I have always liked the HK91 but thought it was excessively heavy. Of course, this rifle was designed by engineers who just got finished designing rifles for the eastern front in WWII. Further, they were now designing a battle rifle to be carried on a future ATOMIC eastern front–pretty much putting the “S” in SHTF. So perhaps the excessive concerns about durability were understandable.
Anyway, is there any way to cut the weight of these rifles? Turn down the barrels a bit? Maybe drill a few holes? Just wondering.
I second this question! I love the accuracy and durability of my HK91, but it is a bear to hump. I have a Vector V51 incoming early next week that I am hoping will replace the 91 for hunting, but I question its durability.
I was thinking cutting the barrel to 16 inches would help a bit. Perhaps one of the polymer lowers? That might save a bit. I suspect you could cut some tasteful vents in the hand guard and maybe even the stock.
The bolt is heavy, but I don’t think it would be wise to cut it.
You might turn down the barrel a bit.
It seems like all the serious weight is in that massive bolt. The stampings aren’t particularly thick. I am sure there are a few places you could drill out.
The weight really comes from the bolt carrier and barrel trunnion.
The receiver is pretty light, being stamped sheet metal, and the barrel is actually also pretty light.
Strip the rifle down to the barrel and action and you’ll see just how light it is.
A polymer “Navy” lower might help, but not much at all.
The bear of the system is the bolt carrier, and there’s really no getting around it, it needs to be that heavy to deal with the roller locking delayed blowback system.
Battle rifles, with the exception of the newest generation (SCAR Mk. 17 Mod. O, Massoud) are heavy. It’s one of the prices you pay for the cartridge they fire.
The weight is pretty much a function of the caliber and the era the rifle was designed in. You can’t really lose much weight from the design unless you reprofiled the barrel and used the navy lower like Templar mentioned. If it was in an intermediate caliber as originally designed there would be more wiggle room…
Weighs about the same as any other .308 rifle (M14, FAL, etc.)
You could modify it to a K but it doesn’t save much weight and you give up a lot with the shorter barrel.
Gotta remember, it’s not a AR-15 and it’s not a carbine. And you’ll probably screw it up by trying. If it’s too heavy just go to 5.56 like the military did.
You mean you cut the ring that protects the front sight? to sort of make it an open eared front sight? IIRC that used to be a modification people did to Chicom AKs too, but that was a long time ago.
The barrel length on a 91 is 17.71" long. Cutting off an inch and 3/4 is going to gain you almost nothing in saved weight, trade off a LOT in performance at distance and significantly devalue the rifle.
It will not become “handier.” If you want a “handier” rifle get a .223. If it must be HK get the 93, it is almost a pound and a half lighter and a couple inches shorter.
If it absolutely must be .308 get a JLD rifle and make a 51 out of it.
we did something like that with this glowing paint stuff but it was still dark quite a bit in heavy woods ? so opening up the top did brighten things up a lot and I preferred the open top over the round closed top ?
exactly we would open them up at 10 and 2 position ?
and yes this might have been a 80s thing but like I said above it really did make it much easier to see
would I do it now ? dont know this was over 20 years ago we did it to ours
Well, I agree that Cutting 1.6 inches off of the rifle isn’t a huge deal. But, it is roughly the same as the difference between 16 inch and 14.5 inch rifles that people pay $200 and a lot of paperwork to get. It is handier, but not a huge deal I agree.
I really don’t see how a shorter barrel will reduce accuracy. I thought that was generally not the case.
I can see how you will lose some FPS though. Still, I have seen 308s getting shorter–and even some 16 inch bolt precision guns out there.
I don’t think a 14.5 is handier and I think people do it only to have a correct M4 profile for their collection. About the only advantage offered is the bayonet will now fit.
With a 5.56 it’s not a big deal. The main issue is the gas tube/cycle consideration and so long as you don’t go under 14.5 it isn’t a problem. But the 7.62 is a bigger round with more powder to burn (or not burn). As the owner of a 51 I can tell you it leaves much to be desired for application purposes.
It’s fun, but that big fireball is basically telling you “all this burning propellant did nothing for your shot.”
Now granted you are not talking about a 9" barrel. So let me use the example of a 16" vs. 18" FAL. The difference in performance at 100 yards is not dramatic, but it is there. What is pretty much negligible is the difference in weight and “handiness.”
Probably explains why a 16" Para Congo is so popular.
A bolt is going to be accurate enough to make the difference, just as a 700 with a shorter barrel will outshoot a PSG1.
With a HK91 16" barrel vs. a HK91 17.5" barrel you are trading some amount of performance in exchange for nothing. Won’t be dramatic, but there is no gain. That is all I’m saying.
Well, we will just have to disagree about “handiness.” I have a feeling that I am not alone in thinking that an inch or two off a barrel can increase the usefulness of a rifle.
I was under the impression that an inch or two had no measurable effect on accuracy. Indeed, it was my understanding that longer barrels are not intrinsically more accurate that short barrels.
I do agree, again, that the inch or so might cost you some fps. Perhaps 75 or so.
loved the things
this was over 20 years ago we did it to ours