View Full Version : Is the HK G36 robust enough for rough handling and to be use as a military rifle?
Serious Account
04-27-13, 07:12
Since the G36 is largely made of polymer, is it still robust enough to be use as a serious military rifle? I have done a bit of research myself and I ran into various claims of how the rifle often crack or melt when fire in full auto repetitively. Are any of this true?
Army Chief
04-27-13, 07:58
Tough question to answer with any finality. We did run into some of these problems (albeit not to the level that some would have you believe) when the rifles were tested here, and yet, it's been fielded with the Bundeswehr for many years now, and most of my German friends in-the-know seem to like the rifle just fine -- apart from it's 5.56 NATO chambering, anyway. (Some may feel a bit of nostalgia for the 7.62, but no one misses lugging a G-3 around all day.)
I suspect we will never know for sure, since the closest we can seem to get over here is a random selection of costly, and sometimes fragile, SLR-8 conversions. in fairness, I'm not convinced that any of those are really built to the same quality standard as the original rifle. It's a shame, too, because I'm sure that HK USA could have sold a great many HK-36s (semi-automatic) on our shores. I certainly would have bought a couple.
AC
During my time in astan, I saw more Germans with G3s all souped up than anything else.
Sent from my SGH-T989 using Tapatalk 2
During my time in astan, I saw more Germans with G3s all souped up than anything else.
Sent from my SGH-T989 using Tapatalk 2
However....
Most military rifles are carried a lot and shot very little. I don't think any modern rifle gets treated to high round counts like the M-4. I am not taking anything away from the German contribution in Afghanistan, but the G36 is simply not taking the abuse that the M-4 does almost daily.
I haven't used it enough to comment on it's robustness, but the gun is an ergonomical nightmare....
MountainRaven
04-27-13, 12:56
I think it should be indicative that the German KSK have used the G36 for over a decade... and are now buying HK416s.
(Not necessarily that the G36 is a bad rifle, just that it is not as good as an HK416... which may have been selected as much for being German as for being an AR-15 variant.)
I haven't used it enough to comment on it's robustness, but the gun is an ergonomical nightmare....
In what way?
In what way?
Not trying to be a smartass, but I'd assume because it's not an AR. We live in an age where a reciprocating charging handle is a great sin despite them having served well for decades. It seems like the AR is considered the grail and any rifle that deviates from its pattern of operation is considered inferior in the ergonomics department. I've used the G36 and I thought it was fine ergonomically. I didn't like the feel of the actual weapon, but I think it's generally pretty well thought out and head over heels above the roller delayed guns (in terms of ergos, IMO).
I've spoken with a few people who have extensive experience with the weapon, and none liked it. Complaints about ergonomics, layout and function.
The AR is the best laid out rifle in service anywhere.
MountainRaven
04-27-13, 23:29
I've spoken with a few people who have extensive experience with the weapon, and none liked it. Complaints about ergonomics, layout and function.
The AR is the best laid out rifle in service anywhere.
Put an FAL-style non-reciprocating side-charging handle on the AR-15 and I'd agree. Until then....
In what way?
It's a combination of shitty ergonomics and a poor layout/design.
-Charging handle parallell to the receiver; not ideal, to say the least, when it is extremely cold and using winter mittens
-Height over bore ratio is too high, IMO
-Non-adjustable LOP
-Bulky magazines
-Bulky weapon overall
-Inferior magazine release to the AR-15
I much prefer either the AR-15 design, or the old G3 design over the G36 (weapon design, not internals). The G3 uses the same mag release principle as the G36, and suffers from non-adjustable LOP (except for our newest model), but charging handle is much better and it is a much sleeker weapon.
Put an FAL-style non-reciprocating side-charging handle on the AR-15 and I'd agree. Until then....
I agree that the CH location on the AR is less than ideal.
Put an FAL-style non-reciprocating side-charging handle on the AR-15 and I'd agree. Until then....
Off topic but after spending some time with a lwrc repr i am not a fan of the side charging handle. It eliminates the possibility of ambi use.
RearwardAssist
04-28-13, 01:34
Put an FAL-style non-reciprocating side-charging handle on the AR-15 and I'd agree. Until then....
I have never used it or really studied it but American Spirit Arms has a side charging handle that I believe is not reciprocating.
Magic_Salad0892
04-28-13, 01:36
I agree that the CH location on the AR is less than ideal.
I would disagree with this. IMO, it's the only charging handle design on a rifle that I'm aware of that can be ambi. (With the addition of something like the BCM Gunfighter Ambi CH, AXTS RAPTOR, etc.)
I actually would say the AR charging handle is ideal in placement, and I'd take it over something like a SCAR any day.
It seems a lot of people don't like it because it's slow to clear malfunctions.
I would disagree with that, if you practice with it, you can clear malfunctions plenty fast. And if you're actively shooting at something, and the gun malf'd then IMHO you should be transitioning to pistol anyway. Deal with your primary weapon malfunction when your threat is taken care of.
Cincinnatus
04-28-13, 01:42
Check out the episode of TacTv where Larry Vickers goes through a tour of HK museum in Germany. He talks about the G36, and says it is very reliable. He also mentioned it was based on a Stoner design. He also said that the SCAR is very much based off the G36.
I would disagree with this. IMO, it's the only charging handle design on a rifle that I'm aware of that can be ambi. (With the addition of something like the BCM Gunfighter Ambi CH, AXTS RAPTOR, etc.)
I actually would say the AR charging handle is ideal in placement, and I'd take it over something like a SCAR any day.
It seems a lot of people don't like it because it's slow to clear malfunctions.
I would disagree with that, if you practice with it, you can clear malfunctions plenty fast. And if you're actively shooting at something, and the gun malf'd then IMHO you should be transitioning to pistol anyway. Deal with your primary weapon malfunction when your threat is taken care of.
The main advantages of the AR CH is that it can be ambi and it does not interfere with accessories. It is not a poor design, and that is not what I intended to imply. I like the ergonomics of the AR platform, extremely well. The only thing I would change is the location of the CH. It might not be feasable though, considering the layout of remaining controls and handguard design.
For manipulation, a CH located in a more forward position is better, in my opinion. A CH located in the fore-end area, like the cocking lever housing above the barrel on a G3, is more easily manipulated by left handed shooters than CH's located on the side of the upper reciever (AK for right handed shooters, FN FAL).
And the point about transitions does not apply as a general rule, IMO. Not all soldiers are issued secondary weapon systems. I am issued one, Glock 17, but I rarely carry it. I train with it though, to stay proficient. Not all situations indicate a transition either, it is range and terrain dependant. Also, most soldiers do not operate in a vacuum, they have team mates in close proximity who can and should prosecute targets that you are unable to. Infantry tactics differ a bit from your standard carbine course POI.
Check out the episode of TacTv where Larry Vickers goes through a tour of HK museum in Germany. He talks about the G36, and says it is very reliable. He also mentioned it was based on a Stoner design. He also said that the SCAR is very much based off the G36.
The G36 is based off of the AR-18.
Magic_Salad0892
04-28-13, 03:50
The main advantages of the AR CH is that it can be ambi and it does not interfere with accessories. It is not a poor design, and that is not what I intended to imply. I like the ergonomics of the AR platform, extremely well. The only thing I would change is the location of the CH. It might not be feasable though, considering the layout of remaining controls and handguard design.
