You should shoot both a few times as a side by side comparison.All things considered, if manufactured correctly both will be reliable, dependable, accurate guns. Both platforms have pros and cons generally but only you can determine what fits you better. Also what do you want it for: General use, home defense etc? That might also influence your choices. Your situation is not unique but it’s definitely not a bad one to be in. For me, if I had the financial wherewithal and no issues with either I’d keep both! Good luck!

 

thanks very much. Appreciate the input.
this rifle will be a defense tool for the rare situation when a battle rifle is needed. One that I can stake my life and my family on if needed.
Thanks again.

 

I have both and they are both proven designs. I would shoot both and make your decision on some field experience. The SOCOM 16 will be a bit lighter and more compact, but in the end which one do you shout better, they shoot both be plenty reliable.

 

Mags are super cheap of the PTR, that might stack the deck in it's favor. Do you have other PTRs in say 9mm, if so the manual of arms would be the same? As others have said, shoot them both and then decide, probably can't go wrong with either.

 

I’m somewhat new to the .308 battle rifle.
I have a PTR 91 (recent model, it’s very new). I like this rifle, haven’t shot it yet. It’s got the navy polymer lower.

I also recently purchased a Springfield M1a Socom 16. Haven’t shot that one yet.

Assuming both are in spec and not lemons, which would be the most durable/reliable over the long run? I know that the M14 series can be made more accurate. But what I’m mostly interested in is which rifle would be most likely to continue to operate reliably with minimal maintenance, and continue to work as a potential heirloom to my kid / future grandkids?

I know the PTR rifles seem to be made to very close specs of the HK 91s. I’m considering sourcing the wood furniture and an original leather sling.
I know this an HK forum; but which one should I keep if I could only keep one of the two?
Thanks. View attachment 347129

I would shoot them both first and make a decision but I am biased toward the ptr.

 

The PTR will be easier to put a scope on. The open-top of the M14 design can end up having shells bouncing off a scope mount and back into the receiver. On the other side, the M14 won't get as dirty as the PTR/G3 type in the chamber/magwell area. Not a real problem if you maintain the weapons and clean them. But if you suspect you'll shoot long courses of fire, it might be a consideration.

If you reload, the SOCOM will be easier on the brass than the fluted chamber of the PTR.

I had a SOCOM and full-sized M1A at one point; sold them when I got my HK91. For me, the big win with the G3 series is the ability to use the 22LR conversion kit with it. Cheap plinking / practice, or small and large game.

 

Both are reliable if well maintained. Personally, I would keep the PTR 91.

 

I own a couple M1As and a PTR-91 and HK-91.
I may have a different point of view than some of the previous comments. The SOCOM M1A is not markedly harder to scope than the PTR-91 (Railed). Depending on which SOCOM model you have, a scout scope rail is preinstalled on most of them. IF not there are reliable and available receiver mounts out there from Sadlak, Smith Enterprise, and Springfield that work well. That said a good M1A mount is like a good HK91 mount, not exactly inexpensive. The PTR rail is a potential advantage and it is welded on.

Yes, magazines for the M1A/M14 are more expensive than for the HK91/G3 but after you've picked up 10 of them for either rifle you pretty much have a lifetime supply, especially at today's .308 costs. The price gap has been getting closer together. The days of $3-$5 G3 mags are probably gone for good. Realistically you probably aren't going to be carrying more than 4 extras with 1 in the rifle simply because of the weight.

BOTH of these rifles are hard on brass. The extraction speed of the M1A is among the fastest of any semi auto out there.
The HK fluted chamber is a cosmetic effect but ejected brass is almost universally heavily dented across the body of the case. Essentially once you've trimmed brass for either of these guns 4 times OR once you detect a thinning in the case wall inside the brass with a wire probe or the rim is damaged or the case mouth folded it's time to toss the brass.

As for the .22 LR conversion kit for the HK. Yeah there are some of them out there and you can get one if you want it enough. You are probably better off buying two or three Ruger 10/22 rifles and a dozen mags for less money. The HK conversion kit is essentially a collector's item at this point and priced to match.

I don't currently have any intention of getting rid of any of the M1As or 91s that I own.

 

As for the .22 LR conversion kit for the HK. Yeah there are some of them out there and you can get one if you want it enough. You are probably better off buying two or three Ruger 10/22 rifles and a dozen mags for less money. The HK conversion kit is essentially a collector's item at this point and priced to match.

Yeah, I probably should have been a bit more specific. If you just want to shoot .22LR, a 10/22 or similar is obviously a cheaper, and arguably better, choice.

The real advantage of the 22 conversion is training. If you don't drill weapon handling or run & gun and so on, then it doesn't matter -- but if you're really trying to be proficient and efficient with your rifle, there is no other way but to drill.

Even at the expensive prices the 22LR conversion is currently at, you'll save the money on 308 ammo in short order if you drill even occasionally. About 1000 rounds. I shoot more 22R than that in a month through my HK91 and AR15 / CMMG conversion.

 

The PTR 91 seem like it has more recoil to me. I do own both platforms and consider them to be pretty close collection and field wise. Either one would make a great battle rifle. Metal mags for the PTR 91 seem to be robust and will literally last forever. The M1A mags also are metal and will last a lifetime. Stick with the original aluminum and metal mags for the PTR and original GI mags for the M1A. The PTR also has the training bolt and blue ammunition for training that might be fun for the younger crew building up to the real ammunition. My Socom II has the built in mount along the whole rail system. Does not move at all. I put a high end scope on it and it's dead on with the LR 118 ammunition. I also tried a Trijicon Tri-power on the M1A. Worked out perfect for 150 yards and closer. I tried two mounts on the PTR 91 and found the original clamp mount to be the best route. I paid $800 for the PTR 91 and $1600 for the Socom II. If I only had to keep one, it would be the Socom II. Last note, for hunting with a 5-round magazine, the M1A magazines from Springfield work but aren't very long and cost about $40.00. For the PTR 91/HK 91 platform, the 5 round magazines that are available aren't that greatly made and cost around $30.00 (POF) while the high grade HK 91 (Original HK) 5 round mags run around $80-$90 which is a bit crazy if you ask me.

 

Keep the PTR, ditch the M1A.

 

As everyone has said - shoot them and see what you like. That may tell you immediately.

I have both (actually M1A Loaded, not SOCOM), and they are very different, but I wouldn't part with either.

Whichever one you sell, you will eventually regret it!

I've made a few mods to my PTR91 102, that have made it easier to shoot accurately, but I also enjoy the platform in its basic form (Cetme C/C308) -

 

I’ll add this also to the mix…In regards to utilizing either platform for “self defense ”, you might want to consider something in 5.56 if your situation does not require the range or penetration of a full power 7.62x51 platform. Back in the day, one fellow I was friends with was enamored with 7.62 platforms. He used to say no “Mattel toys” (ARs)! with exception of 22LR rifles & 12ga shotguns, every rifle was in 7.62x51, 3006 or 300win mag! Bought ammo cheap & stacked em deep so to say! The “eye-opener” for him was when he signed up in the mid 90’s for an urban rifle class ( I forget where & who taught it) and his beloved 7.62 platforms beat him up a bit for the class in a lot of ways. At one point in the class, he borrowed either a Colt or Bushmaster( back when they were still the big three of ARs) carbine and placed 4th in shoot off. This was after being in the lower tiers time wise in almost everything except accuracy. He was just slower due to a variety factors. Reliability was top notch along with familiarity of platform but the heavier caliber was cumbersome, in a few ways. For the record he was using the SA M1A Scout rifle stock with an either Basset or a Sadlak mount with an Aimpoint Comp on it.Mags we’re allOEM 20rnd. Needless to say after the class he sold a different M1A and bought two Colt carbines. While he’ll never ove away from 7.62 completel, the AR in 5.56 has its roles! Heck if you decide to go the 5.56 route can stay “in the family” and pick up a MR556! Something to think about…

 

I agree with the last poster. A rifle in 5.56/.223 or 6.5 Grendel or 6.8 SPC is easy to control and faster shot to shot simply because there's nearly zero felt recoil in any of the intermediate calibers. Inside 200 yards there's not that much advantage to the .30s. (and the larger calibers .450/.458/.50x42 while fun aren't really serious SHTF options.)

The extra bullet mass is effective but you pay for it with a heavier gun, heavier (and more expensive) ammo and a significant increase in recoil. That last one is noticeable even when you are young and in shape but as you get older has even more effect. It also is notable when you start talking about sharing the weapon in a SHTF situation with your wife or not yet grown kids...

