Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Posted: 11/8/2002 11:26:18 PM EDT
Saw a press release at HKPRO.com, issued by Alliant Tech Systems, which claimed that the military is testing a variant of the G36 - the prototype is called the XM8 - in their OICW, for consideration as a replacement candidate for the M4.

What do ya think?
Link Posted: 11/8/2002 11:35:30 PM EDT
That is only if the OICW is adopted. That is way down the road, though. The M16/M4 will probably see at least another decade of service before possible replacement.

The basis of the Land Warrior system is an M4 though. The Land warrior will probably get approved before the OICW system. The land warrior is easier to handle and easier to construct and implement into service.
Link Posted: 11/9/2002 11:28:11 AM EDT
Link Posted: 11/9/2002 11:55:34 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 11/9/2002 11:58:50 AM EDT by blackmanta]
Seriously, how much of an improvement over the M4/M16 could the G36 be? The M4 is light, accurate, reliable, and can be augmented with all sorts of optics and NV devices. Again, what exactly is there to improve upon?

If my informal but extensive experience with HK's products is accurate, the G36 is just another overengineered and overrated euro-blaster.

As far as the OICW is concerned...I mean COME ON, already! To be effective, the shooter must shine a laser on the intended target to determine its range, press a button to set the fuse on the projectile, then aim the gun at it's proper elevation and fire.

I've never been in combat before so I know I'm speaking out of turn. But from what I understand, most shots that are made in a gunfight are hurried and unaimed. I mean, the OICW has an integral 5.56 rifle as a BACKUP. I can see it's specialized applications, but I cannot see it as a general purpose combat firearm.

Aside from designing a self-aiming rifle with little legs for it to run around on, I don't see how any convention improvements can be made over the M4/M16 family.
Link Posted: 11/9/2002 12:25:28 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 11/9/2002 12:26:24 PM EDT by dogbert4-1]
If the M-16 family works reliabley, is ergonomically STILL the best out there, and there is no overall calibur change from .556, who the heck would recommend a changeover to the G36 or G36 based weapon??? It's simply a waist of limited funds.

Besides all that, it's GERMAN. Maybe you haven't been up on current events lately, but this German government ran on an anti-American platform, and won handily.

That doesn't make for a whole lot of support garnering US contracts going their way.
Link Posted: 11/11/2002 4:54:56 AM EDT
But remember, we picked an ITALIAN pistol a few years ago. Who knows what these knuckle heads will do.

Interestingly, after all of the fanfare of the 9mm and then the .40, isn't it interesting that we see a trend back to the good old .45 ACP?
Link Posted: 11/11/2002 9:42:05 AM EDT


If my informal but extensive experience with HK's products is accurate, the G36 is just another overengineered and overrated euro-blaster.



Actually, the G36 is not overengineered at all. It's a POS compared to the roller lockers, H&K totally went back on their whole philosophy of keeping weight down by not using a gas-operated system and instead jumped on the polymer bandwagon. I think they did it to keep costs down and hit a low durability target for their products. The result is yet another throwaway rifle with built-in obsolescence/wear out time. I wonder if they are doing this on purpose so that none of these weapons will ever reach the secondary market? It fits the current UN/socialist emphasis on destroying firearms rather than having them reach the hands of the "unintended."

I long for the days before governments had unlimited taxpayer wealth and actually had to make do by running arsenals to refit and refurbish rifles again and and again--e.g. the FALs, 1911a1s, M1s, etc. Seems like things made more sense back then, doesn't it? Now, they just trash them and make new ones. And AMERICANS take the blame for wasting resources!
Link Posted: 11/11/2002 11:28:51 AM EDT
Personally, I think the G36 rocks. I got the opportunity to fire the real deal when I lived in Athens, GA (The Firing Line). Very nice with good ergonomics. The optics will need improving before the US would ever accept it (among other things).

As far as Land Warrior goes, the rifle is the least relevant of the package. You can put all the rails and gadgets on a G36, same as with the M4.
Link Posted: 11/11/2002 12:58:41 PM EDT

Originally Posted By SJSAMPLE:
The optics will need improving before the US would ever accept it (among other things).




What "other things" would need to change on the G-36 before the USA accepted it?

Again, the point is that there's nothing offered by the G-36 that would be an improvement over the M16/M4.

Though my opinion is colored by my anti-HK stance, I still think that I'm right-on here.
Link Posted: 11/11/2002 5:38:03 PM EDT
I love HK weapons. there is just something cool about them. However, given a choice, I would always pick an AR over an HK. To me the ergonomics of an M4 are much better than the HK's. The multi position collapsible stocks are handy, something HK has never put forth effort into for some reason. The mag changing on an AR is simply faster, push a button and the mag drops free. This makes it easier to use with a magpul type system. With an HK or other european weapon, you have to remove the spent magazine, then extract a new magazine and insert it. On an AR, it can be done with one smooth motion, extract a new mag, drop the old one, insert new one. It's just easier and faster. There are more aftermarket improvements to the AR to suit the individual user. There weren't as many options for the older HK's and the new polymer ones are basically solid pieces of polymer. No changing pistol grips, not any choices in buttstocks, etc. HK weapoms are great, i just prefer an M4/M16/AR15.
Link Posted: 11/11/2002 8:38:08 PM EDT

Originally Posted By knightone:
I love HK weapons. there is just something cool about them. However, given a choice, I would always pick an AR over an HK. To me the ergonomics of an M4 are much better than the HK's. The multi position collapsible stocks are handy, something HK has never put forth effort into for some reason. The mag changing on an AR is simply faster, push a button and the mag drops free. This makes it easier to use with a magpul type system. With an HK or other european weapon, you have to remove the spent magazine, then extract a new magazine and insert it. On an AR, it can be done with one smooth motion, extract a new mag, drop the old one, insert new one. It's just easier and faster. There are more aftermarket improvements to the AR to suit the individual user. There weren't as many options for the older HK's and the new polymer ones are basically solid pieces of polymer. No changing pistol grips, not any choices in buttstocks, etc. HK weapoms are great, i just prefer an M4/M16/AR15.


Of course, it's also easy to love ARs because of their ubiquitous nature, and the fact that HKs run in the thousands of dollars, and are scarce.

In my America all gun owners would be allowed to own a current production MP5.
Link Posted: 11/11/2002 11:24:37 PM EDT
Ubiquity has nothing to do with my preference toward AR's. I have, in the past, spent quite a bit on preban AR's. I could have spent that same money on an HK 94 or 93, but chose the AR's instead. They simply feel better in the hand and allow faster operation and manipulation of the controls over the HK line of weapons. If I had to choose a weapon to arm every American, I would go with an AR. I would choose the Colt 9mm over the MP5 of your ideal America. Don't get me wrong, i love the MP5. If I was handed one and told this was my weapon, I would have no complaints. I would just rather have been issued an AR/M16 type weapon.
Link Posted: 11/12/2002 4:17:34 AM EDT
Just to flesh this out a bit- The XM8, if funded (It currently is not fully funded) would be issued to squads equipped with the OICW- In a 9 man squad, four would be armed with the OICW, two with a "SAW" variant of the XM8 and three with the XM8.. All of this is subject to change..

The XM8 is simply supposed to be as lethal/accurate as the M4 but at a ~20% reduction in weight. It would probably have various rails and channels for laser/light switches built in. It would not necessarily have the 10" barrel of the OICW "KE" weapon but would probably have parts and mags in common.

..Theoretically, by 2010 you would have American squads armed with the OICWs/XM8s, you would have other units armed with the "Land Warrior" systems and dressed out M4s (thermal/video etc.), and you would still have many units armed with more plain-jane M4s and M16A2s.

There have been many threads debating the usefulness of the OICW already- I'm not a religious supporter of the OICW but I think it is worth considering that the OICW isn't going to replace the M16- I feel like it gives a American squad capabilities that it doesn't have right now.. And if things get up close and personal, this squad of 2010 can lay down just as much 5.56mm inside 50 meters using iron sights as a squad of 2002 can-
No one is going to be crippled if electronics are lost to EMP or lack of power..
Top Top