Jump to content


Photo

G36 - Too Broken To Fix?


  • Please log in to reply
525 replies to this topic

#21 Simon Tan

Simon Tan

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 21,312 posts
  • Interests:tanks. More tanks. Guns. BIG GUNs!

Posted 15 April 2015 - 2300 PM

I can't wait to mortar a G36 stock.



#22 BansheeOne

BansheeOne

    Bullshit filter overload, venting into civility charger

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 11,824 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Berlin

Posted 16 April 2015 - 0134 AM

You will arrange for 10 rifles to go with you to a neutral location in the USA for scientific testing this October along with 20,000 rounds of BW service ammunition. Disinterested professional testers will conduct the trials and a report will be provided to the minister. TN is glad to be of assistance.


I wish. :D

#23 Panzermann

Panzermann

    REFORGER '79

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 11,911 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Teutonistan

Posted 16 April 2015 - 0403 AM

Meh, the Germans haven't had a decent rifle since the Mauser.  Funny how they invented the assault weapon, then promptly went to a marginal 7.62 rifle, the G3. They have had an excellent PR machine, as well as great GPMG's, and a significant lack of combat action since WW2.  S/F.....Ken M


7,62*51 was forced on NATO by the USA as the one size fits all solution. Germany experimented with a 7*40 mm and similar cartridges, but did not introduce any into service for example. Such an intermediate cartridge would have fit the FAL and G3 better. And the M14 was a total failure in comparison.

The skilled salesmen of FN and H&K sold their products all around the globe very successfully. AFAIK there were more G3 sold and license built than FAL rifles, I Guess because the G3 was cheaper and simpler than the FAL. But politics played a role there too of course. German governments were allowing licenses for almost anyone that asked. But if it had been totally unfit they would not have spread that far.

But yes, lack of real combat experience kept the G3 in service. The G11 was the intended big leap ahead dreamt up by small calibre high velocity theory and we can only hypothetise its performance in today's demands. My guess is not so well with its small weak bullet.

The G36 was the stop gap to have something more adequate in service, but was constrained by cheapness. Though the basic mechanism inspired by the AR-18 seems to work well so far and is well thought out in the details. The top charging handle would have been better on a rifle with iron sights and today hampers mounting modern optics.

The receiver is made from BASF PA 6.6 a polyamide probably better known as Nylon™ as sold by DuPont. Mixed with carbon fibers, colour and some more ingredients, but that does not change the basic properties of this 1930ies synthetic. But Nylon is cheap and the Bundeswehr and BmVg wanted cheap. Same for the optics. I heard the price limit for the scope set at 100 DM. And for that price I think it is surprisingly good.



Overall, after two decades one should replace the G36 with a new rifle as the circumstances and needs have changed considerably since the mid 1990ies. This blame game at the moment helps probably only politicians to further their careers. IMHO Heckler & Koch delivered as was demanded by the customer.

And why stick with a faulty tool? The Mauser 98 rifle is so great, because of its iterative development corrected flaws found over time. It did not appear out of a few years of tests and trials, but out of actual field use feeding back into the next iteration and there was the will of the Mauser brothers to correct flaws to make the perfect rifle.

Edited by Panzermann, 16 April 2015 - 0406 AM.


#24 Panzermann

Panzermann

    REFORGER '79

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 11,911 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Teutonistan

Posted 16 April 2015 - 0408 AM

You will arrange for 10 rifles to go with you to a neutral location in the USA for scientific testing this October along with 20,000 rounds of BW service ammunition. Disinterested professional testers will conduct the trials and a report will be provided to the minister. TN is glad to be of assistance.

I wish. :D

Only 20 kilo? And what are the other tank-netters supposed to shoot? :D :D

More dacka dacka!

#25 Simon Tan

Simon Tan

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 21,312 posts
  • Interests:tanks. More tanks. Guns. BIG GUNs!

Posted 16 April 2015 - 0416 AM

Actually the biggest mistake is to have ONE company own the IP to your hardware. Anytime there is only one design authority, you get stagnation.

 

The private sector will chase down many dead ends in a way government cannot and will not.



#26 Panzermann

Panzermann

    REFORGER '79

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 11,911 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Teutonistan

Posted 16 April 2015 - 0421 AM

I can't wait to mortar a G36 stock.


Why would you do that except to intentionally break it?

And yes I have seen broken G36 stocks. Though it seems sturdier than it looks imho. The stocks that broke doing infantry things like going through a parcours would have broken other stocks too. And better the stock breaks than a costlier part.

There are other stocks offered by H&K, but I think only the norwegian G36kv has a length and comb adjustable stock actually mounted. Looks sturdier as well. A different adjustable stock was designed for IdZ, but was not introduced yet. Which makes the grunts in armour and the short women happy.

#27 Simon Tan

Simon Tan

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 21,312 posts
  • Interests:tanks. More tanks. Guns. BIG GUNs!

Posted 16 April 2015 - 0425 AM

Because mortaring is a well established way to clear a failure to extract. It's actually a better way to do things than stamping on the operating handle.

 

ETA:- this is a known weakness of the SCAR.


Edited by Simon Tan, 16 April 2015 - 0426 AM.


#28 Panzermann

Panzermann

    REFORGER '79

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 11,911 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Teutonistan

Posted 16 April 2015 - 0455 AM

With either G3 or G36 I only have had stuck blanks and those extracted sooner or later with a bit force on the charging handle. Never had myself or seen stuck real cartridges. But never been to combat myself, so I know I have a limited experience.


Torn apart cartridge cases in the MG3 A1 on the other hand I have seen some, but that is very different. Bloody hard to clear, especially when you had the luck having the dumbest loader that day. But that leads off track. ;)

#29 Simon Tan

Simon Tan

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 21,312 posts
  • Interests:tanks. More tanks. Guns. BIG GUNs!

Posted 16 April 2015 - 0601 AM

Im not sure why the G36 was considered to be cheap. They retailed for a hideous amount of money.



#30 Panzermann

Panzermann

    REFORGER '79

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 11,911 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Teutonistan

Posted 16 April 2015 - 0727 AM

You take the price you can geht away with. Especially without direct competition. "made in germany" PR does not hurt either ;)


Prices for AR-15 went down after everybody and her granpa started making parts and complete rifles. Before the prices had been premium too afaik. And Colt wishes their monopoly back, I bet.


I do not have german gov prices at hand, but iirc those were cheap. I'll try to find'em.

Edited by Panzermann, 16 April 2015 - 0728 AM.


#31 shep854

shep854

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 18,008 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Birmingham AL, USA
  • Interests:Military History, Aviation

Posted 16 April 2015 - 0738 AM

'Cheap' or 'Inexpensive'?  They are often far different chickens...



#32 Panzermann

Panzermann

    REFORGER '79

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 11,911 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Teutonistan

Posted 16 April 2015 - 0810 AM

hm, you are right.

For H&K production costs are low definitely. The whole receiver is cast in one step. The guide rails and trunnion are placed in the machine, plastic injected. Done. Compare to the complicated forging and machining for AR-15 (though modern cnc simplified the production here). Or the many steps to bend a G3 receiver into shape. Takes very low time and thus work hours, which are at a premium in Germany. Also can be done by less trained cheaper workers. In conclusion it is inexpensive to make, But also cheap in the materials. Nylon is dirt cheap. And is easily melted and plastically reshaped. Not surprising that the gun suffers point of aim/impact shifts when hot.

But even if that was not the case, the ergonimics leave some things desired. No continous top rail, no automatic bolt hold-open, only a lock back imitating the G3 behaviour, magazine release could he better as well as the stock. Which imho sums up to needing a redesign.


 

Found this report on the HK site:
Sturmgewehr G36: Untersuchung zum Streuungs- und
Treffpunktverhalten der Waffe im heißgeschossenen Zustand gemäß sog. Einsatznahem Beschusszyklus EBZ der Deutschen Bundeswehr
(PDF, 2 MiB)

published 2013/12/16 reporting in Tests with G36 andere other rifles with new "close to combat proof cycle" (Einsatznaher Beschusszyklus)

which shoots the rifles through several magazines to heat up and takes accuracy samples at the beginning middle and end. But have not read the whole thing. And its in German. Of course.

Edited by Panzermann, 16 April 2015 - 0843 AM.


#33 Panzermann

Panzermann

    REFORGER '79

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 11,911 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Teutonistan

Posted 16 April 2015 - 0853 AM

Actually the biggest mistake is to have ONE company own the IP to your hardware. Anytime there is only one design authority, you get stagnation.


Did no hurt the Mauser 98. The rifle designed by commission the Gewehr 88 had all the flaws of such a design.
 

The private sector will chase down many dead ends in a way government cannot and will not.


I think government procurement could work with iterative development, if they wanted to, but the processes do not allow this me thinks. Government institutions are notoriously bad at utilising feedback.

#34 DB

DB

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 9,640 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Hertfordshire, England

Posted 16 April 2015 - 0905 AM

"Government institutions are notoriously bad" was all that is needed, really.

 

The Military-Industrial-Complex conspiracy would hold that producing incremental improvements to existing designs is not an efficient way of transferring wealth from the citizenry to the illuminati via government.

 

On the other hand, marketing loves the concept of obsoleting the "old" model with incrementally improved new shiny. See the Apple business model, and increasingly the games development model where "new" means "re-skin with higher detail textures and a different set of bugs in the graphics engine".

 

Funny thing is, though - government is dreadful at defining a requirement and sticking to it. Amazing how difficult it is to change stuff once they get hold of it, but how easy they think it is to change things during development.



#35 seahawk

seahawk

    military loving leftist peace monkey

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 3,089 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:The land where time stands still

Posted 16 April 2015 - 0948 AM

Careful, if they really used the LMG version of the K416 as a comparison, this whole debate might be pointless. On the otherh and the BW is short of rifles and that controvery might be just fine to get new ones and finally have one rifle for each soldier.



#36 Simon Tan

Simon Tan

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 21,312 posts
  • Interests:tanks. More tanks. Guns. BIG GUNs!

Posted 16 April 2015 - 1111 AM

The 98 benefitted from lots and lots of different customers tweaking the gun to their needs. Mauser did not tell them....'This way or the high way'.



#37 MikeKiloPapa

MikeKiloPapa

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 71 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 16 April 2015 - 1207 PM

Meh, the Germans haven't had a decent rifle since the Mauser.  Funny how they invented the assault weapon, then promptly went to a marginal 7.62 rifle, the G3.  S/F.....Ken M

Meh, the Americans haven't had a decent rifle since the Henry model 1860. 

 

How you can call a rifle that have been in use for more than 50 years, in countless wars and exported to some 70 odd countries, marginal , is beyond me. 

 

While it is prone to jamming when firing blanks , i have never had a single stoppage/malfunction when using live ammo. My experience with DI rifles have been exactly opposite, them often and regularly failing with real ammunition.



#38 bojan

bojan

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 9,762 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Belgrade, Serbia
  • Interests:Obscure tanks and guns.
    Obscure facts about well known tanks and guns.
    Obscure historical facts.

Posted 16 April 2015 - 1234 PM

 

Meh, the Americans haven't had a decent rifle since the Henry model 1860. 

 

Henry was PoS, Spencer was hot stuff back then.



#39 EchoFiveMike

EchoFiveMike

    I offer safe passage through the wasteland

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 11,505 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:FOB Chitcago
  • Interests:Killing, killing is the solution!

Posted 16 April 2015 - 1252 PM

So how many rds did you fire from the G3 before your shoulder called quits?  The G3 was the rifle the 3rd world adopted after FN turned them down or they lacked $.  Yes, we (stupidly) forced the 7.62x51 on others, but that's US DOD institutional stupidity for you.  Maybe everyone shouldn't have been so eager for the US to carry them WRT national defense.  McNamara pulling the plug on the US Arsenal system is possibly the only thing he did to the benefit of America.  Pretty much every 7.62x51 "assault rifle" was marginal.  There's no acceptable method to mount decent optics to any of them, save modern iterations of the AR10, which is cheating.       

 

The Winchester(1886 and 1892)  rifles were far better than the Henry they evolved from, albeit maintenance intensive.  But you neglect the M1Garand, which was the world beater of WW2, and developed by a Canuckistani.  S/F....Ken M    



#40 MikeKiloPapa

MikeKiloPapa

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 71 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 16 April 2015 - 1301 PM

 

 

Meh, the Americans haven't had a decent rifle since the Henry model 1860. 

 

Henry was PoS, Spencer was hot stuff back then.

 

Perhaps, but the Henry is prettier  ^_^

 

Besides, whereas the basic Henry design would live on in the form of several generations of succesful Winchester rifles, the Spencer was essentially a dead end.






0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users