handle correctly therefore not putting the bolt in battery

Its not my job to spam /k/ with links you will never read anyways. Hell you probably haven't even watched the videos I recommended earlier

>>31524824
I watched the inrange C308 test when it first came out if that's what you're referring too. I think trying to judge the angle of the ejection pattern is a little less than conclusive evidence about the exact specs of the ammo they used. Post a source that proves me wrong and I'll happily admit my error.

Again, I'm not asking you to do a lot, just post a source that's apparently so easy for you to find that supports your claim. I googled it myself and the only things I could find were random arfcom threads that weren't conclusive either way and even if they did agree, it's not really a reliable source.

>>31524887
I'm wondering if this is the same faggot that Ian and Karl b&. They posted almost verbatim.

>>31525181
I'm kind of curious too. They seem really insistent on something they have no proof of. It's not like the C308 did that bad either.

File: farrow-2yt.jpg (54KB, 468x500px) Image search: [Google]

54KB, 468x500px

>>31524430
>"Surplus ammo" is usually rejected lots from the factory that failed the already low bar military inspection in order to qualify for service. The manufacturer will usually sell these rejected lots in bulk to the civilian market at a discount just so they can recoup some of the production costs
ok i can see this going on but not all surplus ammo is this
>>31524526
>>31524586
>>31524640
>You can literally google this shit,
>>31524730
>If it's so common knowledge and easy to find, then you would have done it already.
>>31524887
>I'm not asking you to do a lot, just post a source

ok so i just got back to the thread and was reading this so i did some googleing and other searching
its not that simple to find examples of bad ammo being sold as surplus
most of what i find is fudds complaining about how 2 out of 50 rounds of .22 did not work
did find some examples of really bad ammo but this also came from non factory manufacturers (aka some guy in his basement)
the rest was examples of 1 in 500 to 1000 rounds being defective
and that's not bad QC manufacturing rate by any standard of something made millions at a time
this makes sense as when the things that make ammo work they work for thousands of rounds at a time and when they don't work they make thousands of the same defect at a time so QC can find defective rounds before they even finish making them and fix the problem and the defective ons are usually used a scrap to make new rounds that are not defective and can be sold at full price
in short if its from a factory its 90% or better to be good ammo

so the idea that
>surplus ammo is literally the shit that failed to pass quality control
just dont hold up
it can be old, it can be to different specifications, it can be cheap, and it can be improperly stored at some time in its life
but it is almost never "shit that failed to pass quality control"

>>31525354

depends on what nation the surplus is from, NATO countries is usually rejected lots, commie bloc countries is alot of old corrosive shit they don't want to use anymore

>>31520655
>owning a C308
You deserve everything bad that happens to you.

>>31525384
>NATO countries is usually rejected lots
And then we go full circle where I ask you to provide a source for that claim.

A lot of surplus is just over produced ammunition. Whoever ordered it at the time wanted X amount of ammo, but when delivery time comes up, they decide that they didn't shoot all of their previous stock of ammo, and so decides to take less then what was agreed upon. BUT, these are contracts, so, the manufacturer gets paid their original agreed upon amount (usually). Think of it like when you pay for Internet or cable. You pay a set amount regularly and use whatever you use. Some months you'll use a shit ton, but others you'll hardly use at all. This is how it goes. But of course there are some rejected batches. I.E. 1 in every 1k or so is defective beyond a set parameter(pick a reason). FYI, it's about a 1:5 of every round will be a flyer if you're shooting on paper target with M855.

He'll most of it isn't even from batches that were submitted to their respective DOD/MOD as the manufacturers are just keeping up production for "in case of emergency"(military related) which has happened a couple times for the DOD in the past 15 or so years.

>>31525447
I'm not even using a C308. Cetme Sporter. Bought it about 6 or so months before the C308 was announced. And I've had to to some work to it. But the core system works amazingly well (I.E. the barrel, trunnion, bolt assembly, and bolt carrier assembly)