 

All of the above is correct... and I agree with literally everything that has been said... but I will speak to one of the criteria that you mentioned that I think has been passed by... but please keep in mind, this is purely speculative: "and continue to work as a potential heirloom to my kid / future grandkids"

They both can be reliable and require no major surgery (assuming that the round count is reasonable throughout it's life/use)

But I assume you are interested in value? I could be wrong, there... but if you are talking about value, my belief would be that the M1A will likely hold it's value/appreciate better than the PTR and the M1A's starting value is higher. I'm not sure on production numbers but from the "how many I see at the range" aspect, I also believe that the M1A is more rare.

 

HK91 as Survivalist Rifke
(JC Dodge)

M1 Springfield
(JC Dodge)

— FULTON ARMORY has always made xtra nice M14 clones. But video makes clear that it’s a rifle sensitive to hard use. No longer in service. Clinton Admin destroyed the majority of them.

— HK91 now quite expensive. But updates have kept G3 type in military service. Huge quantities built in many countries. Advantage here, and with the price of magazines; ultimately a disposable item.

100 G3 mags vs 100 M14 mag price difference is enormous. Parts, then mags where longest service life is important advantage will always be to the G3 types.

9 Hole Reviews for PTR 91 rifles/AK4 clone builds and...

.

 

Clinton Admin destroyed the majority of them.

Complete fuddlore.

Whatever didn't get sent to Taiwan was available in the thousands-of-rifles circa OIF-III/ IV... sad but true. We took them right out of the bluebags from AAND, slathered them up in CLP overnight, and mated them up to a rolling-gray-trashcan full of random birch, walnut, and fiberglass stocks the next day.

They were terrible rifles... and this was one of the saddest things I ever witnessed, institutionally, in the Army.

Being in the A Co, we had a rack of M16A2s that were signed out for D&C and funeral details across the battalion. These were transformed into 10x better DMRs... same parts, magazines, and ammunition too!

We still have so many M14s coming out our ass that we are sending them to Ukraine to get rid of them.

M14s in Ukraine

Over the past month or so we’ve seen an increasing number of photographs of M14 rifles appearing in Ukraine. Developed in the 1950s and chambered in the brand new 7.62x51mm cartridge it entere…

armourersbench.com

 

As far as examples of the G3-type and M14-type, neither a PTR-91 nor a Springfield M1a Socom 16 is an heirloom grade weapon. The same can be said of a DSA FAL- especially the "Voyager" models.

Both rifles you mentioned are value engineered and will experience parts failures earlier than a duty grade rifle. Will that happen in the first magazine, or ten-rounds-sooner? Nobody knows.

Your best option is to keep the PTR-91, since the SOCOM-16 is an improper type.

Your best-best option is replace both with an MKE G3 when they hit, source an M14 parts kit on a Fulton, or even an Armscorp recevier, and source a good condition Imbel-on-Imbel FAL build.

We only buy "clones" when the legitimate article is not available because licensed production is not present in the market (or prices have become artificially inflated)... and because HK hates us.

 

I wasn’t happy with my used JLD/PTR91, and sold it. That person tried to sell it a year later with no luck. It was a good rifle, bull barrel, threaded muzzle, correct flash hider.

I too am waiting on the MKE91’s which hopefully surface next year. Unfortunately the SAR-3/8’s have risen exponentially in price.

 

About 1-million M14 produced:

1). “479,367 M14 rifles were destroyed by Presidential Executive Order during the Clinton administration.”

2). “A large number of M14s in the government’s inventory were destroyed (“demilitarized”) during the tenure of Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara. The rifles were typically destroyed by cutting the receivers in two with a torch or machine shear. The vast majority of the government’s M14 rifles, some in brand-new, unissued condition, were destroyed by the late 1960s or early 1970s. A few remained on hand for sniping use and other purposes, but only a relatively small percentage have survived.”

An Official Journal Of The NRA | The M14 Rifle: John Garand’s Final Legacy

— The tooling was sold off to the Taiwanese circa 1968.

— The 100,000 (reported) donated/sold to the Baltic countries barely 10% of original production.

The majority were cut up for scrap per NRA. It’s a dead end road.

— The article linked in the post above cites the likelihood of M14 sourcing being the Baltics.

The point being that surplus parts, etc, almost don’t exist compared to the G3 and its ilk. G3 licensed production is 6-8/million. Tens of millions of magazines alone.


High Round Count & Hard Use HK-91 & PTR-91

Not many HK91 imported to US. “Fuddlore” is believing it’s the only acceptable G3 version.


