Page 9 of 11 FirstFirst ... 7891011 LastLast
Results 81 to 90 of 106

Thread: Bundeswehr picks AR as new service rifle

  1. #81
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    33,884
    Feedback Score
    3 (100%)
    Quote Originally Posted by JoshNC View Post
    Hk developed a PIP g36 that had the optics rails attached to the trunion, thereby obviating any wandering accuracy issues. I had a pdf of this updated rifle at some point, but can’t find it. Frankly, an aluminum receiver g36 with redesigned bolt carrier and cocking handle, better stock, among other things would have been the natural next step. Essentially the 433. I just wish the 433 didn’t have so much odd over styling. It almost looks like an IWI product.
    All of that too. This is the downside of innovating in the field.
    It's hard to be a ACLU hating, philosophically Libertarian, socially liberal, fiscally conservative, scientifically grounded, agnostic, porn admiring gun owner who believes in self determination.

    Chuck, we miss ya man.

    كافر

  2. #82
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    33,884
    Feedback Score
    3 (100%)
    Quote Originally Posted by Aries144 View Post
    Thanks for taking the time to go back and forth with me. I've picked up over the years that you have a great interest in and knowledge of all things HK, which is why I was enthused to engage with you on this subject.

    There could certainly be factors I'm not taking into account. The real test is in use, after all. I'm having difficulty parsing out what incidents may or may not be attributable to the polymer receiver. Like that one where they thought it had zero retention issues, but it turned out to be bad ammo. Or another test done by the InRange guy, where he noted that the Hensoldt optic wasn't retaining zero. If you're confident in your memory and evaluation of the various reports, I don't think I have the strength of evidence to argue.

    You know, that reminds me of something about the G11 that might be tangentially related. It might have been in an interview with Jim Sullivan, where he expressed his opinion that caseless ammo would never work. The key point was that the lack of a brass case to act as a heat sink resulted in the barrel absorbing all the heat and heating up much faster. It was apparently a much larger factor than the engineers anticipated. It wouldn't surprise me to learn that the lack of a metal receiver to absorb and dissipate heat could have a similar effect on the G36's barrel.

    The G36 is certainly cool, but I'm interested in seeing what other rifles can do that an AR15 can't. Not to belabor the point, but one thing I've been lazily gathering evidence on is the low friction benefit of polymer/metal interaction in firearms. Both the ARX100 and the G36 seem to have excellent resistance to stoppages caused by deeply ingressed grit, as seen when rifles are immersed in silty water. That condition is one the AR15 does not tolerate well at all. Another point is that polymer/metal or polymer/polymer helps avoid problems with moving parts like magazine release buttons seizing up when frozen. The polymer seems to contribute much less to friction related failures in both of those circumstances.

    I still think at this point that Germany might be better off solving the G36's issues than adopting any of the the proposed replacements. That might be more a reflection of my dislike of the available options than of like for the G36. I really don't think any of those proposed options were optimal. Too heavy, not enough improvement in ergonomics, unknown or at least partially worse adverse condition performance (416), etc.
    And that is a legit issue. The problem is when you remove the BS nonsense and everyone thinking the receivers crack at the trunnion after 500 rounds you are still left with legit problems.

    There is a lot of brilliance in the XM8/G36 system but for all the advantages of a poly rifle handling fouling better, the polymer receiver also seems to contribute to POI shift when it gets toasty. There is always trade off, you want more accuracy it costs you some reliability, you want more reliability it costs you some accuracy. Everyone went through this exact same thing decades ago with AK vs. AR.

    Most countries adopted some happy medium that is slightly skewed to their wants and needs. Our guys tend to hit what they shoot at so we give them accurate rifles even if they can't run 100% in the Izmash dust room. And the Russkies would rather have a rifle that works even if you put a ham sandwich in the rifle despite the fact that sometimes it misses the barn entirely.

    The magic rifle never exists, the one that is more accurate yet more reliable than anything else. Sometimes countries do something crazy and get really close (Yes, Switzerland I'm talking about you guys) but it usually results in something terribly cost prohibitive. Keep in mind these are the same people that issued the SIG P210 which might be the most accurate handgun ever produced for any military but you wouldn't want to pay for one.

