Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Site Notices
9/22/2017 12:11:25 AM
Posted: 8/19/2005 9:33:19 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 8/19/2005 9:33:40 PM EDT by AyeGuy]
WHAT IF...you held a G-36 rifle with one hand on the barrel, one hand on the buttstock...and TRIED TO BEND IT...do you think the polymer reciver would fail?
Link Posted: 8/19/2005 9:48:33 PM EDT


Somehow I doubt it.
Link Posted: 8/19/2005 10:09:50 PM EDT
Someone posted a picture a while back of what was left of a HK G36 when a German paratrooper landed on his.
Link Posted: 8/19/2005 10:11:25 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Raptor22:
Someone posted a picture a while back of what was left of a HK G36 when a German paratrooper landed on his.



Ouch. That could hurt. Hopefully he didn't hit the pointy end.
Link Posted: 8/20/2005 5:49:46 AM EDT

Originally Posted By AyeGuy:
WHAT IF...you held a G-36 rifle with one hand on the barrel, one hand on the buttstock...and TRIED TO BEND IT...do you think the polymer reciver would fail?



Glock hand guns are polymer... try to bend one of thoses.
Link Posted: 8/20/2005 6:33:05 AM EDT
Pick up a piece of rebar, coat it in plastic and try to bend it. Report back with your findings.
Link Posted: 8/20/2005 9:45:21 AM EDT
No, I don't think the Glock and rebar analogies are relevant.

With those (and my AUG also), they have short lengths, with the metal union with the plastic mostly contiguous. With the G-36, this juncture ends midway along the object, and so the steel barrel/polymer interface reciever is the weak point in the design. You have a longer lever arm, you see, with a weaker structure right at the midpoint.

This situation does not exist with bullpups; though problematic with ergonomics, they are a better platform for synthetics, since they do not require traditional rifle construction.

Link Posted: 8/20/2005 10:40:21 AM EDT
The "plastic" in the firearms is pretty strong. I doubt very seriously you could bend it with your bare hands. You might wedge it into something and tweak it a little.
Link Posted: 8/20/2005 12:07:41 PM EDT
At best I think you could get the folding stock mechanism to fail. Thats it.
Link Posted: 8/20/2005 4:40:33 PM EDT
Ask LARRYG36 what happened to his G36 after a too many rounds full auto. The barrel could use the little blue pill after it and the trunnion went limp in of the receiver.
Link Posted: 8/20/2005 4:57:16 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 8/20/2005 5:33:35 PM EDT by olds442tyguy]
I bet with a side impact, the stock assembly could break at the folding point pretty quick. I wouldn't hold my breath thrying to get anything else to break with force though.

As for Glock's they have metal imbedded more porportionately to the best of my knowledge, not to mention it's a much smaller and stouter package.

Spork, is there a link to that? I knew it wasn't uncommon for SL8 stocks to crack at random, but that's a pretty drastic problem right there. I wonder how many rounds it took to cause that damage.



ETA: Nevermind. I didn't find the official link on HKPro, but I did see him talking about it. Funny how most of the people over there say how the G36 is so much better than the M16, yet you have quite possibly the most knowledgeable and experienced G36 enthusiast in America saying it's not cut out for military work.

Reguardless, I still want one.
Link Posted: 8/20/2005 6:52:12 PM EDT
Trying to bend an SL8 results in nothing happening. I didnt try to break it over my knee though.
Link Posted: 8/20/2005 9:48:10 PM EDT
Interesting! I've never handled one, just curious...
Link Posted: 8/21/2005 1:45:21 AM EDT
Well many armies use them. I would think they would crack at about the same point a m4 aluminum receiver would. The but stock would probably break about the same as the tube on an m4 colapsable.

Remember Larry was able to continue to fire his. How often do you do multiple c mag dumps on the C model. Maybe the full size but from what I remember it doesnt have that problem.

Finally, from what I know the weakest part is the mag. Drop the weapon on the mag and it would probably crack. However, in a grander scheme of things would that be a big deal with mags being a expendable item in a combat situation?
Link Posted: 8/21/2005 2:07:06 AM EDT

Originally Posted By KogaShuko:
Well many armies use them. I would think they would crack at about the same point a m4 aluminum receiver would. The but stock would probably break about the same as the tube on an m4 colapsable.

Remember Larry was able to continue to fire his. How often do you do multiple c mag dumps on the C model. Maybe the full size but from what I remember it doesnt have that problem.

Finally, from what I know the weakest part is the mag. Drop the weapon on the mag and it would probably crack. However, in a grander scheme of things would that be a big deal with mags being a expendable item in a combat situation?



magazines are not expendable in combat, that's why god gave us dump bags and pockets
Link Posted: 8/21/2005 6:44:31 AM EDT
The G36 could be broke maybe one of the Large Apes or maybe The Incredible Hulk would be able to do it, BUT NOT a Regular Human Being.
One thing guys the G36 ,from what im told, is made from a carbon fiber reinforced plastic or resin.
Carbon fiber has a great thing going for it. It WILL NOT bend very much if at all but it will snap after it reaches its limit. Basically as you try to break it will hold hold hold and then before you know it BOOM SNAP.
Aluminum is Somewhat the same way but IT WILL BEND.

Glocks Polymer does NOT have any Fiberous Material in the matrix. (HKs USP's Do) The polymer in the Glock will bend and give and then go back to shape, as long as you dont go past the LIMIT in the Bending. Glocks actually have very little metal in the polymer frame, basically the rails and serial number plate. HKs have a lot more metal in the frame from what I know of.

SO yeah you could break it, with a lot of force, BUT guys really IF it was your weapon are you gonna try, and if you ISSUED the Weapon are you gonna try to break it. Gunny would be real pissed along with supply guys.
Link Posted: 8/21/2005 8:07:42 AM EDT
I'm not an opponent of polymer use in firearms (I have an HK USP .45 fullsize, and its the best pistol I've ever owned), but what cheezes me off is that the engineers usually try to re-create a metal component to the same dimensions using plastic...For christ sakes guys, BEEF IT UP SOME! Its only plastic; doubling the wall thicknesses would, what, add an ounce or two?
Link Posted: 8/21/2005 5:26:39 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 8/21/2005 5:38:10 PM EDT by Shi_Huang_Di]
No, I do not think it would flex in the center because they are extremely rigid...maybe some on the stock and folding joint….But who needs a stock!

Link Posted: 8/22/2005 12:33:34 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Shi_Huang_Di:
No, I do not think it would flex in the center because they are extremely rigid...maybe some on the stock and folding joint….But who needs a stock!

img.photobucket.com/albums/v622/SHi_Huang_Di/g36ab.jpg



Notice the yellow id badge this dude is wearing. This looks like a tough day at the office for someone. Also, I wish a civilian G36 was on the market so this post wouldn't just be "academic".
Link Posted: 8/22/2005 2:25:37 PM EDT

Originally Posted By KogaShuko:
Well many armies use them. I would think they would crack at about the same point a m4 aluminum receiver would. The but stock would probably break about the same as the tube on an m4 colapsable.

Many armies are issued them, but few actually have used them in battle like the M16 has seen. I don't think I've ever heard of problems with M16 receivers cracking, or the connecting point melting and dropping the barrel in to the forearm.

Remember Larry was able to continue to fire his. How often do you do multiple c mag dumps on the C model. Maybe the full size but from what I remember it doesnt have that problem.

He wasn't doing full auto Bet-C dumps like crazy from what I got out of it. It was the use of the suppressor that caused the over heating problems. This guy knows more about the G36 than probably anyone in America. I'll take his word on it's limits and capabilities. Besides, how many people do you know that trust a weapon that is having the barrel dropped from the receiver melting.

Finally, from what I know the weakest part is the mag. Drop the weapon on the mag and it would probably crack. However, in a grander scheme of things would that be a big deal with mags being a expendable item in a combat situation?

I wouldn't go into battle with a weapon that breaks upon a simple drop. Also, I heard it's the magwell that supposedly cracks, not the mags themselves. I have no experience with the G36 though. Until I do, I'll take the word of the experienced experts.



The G36 is a good weapon, no doubt about it. However, if someone who has massive amounts of experience with it, says it's not capable of being an all out battle rifle, I'll take his word for it. I'd love to have a G36, but upon seeing what has happened to it under this kind of use compared to the M16, I have to side with the M16. I'm sure most LEO's, plinkers and such would never push it that hard, but imagine how hot it would be in places like Iraq, continually firing.
Link Posted: 8/23/2005 4:31:32 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Shi_Huang_Di:
No, I do not think it would flex in the center because they are extremely rigid...maybe some on the stock and folding joint….But who needs a stock!

img.photobucket.com/albums/v622/SHi_Huang_Di/g36ab.jpg



Hey, is it me, or does that brass look bigger than 5.56 ?
Link Posted: 8/23/2005 4:33:05 PM EDT
I don't know about G36's breaking, but I do know some of the earlier L85's were known for having plastic parts that were much too easily bent/deformed.
Link Posted: 8/23/2005 5:23:22 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 8/23/2005 5:54:05 PM EDT by Shi_Huang_Di]

Originally Posted By Bob1984:

Originally Posted By Shi_Huang_Di:
No, I do not think it would flex in the center because they are extremely rigid...maybe some on the stock and folding joint….But who needs a stock!

img.photobucket.com/albums/v622/SHi_Huang_Di/g36ab.jpg



Hey, is it me, or does that brass look bigger than 5.56 ?



There is more brass in the air (it was cut off), and one hit the camera! It is 5.56. The G36 is a very fine weapon that handles VERY WELL! I have never fired the L85/SA80 but I have read that an impact can cause it to fail possibly like AyeGuy and Bob1984 described.


Now this is bigger.....458 SOCOM...again thanks CB!




Link Posted: 8/23/2005 7:56:23 PM EDT
That's a right purdy little rifle ya gots there, Shi_Huang_Di!
Link Posted: 8/24/2005 7:28:24 AM EDT
The suppressor on a G36 does get very hot. I've shot a FA G36 with the suppressor and it did not melt , after 6 mags of almost continuous firing.

Larry's G36 was a rental weapon I believe, and they were dumping beta mags out of the shorter barrel with the suppressor.

While the G36 isnt perfect, it's not the fragile thing some of you are making it out to be.

Some of the people here are a bit overenamored with the M16. Until you've handled a G36 or even an SL8, you may want to modulate the enthusiasm of your criticism.

As for Larry being the God of all things G36 related, the G36 is not that hard to understand because it's a simple design. Hey may have more experience in firing a G36, I wouldnt call him an expert in the engieering of it.
Link Posted: 8/24/2005 11:21:38 AM EDT
The guy probably has more range time with the G36 than most of the German Army. I'll take his word for it.

I'm not criticizing it as I have no experience with it. But there's plenty of clear indicators that it is not a sufficient military weapon. In fact, it's my understanding that the XM8 was developed to adress these problems, although it still has some R&D needed.

Link Posted: 8/24/2005 11:48:51 AM EDT
Not to start a flame fest or anything, but "lots of clear indicators" that it's not a sufficient battle weapon?

LarryG36 melting part of his receiver after Beta mag dumps is what you're considering "lots of indicators"?

Are you discounting all the other tests that show the G36 to be a viable weapon for infantry use?

That's like saying if I dump a 5 beta mags out of my MP5K and the barrel overheats and goes out of spec, that's the MP5K's fault and is therefore not viable?

A G36C with a suppressor is not meant to be dumped. In fact, most suppressor manufacturers with the exception of a few will warn you NOT to dump through a suppresor.
Link Posted: 8/24/2005 3:30:34 PM EDT
I'd rather have a barrel fail than a receiver, which would be the case on most other metal receiver firearms. Plastic has no place in any area close to a high cylic rate firearms bolt assembly or barrel IMO.

I'm not trying to degrade the G36, but relying on materials which are so easily influenced by heat just seems like a step in the wrong direction to me. I'm sure it's a great weapon, but high round count fights are common in battle, even with suppressor use. I'd rather have to worry about my barrel, than both the barrel and the physical composure of the receivers.

Besides that, the G36 has seen no where even near the use of most other military rifles. In fact, the only pictures I've seen of a G36 in use, were either patrols where little to no shots were fired, advertisements, or LE operations. None of those are even closely comparable to a large scale military operation. Saying the G36 is proven is not accurate. I'm not a fan of "tests" unless it's real world battle testing, and not the testing where they let active soldiers plink with it in their free time in a safe controlled range setting.


Sorry if I come off as being pushy. I've just been reading some of the propaganda on HKPro and it angers me to see someone trash the M16 to talk up a firearm that's never seen even remotely close to comparable use.
Top Top