So then in short the Armytimes article is "misrepresenting" the situation. Its NOT coming by 2005 unless everyone agreed immediately with the authors assement of the situation.

Mariachi, nice to see you on AR15.com

Guys, Mariachi is right though his opinion is influenced because he's one of the owners of Germanys largest AR15 distributor, Oberland Arms, who is since a short time also manufacturer. The G36 is indeed not undisputed in the German Army though I think it is more a question of the caliber. Most here still think that only the 7.62x51 will get the job done and that the 5.56x45 is a puny caliber. You in the U.S. also have this debate and from time to time you hear that US soldiers use the M14 again. Nevertheless it is ridiculous to think that they will equip all soldiers with the M14 again.

IMHO the G36 is a very reliable rifle but that's not difficult - Heckler&Koch just combined the beauty of the AR15 bolt with a conventional gas system so they cut off the achilles heel of the AR15 system, the open gas system.

The plastic case of the G36 is another story. It is in no way as durable as an aluminium case and, like Mariachi mentioned, the buttstock breaks (mostly when it is folded) or folds itself when firing. The dual optic sight is a nice thing, compared to many other armys every German soldier now has a scope and a CCO BUT the G36 has no back-up sight (optics fog up easily) and the quality of the dual optics is not comparable to an ACOG or an Aimpoint Comp M2.  

The Picatinny rail is a joke. It's made of plastic with a ridiculous sight and is not in the specs! There's also a KSK rail (Kommando Spezialkräfte) available. It lacks the sight (I guess they know why!). A German shop now makes an aluminium rail but only for the civilian market.

BTW, this is one of Oberland Arms artwork
[img]www.people.freenet.de/shtf/custom_oa15k.jpg[/img]
They make the receivers out of F53 aluminium instead of 7075T6. Unfortunately the authorities are bitching at the moment but as soon as they give me the permission to buy I'll order from Oberland Arms. I would take a good AR15 over a G36 any time! #

[i]edit/[/i] The AR15 is also the most ergonomic rifle. The controls are easy to reach, they are located where you need them. I can operate the AR15 much faster than any other rifle. The G36 is ambidextrous, an advantage for the Lefties, but what is a bolt catch good for if I have no release and have to grab at the charging handle again? It's just an indicator for an empty magazine.

The M9 was a looser in the trials, however when the equation of our military bases Pos. not being to be allowed to stay in Italy, the subject of the M9 came up! We are pulling our troops out of Germany so that won't be a political consideration in weapon procurment, but Aliant Tech and a couple of others have received big bucks from uncle sam to experiment. There are many designs on the drawing board of others that realy do know what thier doing. Some inovations to the M16 with real good working prototyes that a few good companies have submitted to the gov't that will surprise folks when and if they are adopted. They would/will give longer life to the M16 family. The G36 and XM8 in my experience/opinion of history will not make it, no matter how many Gov't Pork Barrel bucks are wasted trying to make a silk purse out of a sow's ear!
Good shootin, Jack
 

OMG...

We all agree with JACK.

For everyone that seems to be worried by the XM8:

1.) It will more than likely never be issued. The US has spent billions on the M16 system and is not about to spend billions more on a system that will require all new web gear, magazines,support equipment, NSN #'s etc...... Hell there are still units in the US military that have 1960's vintage M16(USAF) and M16A1's(USANG)and they are just now getting around to updating them to A2/A3/A4 spec.

If anything the M16 will be with us for the next 30+ years with all the new PIP programs being developed, until such time as more effect rifle/carbine is developed.

2.) If they do for some reason adopt the XM8 it will use M16 style magazines, more than likely the new HK steel magazines. With the exception of the HK G36, FAMAS, and AUG.. other 5.56 weapons systems use the AR/M16 magazine.

[url]http://www.dtic.mil/ndia/2003smallarms/clark.ppt[/url]


A power point on LTC Clarkes envisionment for US Army weapons...

Well, the XM8 is not the only system up for consideration either-last time I checked. As to what will be the replacement for the M16/M4 is as good a guess as any. From what I can tell the M16's days as  the primary issue weapon are numbered...... but it may take at least 2-6 years before that happens-or longer.

While I am not a big fan of the G36-I  wonder how many of these same things that are being said about it that had been said about 40 years ago on another questionable weapon system??????

While I do see your point, it is not the futuristic style or the question of modularity that I am doubting (as others have accused of the naysayers).  I like the futuristic look of the XM8.  I don't doubt the modularity of the XM8 can be expanded upon and improved.  However, the thing I am arguing is that the M16 family of weapons can already do these things.  

The G36/XM8 is not a great leap above and beyond what we already have.  It is almost the exact same thing, witha different body and a different gas system.  We don't need a polymer bodied rifle.  It is not (yet) as sturdy as an aluminum AR receiver.  There have been numerous people who have accounted for cracked G36 bodies.  The body of the AR15 is pretty sturdy and I have not heard of forged receivers breaking in use as the G36 has.  It is also readily known that several companies are working on different gas systems that fit onto the existing lower receiver assembly of the M16/AR15 family of weapons.  

It will take far less time, money, and effort to improve the existing M16 than it will to get the G36 up to where the M16 is and then improve it further.  We already have a very versatile, modular/customizeable, accurate, and dependable weapon.  Another 5.56mm weapon that we will have to develop/test/improve is a waste of resources.  The M16 will last until the next generation of ammunition must be introduced.  Any other ordnance can be readily fitted to the M16 system just as easily as the XM8.

The M16 can already be adapted as an infantry weapon, a designated marksman rifle, a CQB weapon, a defensive weapon for vehicle crews and support personnel, and a sub-machine gun, with the possibility of making it into a light machine gun/squad automatic weapon as well.  Forty years ago, we were fielding the M14, the M1 and M2 carbine, and the M1 and M3 subguns for those missions.  None of those had receivers that could be easily adaptable to the task of the others.

Now, with one common receiver, all these missions can be tasked.  Isn't this the main selling point of the XM8.  It seems to me we already have a weopon that does what they are trying to sell the XM8 as.  It just doesn't make sense.  

With the exception of the The M40, AR10/MK11 and the M14/M25 type weapons the M16 lower receiver can be adapted to just about any long arm a soldier/Marine/operator could think to carry.  I would think that if the XM8 would have to have a different receiver to use .308 rounds as well, so it doesn't have that advantage over the M16.

Unless they are introducing a new round or a completely new way to define small arms (such as energy based weapons) there is no real reason to introduce a new base for 5.56mm weapons system other than politics or the sheer joy of wasting tax dollars.

That's the point. The G36 is on the same level as any other current 5.56 assault rifle. Heckler&Koch didn't want to risk another development like the G11 which would never bring any return on investment. There must be a revolutionary rifle system to make a big army adopt it and the G36 is too ordinary, no matter how much space design flows into the case.  

The RROC could fix all problems with the reliability of the AR15 series but than again I think even that is a solution for a non existing problem and it would make the rifle more heavy and expensive. Nearly every AR15 problem is magazine related so get the fine H&K mags and that's it. IMHO the RROC would be help only for extreme environments. BTW, are there tests of the RROC in the Iraq now?

[i]edit/[/I] In a mag pouch for three M16 mags you get two G36 mags. I think web gear wouldn't be a problem but miss one mag per pouch. Check out the new CCG assault vest, we designed the pouches for use with G36 and AR15 (The Danes have Diemaco C7/C8). [url]www.closecombatgear.com/products/ccav.htm[/url]

Very good someone mentioned the G-11 - that
was a "new" concept. But with the drop of the "wall" nobody wanted it. The G-11 left
HK broke - they burnt a unbelivable amount
of money on this project. What do you think
a company does after that expirience ?
Invest another few millions in the next
project -??? No !
It is like some of the other guys already said-
they took already known parts/techniques, mixed it with cheap injection moulding --- and got the G-36
And what else, is the XM-8, than putting chocolate cookies from an old tin box in a new tupperware ?

M.

Thank you very much ultima-ratio and Mariachi.  Too many people are looking at it as a "fear of new things" or as a "it looks ugly" kind of thing.  It has nothing to do with that.  It's the fact that the G36 really isn't anything new or improved.  It's just something that has come along beofre, but repackaged into a flashy new box.

