Gunboards Forums banner
21 - 38 of 38 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,488 Posts
The aluminum ones just feel like they are made from recycled German beer cans.
The Aluminum G3 magazines are some of the best alloy mags I have ever seen in my 26 years of service. They are like an art deco piece with their quality, fit, finish, and function. Very strong and lightweight. Far superior to any STANO M4 magazine in service.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
545 Posts
Discussion Starter · #22 ·
The Aluminum G3 magazines are some of the best alloy mags I have ever seen in my 26 years of service. They are like an art deco piece with their quality, fit, finish, and function. Very strong and lightweight. Far superior to any STANO M4 magazine in service.
I'll give you that - they are nicely made.

They just feel light-duty compared to the steel mags I'm used to.

For my Cetme/C 308 project, the original style curved steel mags just looked right.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,291 Posts
I'll give you that - they are nicely made.

They just feel light-duty compared to the steel mags I'm used to.

For my Cetme/C 308 project, the original style curved steel mags just looked right.
I want loaded aluminum ones filling my BAR ammo belt pouches - and the cool looking, slightly-curved steel one in-the-gun. :D
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
454 Posts
What kind of problems was he having? because if it was a problem of it short stroking or failing to feed/eject id bet he had that scope rail cranked as tight as he could get it which was actually pinching the the receiver in that area affecting the bolt cycling. Had the same problem with the first CETME I owned, happened to take the scope mount off for something and the problem went away.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
545 Posts
Discussion Starter · #26 ·
What kind of problems was he having? because if it was a problem of it short stroking or failing to feed/eject id bet he had that scope rail cranked as tight as he could get it which was actually pinching the the receiver in that area affecting the bolt cycling. Had the same problem with the first CETME I owned, happened to take the scope mount off for something and the problem went away.
Failures to eject spent cases mostly, I believe.

I removed the scope mount, but also completely disassembled, deburred, cleaned, and lubed everything before putting it back together to test. I ran about 10 rounds of various ammo through it without any issues before taking it apart completely again to refinish it.

I'm planning to do some accuracy test this season, just to see how it does.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
207 Posts
One must check to make sure the ejector rocker is working freely, with a good spring in the trigger housing. Also, sometimes they bind along the bottom of the bolt carrier if the receiver flats weren't bent properly by Century.

Conelrad
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
154 Posts
Beautiful work!!!


What finish did you use on the metal and the grip. I have been wanting to refinish my G3 for a long time but seeing the finish you did on your Cetme has got me wanting to just do it. View attachment 3922639 The metal doesn't look as good in person as it does in the photo. I recently reworked a G3 wood stock set for my son's PTR 9CT.I used satin black Rustoleum for the metal on his. View attachment 3922642 He is waiting on his tax stamp to put things together but it did run fine with just the rear metal pinned on.
@!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,488 Posts
Pretty much done, except for a couple details.
Looks Beautiful! Spanish Uncle to a Teutonic beauty...

Failures to eject spent cases mostly, I believe.
It looks like you replaced the buffer. That is a good thing. Roller Delay's require that friction buffer to be within tolerances to work properly. An improperly maintained safe queens tend to have the buffers destroyed. People oil the crap out of the rile and then store it upright in a safe. All the oil seeps down into the buffer which destroys the friction tolerances.

You did change the ejector spring on it, right?

I ran about 10 rounds of various ammo through it without any issues before taking it apart completely again to refinish it.
10 rounds isn't a large sample but it sounds promising. Nice rifle, please keep us posted!
 
  • Like
Reactions: jkv45

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,488 Posts
They just feel light-duty compared to the steel mags I'm used to.
They are actually very rugged and there was good reason to phase out the steel magazines in military service. There are some ignorant assertion on the internet about them being disposable. They are not intended to be disposable. There are so many "196X" dated magazines for a reason. Like I said, they are much higher quality and more robust than any AR-15 aluminum magazine I have ever seen. My favorites are the Rheinmetall magazines. They are blued a very deep rich bluing that is almost black.

A soldier will definitely notice the weight difference of a combat load in your kit vs Steel Magazines.

I agree though that a classic CETME-C needs the curve of that steel magazine to have the proper look!!
 
  • Like
Reactions: jkv45

·
Registered
Joined
·
545 Posts
Discussion Starter · #33 · (Edited)
Looks Beautiful! Spanish Uncle to a Teutonic beauty...
It looks like you replaced the buffer. That is a good thing. Roller Delay's require that friction buffer to be within tolerances to work properly. An improperly maintained safe queens tend to have the buffers destroyed. People oil the crap out of the rile and then store it upright in a safe. All the oil seeps down into the buffer which destroys the friction tolerances.
You did change the ejector spring on it, right?
10 rounds isn't a large sample but it sounds promising. Nice rifle, please keep us posted!
Thanks.

I did replace the buffer. I use a light synthetic grease on the rails, so nothing drips down when sitting in the safe.

I've not changed the ejector spring.

The plan is to have it out this weekend to try a few more types of ammo, so we'll see how it performs.

