Drakejake
Member
After playing with a couple of FALs for a few months, I more or less accidentally acquired a Century Cetme built in 2004. (I put in a bid that I thought would be a loser.) I took it out yesterday and was happy to find that it worked fine with three different kinds of G3/Cetme mags.
The FAL has a strong, compact receiver which I suppose is cast; the Cetme has a flimsy, huge stamped receiver. The Cetme receiver is two feet long because it incorporates the cocking lever tube. One of the big differences between the two firearms is that in the FAL a fairly modest sized bolt and bolt carrier moves back and forth as the rifle fires, whereas firing the Cetme sends a much bigger, heavier package of bolt, bolt carrier, recoil tube, firing pin, and firing pin carrier back towards the shooter's shoulder. I don't know whether the recoil spring bottoms out, but it certainly makes a big clank.
The Cetme is known for being quite dirty because the fluted chamber allows gun powder to blow into the receiver. The dirt is fairly superficial and easily wiped off, however.
I find the easy-opening FAL a simpler design than the Cetme, which comes apart when two pins are pulled. The Cetme allows the firing suite to fall out for easy access while the FAL keeps the parts tucked into the lower receiver.
Thus far I find the FAL stock more comfortable to use and softer on the shoulder, although the Cetme wood is attractive in an old-fashioned way. My rifle came with an HK retractable stock which lives up to its reputation as a "meat grinder." I could tolerate only a few shots to the shoulder from that compact, strong, but unergonomic device.
I admit that shooting the Cetme has reinforced my appreciation of the FAL.
Comments?
Drakejake
The FAL has a strong, compact receiver which I suppose is cast; the Cetme has a flimsy, huge stamped receiver. The Cetme receiver is two feet long because it incorporates the cocking lever tube. One of the big differences between the two firearms is that in the FAL a fairly modest sized bolt and bolt carrier moves back and forth as the rifle fires, whereas firing the Cetme sends a much bigger, heavier package of bolt, bolt carrier, recoil tube, firing pin, and firing pin carrier back towards the shooter's shoulder. I don't know whether the recoil spring bottoms out, but it certainly makes a big clank.
The Cetme is known for being quite dirty because the fluted chamber allows gun powder to blow into the receiver. The dirt is fairly superficial and easily wiped off, however.
I find the easy-opening FAL a simpler design than the Cetme, which comes apart when two pins are pulled. The Cetme allows the firing suite to fall out for easy access while the FAL keeps the parts tucked into the lower receiver.
Thus far I find the FAL stock more comfortable to use and softer on the shoulder, although the Cetme wood is attractive in an old-fashioned way. My rifle came with an HK retractable stock which lives up to its reputation as a "meat grinder." I could tolerate only a few shots to the shoulder from that compact, strong, but unergonomic device.
I admit that shooting the Cetme has reinforced my appreciation of the FAL.
Comments?
Drakejake