First, understand that MOST soldiers from ANY country always seem to like the other guy's gear better.  It's a "grass is always greener" syndrome.

Instead, talk to some gun-knowledgable folks (and simply being issued an M16 doesn't make you gun-knowledgable) who've used both systems.  I think you'll get a very different story.

I've fired *real* FA G36s on several occasions, and while it is a pretty nice rifle, there's no WAY I'd choose it over the AR/M16 system.

Here are some of my issues with the G36:

- The mags are HUGE, and two of them would barely fit in a 3-mag AR pouch.  In order for the clear plastic mags to be reliable and durable, they also have to be THICK.

- You can't have a low-mounted upper optics rail, due to the position of the ambi charging handle.  This was a poor design decision.

- The rifle is VERY long, which they compensate for by using shorter barrels.  5.56mm relies very heavily on velocity for wounding ability, and shorter barrels rob the ammo of this vital velocity.

- The stock is too long, and can't be adjusted.  If you're wearing a pack or body armor, you've got problems.

- The optics are pretty low-quality.  I expected much better stuff from the Germans, but I suppose the cost of putting them on every rifle was just too high.

- There is very limited customization of the rifle, and most ergonomic items (stock, pistol grip, etc.) aren't changable at all.

As I've said before, the HK logo doesn't transform a decent rifle into a "Vorpal Rifle of Killing, +5 verses Commies."  It ain't magic.

-Troy

Quoted: As much as I like my Bushmaster, and the good 'ole USA, the G36 has already proven itself as a more reliable weapons system than the M16/AR series.

Really?  Which wars were fought with it?

Geez, a gas piston, what a novel concept. The gas system on the AR is just plain dumb. Who's copied it?....Nobody.

That "plain dumb" system is the reason the AR system is more accurate than any other rifle it its class.

The original M-16 made without a chrome lined barrel and chamber? ....Gene Stoner was stoned.

Ooops!  Your ignorance is showing!

Maybe you should do a bit of research into the development of the AR15 and the M16 program.  Perhaps you'd learn that Gene Stoner didn't even design the AR15, and that other folks dictated the configuration of the M16.

Dare I say flimsy mags? A poor extractor design?

Finally, we get to some REAL issues.  I agree with you here, but both problems could be easily fixed (and HAVE been by the aftermarket).

All weapons have plus and minuses, but without reliability, you have nothing. The AR is a good, but not great, combat rifle. It requires constant maintenance. You just have to give credit, where credit is due.  The G36 is a better weapon. Flame away, my skin is leather

If AR reliability was REALLY a problem (like it is with the SA80, for example), it would have been replaced, and would have been rejected by the gun community.  Instead, it is the CHOICE of many 1st-world countries, and is the CHOICE of the British and Austrailian SAS and the IDF.  But, clearly, none of THOSE guys know anything about weapons.

-Troy

As a former HK Distributor I have a lot of experience with the G36 and its pluses and minuses.

Pluses are ease of disassembly, Easy to change trigger groups.  The optics suck but that has been adressed with the iron sight and rail now being offered, like I told them originally with I first was shown the rifle 5 years ago.  The dot sight sucks big time.  The guts stay clean due to the gas system.  I shot 6,000 rounds thru one of my samples with out cleaning or lubing it, finally cleaned it as it would not jamb.  BIG minus the stock lock is very flimsy.  The locking tab locks into a loop of plastic that is part of the receiver, the numbered part and I have seen these loops break off with the stock gets bashed, there by putting the entire weapon out of service and requiring an entire new receiver, which essentially is the gun.  Trigger pull sucks due to being made of plastic, just like an AUG.  On short barrelled versions you can melt the sling due to muzzle blast.  Accuracy is on a par with the good old 53.  I have seen mags dropped on plastic and if loaded and land lips down they will crack, not good.  Operators in D force evaluated them and said no way in hell.  All in all a pretty good first shot but the gun needs improvements to be a military tough rifle.

I will take a 16 first.  There are several good designs for upgrading the gas system of the 16 that would allow it to stay as clean as the G36.

Weapon of choice for the real shit.  Galil shorty or SA R5.

Denny