CETME or HK Trunnions?

[mitchstoner]

I recently bought a couple of CETME kits with new US barrels and US trunnions from Bravo 5. Kits look good and so do the barrels.

My question is about the trunnions. They are listed on the website as HK trunnions, but it is stated that they will work with CETME as well.

However, last night while looking up something else, I ran across RTG's list of what HK parts will and won't work in a CETME.

Robert says HK trunions will NOT work in a CETME.

So can anyone tell me which is correct?

I would like to use the Bravo5 trunnions if possible to help my US parts count.

[RLDBUSER]

thats a good ?

[jfowl31]

bravo5 claims the internal dimensions of Cetme and Hk trunnions are the same...

They are the only people who I have ever seen claim this, and frankly its a ballsy claim on their part. I've never seen anyone else say its correct, but they seem pretty confident.

when asked about it, they just said they were compatible.... they didn't offer any sort of proof.

[bladeworks123]

This has been a highly discussed topic. There are varying opinions here, and I have come to my own personal conclusion following a boatload of measuring and actually cutting a CETME and an HK trunnion apart and comparing the two at length.....I also have a great deal of respect for Robert G, and highly reccomend his site and his products, and in no way does my opinion suggest that he is wrong, but I have found that the internal dimensions of the trunnions are the same.

The differences lie in minor external configuration, and in the location of the barrel pin hole. I believe that if you were going to try and mate an allready pinned CETME barrel to an HK trunnion (or vice versa) it would not work. So, in that sense they are not compatible. However, if you are building a rifle from the ground up, and are going to drill the barrel pin after pressing a new barrel, then the trunnions will work for you.

When you are building a CETME or an HK clone, the bolt, carrier and cocking tube assembly must be mated together. In other words, all three of those parts must be CETME or all three HK, and after the rifle is built they will not interchange. That's my take on the matter. I would like to see a customer like yourself call Bravo 5 and ask them the same question and see if they can validate or confirm that my theory is correct, and report back. If I were building another rifle, I would not hesitate to use the new US trunnions for the build ... either HK or CETME.

[jfowl31]

I lean the same way as you Bladeworks.......... I just want good hard proof before I jump in. I want this company to show me blueprints that say they are identical since they are going to claim it against all prior thought. Just think... if they are wrong, that's a lot of pressure right next to a shooter's face... all because they wanted to make some extra bucks.

I WANT to believe them, but show me hard evidence first!

[bladeworks123]

Yes, I would also like to see some prints or other proof, just to expand my knowledge and confirm what I have found... cutting apart four trunnions in my shop and doing comparisons is pretty crude science compared to the equipment necessary and available to them to manufacture one. I think they are being pretty stubborn about their answers, and it would make sense to me that they would want to prove this in the interest of selling more of their trunnions.

[mitchstoner]

Well, I am of the opinion that if Bladeworks has cut apart and measured CETME and HK trunnions, and has found they are the same, that is pretty dang good proof. So the barrel pin hole location is the major difference. Btw, I have done business with Robert/RTG, and found him to be a great source of both parts and info.

What I am getting ready to build are 4 more or less generic CETMEs, all CETME on the inside except for compliance parts. But at least 2 will have HK furniture, one will have HK sights. (guess they are going to be frankinCETMEs) I'll be bending flats from Copes for my receivers. Wouldn't have a clue how to do that if it wasn't for this forum.

Thanks for the great info!

[jdowney]

would this imply that those HK .22lr kits will in fact work in a cetme?

[jfowl31]

would this imply that those HK .22lr kits will in fact work in a cetme?

The carrier is still a problem. Different length and girth.

[bladeworks123]

As much as I'm flattered by your faith in my opinion,,,,I would still recommend that you call Bravo 5 and get the assurance from them, since they built it. I think the more people that do this, the better we would all feel, and the more apt they would be to realize that "because we said so" only works for mothers and grandmothers. I'm just one renegade windmill tilter that thinks I'm right, You are the guy who needs to be convinced....

[bladeworks123]

would this imply that those HK .22lr kits will in fact work in a cetme?


The carrier is still a problem. Different length and girth.


That's right, If the rifle has a CETME cocking tube assembly, the HK carrier will not work.

[mitchstoner]

Yeah, may do that (call Bravo5) next week on one of my days off. But come to think of it, what more are they going to say other than what they say on their website?

That "it will work?" I might suggest what you said, about publishing a bit more specific data, that it will help their sales of trunnions.

[mitchstoner]

Shucks, now you got me thinking I may have bought at least one HK cocking tube instead of a CETME. Gonna be spending more on CETME parts, and starting to regret that AK drum and folding stock I just ordered. LOL

[jdowney]

That's right, If the rifle has a CETME cocking tube assembly, the HK carrier will not work.

Just as well, that was probably not a temptation I really needed :icon_biggrin: