The Century's are still a bit of a crap shoot. I got lucky, and got one that works well, without having to do more than cleaning and lubing. The CAI monkey that assembled mine put white grease on the non-contacting areas, and the recoil tube was filthy - made it gritty and hard to cycle. A good cleaning fixed that. My metal is good, but the butstock was used to pound tentpegs, and will need some TLC. CETME and HK magazines all fit good in mine, some have said that the mags may be tight (inserting/removing several times will loosen it up) or may be loose.
Accuracy in mine seems okay, though I haven't shot it on paper yet. Killed several milk jugs at 100 yards, though! Eighty or so rounds through it, without a hitch so far. I've been using Cavin .308 - saving my SA R1M1 7.62X51 for shooting on paper next weekend.
Mine is the stamped reciever. The cast SS recievers seem a bit better put together - also more expensive.
Addendum - 1-15-03
Put another eighty rounds through it, most on paper. It shoots a bit to the right - I need the front sight alignment tool - but some mighty tight groups!
Nary a hitch, four mags shot with perfect performance. Good CAI Monkeys! :wink:
It was a cold morning, and that hot barrel felt so good - "Happiness is a warm CETME!" :lol:
I just purchased my CETME rifle about five days ago. There was some delay in Colorado's instant check background system, so much for instant check. That gave me some time to do some Web browsing on this particular weapon. Years ago when I first got out of the Army I had an opportunity to buy an HK91 for about $300. At that time that was a lot of money. Now I wish I had bought it. I have been wanting one ever since. I had an opportunity to buy this CETME from Arctic shooting supplies in Pueblo CO for under $400. From everything I have read, I must have hit the jackpot. The rifle seems to be constructed of all new parts. It has a century arms receiver, all CETME receivers are stamped by the way, and black plastic furniture. There was no excess of grease in the weapon. In fact, it looked like it had just been cleaned. I field stripped it just to be sure and was very pleased with what I saw. I bought an extra HK G 3 magazine which at first did not want to lock in place. I solve this problem by grinding down the catch area on the magazine very slightly. Now it pops in with no problem. I took my CETME out to the range and again was extremely pleased. It was already zeroed or very close. It was shooting slightly to the left. Elevation was great. Rapid firing twenty rounds at 100 yards I got all but two rounds within the outer circle of the target. Taking my time, I can shoot a 1 to 1 1/2 inch group. As I said, the only problem is that it shoots slightly to the left. Which brings up my next question? The instruction manual that I got off of the Internet tells how to adjust windage. But unfortunately, it doesn't look like the correct information. I can find no windage adjustment on the front site. Does anyone have some accurate information on windage adjustment before I have to do something radical like bending the front site pin? In summary, I would have to say that I am very pleased with the CETME rifle. I have an M1 Garand rifle and I shoot in the civilian marshalship program. As far as accuracy goes I suspect that the CETME will equal my M1. The one thing that I don't like about it is its fluted chamber. I understand its purpose and if I ever have to use it in extremely dirty conditions, I know it will work but I doubt that I will be reloading brass that has been cycled through my CETME.
Mine jammed once at 60rds but i was told to they break in at 200rds and they get better. It is an awesome gun and I would buy another one for sure. Even if i had a bad one they sure are worth fixin you just have to shoot one to believe it they are so smooth and cycle so fast. BigBill
In my further research I also learned that U.S. Navy seals, Army special operations, and Marine recon used HK91 and the HK 93 in their operations. For all practical purposes the CETME is an HK 91 or there is so little difference as to not be considered. I wished the CETME had windage and elevation adjustable rear sites. Other than that, I think I will be very pleased with this weapon. I'll probably continue to use my M1 Garand for shooting my civilian marksmanship program competitions. Ergonomically the CETME is not really set up to be used in one of these competitions with ease. This is only due to the location of the charging handle.
Got my Cetme in June. It is the SS reciever and cost me $390. The paint job on the metal parts wasn't done on all the metal parts, but for a basic parts gun I have no qualm. The workmanship on the new reciever was very good and it looks very sharp. All four mags that came with it work with no problems noted, the 5 round mag was new, the other 3 used. The weapon needed a through cleaning from grease, and the barrel took some work cleaning since it looked as though a Spainard used Russian type bullets with the wonderful Russian gunpowder. The gunk had the smell and look of the Russian ammo residue that came from my SVT 41 rifle when I cleaned it. I shot 40 rds and had no problems with the rifles function. I am pleased with the rifle and believe it was money well spent.
I own a HK 91 and I have liked it very much and I have always wanted to own a MP 44 or 45. I don't want to spend the kind of money that I would have to, to get a MP 45. I don't need a full auto rifle either, so the Cetme is a good compromise.
Since I have a HK 91 and also a SVT 41 rifle, they both have fluted barrels and I have never had a problem with reloading the cases. I must admit that I have not loaded these cases over 4 times as of yet. I am more careful with the visual exam and checking for case head separation than with other cartridges that I reload.
I did note since I have several plastic HK 91 magazines, that the Cetme doesn't like to seat the mags, so I just use metal mags and have no problems.
Well, I ended up going with an FN FAL built by Ohio Rapid Fire (~ $525 shipped with 2 mags and hard case). Couldn't be more pleased. Shoots great with surplus, looks brand new, came with a one-year warranty, etc. I have purchased many guns over the years that I was underwhelmed with after 30 minutes at the range, this one is a keeper!
I basically felt this was a better way to go for the money than a CETME, even though the initial investment was higher.
OK all you CETME owners, here's the straight dope! Some of you may have already figured this out. If you are thinking about mounting a scope on your rifle and you have decided to use B -square mount, this is what I have discovered after setting my rifle up with a 3 by 9. The mount fit my rifle without a problem. Tightened down as far as I could with hand pressure only. Look like it was on their solid. It was rocksteady. By the time I had my zero where I wanted it, about forty rounds worth, I noticed that the mount had moved forward until it came to rest butted up against the rear flair of the injection port. It's still tight as a drum and there seems to be no problem. I never would have believed that as tight as I had that secured, that it would work its way forward. I guess I have to give a good deal of credit to the buffer design of this weapon. It kicks no more than an M-16 but it must have a helluva lot more recoil in order to move that mount forward as it did. Long story short. I left it there. It seems to work fine right where it is. And the flair on the injection port prevented it from moving forward any further. There are two set screws on the top of the mount but they had little effect. One other good thing I like about this set up is that I also have a 45 millimeter red dot and with this particular mount, I can switch from the 3 by 9 to the red dot and back without losing my zero on either one.
A forum community dedicated to the great outdoors and hunting enthusiasts. Come join the discussion about hunting, fishing, survival, archery gunsmithing, optics, reviews, accessories, classifieds, and more!