The OP ought to settle for what he most enjoys, . . but the long future is predicated on ammo, magazines and parts.

It’d be nice to have a crate of “new” rifles around which to establish a generational family armory. All the appropriate tools, parts and literature to effect repairs. Keep ‘em running.

7.62x51 was the important choice.

.

 

About 1-million M14 produced:

1). “479,367 M14 rifles were destroyed by Presidential Executive Order during the Clinton administration.”

Name the Executive Order... and then we'll know this is a true statement. They are all in the National Archives.
(It is not true. It is a lie.)

I googled this also, and can't find any source for the quote, but there was a hoax perpetrated in writing back in the day that conflated numbers of "weapons destroyed" by DLA with "ZOMG! Muh wood-and-steel M14 Battle Rifle!"

I can almost guarantee you that the vast majority of these were M3 Grease Guns, BARs, and other end-of-lifecycle weapons (notice you don't see these keep popping up).

Regardless of when-or-why these rifles were disposed of- they all should have been disposed of by DLA, who manages our war stocks. The M14 is well past the end of it's lifecycle, parts no longer exist in the supply system.

We should not arm our allies with obsolescent equipment that can not possibly be supported. We should not have armed our own forces with such weapons in the GWOT- and it was borderline criminal that we did.

Separately, from a different angle... who really, actually thinks that President Clinton popped up over at DLA back in the 90's and told them that we would never fight with M14s anymore, and we should get rid of them?

Separate from that... if this was a real event that occurred, why do these rifles keep popping up... and when will they just-go-die?

And perhaps most important of all- if we can get back to a balanced budget and run surpluses again... then what other old junk do we have laying around that can be delivered final disposition?

 

*I apologize if I sounded argumentative, and I see now that you did link the source for that statement.

Unfortuantely, I simply do not trust anything the NRA says, at all... and there are known hoaxes around this topic (The CMP director is the featured Bad Guy in one of them too).

I just hate that we were expected to fight the enemy with these piece of **** old rifles, in a DMR role no-less, and that we spent more $$$ on garbage Sage stocks, ARMS #18 mounts, and those idiotic hackjobs that Smith Ent. got paid to produce than it ever would have cost to prove out a modern, DPMS/ low pattern AR-10-type.

The market would end up producing one anyway commercially, but imagine what could-have-been if we could actually spend a little money on new stuff that we need instead of a lot of money on old stuff that nobody wants.

 

*I apologize if I sounded argumentative, and I see now that you did link the source for that statement.

Unfortuantely, I simply do not trust anything the NRA says, at all... and there are known hoaxes around this topic (The CMP director is the featured Bad Guy in one of them too).

I just hate that we were expected to fight the enemy with these piece of **** old rifles, in a DMR role no-less, and that we spent more $$$ on garbage Sage stocks, ARMS #18 mounts, and those idiotic hackjobs that Smith Ent. got paid to produce than it ever would have cost to prove out a modern, DPMS/ low pattern AR-10-type.

The market would end up producing one anyway commercially, but imagine what could-have-been if we could actually spend a little money on new stuff that we need instead of a lot of money on old stuff that nobody wants.

It’s greatly unfortunate that the M14 was a step backwards compared to FAL & G3. Militaries dumped FAL as soon as they could. Maybe Brazils IMBEL could alter that, but . . . .

Only G3 soldiers on in military service of note.

As an American I’d much prefer to have a quality American military rifle (semi) than anything else. 30.06 ain’t available like it used to be, either. M14 & M1 are dead in the water.

An individual can devise the workarounds with extra rifles, spare parts, etc, etc, as he sees fit for something no longer supported.

AR-10 was never a serious contender. No standardization and next to no war service. Doesn’t stop someone (as above) acquiring several where 2-3 owned = one working example.

The Cold War ended with the JFK assassination. NATO & Warsaw Pact both downsized starting in 1964. One world government pretty close. End the draft, etc. Issuing soldiers poodle-shooters to make sure unsupported renegades (no armor, air support, arty, RPGs, etc) could pose much threat as riflemen.

As before, 7.62x51 the important part of the choice.

.308 is no slouch for every other use of a rifle, and derivatives .243 to .338 Federal means a host of rifles to fit perceived needs on one cartridge family is apt perception.

.

 

You’re on a HK forum here.

Everyone I know personally here in the Pacific NW would choose the “sweet“ 16 Scout. They sell immediately on our local forum. PTR 91’s not so much.