Unfortunately they did with the OICW. It's nothing more than a G36K with a grenade lauchner for longer distances but it has a too complicate aiming device and is far too heavy. Of course it's not easy to hit a target with a M203 at 400m but look what the Israeli did. They found a simple solution w/o building a super heavy monster.

Meprolight GLS203 Grenade Launcher Reflex Sight
[img]http://www.isayeret.com/optics/gls/gls-2.jpg[/img]

Right - but mainly U.S. Tax -dollars.
The G11 disaster was almost completly paid by themselfs. At least it wasn`t their fault as the government kept telling that they want it ( the G11 )- but chnged their mind with the drop
of the wall - ... but thats politics.....

M.

To say that weapons grade Polymer is not as durable as Forged Aluminum is to speak from ignorance.

I thought Glock's pretty much put that discussion to rest!

If the G36 has problems with broken stocks then it's most likely a problem with the design, NOT material failure.

Polymers are the way of the future. Since the search for lighter and lighter weapons is paramount, Polymers are the logical choice.

When Stoner was developing the AR-15 in the 50's, many at the time scoffed at him for useing Aluminum and fiberglass instead of carbon Steel and Wood for his design!

Seems as if times never change.

Generally I'd agree with you. The frame of a Glock or a HK USP is very durable but it seems that polymer is getting a problem when using it for a long rifle stock that is not made of one part. The G36 case usually breaks at the buttstock's hinge or the complete carry handle with optics comes off. The mounting areas of those parts have to be redesigned. The stock of the Steyr AUG or the civilian HK SL8 for example is not prone to these problems (at least I never heard of). So it is indeed a problem with the design. Plastic needs to be reinforced and thicker at those points.

AKM not even the Glock has a polymer slide...


Regardless which way you feel about the M16 or G36, Coldblue and others have made very clear factual points.

1) AT best the G36 is only a factionally better system.

2) NO ONE can justify spending $ to replace a working system with a  system of simlar capabilities.

Here is the big issue!! 2 G36 mags will not fit into a triple M16 mag pouch.  I have experienced so much pain in finding ways to carry the G36mags!  

Seriously, had the German Army ever done drop test on the G36?I have my doubt until I actually see the results. I really like plastic,but the G36's construction is....hmmm, pretty Mickey mouse.

Well granted some of these points are very valid..I have a question myself

1: Cracked stocks/furniture-how many have failed? And what was the cause? was it run over by a tank? And who is reporting it? A few months ago I spent a couple of days training with a German armorer on their weapons who had been doing his job for over 15 years, and was doing his job in Afganistan-and I asked him the same question and he laughed and said he had not seen it happen yet, he had een some failures of the buttstock though (but you know what it probably can be re-designed). He thought after looking at our system (M4) and being trained on it by myself that the G36 was superior-maybe just his opinion there: hard to tell sometimes gun people are about the biggest group of know-it-all opinionated group of people in the world (myself included)-but I still like most of them hehehe.
 On a few jumps that the 82nd airborne does from time to time the tube, metallic (aka buffer tube) gets bent or damaged and as a result the gun does not work-If memory serves me correctly the G36 still works if the buttstock breaks off.
Is the weapon everybody has better than the one on this thread-only time will tell. How many millions of dollars, time and LIVES did it take to make the M16 workable/tolerable. While the H&K design may not be the best or maybe not suitable for the american soldier....at least someone is looking for something better than what we got-and that is what matters to me.  

I might be out of my league, but what about the P90 which uses a 5.7mm round as a replacement of the M4 ??
It has an effective range of 200m, but that is about the range of the M4. At least this system incorporates better balistic power (>48 plies of Kevlar @ 200m). Have a few variants and to me this system offers more change then the G36 has to offer.

Several reasons:

1) Cost - you'd have to buy new rifles, new parts, and retrain armorers to work on the system.

2) Logistics - you'd need to stock yet another ammo type and another magazine type.

3) Performance - range is limited compared to the M4, and the terminal ballistics are dismal.

Quite the topic. TheArmy is stuck with the 16 family series for a long, long time. Don't worry. It works great in combat. The high speed boy's might need some new design but us dog's use something well proven and it holds it's own. You just need to know the weapon to ensure it's good to go.