Last time out, I shot about 30 rounds and had 2 malfunctions with Barnaul steel case 168s. I have more of it to try, and a few others, so I'll get a better feel for its reliability.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,488 Posts
I've not changed the ejector spring.
I would change it. It is cheap, easy to replace, and a very common cause of ejection issues. 2 malfunctions in 30 rounds sounds like problems. I would change both the ejector spring and extractor spring too.



The ejector design is different on the CETME and requires a spring where the HK91/PTR91/G3 does not.
 
  • Like
Reactions: jkv45

·
Registered
Joined
·
545 Posts
Discussion Starter · #35 · (Edited)
I would change it. It is cheap, easy to replace, and a very common cause of ejection issues. 2 malfunctions in 30 rounds sounds like problems. I would change both the ejector spring and extractor spring too.


The ejector design is different on the CETME and requires a spring where the HK91/PTR91/G3 does not.
I think you are right. I should order the parts. Thanks for posting the links.

EDIT: Looks like the extractor springs are out of stock. Any suggestions for another supplier?

Had it out again this weekend, and had 3 or 4 malfunctions in about 50 or 60 rounds.

Not exactly impressive, but it did shoot a pretty consistent 3 to 4 MOA at 100 yards with most ammo. I'm using the "2" aperture on the rear sight, and adjusting for 100 yards with the front post height. The biggest issue is losing the tip of the front sight post to a blur - it just fades away and I have a hard time getting precise elevation, so I think the groups could actually be better they are. I was kind of surprised that almost all of the shots were in the black.

German MEN 7.62 x 51 150gr surplus pretty much did the best at just over 3 MOA at 100 yards -
Human body Font Circle Parallel Diagram
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,488 Posts
Not exactly impressive, but it did shoot a pretty consistent 3 to 4 MOA at 100 yards with most ammo.
Yeah, kind of expected out of a worn out CETME kit built by Century. It is combat rifle Minute of Man accurate and all you need.

I'm using the "2" aperture on the rear sight, and adjusting for 100 yards with the front post height. The biggest issue is losing the tip of the front sight post to a blur - it just fades away and I have a hard time getting precise elevation, so I think the groups could actually be better they are.
Using the 200 meter aperture is correct for zeroing.

Should be meters and not yards if possible. Zero at 33 meter (36 yard) on the 200 meter (219 yard) aperture for POA/POI and confirm at 200 meters. Then your sight is aligned with the 300 m and 400 m ranged apertures. I had to shop around to find a range I could shoot in meters. If you cannot find one, yards will work. It just introduces more error into a CETME system chock full of inherent error already because of the sight design.

I am not a fan of the CETME sights. There is a reason why HK did not copy them. Adjusting windage and elevation at the same time from an offset front sight post is not ideal. You end up compromising on either windage or elevation for a "good enough" zero.

Keep us posted and nice shooting!!
 
  • Like
Reactions: jkv45

·
Registered
Joined
·
545 Posts
Discussion Starter · #37 ·
I would change it. It is cheap, easy to replace, and a very common cause of ejection issues. 2 malfunctions in 30 rounds sounds like problems. I would change both the ejector spring and extractor spring too.



The ejector design is different on the CETME and requires a spring where the HK91/PTR91/G3 does not.
You were right. The extractor spring was junk, and the extractor was pretty much just flopping around.

Thanks for pointing that out.

I have a few more parts, including the ejector spring, otw this week. Also got a new locking lever spring for the bolt head.

Current issue is the extreme amount of force needed to disengage the rollers and retract the carrier. The solution I'm looking at involves welding some material on the cocking handle at the highest "cam" point to move the carrier back more as you rotate the handle. I've tested it, and .035" of movement makes a huge difference. The other option is placing a shim inside the cocking tube there the cocking handle cams (like the "dime test"), but the thickness is critical and it needs to be held firmly in place. If I can get the cocking handle to work with a small weld, it will eliminate the need for a precise shim.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
545 Posts
Discussion Starter · #38 · (Edited)
Found the problem with the extreme amount of effort required to disengage the rollers and draw the carrier back on my Cetme.

Turns out the "upgrade" I did to a HK rubber-covered Cocking Handle was the issue. It was a factory HK part, but the rubber-covered Cocking Handles have a different profile on the ramp/cam that forces the rollers to disengage than the metal Cocking Handles (with the open center). For whatever reason, they provide less travel, and it makes disengaging the rollers extremely difficult.

I installed the original Cetme metal Cocking Handle, and it now opens much easier. Interesting thing is I have a new metal Cocking Handle that came on my PTR91, and it has the same profile as the Cetme Handle.

Going to try the new one to see if it is even better than the used Cetme part.

I also found out that the HK Locking Lever and spring will not fit a Cetme. The site I bought it from said it would work with all HKs, PTRs, and "clones" - which to them did include Cetme. They were wrong (I should have checked the compatibility page here), and will give me a credit less a 20% restocking fee if I pay for a return. They also said "Good to Very Good Cond" - but it was crusty and looked corroded.

Update -

Installed the new metal Cocking Handle that came on my PTR91 - and it didn't work. Went back to the original, worn, metal Cocking Handle, and it's the best.

Couldn't see much difference in the profile of the new vs original handle, but there's a difference somewhere. The effort with the original Cocking Handle is half of the others.
 
21 - 38 of 38 Posts
Top