Page 2 of 8 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 77

Thread: MarColMar and HMG Cetme L a Detailed Comparison

  1. #11
    Senior Veteran sdk1968's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    3,115
    Rep Power
    361
    dude you do some of the absolute best laid out reviews & compares ive ever seen anywhere on the net.

    excellent work.


    first question for you: do you prefer the tighter magazine well? (yes i do, it can always wear in vs loose & sloppy)
    say what you mean & mean what you say!
    TEC Tactical=SOT/07 i work there.

  2. #12
    Senior Veteran
    scottz63's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Location
    Central Mo.
    Posts
    4,110
    Rep Power
    278
    Quote Originally Posted by sdk1968 View Post
    dude you do some of the absolute best laid out reviews & compares ive ever seen anywhere on the net.

    excellent work.
    I agree completely! Awesome as always.
    14EH AIT Instructor-PATRIOT Fire Control Enhanced Operator/Maintainer

  3. #13
    Senior Veteran The Great 308's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    SE Ohio
    Posts
    1,857
    Rep Power
    195
    As the others have said, great review and comparison. Thank you very much for taking the time to share this with us. I am really looking forward to the rest of your thread including results from the shooting range.


  4. #14
    Senior Veteran Combloc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2015
    Posts
    576
    Rep Power
    208
    Alrighty then. I've been drinking whiskey this evening and I'm feeling a bit like Jim Morrison but we're going to make a go at it! Let's look at some stuff!!


    We'll start with the 3 pronger flash hider thingees.
    This first picture has the HMG produced jobber in focus:

    It works fine and looks nice but it's nowhere near what an original looks like. It came loose the first time I was out at the range so I put it back on with blue Loctite and it hasn't come loose since.

    The one on the MCM rifle is an original:

    It's clearly different than the HMG offering and, because it's original, it's more neato!


    Tis is just a general shot of the barrel finish. The MCM is on the right:

    I don't know much about the HMG barrel but I can tell you, it's more accurate than my HK93 in my hands. The MCM barrel is hammer forged, nitride and has a 1in 7 twist. I expect it to perform admirably.


    Here we see the new made MCM front sight post on the left and an original on the right:

    Notice that they have made it thinner for more precise aiming. They have also modified the design so that the adjustment detent engages only along the bottom of the post instead of running up along the side. I haven't taken it apart but I assume there are more positions built into the post so that it can be dialed in more accurately. It's a nice feature.



    While we are looking at sights, here is an original rear sight aperture set to 200 meters:


    And the MCM aperture set to 200:

    Notice that it's larger. That's because MCM has reamed it out a bit to give you a better sight picture. It's a small thing but trust me, it's nicer with the slightly larger aperture. The 400 meter apertures are both as they left the factory. I wish MCM had painted in the "2" and "4" like it was originally but they did not. It's an easy fix though.


    An interesting difference between my HMG and the MCM is the fact that the MCM has retained the divot in the rear sight base allowing the mounting of a scope rail while HMG filled this space in.

    Now, it's entirely possible that HMG had nothing to do with this and the sight base on my HMG rifle may simply have never been cut for a scope rail to begin with. I simply do not know. Whatever the case, I can mount a scope on my MCM rifle with the proper scope mount but I will never be able to do so on my HMG. That's OK though as I really don't plan to mount a scope anyways.



    But I'm getting ahead of myself. I'm supposed to be starting at the front and working my way back. so let's get back to that plan, shall we?


    Here we see the cocking handles. The MCM, is at the top:

    Other than the fact that the MCM is either refinished in a darker phosphate or has a better darker original finish, notice that both plastic bits, while original, are different. The plastic on the HMG slightly wraps around the steel front part of the handle while the plastic on the MCM stops at the handle. One is not better than the other and it's an insignificant thing but it is a variation. Neat!


    Here, we see a comparison of the welds on the two rifles. To be specific, we are looking at the weld where the cocking handle meets the front of the receiver. The MCM is at the top:

    Notice that the HMG has a better weld here. Not only is the MCM weld aesthetically inferior, but it also shows an ugly void. I'm sure it's plenty strong but it is unsightly. In fact, it's the most unsightly weld on the entire rifle. While we are on the subject of welds, let me say that, in my opinion, the rifles are equal. In some places the HMG is better while in others the MCM is the winner. I'm not going to call out each and every detail but I am going to show the same areas on each rifle so that you can make up your own mind about who has done the better job. I will say that I think both exhibit sufficiently strong welds and I have no worries about failure on either rifle.



    Here is a shot of both rear sight bases from the oblique front with the MCM on the left:



    The rear of both receivers with the MCM on the left:

    Both are shaped pretty much identically but MCM has taken the time to fill in the voids along the lower edge and at the corners where the reinforcing block sits. While it has nothing to do with the overall strength of the receiver, attention to little details like this are both noticed by consumers and welcome. Good job MarColMar!