I think there are advantages for both placements, but I personally prefer the AR location, because pretty much the only time I even use the charging handle is when I'm loading/clearing the weapon. If your weapon malfunctions enough to where it becomes THAT big of an issue, then you may have other problems. Even with AR CH placement, a tap/rack only takes like 3 seconds tops. The same drill with a SCAR type CH would shave maaaybe a second off of that, but now your CH may interfere with your gear, or hand placement, and has no possibility of being a true ambi control. For some the trade off is worth it, to me it's not.
For manipulation, a CH located in a more forward position is better, in my opinion. A CH located in the fore-end area, like the cocking lever housing above the barrel on a G3, is more easily manipulated by left handed shooters than CH's located on the side of the upper reciever (AK for right handed shooters, FN FAL).
I'd agree, for manipulation the SCAR/ACR/G3/FAL type placement is better, (though on a SCAR, I'd run the CH on the right side, like an AK so there's a way to release the bolt during a reload on that side, FNH really should've put a KAC style ambi-bolt release on the SCAR), but like I said before, there are trade offs. If it was a stock gun, that I couldn't flip the charging handle on like an issued 416 (which fits your context) then I agree 100%. But my context comes from personal weapons that I can modify in any way I want.
And the point about transitions does not apply as a general rule, IMO. Not all soldiers are issued secondary weapon systems. I am issued one, Glock 17, but I rarely carry it. I train with it though, to stay proficient. Not all situations indicate a transition either, it is range and terrain dependant. Also, most soldiers do not operate in a vacuum, they have team mates in close proximity who can and should prosecute targets that you are unable to. Infantry tactics differ a bit from your standard carbine course POI.
You're completely correct about the pistol thing, that was kind of an ignorant statement on my part. I apologize.
Larry Vickers
04-28-13, 05:45
In my opinion the G36 is not a bad weapon - but not a great one either
It has some good features and is very reliable but a few things ergonomically and design wise are less than ideal in my opinion
It certainly wouldn't be my first choice in a 5.56mm assault rifle - but it wouldn't be my last one either
It is very interesting in the respect that both the SCAR and Masada/ACR are heavily G36 inspired - and the G36 is an adaptation of the AR-18 ; truly the unsung hero of the Stoner design team - it has influenced far more weapons after it's introduction than the M16 ever did
Crow Hunter
04-28-13, 10:21
It is very interesting in the respect that both the SCAR and Masada/ACR are heavily G36 inspired - and the G36 is an adaptation of the AR-18 ; truly the unsung hero of the Stoner design team - it has influenced far more weapons after it's introduction than the M16 ever did
I have always wondered about that.
Is it because the AR-18 piston system is that good or is it because the system was basically flop in the market and it was assumed that no one would bother pursuing any patent infringement cases?
Speaking from a design standpoint it is always faster/easier/simpler to adapt something that is already in existence than it is to design from scratch and since a piston is such a basic design was it just "low hanging fruit"?
MountainRaven
04-28-13, 11:21
Off topic but after spending some time with a lwrc repr i am not a fan of the side charging handle. It eliminates the possibility of ambi use.
I would disagree with this. IMO, it's the only charging handle design on a rifle that I'm aware of that can be ambi. (With the addition of something like the BCM Gunfighter Ambi CH, AXTS RAPTOR, etc.)
I actually would say the AR charging handle is ideal in placement, and I'd take it over something like a SCAR any day.
It seems a lot of people don't like it because it's slow to clear malfunctions.
I would disagree with that, if you practice with it, you can clear malfunctions plenty fast. And if you're actively shooting at something, and the gun malf'd then IMHO you should be transitioning to pistol anyway. Deal with your primary weapon malfunction when your threat is taken care of.
With respect to both of you, irrelevant.
After spending years with AKs, FALs, AR-15s, SCARs, M1As, &c., &c., &c., the only rifle that needs an ambi charging handle is the AR-15. And that's entirely because of where it is placed. Stick it up front, hanging off one of the sides, and you don't need ambi.
IMO, the REPR's controls are about perfect. (It's just heavy and doesn't really do anything that any other quality 7.62 can do with a lower weight penalty. And frequently at a reduced price tag.) Ambi bolt catch, non-reciprocating charging handle lifted off of an FAL, ambi safety, all that's missing is the ambi magazine release.
As we discovered with the SCAR and ACR: Ambi everything isn't always brilliant. Is there a need for an ambi safety? Yes. Is there a need for an ambi magazine release? Yes. Ambi bolt catch? Yup. Is there a need for an ambi charging handle? In no known universe.
The placement of the AR-15s charging handle isn't ideal for anything. It, quite frankly, sucks. It sucks for charging the weapon. It sucks for clearing malfunctions. It sucks for doing anything when you're prone or in any position other than standing (and it still sucks pretty badly there). The only thing it doesn't suck at is being from the 1960s. The only reason you need an ambi charging handle on an AR-15? Because the charging handle on an AR-15 sucks.
With the exception of the charging handle on the Zip22, possibly on the G36 (I don't have any experience with it, but I thick Arctic is deadnuts on when he says that it sucks with heavy winter clothing), and, arguably, on the SCAR and ACR (which is solely because they're trying to be ambidextrous), I can think of no charging handle on any weapon system as bad as that of the AR-15. (And let's be frank, the charging handle location on the SCAR doesn't keep it from being one of the best 7.62 weapon systems in existence.)
And the bit about transitioning to a handgun: Not everyone always has a handgun. This is especially true in a military context, where 95% of your malfunctions under fire are going to occur; it is equally true for a civilian investigating a bump in the night.
ForTehNguyen
04-28-13, 13:19
doesnt need to be ambi but letting the user be able to swap sides for the charging handle is a great feature
Magic_Salad0892
04-28-13, 13:24
With respect to both of you, irrelevant.
After spending years with AKs, FALs, AR-15s, SCARs, M1As, &c., &c., &c., the only rifle that needs an ambi charging handle is the AR-15. And that's entirely because of where it is placed. Stick it up front, hanging off one of the sides, and you don't need ambi.
IMO, the REPR's controls are about perfect. (It's just heavy and doesn't really do anything that any other quality 7.62 can do with a lower weight penalty. And frequently at a reduced price tag.) Ambi bolt catch, non-reciprocating charging handle lifted off of an FAL, ambi safety, all that's missing is the ambi magazine release.
As we discovered with the SCAR and ACR: Ambi everything isn't always brilliant. Is there a need for an ambi safety? Yes. Is there a need for an ambi magazine release? Yes. Ambi bolt catch? Yup. Is there a need for an ambi charging handle? In no known universe.
The placement of the AR-15s charging handle isn't ideal for anything. It, quite frankly, sucks. It sucks for charging the weapon. It sucks for clearing malfunctions. It sucks for doing anything when you're prone or in any position other than standing (and it still sucks pretty badly there). The only thing it doesn't suck at is being from the 1960s. The only reason you need an ambi charging handle on an AR-15? Because the charging handle on an AR-15 sucks.
With the exception of the charging handle on the Zip22, possibly on the G36 (I don't have any experience with it, but I thick Arctic is deadnuts on when he says that it sucks with heavy winter clothing), and, arguably, on the SCAR and ACR (which is solely because they're trying to be ambidextrous), I can think of no charging handle on any weapon system as bad as that of the AR-15. (And let's be frank, the charging handle location on the SCAR doesn't keep it from being one of the best 7.62 weapon systems in existence.)
And the bit about transitioning to a handgun: Not everyone always has a handgun. This is especially true in a military context, where 95% of your malfunctions under fire are going to occur; it is equally true for a civilian investigating a bump in the night.
I understand what you're saying, but I would disagree.
I don't use the charging handle often during actual firing, in fact, I highly doubt that most people do. Seriously, how often does your weapon malfunction? (Using your defensive mags, when the gun is maintained/clean/lubed, and with good ammo.)
I'd much prefer it be out of the way/ambi. And to actually use it, it's not like you have to do all kinds of weird shit to get to it. I mean sure, it's not as easy to manipulate as a SCAR handle but it's definetely not suck.
Also with the AR handle I definetely appreciate that optics and shit don't get in the way, and you wont jack your hand up clearing a malf like with a SCAR.
(Also the MP7, and I believe the TP9 has the charging handle in the same place as the AR. So there is one other weapon with it in the same "shitty" place. :p)
Also the MP7
I really dislike the T charging handle on the MP7.....
Cincinnatus
04-28-13, 13:43
Perhaps we should start a new thread to discuss whether the AR CH does or does not suck? This thread is supposed to be about the G36.
MountainRaven
04-28-13, 14:19
I understand what you're saying, but I would disagree.
I don't use the charging handle often during actual firing, in fact, I highly doubt that most people do. Seriously, how often does your weapon malfunction? (Using your defensive mags, when the gun is maintained/clean/lubed, and with good ammo.)
I'd much prefer it be out of the way/ambi. And to actually use it, it's not like you have to do all kinds of weird shit to get to it. I mean sure, it's not as easy to manipulate as a SCAR handle but it's definetely not suck.
Also with the AR handle I definetely appreciate that optics and shit don't get in the way, and you wont jack your hand up clearing a malf like with a SCAR.
(Also the MP7, and I believe the TP9 has the charging handle in the same place as the AR. So there is one other weapon with it in the same "shitty" place. :p)
Yes, the MP7 and TP9/MP9 have crappy charging handles... but I seem to recall that they were based on the AR-15's. :P
Anyway. No, I don't often use the charging handle when firing the gun. But that's not when I need the charging handle. I keep my long guns Condition Two-and-a-half; loaded magazine, safety on, hammer cocked, bolt in battery, chamber clear. This is, of course, not uncommon in LE and mil environments, either. In any case, the first thing that needs doing is charging the weapon. Something that I feel infinitely more comfortable and confident doing with a Kalashnikov, SCAR, REPR, FAL, M1A, &c. than with an AR-15.
Grab the gun, tuck the stock under the shoulder, grasp the charging handle, pull fully to the rear and then release. Simple, easy to do. Reach over the weapon for charging handles on the firing side of the weapon with the stock stabilized against the forearm and weapon canted "in". Try doing that with an AR-15 and you punch yourself in the gut and fail to charge the weapon. Try to do it left-handed without an ambi charging handle and it's pretty much impossible without relinquishing fire control. That's not to say that it's impossible or even particularly difficult to charge the AR-15, just that it requires a bit of contortion to do. A bit of contortion that makes the weapon more difficult to operate than it needs to be... particularly if you're trying to charge the weapon while prone, kneeling, hiding behind a car or a bed, inside of- or while extracting oneself from a vehicle, or any other 'dynamic' position.
And I feel that the SCAR is a poor example for how I would want an 'ideal charging handle' executed, crippled by the requirement that the charging handle be able to swap from one side to the other. I would look to the FAL (the Izzy FAL in particular), REPR, and Magpul Massoud. Non-reciprocating, mounted low (or in the middle) on the left-side of the receiver, with an integrated forward assist, far from any optics you might be running. And if you're genuinely concerned about the charging handle catching on your gear, swap for an L1A1-style folding charging handle (and if you need/want a forward assist, you can use a traditional AR-15-style FA).
Perhaps we should start a new thread to discuss whether the AR CH does or does not suck? This thread is supposed to be about the G36.
The G36 would be better if it had an FAL-style charging handle. See above for more of my thoughts on the matter.
:big_boss:
;)
It's a combination of shitty ergonomics and a poor layout/design.
-Charging handle parallell to the receiver; not ideal, to say the least, when it is extremely cold and using winter mittens
-Height over bore ratio is too high, IMO
-Non-adjustable LOP
-Bulky magazines
-Bulky weapon overall
-Inferior magazine release to the AR-15
I much prefer either the AR-15 design, or the old G3 design over the G36 (weapon design, not internals). The G3 uses the same mag release principle as the G36, and suffers from non-adjustable LOP (except for our newest model), but charging handle is much better and it is a much sleeker weapon.
I have heard from many that the ambi charging handle was quite convenient and easy to access with either hand.
Adjustable LOP complaints apply to virtually every other rifle except the AR carbine, and apply to the A2 versions of the AR as well.
Magazines are larger than AR mags, but really not much larger than SIG, AUG or AK mags. Some consider the interlocking capacity enough to offset this complaint.
I agree it is a bit of a Volvo. But you can't really have a streamlined polymer rifle. It of course has the benefits of a polymer rifle as well as the downsides.
Again, the G36 rifle is hardly unique for being a paddle magazine release. This is basically another "not an AR rifle" complaint.
Obviously anyone who has grown up with or received advanced training with the AR platform is going to be most used to that platform and will find AKs, AUGs, HK and FAL variants different if not awkward. But that hardly makes them inferior.
One of my oldest sons who is in Die Bundeswehr was issued a G36 and most of the soldiers I saw in A'stan from Germany had them. Of course they aren't engaged as much as the American military.
I spent an afternoon with a G36C a few years ago. I think I'd prefer the newer collapsible stock, over the fixed length side folding unit but I would definitely trade my issue M4 for one.
I have heard from many that the ambi charging handle was quite convenient and easy to access with either hand.
Not when wearing cold weather mittens, which was my point.
Adjustable LOP complaints apply to virtually every other rifle except the AR carbine, and apply to the A2 versions of the AR as well.
True, but it is still an issue for shooters who are short, wearing BA and shooters who have short arms. We had the retractable stocks on our newest G3's made with a few extra positions for this very reason.
Magazines are larger than AR mags, but really not much larger than SIG, AUG or AK mags. Some consider the interlocking capacity enough to offset this complaint.
The interlocking lugs break easily. The size of the magazines, both width due to the lugs and the large base plate, means more bulk on your vest.
I agree it is a bit of a Volvo. But you can't really have a streamlined polymer rifle. It of course has the benefits of a polymer rifle as well as the downsides.
Maybe. I still think they could have reduced the bulk quite a bit.
Again, the G36 rifle is hardly unique for being a paddle magazine release. This is basically another "not an AR rifle" complaint.
I said that the magazine release was inferior to the AR-15 design, not that it was unique or poor.
Obviously anyone who has grown up with or received advanced training with the AR platform is going to be most used to that platform and will find AKs, AUGs, HK and FAL variants different if not awkward. But that hardly makes them inferior.
For context, I spent 6 years training on and using the G3 and MP-5, in addition to different types of crew served weapons, so I am quite familiar with other weapon designs. And I would gladly carry a G3 in harms way again.
These are my opinions on the G36 platform, and they are formed by my experiences using different weapon systems.
YMMV.
Magic_Salad0892
04-29-13, 12:48
I spent an afternoon with a G36C a few years ago. I think I'd prefer the newer collapsible stock, over the fixed length side folding unit but I would definitely trade my issue M4 for one.
Why is that?
For context, I spent 6 years training on and using the G3 and MP-5, in addition to different types of crew served weapons, so I am quite familiar with other weapon designs. And I would gladly carry a G3 in harms way again.
These are my opinions on the G36 platform, and they are formed by my experiences using different weapon systems.
YMMV.
I understand all that. But I think the raised issues are all pretty minor. Keep in mind I come from a time when AR carbines had two position stocks (open and closed) and you learned to adapt to the rifle rather than adapt the rifle to you. For years everyone in our military carried a M-14 and M-14 magazines and later the M16A2.
Now if something doesn't have a 16 position adjustable folding stock with two independent cheek risers and a removable carry handle and folding sights people treat it like it's a Rubik's cube they must solve before they can employ it.
All the improvements are certainly nice but at some point you need to be able to function with the basic small arms designs most commonly encountered or you are just limiting your own capacity.
Well, I think that you are reading a bit too much into what I wrote. It's not like I wouldn't function if I was handed a G36.
I probably wouldn't have any issues using most types of hand held firearms, as the principle is mostly the same.
I only listed a few issues I had with the platform, no more no less. I am glad it lost to the HK416 in our assault rifle trials though.
To the poster who complains that the AR needs an ambi charger: that's te great thing about the AR. You can just buy the part. Try putting a left side cocker on your M14.
Magazine size issue is solved with new slim magazines. Stock issues are solved with new stock with adjustable length of pull and cheek rest. Accesories compatibility is solved with new aluminum quad rail handguard.
Other features like mag release (operate by trigger finger in new version), bolt catch inside triggerguard and charging handle are more personal preferences (I'm not too fond of charging handle as well).
Photo of newest version with slim magazine from Remov:
http://www.altair.com.pl/files/news/photos/10/10262/hk3.jpg
Regarding military use, it is used by Germans (obviously) and Spain with no serious issues (spare some black PR attacks, more than actual issues). It is also often selected by maritime SOF units do to excellent OTB performance and generally good behavior in/around water (for eg. Polish Formoza, also Norway). It has also huge advantage over HK416 - it is much cheaper.
charmcitycop
05-01-13, 13:01
........
Well, I think that you are reading a bit too much into what I wrote. It's not like I wouldn't function if I was handed a G36.
I probably wouldn't have any issues using most types of hand held firearms, as the principle is mostly the same.
I only listed a few issues I had with the platform, no more no less. I am glad it lost to the HK416 in our assault rifle trials though.
Well you did initially suggest those issues constituted an "ergonomical nightmare."
Just so we are on the same page, I can't imagine ever choosing one over a AR carbine.
Hi all,
I've been "suffering" the G36 since it arrived in Spain, and Artic1 is absolutely right, here we used CETME-C (father of G3) and CETME-L (good design with crap manufacturing) before the G36, and if you use it outside a 200m range in a sunny day * you start to miss even the crappy CETME-L.
A foldable stock is useful only for transportation inside vehicles or in a pack, for reasons beyond my comprehension, HK decided to use a skeletonized stock for "shooting while folded"... never in my life I've seen it used in any situation apart of burning ammo in a range trying to make hits, but the stock can't take any abuse and you can destroy the hinge without really looking to do it.
Also, the first batches of G36s that arrived to Spain came directly from Germany, with the stocks lenght that HK made for the "average German male"... that, plus the oversized armor carriers used in Spain makes the mag-grip not a choice for some soldiers, but the only solution as their arms aren't long enough. The G36s assembled in Spain had shorter stocks.
For allowing access to the ambi-CH, Heckler & Koch decided to use the weird carrying-handle/optic combination, so if you put an EOTech or Aimpoint on it, you can forgot about maintaining cheek-weld, is impossible unless you have the jaws of a hippo (that's why you can see hundreds of field-made solutions with duct-tape for the stocks). Yes, you can take out the handle/optic combo and use a lower top rail... not long enough for mounting a NV device on the weapon, and making even harder to reach the cocking handle.
And magazines... terrible expensive, terrible big, impossible to find compatible pouches, and made thousands of soldiers to think that carrying two mags connected is a good idea... until they put the second mag in a TIC in Badghis and suddenly half Platoon have a malfunction... at the same f***ing time. PMAG-30G are a blessing, and half the price of HK mags!
Magazine release not accessible with the grip-hand, not drop-free... at least is ambi-safe, but you need the thumb dexterity of a twitter addict to use them quickly. Most people here just go without safe and simply load a bullet on the chamber when shtf.
Is a rifle designed before lights/lasers/modern optics... so adding rails and new handguards is expensive and nobody has been able to make a decent solution (Spuhr AB probably have the best design, and I've talked with him and if someone puts enough money he can make a really nice job with the G36). Is a rifle made for conscripts, easy to learn to shoot with them in a very short amount of time, with good accuracy up to 200m... but pure crap to shoot up to 400m (sharpshooters here need tons of ammo for training and the best optics for making decent hits), hard to put light/laser/optics/GL on it, with incredible expensive accessories and that don't allow for what today is considered basic in weapons manipulations.
I just can pray for something like the Remington ACR.
* Is a nightmare to use the CH with cold weather gloves.
Somehow I missed this picture at SHOT Show, but here is a picture I took of a new and improved model that has a stanag magazine adapter while I was there.
http://i1067.photobucket.com/albums/u440/Jason_Prisbrey/IMG_20130116_160856_zps8e984bff.jpg
The height of the optic over the bore is ridiculous.
ForTehNguyen
05-19-13, 21:57
so how can you get a cheek weld on this thing and be able to see through the optic?
The height of the optic over the bore is ridiculous.
I don't think it's any worse than optics mounted on a A2 carry handle. Everyone did that for decades just fine.
so how can you get a cheek weld on this thing and be able to see through the optic?
Was never a problem for me.
ETA: Never mind, I didn't see the picture of the "new" G36 and thought we were talking about the older one.
DiabhailGadhar
05-22-13, 22:24
So just out of curiosity why does HK obsess with that carry handle/top rail instead of just running a rail all the way down except where the charging handle is. I'm sure HK could come up with a way to leave the charging handle where it is and still run a rail right over the top of it....?
so how can you get a cheek weld on this thing and be able to see through the optic?
You push button on side of cheekrest and move it up :D
This new stock has adjustable cheekiest and is collapsible. It helps a lot, however added height of Eothech is not helping. I prefer Aimpoint Micro or CompM4 on low mount on HK G36 rail.
BTW Most of actuall users of G36 line of products come from AK, G3, etc. worlds. There was never as much importance placed into cheekweld on assault rifle as in M16 world. I actually seen G36 with HK combo optic and Eotech on top of that. User of this rifle (Police CT) did not mind, actually he believed that getting his cheek on stock slowed him down.
https://fbcdn-sphotos-c-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-ash4/382158_452491718132355_1067165758_n.jpg
http://s11.postimg.org/irylhnf5f/image.jpg
ForTehNguyen
05-28-13, 21:14
Alleged Corruption In German Military H&K G36 Rifle Acquisition (http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2013/05/28/alleged-corruption-german-military-rifle-acquisition/)
Alleged Corruption In German Military H&K G36 Rifle Acquisition (http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2013/05/28/alleged-corruption-german-military-rifle-acquisition/)
WOW, that was an interesting read. Especially the comments.
Can't wait to see what they find.
WOW, that was an interesting read. Especially the comments.
Can't wait to see what they find.
AFAIK it is more about standard issue Big Army inertia, than actual case "off corruption". Bundeswehr was not interested in making any changes or improvements to G36, even if HK had lot of them ready made by other customers request (for eg. new stock, mag catch and bolt catch for Norway, AR15 mag adapter for Poland, etc., reinforced receiver "for everyone", etc.). So HK sells them, what they want.
In Poland FB Radom has very hard time to convince Army to allow any change to Beryl, let alone convince them that "AK" is not good enough those days.
How long it takes to put any improvement into M16/M4? Is that a "corruption" as well?
Serious Account
05-31-13, 21:06
Wow I learned a lot from this thread. Thanks all.
montrala, what kind of "reinforced receiver" does the new G36 have? What improvements did HK made to the receiver? Can you expand more on this? Thank you.
AFAIK it is more about standard issue Big Army inertia, than actual case "off corruption". Bundeswehr was not interested in making any changes or improvements to G36, even if HK had lot of them ready made by other customers request (for eg. new stock, mag catch and bolt catch for Norway, AR15 mag adapter for Poland, etc., reinforced receiver "for everyone", etc.). So HK sells them, what they want.
In Poland FB Radom has very hard time to convince Army to allow any change to Beryl, let alone convince them that "AK" is not good enough those days.
How long it takes to put any improvement into M16/M4? Is that a "corruption" as well?
montrala, what kind of "reinforced receiver" does the new G36 have? What improvements did HK made to the receiver? Can you expand more on this? Thank you.
There seem to be bigger steel inserts molded into receiver, than in original rifle when first came into service. At least knowledgeable guy who saw my pictures of current G36 (special translucent polymer, presentation version) commented on that. I did not confirm this with HK.
MountainRaven
06-01-13, 12:41
How long it takes to put any improvement into M16/M4? Is that a "corruption" as well?
It took about four or five years to improve the original M16 and M16A1 (1964-69). An improvement that, curiously enough, seems to have involved returning the gun to its original specs....
Some might argue that the M16A2 was a step backwards from the M16A1. But apart from magazines, most of the M16/M4 FOW's advancements have been tendsetting, not fixing problems.
In any case, the Bundeswehr (all branches) has fewer than 200,000 active duty personnel. The United States Army alone has over a half-million active duty personnel. Which one do you think is or should be the more agile of the two?
;)
BoringGuy45
06-01-13, 14:14
Some might argue that the M16A2 was a step backwards from the M16A1. But apart from magazines, most of the M16/M4 FOW's advancements have been tendsetting, not fixing problems.
;)
That's an interesting take. In what way was it a step back? (not arguing, I'm just interested to hear your take on this).
MountainRaven
06-01-13, 14:30
That's an interesting take. In what way was it a step back? (not arguing, I'm just interested to hear your take on this).
Not necessarily my opinion, but....
Increased weight and length. (A result of a longer stock and heavier barrel contour.)
LOP too long for many shooters. (Especially in armor.)
Overly complicated/fragile rear sight. (This is a love/hate thing.)
Three-round burst mechanism. (Pretty much everything about the way it functions.)
Barrel contour. (Usually heavier is OK. But the contour is a big WTF for many: It's heavier where it has negligible impact on accuracy and barrel strength but has a disproportionate impact on how the weapon handles.)
Oh, and that stupid little finger groove on the pistol grip. Hate that thing....
There seem to be bigger steel inserts molded into receiver, than in original rifle when first came into service. At least knowledgeable guy who saw my pictures of current G36 (special translucent polymer, presentation version) commented on that. I did not confirm this with HK.
Would be cool if HK made the G36 with an aluminum receiver having steel bolt carrier guide rails secured in place similar to all the current next gen intermediate caliber rifles. I know it would essentially become a SCAR-L at that point, but still. I have it on good authority that HK did make some tool room prototype G36s with aluminum receivers.
Also, has anyone followed the thread on HK Pro discussing HK USA's plans to offer a US made semiauto G36 to the US commercial market? Jim Schatz comments in the thread that this is likely to happen. If it had come from anyone else I would not believe it. Hopefully it comes to market in a non-neutered form. Will be a must-have for the reference collection.
pointblank4445
06-01-13, 17:41
Would be cool if HK made the G36 with an aluminum receiver having steel bolt carrier guide rails secured in place similar to all the current next gen intermediate caliber rifles. I know it would essentially become a SCAR-L at that point, but still. I have it on good authority that HK did make some tool room prototype G36s with aluminum receivers.
Also, has anyone followed the thread on HK Pro discussing HK USA's plans to offer a US made semiauto G36 to the US commercial market? Jim Schatz comments in the thread that this is likely to happen. If it had come from anyone else I would not believe it. Hopefully it comes to market in a non-neutered form. Will be a must-have for the reference collection.
I value Jim's posts and insight, but he's also said the "P40" striker fire is just around the corner...
Never can tell with HK
Put an FAL-style non-reciprocating side-charging handle on the AR-15 and I'd agree. Until then....
No thanks. I've carried a FAL while hunting. The charging handle knob digs into
YOur gut or back when slung across your body.
That's why you use a folding charging handle instead
Also, has anyone followed the thread on HK Pro discussing HK USA's plans to offer a US made semiauto G36 to the US commercial market?
Very unlikely. Same case was with civi MP7 - too much investment and too much legal hassle, for potentially very small sales.
Making MR556/MR762 was easy, as almost anybody can turn out AR15/AR10-ish parts in US and put it together - they do not even need to have own workshop to do that. And still those are sold only in very small numbers (as fast as HK can make them, but they do not make lot of them). For G36 HK would need to have complete production line for everything (maybe except some pins?) set up in US. And for what? 1000 rifles sold yearly? Less?
Very unlikely. Same case was with civi MP7 - too much investment and too much legal hassle, for potentially very small sales.
Making MR556/MR762 was easy, as almost anybody can turn out AR15/AR10-ish parts in US and put it together - they do not even need to have own workshop to do that. And still those are sold only in very small numbers (as fast as HK can make them, but they do not make lot of them). For G36 HK would need to have complete production line for everything (maybe except some pins?) set up in US. And for what? 1000 rifles sold yearly? Less?
I think a civy MP7 not chambered in 4.6 would sell well.
MountainRaven
06-07-13, 20:24
Very unlikely. Same case was with civi MP7 - too much investment and too much legal hassle, for potentially very small sales.
Making MR556/MR762 was easy, as almost anybody can turn out AR15/AR10-ish parts in US and put it together - they do not even need to have own workshop to do that. And still those are sold only in very small numbers (as fast as HK can make them, but they do not make lot of them). For G36 HK would need to have complete production line for everything (maybe except some pins?) set up in US. And for what? 1000 rifles sold yearly? Less?
I suspect that would largely depend on how they price it.
If it's priced like the MR556... good luck. If it's priced competitively with the Tavor or even the SCAR they'll sell like hot cakes.
The MP-7 and G36 would be decent sellers IF priced right. And US production would improve the potential for US LE sales, again only if priced right.
Anyone see Spuhr's accessories for the G36? I have two words....BAD ASS. Lower profile optic rail with built-in flip up sights. Modular handguard. Ambi NATO/M16 mag well.
A Spuhr accessorized G36K would be pretty neat.
http://spuhr.com/tablet/g36-accessories.html
Heavy Metal
06-07-13, 23:41
Very unlikely. Same case was with civi MP7 - too much investment and too much legal hassle, for potentially very small sales.
Making MR556/MR762 was easy, as almost anybody can turn out AR15/AR10-ish parts in US and put it together - they do not even need to have own workshop to do that. And still those are sold only in very small numbers (as fast as HK can make them, but they do not make lot of them). For G36 HK would need to have complete production line for everything (maybe except some pins?) set up in US. And for what? 1000 rifles sold yearly? Less?
They would not have to produce the small parts in the US. In fact, the only parts they cannot legally import are the upper reciever(the SNed part) and the barrel.
All they need to do is make enough stuff here to meet parts count and th ereciever and barrel are two of those.
pointblank4445
06-07-13, 23:51
They would not have to produce the small parts in the US. In fact, the only parts they cannot legally import are the upper reciever(the SNed part) and the barrel.
All they need to do is make enough stuff here to meet parts count and the reciever and barrel are two of those.
They wouldn't allow the barrel to be made here...lest we forget the MR556. If I believed that HK would produce a civie G36, I would buy every cheap SL8 barrel or parts kit G36 barrel I could get my hands on in preparation for this.
Phase1: Collect SL8 barrels
Phase 3: Profit! (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tO5sxLapAts)
Currently have a SL8 and G36C parts kits in hand. Just deciding how to play this possibility.
I think a civy MP7 not chambered in 4.6 would sell well.
Then it would not be MP7 anymore. Would it? So no point in making it. :no:
The MP-7 and G36 would be decent sellers IF priced right. And US production would improve the potential for US LE sales, again only if priced right.
HK stuff is expensive. This is not only matter of manufacturing cost (they do not cut corners to save few cents), but of back office cost in R&D and testing. HK will never compete in price with companies who just copy 50 or 100 year old designs and do zero R&D and testing. So I do not think "right price" on any HK product happening any time soon. :no:
They would not have to produce the small parts in the US. In fact, the only parts they cannot legally import are the upper reciever(the SNed part) and the barrel.
HK without HK made barrel from Oberndors? I would settle for ASG copy hanging on the wall. Cheaper and about same usability. :haha:
Heavy Metal
06-09-13, 16:10
They are fine importing barrel blanks but they would have to be finished here, just like with the 416.
HK stuff is expensive. This is not only matter of manufacturing cost (they do not cut corners to save few cents), but of back office cost in R&D and testing. HK will never compete in price with companies who just copy 50 or 100 year old designs and do zero R&D and testing. So I do not think "right price" on any HK product happening any time soon.
Considering that they offered the bastardized SL8 here in the US for $1400-$1800, if they could offer a G36 at the same price I think it would sell. Also, the G36 should be inexpensive to produce.
Considering that they offered the bastardized SL8 here in the US for $1400-$1800, if they could offer a G36 at the same price I think it would sell. Also, the G36 should be inexpensive to produce.
They could not. SL8 was "sporting rifle" with fixed stock, single stack 10 round mag and what not. As close as you can get G36 with current US import bans. I'm close to one company, that is trying to export their "modern sporting rifle" for US commercial market - seen all hooks and loops needed.
G36 is inexpensive to manufacture if you have all tools needed, but requires big investment in machinery. I do not believe it would sell in enough number on commercial US market to cover those cost, not without huge govt contract (like XM8 was supposed to be - HK was ready to build US factory for it). It is not AR15, US favorite rifle, it could only get status of curio purchase, like FS2000, Scar 16s, Aug, Tavor or even MR556.
They could not. SL8 was "sporting rifle" with fixed stock, single stack 10 round mag and what not. As close as you can get G36 with current US import bans. I'm close to one company, that is trying to export their "modern sporting rifle" for US commercial market - seen all hooks and loops needed.
G36 is inexpensive to manufacture if you have all tools needed, but requires big investment in machinery. I do not believe it would sell in enough number on commercial US market to cover those cost, not without huge govt contract (like XM8 was supposed to be - HK was ready to build US factory for it). It is not AR15, US favorite rifle, it could only get status of curio purchase, like FS2000, Scar 16s, Aug, Tavor or even MR556.
Could still be brought in as a sporting rifle, just with better thought out and less ridiculous sporter features. Make the receiver the same as the G36 albeit in semiauto only to satisfy ATF. No silly narrowed area around the magwell to prevent standard capacity mags. Make the stock interface at the rear of the receiver. Use an easily convertible tab in the receiver to initially only allow 10 round proprietary mags. Use a thumbhole stock of a new design that interfaces with the standard rear portion of the G36 receiver. Leave the muzzle unthreaded.
Once in the US:
- Remove the thumbhole buttstock and send back to Germany for the next batch of rifles to be imported.
- Remove the special 10 round mag and send back to Germany for the next batch of rifles to be imported.
- Mill out the receiver block
- Thread the barrel
- Install proper G36 furniture and use appropriate US parts to satisfy 922(r) and 925d(3).
Analogous to how the SCAR is brought into the US.
Or (better yet) just import G36k and G36c pistols into the US as was done with the SIG 553. This would be much less costly, as no new tooling would need to be made.
Yes, it is a niche product. No it will not have the same sales as the AR15 in the US. But I do believe it could be offered for $2k. If FN, Steyr, IWI, and Beretta (to be determined) can do it, HK should be able to as well.
If FN, Steyr, IWI, and Beretta (to be determined) can do it, HK should be able to as well.
There is one small difference between HK and mentioned companies - HK is practically small business. It does not have financial power of Steyr or IWI or FN. And Beretta is financially whole different league.
BTW Actually things that you write about can happen. HK is changing their ways toward commercial market. I mean in right direction*. And I mean HK Gmbh in Oberndorf. Is more visible in Europe or Canada now, but I'm sure tide of changes will reach HK USA sooner or later.
* - examples: MR223A1 gets standard receiver pin locations and 14.5" barrel option, MR308 gets "G28 body kit", HK416A5 slim line stock available as accessory, HK45/C introduced for EU market for civilians, etc. Most of this within a year.
pointblank4445
06-13-13, 09:55
They are fine importing barrel blanks but they would have to be finished here, just like with the 416.
416 barrels aren't finished here, they're done in Germany. That's why they all have German proof markings and would require an EUC at this point in the game due to the barrel ban. You're thinking of the MR556 barrel.
HK did open a small us plant in new hampshire a few years back. I know they have a live fire range, but am not sure what they make there.