The M16. Battle proven in the worst of conditons. Even the FN's are't all that bad. Great design and not going anywhere out of inventory.

I still don't know why a couple of spring loaded doors in the lower couldn't solve the underwater BS.

That seems like a simple problem.

Yeah, but it's the infantry that's looking for a replacement for the M16.  Go fast guys can get just about anything they need and they go for M4s.  The same is true of the Operators in many nations.  They could choose anything, and they choose M16 variants.  Even if the infantry goes with the XM8, high speed guys will probably still be using the M4 for quite a long while after.

Not really, It all gets back to funding, no need for R&D dollars if your not trying to develop something.  The infantry center at Fort Benning is the one that looking for a leap ahead technology, it may or may not be adopted, only the future will tell.  

That is a very good point.  

Bottom line:  If the Army dumps the M16 for the G36, we'll have better weaponry than the Army!  [:D]


CJ

there seems to be some rather strong feelings about this on both sides;

As for myself four words come to mind --

Budget Deficient

Congressional Oversight


Even in the era of 'Homeland Defense' departments and Terrorist Forecasts I can't see the logic behind issuing a Product Improved Mid-60s rifle design to masses of troops.

But if that mid 60s rifle is something the rest of the world is pending their design after then why replace it.  I fully believe the M4PIP is the way to go for the next arsenal upgrades for our military.

A modified G36 is not the end all and be all answer.

When it comes to outright versatility, the M16 platform is absolutely unmatched.    

Its ammo, when driven at the velocities it was originally intended for,  is one of the most combat effective rounds going.  (Not most lethal...most combat effective.  There is a difference.)

Face it, the bitches about the M16 family are mostly related to reliability under dirty (spell that "field" conditions.

I could envision a few relatively simple mods to the M16 system that would enhance its ability to function under dirty conditions.   A few manufacturing specs could stand to be opened up for greater clearance between critical parts, and it would be relatively easy to develop a new gas system that uses a piston instead of direct impingement of hot gas into the mechanism.  I can envision such a system now, and the system could be retrofit to an existing M16 upper and the lower would be completely unchanged.

I could probably prototype such a system myself.  It's not rocket science.

CJ

SMGLee,

Sorry I guess I wasn't clear - I was referring to the G36 as the PI Mid-60's rifle - not the M16 series.

The G36 is of course a mildly modified AR18.

I agree that PIP mods are all that is required to extend and close the M16 life cycle once the OICW project is operational - or Un-manned ground combat vehicles come online.

The OICW system program needs to bet kept as an R&D thingie for awhile longer and it's focus changed IMHO. It right now sucks as a combo weapon-the thing I am not sure about is the XM8 because I am still not sure of it's operational capabilities but the rest of the system is going down the tubes I hope, and I do wonder one thing: As for how many HUNDREDS of MILLIONS of dollars they have spent on the OICW (probably a few times as much as spent on the failed ACR project and that was in the 70-80 million range if memory serves me correctly) and finding out that nobody wants one-my guess is that the goombahs at Picatinney and Aberdeen are trying to save face and try to put out the lower system of the OICW as a "See, look we are not incompetant with your tax money"IMHO-yet again just my train of thought on the matter.
Does the M4 (which everyone seems to want in the Army now to replace the M16)need a replacement or to be shelved like the XM177, then the XM177E1 then the XM177E2: yes, lets stop putting another bandaid on a broken leg and stop spending a couple of million here then a couple of million there and just sit down and get a better system altogether. If you knew how many "this'll make the M4 work better" fixes speeches I've had to endure for the last few years: and after we implement them we still get the same problems and usually one or two new ones to boot then come the next battery of new excuses blaming something else. As one of my co-workers once said it is like trying to fix a broken neck through your butthole approach. New fixes, light and heavy barrels, new barrels, new bolt carrier geometry, new bolts, blue springs, black springs, "O" rings, gold springs. Normal buffers, "H" buffers, "X" buffer, "H2" Buffers and still another buffer on the horizon, newly "redesigned" parts, new parts, magazine recalls blah, blah, blah ad-infinatum. They have had this weapon for over 40 years and they are still too stupid to realize it's major problems and still try to fix it the half-@$$ed American way by passing the buck. It is a Ferrari where a Ford truck is needed(or whatever company it is that you like). If some Domestic/foreign design comes along that is better take it and be done with it: stop trying to polish a turd IMHO.
I know this will raise alot of hackles but I am tired of some "experts" opinions-give the guys something that works and works reliably under all conditions-not something that has to be cleaned religiously (because a few years in the military working with all sorts of units has shown me that in the field most soldiers do not clean their weapons often enough), has to be fully drained, has to have a bachelors degree to zero. can mount whatever "cool guy" gadget that is in vogue this week. We know what we have trained with and that is our fault-one way or the other, or what we personally have spent thousands of dollars on, or have vested interests in trying to sell to a "cool gun" hungry public-nobody likes to hear they may have gotten ripped off (especially me I own a few AR's myself and an oh too expensive pre-ban pistol), we all may have our own reasons-but what seems to be forgotten is that the Soldier/Sailor/Marine/Airman who has to carry the bloody thing doesn't care if you have to buy one because he carries one-and you don't like to have to change your buying habits to keep up with the Joneses' (this does not apply to all here, and I also realize some of your are in and just want a better product to trust your life to)-the weapon may work fine for keeping in a nice bag and toting to the range for a nice afternoon of shooting, or for those of you who use one in other duties where it may not get carried continously in the open and unprotected from the elements for days or weeks at a time and (I say all this because my one main focus is on the guys who the existing weapon or will have to carry a new one).
But some need stop making excuses and "Oh if they do this it'll work better every five minutes fix" I have one unit to work on and four different M4 fixes for 1000+ M4's that I am responsible for that are authorized to certain individuals-that not everybody gets. The logistical chain when I deploy is horrendously long because these guys are not "authorized" while these are this modification so I have to stock and order parts that are different and order them and then usually get the right part but the wrong modification to it. I am waiting for the day myself that I can sell my AR's and my AK's because I'd like to hear the U.S. military finally adopted a weapon that was the cats meow and that I can maintain my proficiency on so I when I get deployed somewhere I don't have to go searching for and beg/borrow/buy another Kalashnikov (Now, you see I also have ulterior motives too)-probably a pipe dream, but one can hope...................

Change happens whether we like it or not.          

G36 huh? Only experience I have actually had with one is playing Urban Terror Online.  Seems like a cool rifle, but I think our M16's have a certain Fear Factor thats just frosting on the cake in WAR.

Target range=My AR

Icky bad places with dirt=My G36

See it's really simple buy both and stop bitching.

M16 gone by 2005......Yeah Right.

And not by the OICW, G-36 or XM8. The Army Times is about as "in the know" as AFEES is there to give "good value" to us soldiers.

It's obvious the writers at Army Times are either A) blind or don't watch the news, B) don't talk to the procurement folks, or C) have become a vessle to promote the political ends of some within the DA. Probably a little of all three. You want Fair and Balanced, go to Fox.

Do you think the DOD would be procuring all those new M16A4's for the Army(Infantry types) and Marines if the M16 as a system were going the way of the Doe-Doe bird in a mere two years. No, they would continue to use A2's and M4's. Hell, even NG Infantry units are being fielded M16A4's. Hell a blind man could see this.

Wpns Man

 

If they didn't change it's just a G36K barrel with 31,8cm (about 12,5").

Admittedly I haven't read every post in this thread, but almost every one.

I'd like to point out that there is already a civilian version of the XM8 available in the US. It's called the HK SL8-1.

M4 wins over XM8 :)

in the recent "combat tactics" issue if shooting (i think it was that magazine...it had all the surefire stuff and weapons of the special forces) they go on to say that the contracts were rewared to a modified version of an M4 with aimpoint optics.  this will be the new standard issue weapin for the US forces.  it tells about the whole story in the magazine!!!  it mentions the H&K and some other weapons and tell about the shortcomings of them and all that jazz.  in the end the M4 wins, it really would be too much to switch the weapon over to something totally different.  

this is beyond what the SureFire magazine article is talking about. the M4 has been issued, this and the SCAR are new project on the herizon.

I don't care what they say, the ar cannot be beat.

there is a civilian version of the g36...its the SL8.