    Let's stay at the lower rear of the receiver for a moment and look at there the stock mounting pins pass through. Here is that area on the HMG rifle:

    Notice that the holes are egged out. It works but it shows less than perfect jig alignment. Its just the kind of thing you would half expect to see on a kit gun. I did a write-up about this rifle a while ago and, after corresponding with various owners, have come to understand that some rifles have egged holes as seen here while others do not. Again, it works but it's evidence of a less than perfect build.


    Here is the same area on the MCM rifle:

    No egging; it looks as good as an HK. I would bet that all are this way. If you have an MCM Cetme that has egged out holes, I'd like to hear about it. Now, I will say that sometimes these holes do not line up perfectly with the stock and I have to fidget them through a little bit and sometimes they slide through slick as anything. I NEVER have this problem on any HK I have; they consistently slide home perfectly. BUT, they do fit and maybe they will fit better when things wear in; time will tell. Regardless, MCM seems to have done a much better job here than HMG did.


    Here is a view of the bottom rear with the MCM on the left:

    There is simply no comparison which looks more professional.


    HMG:



    MCM:



    That's it for tonight. That whiskey is catching up and I'm a little too dizzy to type striaght! HAHA!! I'll pick this up and continue on in the next post. Nighty nite!!
    Last edited by Combloc; 02-16-2019 at 12:02 AM.

  5. #15
    Senior Veteran
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Spain
    Posts
    151
    Rep Power
    81
    Very good and thorough comparison, and there are a few people interested in it in my base, even if they have barely seen an L.

    Just to point that there were two types of front sights on the originals: "thick and thin", for lack of better terms. Thick posts were the initial ones, with thinner ones being most common in later production (probably all from 1996 onward). All LCs I ever saw had the thin posts, while LVs had the thick one.

    Also, all military issue Ls had the divot at the rear sight base, even if the scope mounts weren't issued to most units. Don't know why they should take the extra step of filling it.

  6. #16
    Senior Veteran Combloc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2015
    Posts
    576
    Rep Power
    208
    Quote Originally Posted by Sampedro View Post
    Very good and thorough comparison, and there are a few people interested in it in my base, even if they have barely seen an L.

    Just to point that there were two types of front sights on the originals: "thick and thin", for lack of better terms. Thick posts were the initial ones, with thinner ones being most common in later production (probably all from 1996 onward). All LCs I ever saw had the thin posts, while LVs had the thick one.

    Also, all military issue Ls had the divot at the rear sight base, even if the scope mounts weren't issued to most units. Don't know why they should take the extra step of filling it.

    Thanks for the front sight information! As to the divot in the rear sight, yes, it my understanding that all military issue units had it. Why this one does not is a mystery to me. Perhaps HMG filled it in but I don't think so. Whatever the case, I'm glad you are around here posting. The fact that you have actual experience with the original rifles is a potential treasure trove of information.
    Last edited by Combloc; 02-16-2019 at 11:23 AM.

  7. #17
    Senior Veteran
    scottz63's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Location
    Central Mo.
    Posts
    4,110
    Rep Power
    278
    Great write up again, even with a bit whiskey in you! Lol!

    That weld with the void in it is horrible.
    14EH AIT Instructor-PATRIOT Fire Control Enhanced Operator/Maintainer

  8. #18
    Senior Veteran Combloc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2015
    Posts
    576
    Rep Power
    208
    It's my only real complaint about the rifle so far. No, it's not a big deal in the greater scheme of things but it is unsightly.

  9. #19
    New Recruit Private
    Join Date
    Jan 2019
    Posts
    2
    Rep Power
    0
    Picked mine up yesterday (green, green, rail). Finish/welds are great, shipped with the birdcage muzzle device. The only aluminum mags I have that fit are the gen 1 OKAY mags. The OKAY E2 mags won't fit as the magazine geometry is different. Brownells aluminum mags (D&H?) also won't fit. Make sure to pick up a few gen 1 OKAY mags if you ever plan on buying this rifle.

  10. #20
    Senior Veteran cuda's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    211
    Rep Power
    152
    Speaking of accessories...anyone know of a vendor that still has new old stock CETME slings in stock? (green canvas with white leather end). I can find old used surplus slings, but none that are NOS. Years ago they were everywhere back well I bought my CETME C, now I can't find any nice ones. I want one for my L that is coming.

    Thanks.

Similar Threads

  1. MarColMar New CETME L Rifles
    By MarColMar Firearms in forum Cetme/HK
    Replies: 421
    Last Post: 11-17-2019, 08:13 PM
  2. Replies: 1
    Last Post: 04-05-2019, 02:24 PM
  3. Replies: 11
    Last Post: 02-26-2018, 02:00 PM
  4. Rec. comparison
    By WildBillCody in forum AR-15
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 02-13-2009, 11:43 PM
  5. Bolt Gap Comparison
    By W.E.G. in forum Cetme/HK
    Replies: 24
    Last Post: 02-24-2008, 09:59 AM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •