Bye-bye G36

[outontheop]

I own an ACR and its a fine rifle the operator controls are IMHO are far more user friendly than the M16/M4 family.The CH is non reciprocating and fwrd of the breech,the mag.release and bolt/catch can be easily operated w/ the trigger finger or off hand.Though not supp. by BM or RemDef there is pleanty of user support and new parts being built.

I know, I own one too. Great rifle; my only complaints were slightly high weight, and that the weight is distributed too far forward. It's not quite as accurate as an AR15/M16, but fairly close. I like the controls, except the part where the 90-degree-throw safety catch digs into the top of my firing hand right above the index finger.

[outontheop]

There might be an alternative to the HK416, that is the MG36. It is in principle the G36 just with a thicker barrel, because it was to be used as an MG. The thicker barrel should help to fight against barrel deformation due to heat.

I can say from experience that's a big fat NOPE. The SL8/ G36 build I have still has the SL8 target barrel profile, which is even thicker than the MG36 barrel weight. It still goes bollocks on accuracy if you fire more than about 15 rounds in 20 minutes.

The only way they could fix it is by making the barrel trunnion into a much wider piece, with copious ventilation between the inner part of the trunnion and the outer part (where it mates to the plastic receiver).

That would require a complete redesign of the receiver, though. It would no longer be a G36, it would be a similar, but new, design.

[outontheop]

My main issue is a different one anyway: the small calibre. I would prefer 7.62. This argument of ammunition standardisation I do not buy. And in general I think that the more diversity in weapons own side has, the more difficult it is for the other side to counter them all. I am no friend of monoculturalism in general. This should nto mean that multi could not be exaggerated as well. But I am not the first pointing at the questionable penetration and stopping power of the 5.56.

Without starting a new bit of the old internet war on caliber choices, I respectfully disagree. It's a much more complicated issue than you're giving it credit. Ballistics testing (see Fackler) has shown that against human targets, FMJ (IE, military-legal) 5.56x45mm causes a significantly more traumatic wound cavity, both temporary and permanent, than does FMJ 7.62x51mm, because the 5.56mm carries much more velocity, and tends to yaw and fragment at the cannelure. Now, if we're considering bullets designed for hunting, sure, the 7.62 has the capacity to be more lethal than the 5.56x45... but that would be against the international conventions on armed conflict.

The 5.56x45mm also is better at penetrating thin but strong barriers (IE, helmets and body armor) than the 7.62x51, again due to the high velocity. The 5.56x45mm has a very, very flat trajectory, simplifying the target engagement process and making probability of first-round hits at typical combat distances (300 m and under) significantly higher. The 5.56x45mm has much less recoil impulse, making it easier to train soldiers to fire accurately, and permitting much more rapid, much more accurate follow-on shots. Probably most importantly, you can carry a TON of 5.56x45; something like twice to three times as much for the weight. That's crucial: modern infantry go through ammo, FAST. If you think you're going to go out on a battlefield and hit something with ever shot you fire, you're lying to yourself. Volume of fire is absolutely necessary.

On the flip side, the 5.56x45mm tends to break into pieces after penetrating an intermediate barrier. That actually makes it MORE effective when the barrier in question is body armor worn by the target, but it also means that striking an intervening tree, branch (of fairly significant size, around an inch or more in diameter) or other object with more than a couple feet of standoff from the target means the bullet breaks apart and becomes ineffective by the time it reaches the target. The larger, slower 7.62x51mm is better at penetrating intermediate barriers with standoff from the target, because the larger mass holds together better, and the lower velocity means it doesn't tear itself to pieces. Against thick, low-density barrier (trees, bricks, sand), the 7.62x51mm out-penetrates the 5.56x45. Again, exactly the opposite from relative behaviour against body armor, where the 5.56x45 is the better round. The other relative weakness of the 5.56x45mm is that it's lethality is quite dependent upon the impact velocity of the projectile: the current designs will break into two major pieces reliably up to about 2500 feet per second, and will fragment catastrophically (and cause correspondingly catastrophic wounds) at 2700 feet per second. This means that the shorter the barrel on the weapon, the less distance you have to expect good effects on the target. An M16 with a 20 inch barrel will strike the target at above the "magic number" of 2500 feet per second out to about 250 meters range; as far as realistically expected in modern combat. An M249 with the 24 inch barrel will strike fast enough out to about 275 meters or so.