From my mobile phone
There is one small difference between HK and mentioned companies - HK is practically small business. It does not have financial power of Steyr or IWI or FN. And Beretta is financially whole different league.
BTW Actually things that you write about can happen. HK is changing their ways toward commercial market. I mean in right direction*. And I mean HK Gmbh in Oberndorf. Is more visible in Europe or Canada now, but I'm sure tide of changes will reach HK USA sooner or later.
* - examples: MR223A1 gets standard receiver pin locations and 14.5" barrel option, MR308 gets "G28 body kit", HK416A5 slim line stock available as accessory, HK45/C introduced for EU market for civilians, etc. Most of this within a year.
That is all good news. They have been burned so many times by US import regs and anti-gun legislation. It is a wonder they continue to sell to us.
With that said, I wish they would open up a US manufacturing facility and offer factory new roller lock carbines, G36s, 416s, mp7s, etc to the US commercial civilian market. A guy can dream....
Then it would not be MP7 anymore. Would it? So no point in making it. :no:
I think it's the design that matters. Look at all the people buying .22lr versions of the MP5. The MP5 is a cool gun, and people want to play around with them. If H&K made an MP7 in 17hmr or something similar, I imagine it would be popular.
HK did open a small us plant in new hampshire a few years back. I know they have a live fire range, but am not sure what they make there.
From my mobile phone
I believe they're making the HK45 and it's variants here now.
I think it's the design that matters. Look at all the people buying .22lr versions of the MP5. The MP5 is a cool gun, and people want to play around with them. If H&K made an MP7 in 17hmr or something similar, I imagine it would be popular.
I believe they're making the HK45 and it's variants here now.
HK does not make any of those 22LR versions of HK rifles and SMGs, those are licensed replicas, made by Umarex and others.
"The U.S. affiliate of firearms maker Heckler & Koch GmbH of Oberndorf, Germany, Heckler & Koch USA is the American distributor of a wide range of technologically advanced small arms for defense, law enforcement, and sporting use.
HK Columbus, Georgia serves as Heckler & Koch’s primary American location, responsible for commercial/civilian and law enforcement sales, administration, customer support, repair services, and distribution. A newly established HK manufacturing facility is located in Newington, New Hampshire.
HK Ashburn, Virginia serves the U.S. military, federal law enforcement, and currently functions as HK’s primary North American training facility."
http://www.hk-usa.com/civilian_products/locations.asp
"HK to make new rifles in U.S. facility
Columbus, Georgia — Firearms maker Heckler & Koch announced today that it will manufacture two new rifle designs in a newly opened U.S. factory in 2009. The new rifles, the HK MR556A1 and HK MR762A1, are inspired and influenced by the HK416 and HK417, two highly acclaimed models designed and produced by Heckler & Koch’s Oberndorf, Germany plant.
The rifles will be produced at a new HK manufacturing facility in Newington, New Hampshire. The facility is collocated within an existing 70,000 square foot facility. HK began manufacturing pistols in the U.S. in late 2008."
http://www.hk-usa.com/military_products/mil_newsroom_01152009.asp
HK45 Tactical pistols and an MR762A1 Package are top new HK
products for 2013
back to newsroom
Columbus, Georgia — Heckler & Koch introduced new pistols, a new rifle package, as well as several military and law enforcement products not widely seen in North America at the 2013 SHOT Show, the firearms industry’s major trade show in Las Vegas, Nevada.
Originally developed for the U.S. military’s next generation handgun competition, the new HK45 “Tactical” comes standard with a threaded barrel and three-dot tritium night sights.
With a choice of three frame colors (black, tan, or green), the full-size HK45 Tactical (HK45T) model uses an ergonomic grip design that includes changeable backstraps together with molded finger grooves that instinctively position an operator’s hand for optimal shooting. All HK45 pistols, including the new Tactical models, are assembled at HK’s American manufacturing facility in New Hampshire using American and German components.
http://www.hk-usa.com/civilian_products/civ_newsroom_01152013.asp
MountainRaven
06-13-13, 21:04
That is all good news. They have been burned so many times by US import regs and anti-gun legislation. It is a wonder they continue to sell to us.
You mean unlike FN and IWI/IMI and Valmet (who are now part of SAKO who is owned and imported by Beretta)?
Because they seem to have been treated pretty much the same.
You mean unlike FN and IWI/IMI and Valmet (who are now part of SAKO who is owned and imported by Beretta)?
Because they seem to have been treated pretty much the same.
We are fortunate any of them sell MSRs in the US. HK was directly importing its MSRs when others were being imported by third party importers/distributors. As such, HK was more directly affected by legislation banning said items. Steyr was imported by GSI. FN was imported by Howco, Steyr (Secaucus, NJ), and GSI. Beretta was imported by Berben Corp (maybe others I'm not aware of). IMI was imported by Action Arms and Magnum Research, among others. Valmet was imported by Interarms. So Steyr, FN, IMI, Valmet, and Beretta were selling to an importer who was taking on the financial risk.
HK directly took on importation (and hence higher financial risk) earlier than these other manufacturers.
Then came the '89 executive order broadening the reach of the '68 GCA sporting clause, then 922(r) and 925(d)3, then the 94 federal rifle and mag ban, then re-interpretation of the sporting clause in the late 90s to further restrict imported MSRs, etc. HK made appropriate mods to their product line - the 911, SR9, SR9T. Then those were no longer importable. Then came the SL8 and USC.
We are fortunate any of these foreign manufacturers even seek to hit the moving target that is US firearm legislation and import regs. I do wish Beretta would bring in the Sako M95 and that someone could get the Swedes to bring the AK5 series to the US.
HK does not make any of those 22LR versions of HK rifles and SMGs, those are licensed replicas, made by Umarex and others.
I know, I was just stating that it's success proves that people will buy a similar gun in a different caliber.
Would be nice if they offered 9x19 MP5s made here though as factory SBRs.
On the regular HK45 page it states:
Extensively tested and operationally proven, the HK45 Series is a new paradigm for Heckler & Koch handgun design and is currently being assembled from U.S. and German made components at HK’s American manufacturing facility in Newington, New Hampshire.
http://www.hk-usa.com/military_products/hk45_general.asp
and the HK45c page:
Extensively tested and operationally proven, the HK45C is currently being assembled from U.S. and German made components at HK’s American manufacturing facility in Newington, New Hampshire.
http://www.hk-usa.com/military_products/hk45c_general.asp
HK45CT:
The HK45 CT is currently being assembled at HK’s American manufacturing facility in Newington, New Hampshire.
http://www.hk-usa.com/military_products/hk45ct_general.asp
MountainRaven
06-14-13, 20:46
We are fortunate any of them sell MSRs in the US. HK was directly importing its MSRs when others were being imported by third party importers/distributors. As such, HK was more directly affected by legislation banning said items. Steyr was imported by GSI. FN was imported by Howco, Steyr (Secaucus, NJ), and GSI. Beretta was imported by Berben Corp (maybe others I'm not aware of). IMI was imported by Action Arms and Magnum Research, among others. Valmet was imported by Interarms. So Steyr, FN, IMI, Valmet, and Beretta were selling to an importer who was taking on the financial risk.
HK directly took on importation (and hence higher financial risk) earlier than these other manufacturers.