    Essentially there is nothing wrong with the G36, it's an AR-18 system that has been proven and then some. Even when England made them with license plate stampings and a disinterest in quality control that has never quite been rivaled the damn things still worked and they seemed to work in poor conditions while poorly maintained and still provided more than acceptable accuracy.

    It was a logical starting point, the other one is the FN FNC. It was all of the new materials and new layout where the G36 made even the AR-18 system less reliable. If they could have beta tested prototypes before they had to get a G3 replacement in place NOW, they probably would have refined the design even further and who knows we might have gotten something like the 433 instead.

    HK is also very much a victim of their own success. Based on little more than the G3, the MP5, the P7 and the USP series people look at them like they are John Browning and never wrong, problem is HK has a lot of guns that never quite made it.

    Nothing wrong with the SL6, SL7, HK4, 770, 940, etc. but when was the last time you actually saw one? So people overlook the ones that almost made it and keep expecting HK to give them the gun that will change the world.
    It's hard to be a ACLU hating, philosophically Libertarian, socially liberal, fiscally conservative, scientifically grounded, agnostic, porn admiring gun owner who believes in self determination.

    Chuck, we miss ya man.

    كافر

  3. #83
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    5,070
    Feedback Score
    0
    One upgrade option for the G36:

    https://www.wilcoxind.com/news_wilcox_steyr_g36.php

  4. #84
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Posts
    13,549
    Feedback Score
    2 (100%)
    This thread has a lot being said what needed to be said and folks need to hear.

    HK makes good stuff but not everything they pump out is Nazi Space Magic made by Werner von Braun clones blasting Kraftwerk. They are like any other company.

    The G36, for what it was, wasn’t “bad”. Not anyone’s first choice but not bad for a gun made during the closest period of world peace that any of us will ever see in our lives again. It was a 5.56 rifle that really isn’t that expensive if you are a military or a police department.

    Germany doesn’t go to war like they used to. In fact people were kinda leery about letting them do peacekeeping in Bosnia.

    The 416 had American influence. It’s based off an American rifle, had an American citizen offer input (most famously Larry Vickers), and first main customer was the American military.

    But it’s just not cheap. And has been through several revisions. The piston is not the main selling point as far as I am concerned. It’s pretty handy when properly configured (get rid of tge pic rail and stock), not that heavy and really accurate. I maintain the best configuration to be 14.5. The newer A7s (even starting back at A5s) can finally use any AR mag

    It makes sense to use an AR but the money isn’t there. Buying a small arm is a logistical nightmare but it’s a “feel good” gesture mostly. A new toy for a the foot soldier. But then the Germans have jets they can’t afford to fly and other bits of decay.

    Their SF has them. Like every other SF in the world they use a Glock and an AR.

    At least their strudel is okay

  5. #85
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Oklahoma City
    Posts
    4,665
    Feedback Score
    18 (100%)
    Quote Originally Posted by Firefly View Post
    The newer A7s (even starting back at A5s) can finally use any AR mag
    I think this is kinda my question about the whole G36 adoption thing. At a time when most NATO Members (1997ish) had already either adopted an AR type mag platform or were in the process, Germany did what Germany does and went with a proprietary mag for the G36 system. I know there's an adaptor, but you might have figured H&K would have seen the writing on the wall all the way back then and said "maybe we should look at this design and see if that's something we want from the start."

    I mean, they were replacing the entire G3 family as their standard infantry weapons. What better time to implement a magazine the majority of NATO was using or was about to use?

    Germans are weird sometimes.
    Experience is a cruel teacher, gives the exam first and then the lesson.

  6. #86
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Posts
    13,549
    Feedback Score
    2 (100%)
    Why different magazines?

    Money. Not a damn thing to do with reliability (at least not as much as one would think) but totally the money. If you buy this gun you must buy these magazines.

    It made sense at one time when the Middle East was buying whatever and before we got stuck in a forever war to sell proprietary parts.

    It’s literally Mac vs PC.

  7. #87
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    SWMT
    Posts
    8,188
    Feedback Score
    32 (100%)
    Quote Originally Posted by Grand58742 View Post
    I think this is kinda my question about the whole G36 adoption thing. At a time when most NATO Members (1997ish) had already either adopted an AR type mag platform or were in the process, Germany did what Germany does and went with a proprietary mag for the G36 system. I know there's an adaptor, but you might have figured H&K would have seen the writing on the wall all the way back then and said "maybe we should look at this design and see if that's something we want from the start."

    I mean, they were replacing the entire G3 family as their standard infantry weapons. What better time to implement a magazine the majority of NATO was using or was about to use?

    Germans are weird sometimes.
    To be fair:

    -The AR-15 magazine design was hot garbage. The magwell on the AR-15 severely hampered efforts to design better magazines for the AR-15. The AR-15 magazine design is still hot garbage, we've just found ways to make magazines fit in AR-15s that are not hot garbage. None of these better magazines really existed in 1997 and many efforts to design better magazines fell significantly short of the mark (Thermold, anyone?).
    -The only NATO countries that were using rifles that took AR-15 magazines when design work began on the G36 were the UK (who were having problems with the whole weapon system the magazine was associated with) and Belgium (although the FNC's magazine is markedly different from the M16's magazine - and then there's the whole FAL/G3 thing that had been going on) and of those countries, only the UK really matters. But, well, problems.
    At the same time, the US was working on the OICW and what eventually became, five years later, the XM8 - which took G36 magazines. The French had a FAMAS that accepted STANAG/AR-15 magazines, but it had only been adopted - and in small numbers - by the French Navy: The vast majority of French FAMAS rifles in service took a proprietary magazine. The Danes and Dutch did adopt Diemaco C7s during the G36's design process, but they were pretty much literally adopted right as the G36's design was being finalized and going into production. And neither of those countries are Germany, France, the UK, or the US. Canada, obviously, had the C7 as well, but they had been so clearly impressed by the OG AR-15 magazine that they thought it would be a good idea to try Thermolds out (LOL, Thermolds).
    -The Germans probably wanted a magazine that offered features impossible to fit into an AR-15 magazine well (at the time). Like a translucent, polymer magazine (like what the Swiss and Austrians had). The ability to couple the magazines together without any additional hardware (like the Swiss also had). And injection molded polymer magazines were probably perceived as (and probably rightly so) significantly less expensive to manufacture than steel or aluminum stamped magazines (like those used by the FNC and AR-15) while still being much lighter than steel stamped magazines (particularly steel stamped magazines as durable as G3 and HK33 magazines) and only marginally heavier than aluminum magazines. I think, in this regard, the decision to make their redesigned SA80 magazines from steel is particularly illustrative of the sort of durability H&K expects out of a magazine that they design (although the design limitations of the SA80/AR-15 magwell meant that the magazines were not and are not that bullet-proof).

    So, yeah.

    In the 1990s, I'm sure Germany looked at the AR-15 magazine from the start (as they had already designed the G41... which is another rifle that accepted AR-15 magazines and had problems), said, "Maybe we should look at this design and see if that's something we want from the start." And answered, "verdammt nein lol."

    Hell, if I had carte blanche to design a brand new rifle in 2020, I would team up with Magpul to design a magazine from the ground up for the rifle, and it wouldn't take AR-15 magazines (without an adapter). (Because I have carte blanche. If I'm worried about selling the thing on the commercial market, it'll take AR-15 magazines. But not because AR-15 magazines are good. Because people have piles of AR-15 magazines and whinge about every pistol that doesn't take Glock magazines and every rifle that doesn't take AR-15 magazines.)
    " Nil desperandum - Never Despair. That is a motto for you and me. All are not dead; and where there is a spark of patriotic fire, we will rekindle it. "
    - Samuel Adams -

  8. #88
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Posts
    13,549
    Feedback Score
    2 (100%)
    To be fair the G36 ripped off the SG 55x mag which is actually a pretty good magazine with its only drawback being that it is a rock in design

  9. #89
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Oklahoma City
    Posts
    4,665
    Feedback Score
    18 (100%)
    Quote Originally Posted by MountainRaven View Post
    To be fair:

    -The AR-15 magazine design was hot garbage. The magwell on the AR-15 severely hampered efforts to design better magazines for the AR-15. The AR-15 magazine design is still hot garbage, we've just found ways to make magazines fit in AR-15s that are not hot garbage. None of these better magazines really existed in 1997 and many efforts to design better magazines fell significantly short of the mark (Thermold, anyone?).
    -The only NATO countries that were using rifles that took AR-15 magazines when design work began on the G36 were the UK (who were having problems with the whole weapon system the magazine was associated with) and Belgium (although the FNC's magazine is markedly different from the M16's magazine - and then there's the whole FAL/G3 thing that had been going on) and of those countries, only the UK really matters. But, well, problems.
    At the same time, the US was working on the OICW and what eventually became, five years later, the XM8 - which took G36 magazines. The French had a FAMAS that accepted STANAG/AR-15 magazines, but it had only been adopted - and in small numbers - by the French Navy: The vast majority of French FAMAS rifles in service took a proprietary magazine. The Danes and Dutch did adopt Diemaco C7s during the G36's design process, but they were pretty much literally adopted right as the G36's design was being finalized and going into production. And neither of those countries are Germany, France, the UK, or the US. Canada, obviously, had the C7 as well, but they had been so clearly impressed by the OG AR-15 magazine that they thought it would be a good idea to try Thermolds out (LOL, Thermolds).
    -The Germans probably wanted a magazine that offered features impossible to fit into an AR-15 magazine well (at the time). Like a translucent, polymer magazine (like what the Swiss and Austrians had). The ability to couple the magazines together without any additional hardware (like the Swiss also had). And injection molded polymer magazines were probably perceived as (and probably rightly so) significantly less expensive to manufacture than steel or aluminum stamped magazines (like those used by the FNC and AR-15) while still being much lighter than steel stamped magazines (particularly steel stamped magazines as durable as G3 and HK33 magazines) and only marginally heavier than aluminum magazines. I think, in this regard, the decision to make their redesigned SA80 magazines from steel is particularly illustrative of the sort of durability H&K expects out of a magazine that they design (although the design limitations of the SA80/AR-15 magwell meant that the magazines were not and are not that bullet-proof).

    So, yeah.

    In the 1990s, I'm sure Germany looked at the AR-15 magazine from the start (as they had already designed the G41... which is another rifle that accepted AR-15 magazines and had problems), said, "Maybe we should look at this design and see if that's something we want from the start." And answered, "verdammt nein lol."

    Hell, if I had carte blanche to design a brand new rifle in 2020, I would team up with Magpul to design a magazine from the ground up for the rifle, and it wouldn't take AR-15 magazines (without an adapter). (Because I have carte blanche. If I'm worried about selling the thing on the commercial market, it'll take AR-15 magazines. But not because AR-15 magazines are good. Because people have piles of AR-15 magazines and whinge about every pistol that doesn't take Glock magazines and every rifle that doesn't take AR-15 magazines.)
    Just a couple of things. You are correct they hadn't designed a "better mousetrap" with the AR style mag in the 90s because the drive wasn't there to design a better one. That was during the Cold War drawdown where the money just wasn't there for the design improvements in things the Government probably had a metric butt-ton of. Or needed so to speak since the US Military had other priorities.

    FYI, Italy was also a big user of the AR style mag in the AR70 at the time as well. So, to say it was limited isn't quite the case. The trend was towards the AR type mag in a lot of places (including the French eventually as well) and Germans could have "overengineered" (as they love doing) an AR type mag to fit the G36. I found it odd they went to an AK type of release when the G3 had a button style release (though ergonomic it was not...) which was proven to work.

    I think Thermold was one of the worst decisions ever made. But it did give rise to the concept of polymer mags which eventually led to Magpul, Lancer and others.

    Why you gotta bring up Thermold...
    Experience is a cruel teacher, gives the exam first and then the lesson.

  10. #90
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Posts
    13,549
    Feedback Score
    2 (100%)
    I still have some thermolds when I feel like being a hipster.

    Otherwise no. Pmags. Everyday Pmags.

Page 9 of 11 FirstFirst ... 7891011 LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

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