But an M4 with a 14.5 inch barrel loses so much velocity with the short barrel (muzzle velocity of about 300 fps slower than the 20 inch barrel) that it drops under the "magic number" of 2500 feet per second at a mere 125 meters.

This is borne out in a GAO study on troop reports of poor terminal effects on targets in Afghanistan, conducted by the US Army. They found that a) most individuals complaining about insufficient lethality had, in fact, failed to hit the target in a vital organ or even missed entirely, and b) complaints about lethality were significantly lower (I want to say it was an order of magnitude, but I don't remember exactly HOW much difference it was, just that it was a LOT) from individuals with full-length M16 and the SAW with the long barrel, while complaints from users of short-barreled SAW and M4 were much higher.

...which makes me really wonder why the h*ll the US Army decided to make the M4 (originally designed as a specialty weapon for RTOs, mortar gunners, AT gunners, and other people whose duties precluded carrying a full-size rifle) into the standard rifle to replace all full-length M16.

I'd rather have the longer barrels back. As loath as I am to admit, the Marines got that one right.

[outontheop]

I know of at least one top performing military rifle team who use it to great effect. They completely out performed the US Army's Marksmanship Training Unit guys with all their high speed gear. Some pics:

http://www.ar15.com/archive/topic.html?b=1&f=5&t=1640833

They must be excellent marksmen, but that doesn't change the fact that the trigger on the AUG really, really SUCKS.

I would point out, though, that the event seems to be of fairly short range, and was shot after physical exercise... which is, of course, more realistic simulation of combat, but it also tends to be more a measure of the skill (and physical fitness) of the shooters, rather than a test of the capabilities of the shooter.

Either way, I'm impressed. I consider myself an excellent competition shooter, capable of holding under 1 MOA groups all the way to 800 meters with a (target tuned) AR15/ M16, M14, Remington 700, or any of several other rifles... but I have trouble shooting under 3 MOA with the AUG. Curious if those ones had some kind of re-worked trigger pack. After all, bullpups CAN have good triggers; my FN FS2000 has a smooth (albeit heavy) trigger and shoots about 1 MOA with ease. That would not be without precedent; the M16 three-round-burst trigger group is quite bad compared to a two-stage, semi-auto trigger in the same rifle. I can shoot rifles with the 3RB trigger group to about 1.5 MOA (assuming the rifle is in good condition), but can shoot identical rifles with the semi-auto trigger group to 0.5-0.7 MOA. Granted, some of this is just using what you're used to, but creepy triggers that feel like they're full of sand don't do good things to accuracy, in general.

[Furia]

It's not that it doesn't fire thousands of rounds without heat issues... that's not even expected. BUT, you should be able to fire your rifleman basic load of ammunition (about 300 rounds) in 20 minutes without putting rounds all over the place (sustained rate of 15 rounds per minute). If what I've read about this Good Friday battle is accurate, they fired an average of 280 rounds per soldier over the span of like 8 HOURS, but still had heating problems. That's not indicative of a well-designed combat rifle.

My experience (granted, it's with a civilian version modified with mil-spec parts, but it ALSO has a heavier barrel, which should make it heat up more slowly) is that accuracy is absolute PANTS after as little as one magazine of 30 rounds through the rifle. I mean "pants", like "I can no longer consistently hit a standing-man-sized-steel-plate at 200 meters from the prone supported position" definition. And it's not just that the size of the shot pattern gets larger, it also MOVES. If I recall correctly, mine moves further and further down and left as it heats up. Something like 3-5 FEET at 200 meters after a magazine. I basically never take the rifle to the range anymore, because it's so frustrating to shoot.

As I mentioned I was in the Air Force when I used the G-36E and while I have not trained as an infantryman I can tell you that we surely had not the troubles you mention about firing one magazine and loosing precision.

I recall sometimes firing several magazines, using single fire and short semi-auto and we did not experienced a significative loose of precission on the weapon.

I have just commented the issue with a friend of me that have actually been in combat in the Army using the G-36 in some extended firefights and he tells me there are no complains about the G-36E in the Spanish Army so far.

Maybe it is worth to mention that our G-36E are manufactured under license here in Spain. Not sure if there may be some relevant differences with the A version build in Germany.

[Tacbat]

They must be excellent marksmen, but that doesn't change the fact that the trigger on the AUG really, really SUCKS.

I would point out, though, that the event seems to be of fairly short range, and was shot after physical exercise... which is, of course, more realistic simulation of combat, but it also tends to be more a measure of the skill (and physical fitness) of the shooters, rather than a test of the capabilities of the shooter.

They probably had some work done on theirs then, including the installation of heavy barrels.

The event had shoots from 500 yards and in, so it was a good cross sample of the various ranges the weapon systems might find themselves employed in.

Agreed, the shooter's capabilities also come into play, so this is by no means a purely scientific observation.

[outontheop]

As I mentioned I was in the Air Force when I used the G-36E and while I have not trained as an infantryman I can tell you that we surely had not the troubles you mention about firing one magazine and loosing precision.

No, I don't think the military G36s are *quite* as bad as the civilianized SL8 version (what mine is built off); if I recall, there was, a while back, a modified trunnion that *was* indeed ventilated to help dissipate heat and slow the transfer of heat from barrel > trunnion > receiver. The SL8s are still delivered with the original-pattern solid metal trunnion without ventilation holes.

However, my understanding is that the retrofit (given that it still had to fit the dimensions of the original trunnion) didn't help a whole lot.

[outontheop]

They probably had some work done on theirs then, including the installation of heavy barrels.

The event had shoots from 500 yards and in, so it was a good cross sample of the various ranges the weapon systems might find themselves employed in.

Agreed, the shooter's capabilities also come into play, so this is by no means a purely scientific observation.

Oops, I meant more a test of the shooter than the capabilities of the *FIREARM*. Fingers were moving faster than brain. Obviously you got what I meant, though

[Maj.Hans]

There might be an alternative to the HK416, that is the MG36. It is in principle the G36 just with a thicker barrel, because it was to be used as an MG. The thicker barrel should help to fight against barrel deformation due to heat. It is of almost the same weight, and the advantage of this solution would be that all accessoires in service for the G36 still could be used and all training of active troops with this rifle would keep its merits. Also, the formal procurement marathon could be cut short.

Basing on the assumption of course that the critical part of the rifle that is responsible for the lacking precision is indeed the barrel. If it is some other part of the weapon, then what is said above is null and void.

The barrel itself is fine, the problem is that the parts holding the barrel in place are plastic. They get soft when they get hot, and the barrel shifts around inside the rifle.

[Furia]

If this is the problem the solution should not be much difficult.

I have checked with some people in the Spanish Army and there are no problems reported with over temperature and lack of precission with the G-36E build in Spain, and our climate is quite hot specially on the South and our African cities.

As I mentioned ours have been built here under license and maybe they have such support elements made in a different material but I cannot verify this.

But I am sure all gun companies are really happy with the prospect of a new contest for a new assault weapon. Not sure if the BW would use the chance to fix the rifle instead procuring a new one.

Time will say.

[mpow66m]

I know, I own one too. Great rifle; my only complaints were slightly high weight, and that the weight is distributed too far forward. It's not quite as accurate as an AR15/M16, but fairly close. I like the controls, except the part where the 90-degree-throw safety catch digs into the top of my firing hand right above the index finger.

a file will take care of that,and go to the ACR forum to see some great improvments being made.

[mpow66m]

The barrel itself is fine, the problem is that the parts holding the barrel in place are plastic. They get soft when they get hot, and the barrel shifts around inside the rifle.

are you sure?i find this hard to believe that HK would you plastic inside what is for all intense purposes a controled explosion and blast furnace.wow.

[Maj.Hans]

are you sure?i find this hard to believe that HK would you plastic inside what is for all intense purposes a controled explosion and blast furnace.wow.

Here you can see the chamber end of a G36 barrel with the plastic cut away.

[mpow66m]

How could they ever think that would hold up?!

[outontheop]

a file will take care of that,and go to the ACR forum to see some great improvments being made.

Depends on what you mean by "fix the problem", as it result in a new, bigger problem: loss of ambidextrous controls. I do practice firing from both sides, after all. Granted, the M16 isn't (by standard) ambi, and I manage it by using my index finger on the selector, but it's not optimal

[mpow66m]

my rifle is completly ambi,incldng the charging handle(user made custom CH).Right now a new lighter piston sys is in the works,lighter BCG,lightining cuts to reduce weight,a alloy lower w/ removable grip,caliber kits for 7.62x39 / 6.5mm,also user kits for .300 blk,5.45x39mm.Theres alot going on w/ the platform and all are qulified smiths and manufactures and machinist.I belive some one made an SS to adress your prob.i will look.

[Skybird03]

Without starting a new bit of the old internet war on caliber choices, I respectfully disagree. It's a much more complicated issue than you're giving it credit. Ballistics testing (see Fackler) has shown that against human targets, FMJ (IE, military-legal) 5.56x45mm causes a significantly more traumatic wound cavity, both

(...)

wonder why the h*ll the US Army decided to make the M4 (originally designed as a specialty weapon for RTOs, mortar gunners, AT gunners, and other people whose duties precluded carrying a full-size rifle) into the standard rifle to replace all full-length M16.

I'd rather have the longer barrels back. As loath as I am to admit, the Marines got that one right.

I am not at all competent to discuss this specific data with you, you have more experience there it seems, and I said that I base on the latest media reports only, which left me wondering. But I just throw in one fact: both media reports some years ago already as well two BW people I personally knew, who were in Afghanistan, confirmed that German troops in afghanistan were absolutely not happy with the penetration power of the 5.52 against wooden surfaces and the clay walls of the houses comon down there. This was just again repated in some of the latest media writing of yesterday as well. My base reference however are those two guys who have first hand experience with the place, and the firefights. Since years the feedback of veterans from Afghanistan seems to have been that the 5.52 does not go through these obstacles that well even if they are relatively thing - while the 7.62 does. Walls are not penetrated that an old G3 would penetrate, easily. Around christmas last year there was a report quoted that internal papers of the defence ministry confirmed the Hardthöhe knew of this since at least I think 2009. Don't nail me on the year, however.

[Skybird03]

Without starting a new bit of the old internet war on caliber choices, I respectfully disagree. It's a much more complicated issue than you're giving it credit. Ballistics testing (see Fackler) has shown that against human targets, FMJ (IE, military-legal) 5.56x45mm causes a significantly more traumatic wound cavity, both

(...)

wonder why the h*ll the US Army decided to make the M4 (originally designed as a specialty weapon for RTOs, mortar gunners, AT gunners, and other people whose duties precluded carrying a full-size rifle) into the standard rifle to replace all full-length M16.

I'd rather have the longer barrels back. As loath as I am to admit, the Marines got that one right.

I am not at all competent to discuss this specific data with you, you have more experience there it seems, and I said that I base on the latest media reports only, which left me wondering. But I just throw in one fact: both some media reports from some years ago already, as well as two BW people I personally knew, who were in Afghanistan, confirmed that German troops in afghanistan were absolutely not happy with the penetration power of the 5.52 against wooden surfaces and the clay walls of the houses comon down there. This was just again repated in some of the latest media writing of yesterday as well. My base reference however are those two guys who have first hand experience with the place, and the firefights. Since years the feedback of veterans from Afghanistan seems to have been that the 5.52 does not go through these obstacles that well even if they are relatively thing - while the 7.62 does. Walls are not penetrated that an old G3 would penetrate, easily. Around christmas last year there was a report quoted that internal papers of the defence ministry confirmed the Hardthöhe knew of this since at least I think 2009. Don't nail me on the year, however.

[Skybird03]

Without starting a new bit of the old internet war on caliber choices, I respectfully disagree. It's a much more complicated issue than you're giving it credit. Ballistics testing (see Fackler) has shown that against human targets, FMJ (IE, military-legal) 5.56x45mm causes a significantly more traumatic wound cavity, both

(...)

wonder why the h*ll the US Army decided to make the M4 (originally designed as a specialty weapon for RTOs, mortar gunners, AT gunners, and other people whose duties precluded carrying a full-size rifle) into the standard rifle to replace all full-length M16.

I'd rather have the longer barrels back. As loath as I am to admit, the Marines got that one right.

I am not at all competent to discuss this specific data with you, you have more experience there it seems, and I said that I base on the latest media reports only, which left me wondering. As we all know general mainstream journalism usually is no expert on military things anyway, and often reports things completely confused and messed up. But I just throw in one fact: both some media reports from some years ago already, as well as two BW people I personally knew, who were in Afghanistan, confirmed that German troops in afghanistan were absolutely not happy with the penetration power of the 5.52 against wooden surfaces and the clay walls of the houses comon down there. This was just again repeated in some of the latest media writing of yesterday as well. My base reference however are those two guys who have first hand experience with the place, and the firefights. Since years the feedback of veterans from Afghanistan seems to have been that the 5.52 does not go through these obstacles that well even if they are relatively thing - while the 7.62 does. Walls are not penetrated that an old G3 would penetrate, easily. Around christmas last year there was a report quoted that internal papers of the defence ministry confirmed the Hardthöhe knew of this since at least I think 2009. Don't nail me on the year, however.

[mpow66m]

Not to be nitpicker Skybird,but its 5.56 as im sure you know.:clin:

[outontheop]

I am not at all competent to discuss this specific data with you, you have more experience there it seems, and I said that I base on the latest media reports only, which left me wondering. But I just throw in one fact: both media reports some years ago already as well two BW people I personally knew, who were in Afghanistan, confirmed that German troops in afghanistan were absolutely not happy with the penetration power of the 5.52 against wooden surfaces and the clay walls of the houses comon down there. This was just again repated in some of the latest media writing of yesterday as well. My base reference however are those two guys who have first hand experience with the place, and the firefights. Since years the feedback of veterans from Afghanistan seems to have been that the 5.52 does not go through these obstacles that well even if they are relatively thing - while the 7.62 does. Walls are not penetrated that an old G3 would penetrate, easily. Around christmas last year there was a report quoted that internal papers of the defence ministry confirmed the Hardthöhe knew of this since at least I think 2009. Don't nail me on the year, however.

I agree that 5.56mm is not good at penetrating the construction of Afghan houses, and have personal experience with it's effect on rural Iraqi houses (made of a similar wattle-and-daub construction; IE hard-baked mud brick). However, 7.62x51mm will *also* not penetrate them. Often, neither will .50 caliber. 40mm HEDP will, with significant effects on the other side, and autocannon (25mm and up) HE works well. Autocannon AP/ APDS/ APFSDS go through the entire house and pose a downrange hazard.

Against trees, depends. 5.56mm will penetrate a fair bit of wood, but obviously 7.62mm will penetrate farther in wood (as I readily admitted. I believe the generally accepted values are 10-12 inches for 5.56, and 16-18 inches for 7.62. Obviously density of the wood matters, and varies from tree species to species). However, neither will cause many casualties against targets in the prone directly behind sizable trees. Luckily, it doesn't really matter, because trees are poor cover overall; if they are positioned so as to have the tree interceding between them and you, then your battle buddy 10-20 meters to your left or right almost certainly has a fantastic shot at the enemy's exposed flank from around the side of the tree. Either way, the fairly small loss of penetration is more than made up in the much higher ammunition carriage (and therefore, allowed volume and time of firing).

[Tjay]

This has similarities with the with the UK, SA-80 debacle

It ended up the most expensive assault rifle in the world,

Funny thing is the Brits send the SA-80 to HK to fix the issues with the rifle.

They should all just buy the Steyr. LoL

An ineffective weapon for loads of (taxpayers') money? Just another chapter in the long tradition of UK defence procurement. :icon_frown:

[outontheop]

This has similarities with the with the UK, SA-80 debacle

It ended up the most expensive assault rifle in the world,

Funny thing is the Brits send the SA-80 to HK to fix the issues with the rifle.

They should all just buy the Steyr. LoL

Are you sure it's the most expensive? Japan's Type 89 rifle is ridiculously expensive; they have laws forbidding weapons exports, and laws forbidding (almost all) civilian ownership of firearms, so the entire industry exists for the sole purpose of supplying the JSDF. With such a niche market, there is NO economy of scale. As a well-developed country, their labor costs are quite high.

End result, a Type 89 rifle costs, before any of the later field mods, sighting systems, or anything else, around $3000 USD. Compared to something like $500 (Army stated replacement cost) for an M4 rifle (without additional sights and other add-ons)

From what I can see, the SA80/ L85 refit program cost around $600 USD per rifle, but I can't seem to find the initial procurement cost *EDIT* I have found some not-terribly reliable sources that indicate the ballpark of $1500 USD original procurement cost, which makes cost after refit around $2000 USD

...the real irony is that both the L85 AND the Type 89 are both based fundamentally on the AR18, which was designed to be the cheaper and simpler to manufacture version of the M16. For that matter, the G36 was, too!

[Tjay]

I take your points, although I never said it was the MOST expensive.

Let's face it, it's been downhill all the way since the underlever Springfield and the Lee and Enfield MkIV.

[outontheop]

I take your points, although I never said it was the MOST expensive.

Let's face it, it's been downhill all the way since the underlever Springfield and the Lee and Enfield MkIV.

Ah, so you did not. I apologize, I was replying to the quote from Marko to which you were also replying; I just saw "most expensive" in there and clicked reply. Quote attribution now fixed