are the trunnion blocks still cracking the cheap plastic receivers?

Quoted: the G36K in my opinion is a great weapon,   the M4 is pretty much comparable its a bit more compact and natural feeling its also quite a bit easier to clean M4 vs. G36K is basiclly a price question, is it worth a few hundred extra bucks to ya?

I suppose, unless you "compare" the following issues with the G-36:

- A G-36 with a given length barrel (let's say 12.3", which is their standard carbine/M4-replacement barrel length) gives LESS velocity than a shorter-but-similiar AR barrel, such as an 11.5" AR.  Comparing the 20" barrels, the G-36 turns in 160 fps less than an AR.  Think about the reduction in fragmentation range of your ammo.

- Sustained rapid fire will melt the receiver at the trunion.

- The stock hinge breaking at the receiver, requiring receiver replacement, is a common problem.

- The HK combo optic is horrible.  A neat concept that was badly/cheaply implemented, and is nearly always replaced.

- The placement of the charging handle procludes a flat top receiver.  While an upper rail is available, it must be mounted very high, which either limits you to optics that can be mounted very low (such as an AimPoint) or forces you to shoot with no cheek weld.

- The magazines are almost twice as thick as an AR mag, so two G-36 mags BARELY fit in a 3-mag USGI pouch.

- The G-36 is unable to accept standard 1913-railed accessories, severely limiting your options to HK-designed accessories, which cost more and perform less.

- The G-36 cannot be altered to change its ergonomics; no replacement pistol grips, no aftermarket stocks, etc.


The militaries that use the G-36 are either heavily connected to the German or British government (the Brits owned HK until recently), or bought on price.  Units that are allowed to carry what they want, including the SAS, carry ARs by choice.

Those, as they say, are the facts of the case.

-Troy