Then came the '89 executive order broadening the reach of the '68 GCA sporting clause, then 922(r) and 925(d)3, then the 94 federal rifle and mag ban, then re-interpretation of the sporting clause in the late 90s to further restrict imported MSRs, etc. HK made appropriate mods to their product line - the 911, SR9, SR9T. Then those were no longer importable. Then came the SL8 and USC.
We are fortunate any of these foreign manufacturers even seek to hit the moving target that is US firearm legislation and import regs. I do wish Beretta would bring in the Sako M95 and that someone could get the Swedes to bring the AK5 series to the US.
And what have we seen over the last decade?
FN is now importing the FS2000, PS90, SCAR 16S, and SCAR 17S.
Beretta is now making the ARX-100.
Steyr is now making USA-produced AUGs.
IWI now has IWI US making Tavors... with eyes on importing semi-auto Uzi pistols and eventually other IWI rifles (confirmed to include the X95 but likely to also include the Galil and/or Galil ACE).
The question to me seems not to be one of when or if H&K will produce American-made carbines, but why they're so behind the curve compared to FN, Beretta, Steyr, and IWI.
And what have we seen over the last decade?
FN is now importing the FS2000, PS90, SCAR 16S, and SCAR 17S.
Beretta is now making the ARX-100.
Steyr is now making USA-produced AUGs.
IWI now has IWI US making Tavors... with eyes on importing semi-auto Uzi pistols and eventually other IWI rifles (confirmed to include the X95 but likely to also include the Galil and/or Galil ACE).
The question to me seems not to be one of when or if H&K will produce American-made carbines, but why they're so behind the curve compared to FN, Beretta, Steyr, and IWI.
I could not agree with you more. They should have been AHEAD of every other foreign manufacturer.
Use Chrome and translate it....
The P8 is reported to be sucking hind tit also.
Bundeswehr sees "significant deficiencies" in the G36 assault rifle (http://www.spiegel.de/politik/deutschland/bundeswehr-sieht-erhebliche-maengel-beim-sturmgewehr-g36-a-922280.html)
Use Chrome and translate it....
The P8 is reported to be sucking hind tit also.
Bundeswehr sees "significant deficiencies" in the G36 assault rifle (http://www.spiegel.de/politik/deutschland/bundeswehr-sieht-erhebliche-maengel-beim-sturmgewehr-g36-a-922280.html)
Kind like Piers Morgan reporting on M4 problems in US Army.
Here is HK comment on that piece:
http://www.heckler-koch.com/en/military/company/news/detail/article/communique-current-media-reports-regarding-the-g36-assault-rifle.html
Kind like Piers Morgan reporting on M4 problems in US Army.
Here is HK comment on that piece:
http://www.heckler-koch.com/en/military/company/news/detail/article/communique-current-media-reports-regarding-the-g36-assault-rifle.html
Maybe Rolling Stone but not Piers Morgan... ;)
There is certainly two sides to the story. It would be interesting to get some first hand evidence, albeit anecdotal, from a front line user or three.
Maybe Rolling Stone but not Piers Morgan... ;)
There is certainly two sides to the story. It would be interesting to get some first hand evidence, albeit anecdotal, from a front line user or three.
End users I talked to did not support this story. Second side of the story is strong action, supported by leftist media and politicians, to shut down HK completely as "merchant of death". They have allies in form of other weapon manufacturers, who are not affected by this action (not German companies), but would like to see HK kicked out from position of almost sole small arms supplier for German Army.
My reference to Piers Morgan was to outline level of competence and knowledge that Der Spiegel has on issue. I do not know any US tabloid to use as example. But I sure know about this moron.
Army Chief
09-15-13, 17:33
Der Spiegel isn't exactly National Enquirer fare, but it is definitely more of a populist, entertainment-oriented news source, rather than a serious journalistic powerhouse.
AC
My university does an exchange program with Helmut Schmidt University (kinda like the German version of West Point). I currently share the same department study room with 3 Commissioned Officers in the Bundeswehr (2 of them are in the combat arms) and I have asked them about this issue. From my conversation with them, they haven't experienced this issue personally although they have not been to combat in Afghanistan (no idea what their round count or firing schedule is) and liked the G36 overall. But one of the COs did say that there was still an on going investigation regarding the POI shift issue/G36 not suited to long battles complaint. Hopefully the results of the investigation would be made public once the investigation is concluded and it will be interesting to see the results.
G36 not suited to long battles complaint.
And here is a clue. Going mag after mag trough barrel will overheat and generate POI shift issue in every assault rifle. That is why belt fed machine guns with quick change barrels are used. Add to this that regular G36 is light rifle with 19" of relatively thin barrel (per German Army request) - no wonder it has POI shift when hot. All weight increase of MG36 over G36 is in barrel profile, to increase sustained fire capability.
AFAIK investigation on issue is not going toward "HK made it wrong", but rather toward "should we change our requirements".
Everyone I know who has ever used the G36 had varying degrees of contempt for it.
vicious_cb
09-16-13, 20:39
And here is a clue. Going mag after mag trough barrel will overheat and generate POI shift issue in every assault rifle. That is why belt fed machine guns with quick change barrels are used. Add to this that regular G36 is light rifle with 19" of relatively thin barrel (per German Army request) - no wonder it has POI shift when hot. All weight increase of MG36 over G36 is in barrel profile, to increase sustained fire capability.
AFAIK investigation on issue is not going toward "HK made it wrong", but rather toward "should we change our requirements".
Its not the barrel thickness thats the problem. Its the softening of the polymer around the barrel trunnion under heat and the subsequent re-hardening of the polymer giving you a zero shift. Its a pretty well documented problem of the G36.
Everyone I know who has ever used the G36 had varying degrees of contempt for it.
I'm not so fond of it's ergo. Enhanced versions with bolt release and large mag release are little better.
Its not the barrel thickness thats the problem. Its the softening of the polymer around the barrel trunnion under heat and the subsequent re-hardening of the polymer giving you a zero shift. Its a pretty well documented problem of the G36.
Pretty well documented where and by whom? Because I still keep hearing rumors about that, but never came over factual data or at least 1st hand experience from credible source. Every time I checked, those rumors led back to one source.
The Dumb Gun Collector
09-17-13, 23:19
Montrala, don't you know if something is repeated over and over on the internet it becomes true? Crazy foreigner!
vicious_cb
09-18-13, 01:59
I'm not so fond of it's ergo. Enhanced versions with bolt release and large mag release are little better.
Pretty well documented where and by whom? Because I still keep hearing rumors about that, but never came over factual data or at least 1st hand experience from credible source. Every time I checked, those rumors led back to one source.
Ive seen the picture, which I can no longer find, of the a cut away G36 receiver around the barrel trunnion showing the melted polymer around the trunnion threads. It happens, as to how many rounds it takes to get the polymer to melt like that, I have no idea.
scoutfsu99
09-18-13, 05:09
Montrala, don't you know if something is repeated over and over on the internet it becomes true? Crazy foreigner!
If you want proof of that, check into the "OMG! Pmags will destroy your SCAR!!"
Yet no one can provide any evidence of actual damage in .mil or civilian SCARs. Just a video or post showing the potential of a supposed problem.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.