Ask the same question on the M14 forum and see what kind of responses you get.

Facts are, HK91 is a more accurate rifle, but a pita to clean. Luckily they run great dirty. The ergos suck on the 91, is the most common complaint. I personally have no desire to own a M14 derivative. I love Garands, obviously another personal opinion.

If you want a 91 that holds value, get a real HK. It’s ultimately up to you. Choose what feels best to you.

 

Sell the m1a! They are pulling a premium right now. The ptr not so much. Put the msrp of the m1a in the bank. Give the extra to bills. When the m1a is back in stock buy a new one. If you reload sell the ptr. Iike my m1a more than my cetme build. I like my fal more than both. I like my fal more than my lmt kac mixed parts m100k clone.

 

Sell the m1a! They are pulling a premium right now. The ptr not so much.

The M1A is going to hold it's value though- IF CAI can bring in legit MKE G3s close to their MP5 prices, the PTR is about to become a $500 rifle next year.

Anyway, they are both hobby grade rifles, and new units of each hit the shelf daily.

Not sure if that means that they must be sold instantly though...

 

Keep them both. You'll later regret parting with either of them.

 

IMO...I think you should shoot both and then decide with one you want according to their features and your preference.

 

Me.....? I'd keep both! I'd rather be Safe than sorry.....FWIW....!

 

I’m somewhat new to the .308 battle rifle.
I have a PTR 91 (recent model, it’s very new). I like this rifle, haven’t shot it yet. It’s got the navy polymer lower.

I also recently purchased a Springfield M1a Socom 16. Haven’t shot that one yet.

Assuming both are in spec and not lemons, which would be the most durable/reliable over the long run? I know that the M14 series can be made more accurate. But what I’m mostly interested in is which rifle would be most likely to continue to operate reliably with minimal maintenance, and continue to work as a potential heirloom to my kid / future grandkids?

I know the PTR rifles seem to be made to very close specs of the HK 91s. I’m considering sourcing the wood furniture and an original leather sling.
I know this an HK forum; but which one should I keep if I could only keep one of the two?
Thanks. View attachment 347129

Both are great battle rifles. I would shoot both and see which one I liked best. I have a ptr 91 and an hk 91. PTR bought the 91 plant in Portugal and are built to spec. I replaced the grip module on the ptr with an hk pinned metal lower.They both shoot the same in my opinion. I bought the hk new in 1985 and the ptr in 2015. I shoot the ptr most of the time now to limit wear and tear on the hk because of the value. Get a Bill Springfield trigger job and you'll really like it then. The Springfield M1A is a great gun for defense or hunting. If it was me I'd keep both.

 

PTR bought the 91 plant in Portugal and are built to spec.

Are they? If so, it only took them two sets of ownership and three different factories to start producing to the TDP, which they ostensibly had from FMP.

PTR is actually famous for ignoring the specs and experiencing poor results.

I always wonder what Jose Luis Diaz actually paid... and what I would have done if a G3 factory came into my possession. I definitely would not have set up shop in Connecticut.

 

Another thing to consider is the still current wide availability of extremely cheap replacement parts for the PTR/G3. For a few bucks you can have 3 lifetimes worth of parts to keep it running

 

There was some mention of scopes. I give the PTR 91 with a scope a big ol meeeeeh. I've got one of those German Fero Z24 scopes and found that the cheek weld sucks, I put on a cheek weld extender and it still sucks due to the extra height of the claw mount. In addition it's a battle rifle and the accuracy isn't all that great, 3-4" at 100 yards if I remember right. Hardly worth scoping if you ask me, so I went back to irons.

 

There was some mention of scopes. I give the PTR 91 with a scope a big ol meeeeeh. I've got one of those German Fero Z24 scopes and found that the cheek weld sucks, I put on a cheek weld extender and it still sucks due to the extra height of the claw mount. In addition it's a battle rifle and the accuracy isn't all that great, 3-4" at 100 yards if I remember right. Hardly worth scoping if you ask me, so I went back to irons.

I've gotten 1.5" groups at 100 yards with GMM168gr in my PTR91, and I think it can do better.

Most PTR91s come with a scope rail welded on the receiver, and you can either use higher rings if you want to keep the iron sights, or remove the rear sight and use medium rings, as I have (photo in post #12). Either way, you will want to come up with some type of cheek piece. I've used a Victor Titan universal riser before going to a Magpul stock.