Discussion Starter · #1 ·
My buddy in equador is doing millitary time and he sent me this pic. Anyone know what type of gun this is or anything about them?
40.4 KB Views: 348
That pic looks like a Cetme. (HK93 clone)
Actually HK's are based off the CETME design. The original G3, was Americanized as the 91, but was the result of Germany not selecting the FN FAL when the US pushed the 7.62 on NATO. The CETME design won the German trails, but it had to built in Germany and HK got the contract to do that. Them and Rheinmetal tweaked it a bit and really took it to the peak of the design ability. Funny thing is, the designers who built the CETME were from Germany who fled at the end of the war to Fascist Spain.bhale187 said:CETME is an HK91 (308) clone, that's an HK93 handguard, not a CETME handguard, and that is definately a 223 HK93 mag, not a CETME 308 mag
It may be a brand other than HK, but it's certainly a 93 clone if not a HK93
The original HK ones and the civilian 93s are because of their weight the roller locking bolt system take what umph the 5.56 has out of it. And of course they are HK tough. Clones are hit or miss, some manufactures make good ones but dro a lemon every once and a while,, while others like Century it's more likely to get a lemon.shiflet said:Are they good guns??
Actually HK's are based off the CETME design. The original G3, was Americanized as the 91, but was the result of Germany not selecting the FN FAL when the US pushed the 7.62 on NATO. The CETME design won the German trails, but it had to built in Germany and HK got the contract to do that. Them and Rheinmetal tweaked it a bit and really took it to the peak of the design ability. Funny thing is, the designers who built the CETME were from Germany who fled at the end of the war to Fascist Spain.
The rifle in the picture however is a HK33E, the updated export version of the HK33. They were a HK design that oddly enough was later copied by CETME, thus coming full circle. Ecuador bought then in 1994 to replace the FN FAL. The first batch were manufactured in or bought from England (conflicting references) oddly enough. They later bought smaller batches from Chili and Turkey.
You can tell the difference between it and the GK93 by looking at the front on the trigger pack. It has a pin and a paddle mag release, HK93s do not have these features. The pin deletion is that you cannot simply drop in a select fire trigger group. When HK first imported a civilian semiauto G3 into the US it was called HK41, but in order to comply with NFA requirements and make it more of a sporter rifle the modified it by deleting the pin hole and welding in a shelf to block you from installing a selective trigger pack and called it the HK91. The HK93 shared that feature along with the US preferred button mag release.
They do take proprietary magazines, but G41 grew out of the HK33 Platform and was designed to take the STANAG magazines like those used by the M16 family of weapons. It never really took off with Turkish Gendarme being the largest single user.
The CETME (Spanish government design firm) design is the out growth of the Mauser STG 45(M), but the CETME design had nothing to do with HK. The original CETME prototypes were developed in 1950 in response to a Spanish army request for a automatic rifle. The prototypes were chambered in 7.92 mm and developed by Spanish and German designers, with working models running by 1952.
When NATO went 7.62 CETME wanted to play, in 1954 CETME went to HK and asked for help transitioning the design to the new NATO round. As part of the deal they got to produce their own version. When the G3 won the trials, HK and Rheinmetal got the German side and tweaked the guns and began development of all the HK features we know and love. CETME produced and marketed something more in line with the early developmental models of the G3 which is why there is some parts incompatibility between the 2 platforms.