CETME?
 

I was looking at a local Cetme. A FAL or a M1A is out of my price range also. Can anyone tell me what if anything is wrong with them? This one is a stamped Century. If I can verify it's accuracy and reliability, is there anything else I need to worry about? Please educate me.

Re: CETME?
 

If you get a decent CETME, there's nothing wrong with them.

The biggest thing to worry about the rifle you saw was that it was built by Century Arms. Their "gunsmiths" (AKA "wizards") tend to do very sloppy work,sometimes to the point of shipping non-functioning, dangerous weapons. If you're lucky, you'd just end up with a weapon with canted front sights (such as the Century Romanian SAR-1 type AK clones some years back) or slightly excessive headspace (like my Century L1A1 Sporter).

I fixed the excessive headspace problem on my L1A1 Sporter myself by fitting a new locking shoulder, but a new gun buyer shouldn't have to do this.

In building the CETME rifles, Century had a tendency to GRIND bolt parts (can't recall if it was the bolt head or bolt carrier) to make them fit, rather than use properly sized parts in the first place. Sometimes things weren't quite aligned properly, so operating the bolt was an experience in gritty, stiff cycling. I tried one some years ago, and the bolt action was TOO gritty & hard to cycle for my liking.

If you end up with a crap weapon, I believe that Century will sort of honor their manufacturer's warranty, but ONLY from the time they originally shipped the rifle. If your dealer has had it for a year before selling it to you, you're screwed.

Can you tell that I'm impressed with Century's semiauto rifles??

You might want to have a local gunsmith check the CETME for headspace and reliable function before buying it.

Re: CETME?
 

The CETME design has a reputation as an ultra-reliable, robust system. The kind of rifle you would want if civilization collapsed and you could never get spare parts or cleaning supplies. It's drawback is that is is really hard on brass. Not a problem if you don't reload.

There were some issues with some of the Century rifles. I think the biggest one is sight misalignment. On some rifles, the sights had to be adjusted way over, and even then they might not sight in. It would be best to test fire the one you are looking at to see if it has this problem. For a good overview of battlerifles, I recommend "Boston's Gun Bible."

Re: CETME?
 

I see CrufflerJJ beat me to it. Yah, what he said.

Re: CETME?
 

That is some very bad info.

The Contras had G3s (the CETME design) along with FALs, AKs, M16s, and a few M14s. Due to the Contras' laziness and lack of discipline they failed to give their weapons even a modicum of upkeep. It was a real world torture test in the jungle in the truest sense. 'The company' which was sponsoring the Contras retained the services of a Class II manufacturer who spend quite some time encamped with the Contras as their armorer. I happened to meet this fellow a few years after he had done this. What he told me really surprised me about the CETME design. Once rust sets in on the bolt carrier rollers and the corresponding camming surfaces in the receiver he found that there was nothing which he could do to get the G3s to run function reliably, he told me that once that happened the G3s were rendered junk. He said he spent quite a bit of time trying to overcome this problem and finally concluded there was nothing which could be done to restore them to functioning battlerifles again.

He said he very rarely worked on the FALs or the AKs, and only infrequently had to work on the M14s - he said he spent most of his time keeping the M16s running.

This fellow had his bona fides, I saw the documents and dozens of photos of him with the Contras in the jungle.

Re: CETME?
 

we felt it [HK91] was inherently the most reliable of the three types tested. - From the Montana Militia website comparing FAL, M14 and HK91.

Last in Usability and Combat Accuracy, the HK91 type simply falls short in everything but brute ruggedness and reliability. A good Rifleman can make do with a 91, but he wouldn't enjoy it. - From Boston's Gun Bible.

These are two of the many sources I could quote. YMMV. I am 100% in the M14 camp as an all around battle rifle, but the general consensus is that the CETME/G3/HK91 is utterly durable.

BTW, I have no personal experience with the CETME design, which is why I said "has a reputation."

Re: CETME?
 

Another weak spot on the Cetme/HK is the charging handle. If the top of the receiver housing is dented (from banging or dropping) and the charging handle movement is impinged, you are out of action because you have no way to cycle the bolt to recharge the weapon (no bolt-hold-open). Twenty rounds fired and now you are stuck with an awkward club. It has happened.

All of the above comments said...

My brief experience with an HK-91 was that it was capable of stellar accuracy. Yes, it was clunky, heavy trigger, became loose after several disassemblies, but it would shoot. I once fired eight rounds of ragged-brass reloads into 7/8 inch, dead center of the X-ring, at a measured 175 paces, using the iron sights and shooting off the top of my car. But, that was years ago, when I was much younger and had fresh eyes...

I suppose if the Cetme was well maintained it would serve you okay...but there are better choices. Save up for the FAL or take a good look at one of the Saigas in .308.

SC

Re: CETME?
 

The 'consensus' wasn't there in the jungle with the Contras. lol

Neglect of the CETME design will ultimately render it junk. Only the AK and the FAL can withstand the extreme sort of neglect and abuse you alluded to in your first post on this thread. Over on the FALfiles there's 'The Tale of Ol' Dirty' where James has fired over 15,000 rounds over a period of over 6 years through his homebuilt FAL and he still hasn't cleaned it - and that includes one session where he tossed it into a mud puddle and allowed it to soak there until the bubbles quit coming out of it. You could NEVER do that with a CETME rifle. And I've heard extraordinary first hand accounts of extreme abuse of AKs in the 'nam and elsewhere and those AKs would still empty a mag in FA without a hiccup (in one case it had been left to rust up so bad that they had to beat the BCG open with a 2x4 to load it).

Yeah, I know - I was very disappointed too in finding out that about the G3.

Re: CETME?
 

Sounds like you had one of those early commercial HKs with the polygonal rifling.

If a properly built CETME design rifle is maintained at a reasonable level of care, then it should be fine. However some need to quit fooling themselves that the CETME design is 'robust and reliable under harsh conditions' and that timely and routine cleaning/lubing/maintaining it can be completely neglected (in contrast to the AK and the FAL). Although I realize it's strictly due to ignorance - only a small number of people are aware of the Contras torturing assault rifles in the jungle over a long period of time and the results of that.

Re: CETME?
 

I've owned one for several years. Very light felt recoil, you could put a battle pack downrange and not think twice. Surplus magazines are sub $10 and I only get a "bad" one, (one that fails to feed without being worked on), every 20th one on average. Yes it took some tweaking to get it to run the way I want, I knew that when I ordered from them. Century monkey's can screw up an AK, need I say more? For the price plus 20% after tweaks you could do far, far worse. The biggest bite in the butt right now is that a case of ammo will set you back almost as much as the rifle.

Re: CETME?
 

Yes, they ARE talented, aren't they?:biggrin: