Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 2
Posted: 7/16/2003 8:44:50 PM EDT
Enjoy your SOCOMS and SPR's while you can. If jerkoffs in the army have their way.
www.armytimes.com/story.php?f=0-ARMYPAPER-2002475.php

No more demand for new stocks, rails, or muzzle attachements. And the G36 will not be legal for import.

The fact that the gun as pictured sucks, and has no where near the versitility of a rail equipped AR to mount lights, lasers, and optics as new generations of such equipment are going to become available and yet STILL fires the same 5.56mm cartridge, so its range, accuracy, and hitting power cannot be any different...

There has go to be something we can do to kill this POS before it gets any further.
Link Posted: 7/16/2003 9:22:32 PM EDT
[url]http://www.ar15.com/forums/topic.html?b=3&f=118&t=165144[/url] Try this link with pictures too.
Link Posted: 7/16/2003 9:25:24 PM EDT
I tell you, I love shooting the G36! MMmmmm the G36! I dont tihnk it would look(morally?) right being carried by US troops though.
Link Posted: 7/16/2003 9:42:56 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 7/16/2003 9:44:35 PM EDT by SMGLee]
This is part of the official document for the JORD SCAR, it list within the article the shortcoming of the current system. I don't know where the XM8 is heading, but I hope the M16 system improvement gets the funding instead of the XM8 which is basically a revised G36. ----------------------------------------------- 3. Shortcomings of Existing System. The current M4/M4A1 carbine never met the Operational Requirement Document (ORD) in reliability and service life. Quality Deficiency Reports (QDR’s) are on file at Naval Surface Warfare Center-Crane Division and reflect the following shortcomings. 3.1. Reliability Deficiencies: Failure to extract, failure to eject, broken bolts, failure to function in arctic, desert and Over-the-Beach (OTB) environments. 3.2. Safety Deficiencies: Too few rounds to cook-off, too few rounds to barrel burst, receiver explodes if fired when flooded with water (not suitable for Over-The-Beach operations (OTB) and not suitable for riverine operations). 3.3. Accuracy Deficiencies: Barrels become or are received loose, too few rounds before barrels shoot out and become inaccurate, Rail Interface System (RIS) and Rail Adapter System (RAS) forearm rails do not maintain zero, uncontrollable in full automatic fire. 3.4. Ergonomic Deficiencies: Inadequate cheek weld area on buttstock, no ambidextrous controls, heavy/inconsistent trigger pull, ergonomically imbalanced pistol grip, multiple ergonomic deficiencies in SOPMOD and Modular Weapon System (MWS) systems interface. 3.5. Complete operational and technical deficiency descriptions in M4/M4A1 5.56mm Carbine and Related Systems Deficiencies and Solutions: Joint Operational and Technical Study with Analysis of Alternatives, Dated January 2002.
Link Posted: 7/16/2003 9:46:55 PM EDT
Word is that HK will have manufacturing capabilities here in the US by 2005-6. Maybe this has something to do with that? -Cap'n
Link Posted: 7/16/2003 9:53:42 PM EDT
Originally Posted By SMGLee: 3. Shortcomings of Existing System. The current M4/M4A1 carbine never met the Operational Requirement Document (ORD) in reliability and service life. Quality Deficiency Reports (QDR’s) are on file at Naval Surface Warfare Center-Crane Division and reflect the following shortcomings. 3.1. Reliability Deficiencies: Failure to extract, failure to eject, broken bolts, failure to function in arctic, desert and Over-the-Beach (OTB) environments. 3.2. Safety Deficiencies: Too few rounds to cook-off, too few rounds to barrel burst, receiver explodes if fired when flooded with water (not suitable for Over-The-Beach operations (OTB) and not suitable for riverine operations). 3.3. Accuracy Deficiencies: Barrels become or are received loose, too few rounds before barrels shoot out and become inaccurate, Rail Interface System (RIS) and Rail Adapter System (RAS) forearm rails do not maintain zero, uncontrollable in full automatic fire. 3.4. Ergonomic Deficiencies: Inadequate cheek weld area on buttstock, no ambidextrous controls, heavy/inconsistent trigger pull, ergonomically imbalanced pistol grip, multiple ergonomic deficiencies in SOPMOD and Modular Weapon System (MWS) systems interface. 3.5. Complete operational and technical deficiency descriptions in M4/M4A1 5.56mm Carbine and Related Systems Deficiencies and Solutions: Joint Operational and Technical Study with Analysis of Alternatives, Dated January 2002.
View Quote
WTF? There is no way the G36 can do any better, as much as I love the G36. Its a gun, not a fucking maricale!
Link Posted: 7/17/2003 2:35:23 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 7/17/2003 2:37:56 AM EDT by rocketman223]
I still like my black rifles.
Link Posted: 7/17/2003 5:33:37 AM EDT
Let me start by saying I'm a dumbass so if some of my statements rubs you the wrong way it's because I'm a tinkerer not a weapons expert. I have seen a lot of attempts at building a gas piston system on the M16 type platform and seem to remember a lot of complaints about overheating in the handguard area when operated in full auto or prolonged rapid fire. I just checked some info on the G36 and see the same type of complaint. I don't know if the AK family of weapons also experiences this problem with it's gas piston system. Other than the gas piston type of operation on the G36 is there anything else about that system that eliminates all those M4/M4A problems that are listed in SMGLee's post?
Link Posted: 7/17/2003 7:01:42 AM EDT
If memory serves me right the XM8 is actually the carbine that was the underbelly of the OICW program. How close it is to the G36 I do not know for sure. As for modularity the G36 has just as much if not more potential than the M16/M4 series-it's frame is molded plastic which means it can have a rail just about anywhere you like one to be put. as for ergonomics I have fired one on multiple occaisons and found it not to be any worse than the M16 series other than the trigger and the safety set-up, but I train with AK's and AR's so I am used to their controls. The Germans I have worked with were very impressed with it and most like it better than the older G3. One S.F. unit from europe that carried Polish AK's that I talked to recently preferred the G36, one of the comments was that the G36 was more reliable and turned in their AK's for it. the G36 has many good features but is it the end al be all probably not-but is it a good system-yes. Is it better than the M16 probably, is it better than the M4: the M4 would have to stand on it's designers shoulder to kiss the G36's butt IMHO.
Link Posted: 7/17/2003 7:06:08 AM EDT
But...but...but...if we don't adopt the G36 what on Earth would they ever do with all the tax dollars they take from us every year? [sex]
Link Posted: 7/17/2003 7:12:34 AM EDT
This is business and politics, not the selection of the best tool for the job. Almost all of the complaints they have are complaints you can hear on the boards. We've replaced triggers, grips, barrels, and bolts. Yawn. Maybe their configuration is deficient, maybe the M4 Carbine isn't identical to it's bigger brother. I don't know. But the base design is not lacking anything, since all this stuff can be fixed by in-service replacement with off the shelf parts.
Link Posted: 7/17/2003 7:30:27 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 7/17/2003 7:30:59 AM EDT by William_lxix]
I also agree with KMFDM's comments. I fired the G-36 over in KOSOVO and after familiarizing with it for one day, the following week I qualified and received the German Schutzenschnur in gold. The G-36 rocks. Awesome controllability & reliability!! On the same day, we were demonstrating some "IAD's" to the Germans & to teach me a lesson for loving another, my M4 failed to feed a cartridge on the sixth mag of break contact "IAD" and then when I tilted the carbine & looked to examine it, it cooked off into my right eye & face! I too have a long love for the M4, but, all cosmetic differences and "Moral" sillyness aside, let's support giving our Armed Forces the BEST weapon that is out there. Instead of politically award driven inferior weapons. 'Course, that's just My Goofy Off Centered Opinion...
Link Posted: 7/17/2003 8:15:08 AM EDT
Originally Posted By SMGLee: ----------------------------------------------- 3. Shortcomings of Existing System. The current M4/M4A1 carbine never met the Operational Requirement Document (ORD) in reliability and service life. Quality Deficiency Reports (QDR’s) are on file at Naval Surface Warfare Center-Crane Division and reflect the following shortcomings.
View Quote
Chen, Thanks for the post. I'm surprised at many of the items listed however (is this an old list?). As these are related to SOPMOD they at least should be using the custom fixes that are available. For example (I know YOU know about these items):
3.1. Reliability Deficiencies: Failure to extract, failure to eject, broken bolts, failure to function in arctic, desert and Over-the-Beach (OTB) environments.
View Quote
Failt to extract & broken bolts have been addressed (new bolt & barrel extension). Arctic & desert required different care. The OTB environment is the real stickler...
3.2. Safety Deficiencies: Too few rounds to cook-off, too few rounds to barrel burst, receiver explodes if fired when flooded with water (not suitable for Over-The-Beach operations (OTB) and not suitable for riverine operations).
View Quote
Too few rounds to cook off could be solved (and has IIRC) with a heavier barrel. Not much you can do about the receiver except add drain holes...
3.3. Accuracy Deficiencies: Barrels become or are received loose, too few rounds before barrels shoot out and become inaccurate, Rail Interface System (RIS) and Rail Adapter System (RAS) forearm rails do not maintain zero, uncontrollable in full automatic fire.
View Quote
If barrels are received loose then that is an issue with Colt and Crane better start whacking Colt with fines for poor QC. Barrels becomming loose are probably related (installed on the low end of the spec - or uppers made from softer material). No $h!T the RIS/RAS don't maintain zero - that is why there is a FF RAS, RAS II, and SIR. If the Navy thinks the M4 is uncontrollable in full-auto fire - maybe they should invite Pat Rogers (a former Marine) over to teach them how to properly use the M4s. He doesn't seem to have a problem with controlling them on full-auto.
3.4. Ergonomic Deficiencies: Inadequate cheek weld area on buttstock, no ambidextrous controls, heavy/inconsistent trigger pull, ergonomically imbalanced pistol grip, multiple ergonomic deficiencies in SOPMOD and Modular Weapon System (MWS) systems interface.
View Quote
Stock has been fixed with the Crane stock (and the VLTOR and the MAGPUL). Ambidextrouse controls are available on the market. Knight makes a nice trigger for the SPR I hear. I'd be interested in hearing what the ergonomic deficiencies are in the SOPMOD/MWS system interface. Do you have any details on this? Besides isn't the Navy testing (and possibly using) a different carbine altogether (not the M4 or the XM8)?
Link Posted: 7/17/2003 8:27:30 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 7/17/2003 8:28:37 AM EDT by AR-fan]
William_Ixix, I agree with you about giving the troops the best. I know just because two rifles can operate in full doesen't make them the same or equal -- I was just wondering how they are able in the XM8 to get around some of the problems that the M4 has (I know I originally said G36) like that cook-off. Please don't read me wrong, I'm not for/against either rifle I was just wondering how they might have done it in the XM8 (if anybody really knows).
Link Posted: 7/17/2003 8:56:13 AM EDT
This draft i took it from was dated March 2003. it is the latest requirement for Special Operation Forces Combat Rifle. July 23rd is the last day to sunmit your solicitation documents for any manufacture interested. So the list of shortcoming listed above is not an old list.
Link Posted: 7/17/2003 9:08:12 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 7/17/2003 9:11:52 AM EDT by AR-fan]
[img]http://www.toyadz.com/toyadz/mattel/m16marauder.jpg[/img] I wonder if [u]Mattel[/u] is going to try to be the next big weapons supplier? It looks like the old standby M16 but it sounds just like the noise that comes out of my butt -- that's enough to drive off any hostile forces.
Link Posted: 7/17/2003 9:24:02 AM EDT
No matter what the outcome will be, this new HK will not be avilable to the civilian market.
Link Posted: 7/17/2003 9:30:49 AM EDT
Is there a possibility that, if an all-new rifle is picked, we may have access to a whole truck load of M16/M4/AR parts at a reasonable price?
Link Posted: 7/17/2003 10:31:39 AM EDT
the g36 is probably the best 5.56mm weapons platform in the world today. bravo ! i still love my ar's no question. with the hopeful sunset of the aw ban, and domestic production starting - it would be nice to see a civilian model coming out - but i am not holding my breath. steve
Link Posted: 7/17/2003 11:02:14 AM EDT
Originally Posted By steveM5: the g36 is probably the best 5.56mm weapons platform in the world today. bravo ! steve
View Quote
Oh please. G36 is not the best 5.56 platform in the world, maybe its gas system is its best feature, but the egronomics on the AR beat the G36 hands down.
Link Posted: 7/17/2003 11:55:12 AM EDT
SMG Lee, I believe "Ergonomics" are up to the user. What I like about the G-36 over the M4/AR: Fold away stock, not some "collapsing" to five inches stock. Maybe that's why I really LOVE my ZM over my other AR's....?
Link Posted: 7/17/2003 11:58:47 AM EDT
I dont need a stock to fold so I can look like some Bierut street rat with an AKM, I need a collapsible stock to adjust to body armor and load bearing vests.
Link Posted: 7/17/2003 12:01:56 PM EDT
not suitable for riverine operations[/unquote] LOL Maybe they should talk to some Riverine Vets about that one.....
Link Posted: 7/17/2003 12:12:25 PM EDT
AR-fan: not likely. This is the same country where they are scrapping perfectly good M14 because once a machinegun, always a machinegun. :(
Link Posted: 7/17/2003 2:41:26 PM EDT
Originally Posted By AR-fan: Is there a possibility that, if an all-new rifle is picked, we may have access to a whole truck load of M16/M4/AR parts at a reasonable price?
View Quote
I'd prefer to have access to the new M-8, but I won't get my hopes up.
Link Posted: 7/17/2003 2:42:41 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 7/17/2003 2:44:33 PM EDT by mach6]
Originally Posted By ArmdLbrl: Enjoy your SOCOMS and SPR's while you can. If jerkoffs in the army have their way. [url]http://www.armytimes.com/story.php?f=0-ARMYPAPER-2002475.php[/url] No more demand for new stocks, rails, or muzzle attachements. ---------------- Well, not exactly. NSWC-Crane is just about ready to announce the down-select for the next generation QD suppressor for SOPMOD. This contract is worth up to $22M. Of course, Crane can just as easily say, "Okay, Mr. Mad-Scientist-gun-guy, you won this contract and here's you order for all of 10 units. Have a nice day. We're switching to the G-36, er, SCAR, er (X)M-8", er whatever." My point? This contract could signify continued efforts with the M-4A1 and progeny. I said "could". It could also mean absolutely nothing if M-8 is rammed down the DoD's throat.
Link Posted: 7/17/2003 4:10:54 PM EDT
I found this drawing of an XM8 -- not bad! I can see the U.S. companies making all kinds of stuff for it. [img]http://images.ofoto.com/photos420/4/74/27/57/37/0/37572774405_0_ALB.jpg[/img] I really don't know how close this picture is to a real XM8.
Link Posted: 7/17/2003 4:36:25 PM EDT
I hate to say this guys but, " Ill believe it when I see it". Army Times is not always credible with storis like this. Remember in the mid-90's when Army Times said that all Infantry units would be equipped with the OICW by 2005, well I do!! I remember saying to the other guys in the unit, " Shit now I have to re enlist to shoot that sucker" hahahhaha. Seriously, Look at it , Its a concept rifle, all they have are drawings, just like the OICW. I wouldnt mind the US going to the G36, Ive shot the civy version HK, very nice with AR15 mag well adaptor. As far as all the accessories, I hope they do adopt it, maybe the price of all the accessories will come down, RAS, SIR, ACOGs, etc etc etc. hahhahhahaha I was sent an email from BH ind. It contained several interviews with units In Iraq about equipment, the M4 was well received and trusted according to it unlike the Beretta, mainly the 9mm. I dont think its over yet fellow Blackgunners, just hold on. cp
Link Posted: 7/17/2003 5:08:45 PM EDT
I don't want to hear AR guys talking about short comings of the G36. If there are some, it's nothing 30+ years, hundreds of companies and millions of dollars can't fix.
Link Posted: 7/17/2003 5:50:31 PM EDT
Originally Posted By Lumpy196: I dont need a stock to fold so I can look like some Bierut street rat with an AKM, I need a collapsible stock to adjust to body armor and load bearing vests.
View Quote
Exactly!!!! There is no point in folding stocks other than to stow the weapon IMO! No control!
Link Posted: 7/17/2003 8:48:46 PM EDT
"The Infantry Center at Fort Benning, Ga., wanted the weapon to weigh 14 pounds and be ready for soldiers by 2008. But the 18-pound weapon still is too heavy and bulky to meet those requirements." [b]14LBS!!! THEY WANT ME TO CARRY A 14 LBS WEAPON? And I thought the 203/M-16A2 was heavy at 11lbs! FUCK THAT it's an artilery piece.[/b] G36 wouldn't work at all without its STONER RIP OFF BOLT WITH CAM PIN. I don't know why no one sued. The G36 is a symbol of countries like Spain and Germany who are to scared to go to war we don't need it. If you asked an infantryman what he wanted 9 times out of 10 he would say "something smaller and lighter with full auto fire." With the M4 we got as close as we have been yet. And now they want to screw it up again. [b]I hope they give the RROC conversion a real good look That's what I would want (small light and full auto with lots of control to go around) How about adding a couple spring loaded doors (like extra dustcovers) in the lower for "RIVERINE OPS" they could open and release water and close as pressure bleeds off. COLT IS DROPPING THE BALL BIG TIME[/b]
Link Posted: 7/17/2003 8:50:50 PM EDT
Originally Posted By Horik:
Originally Posted By Lumpy196: I dont need a stock to fold so I can look like some Bierut street rat with an AKM, I need a collapsible stock to adjust to body armor and load bearing vests.
View Quote
Exactly!!!! There is no point in folding stocks other than to stow the weapon IMO! No control!
View Quote
Yep no point, unless you are doing CQB in urban terrain or sub-terranean. Or even trying to egress a tightly packed vehicle (STRYKER/BRADLEY) or Helo or, god forbid, trying to clear the maze of small passages on a large ocean vessel. There are those WACKY folding ADJUSTABLE stocks for LOP and armor ergonomics. Then again control is a different story when you are talking smooth G36 versus bucky M4 too... Nothing that a single point can't tame on a G36. I can imagine similar fellows sitting around sawing tales around a campfire, debating how some auto loading contraption is going to replace a tried a proven bolt action rifle...
Link Posted: 7/17/2003 11:45:09 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 7/17/2003 11:46:06 PM EDT by SMGLee]
To replace the entire US military with a modified G36, I think it would be pretty unlikely. I do see the SOPMOD2 as an successful project, and the SCAR being very interesting at the monent. then again, what do I know.
Link Posted: 7/18/2003 1:00:11 AM EDT
Deja Vu all over again Wonder what the complaints were like when the M-16 replaced the M-14? Oh that's right nobody complained, or the m-14 replacing the M-1 (although being more of an evolution incorporating improvements it probably didn't get all that many) And I kinda heard that nobody ever complained about the M-1 over the 1903 variants. On a lighter side, looking at the complaints we heard from some of the zoomies about original M-16s getting issued and remembering seeing M-1 and Thompsons on ships in the 70's I wouldn't worry about the M-16s wandering away too fast.
Link Posted: 7/18/2003 5:15:46 AM EDT
The main reason folks get so heated about the G36 replacing the AR is the fact that THEY KNOW THEY WILL NEVER BE ABLE TO OWN ONE! Oh, the horror of NOT being able to be just like G.I. Joe! LOL
Link Posted: 7/18/2003 5:52:19 AM EDT
It's so ugly I wouldn't want to own one [puke]
Link Posted: 7/18/2003 7:46:15 AM EDT
Originally Posted By AKM: The main reason folks get so heated about the G36 replacing the AR is the fact that THEY KNOW THEY WILL NEVER BE ABLE TO OWN ONE! Oh, the horror of NOT being able to be just like G.I. Joe! LOL
View Quote
It also means that AR's might not be covered by the [i]Miller[/i] decision in the Supreme Court anymore. The goverment is quite free to legislate self loading weapons out of existance if they don't have a "militia purpose".
Link Posted: 7/18/2003 8:10:38 AM EDT
Who needs a stinkin' G36? The M16 is the original [blue]S[/blue]pace [red]G[/red]un! [headbang]
Link Posted: 7/18/2003 8:39:28 AM EDT
I wonder why we haven't heard from Wes on this. He meets people, he should know if this Army times article is just someone trying to get attention or a real effort to replace the M16.
Link Posted: 7/18/2003 9:21:52 AM EDT
Go AR15/M!6.
Link Posted: 7/18/2003 10:11:40 AM EDT
I personally don't see this happening. We're in for a long war (on terrorism) and the last thing that we need is to field a new infantry rifle. Imagine the pain and chaos this would create. Things are hard enough already. Someone needs to inject a good dose of common sense into the good idea fairy that came up with this idea. -Ed
Link Posted: 7/18/2003 1:00:10 PM EDT
Maybe we should resign ourselves to call this website G36.com (former home of AR15.com) [>(]
Link Posted: 7/18/2003 1:25:35 PM EDT
Just to let you know - the G36 ( in all its variants ) is far away from not being undisputed in the german army. It is def. not " the best rifle" - we had - broken stocks ( at minus 15°C ) - collapsing stocks during "full-auto" - failture to extract with brass stucking in the chamber - cracking bodys ( after all the thing is polymer with some sttel-inlays ) Nobody knows in the U.S. but the replacemnet of the G3 by the G36 was a political decission. Most of the airbornes that did the testing on the G36 prefered the Steyr AUG over the G36. But HK is a german Company......... I don`t think the M16/M4 will be replaced by a HK weapon - aside from HK being a german company ( even if they grow in the U.S.) the M16/M4 still gots a lot of potential - and I`m sure this potential will be used. M.
Link Posted: 7/18/2003 3:21:15 PM EDT
Thanks Mariachi for a German perspective, I was wondering how many of the German soldiers felt about it. cp
Link Posted: 7/18/2003 4:16:54 PM EDT
Yes thank you Mariachi.
Link Posted: 7/18/2003 6:37:22 PM EDT
I'm glad that someone made public what US troops already know, THE G36 IS A PIECE OF PROPAGANDA CRAP! The gas system is a very close to a WW2 german design found in the G and K43 Nazi semi auto rifles that had problems. The top rail of the G36 is made of plastic that is usless for mounting anything and not even close to mil spec. The rear sight is a bad joke plus made in plastic to make it even worse!. JACK
Link Posted: 7/18/2003 7:21:26 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 7/18/2003 7:22:11 PM EDT by knightone]
I have to agree the XM8 is a solution to a problem that doesn't exist. The M16 system is about as close to perfect as you can get. Yes, it takes maintenance because it has to be kept clean, but not that clean. It isn't necessary to keep it clean enough to passs an armory inspection when it is out in the field. However, it does need a basic cleaning two or three times a day. Other than that, the M16 is the easiest weapon system to learn, use, operate, and adapt to various mission profiles than any other modern system. Couple that with all the existing accessories and enhancements (not to mention those in development), the M16 is a hard system to beat. Yes, the XM8 has shortcomings. And yes, those shortcomings can be improved upon. The sights and rails can be made to be more sturdy. The receiver can ve further reinforced. But why spend the time, money and energy to improve the G36 to do what the M16 already does. The various M16 stocks don't fail in full auto. The stocks can take a hell of a beating without breaking. The receivers don't crack on full auto. The grips, stocks, handguards can be changed rapidly to fit indivisual users. There is already a wide variety of stocks, grips, and handguards already on the market and in development for the M16. It just doesn't make sense to expend resources to make the G36 into what the M16 already is. To do so would put us a decade or two back in infantry rifle development because we have to start again in esperimentation plus developing improvemets and acccessories for a new system that has not proven itself better than the M16. Those resources would be better spent on improving the M16 and accessories until a totally new round and accompanying new weapon system has to be adopted. Trust me, i am not afraid of change or new technology. I was very, very excited when the G36, the UMP 45, the MP7, and FN's P90 came into the small arms world. However, none of those system have been better than what came before. In fact all those systems have a lot of shortcomings. It seems to me that the designers of those weapons have not learned anything from what has come before. All they are doing is repackaging what has come before. It may have a new chassis, but it is still the same old gun. Maybe they just ignored lessons learned from past developments. Maybe they took too much from old systems and didn't bother improving or advancing those system concepts. Maybe the concepts are good, but the technology and materials hven't advanced enough to keep up with those design concepts. There are those better educated in this field that could probably come up with a better answer. The bottom line is no matter what the reason, the G36 is not better than the M16. On a good day, it is at least equal. However, real world operators have found that the G36 has a long way to go. The M16 is already halfway doen that road, maybe even a little farther. Time would be better spent on further development of the M16, development of the next generation cartridge, and of course on energy based weapons. The day the phaser is invented, I will gladly turn in my AR15 for one. Although Da'Man would probably not allow me the full power settings on that bad boy (incinerating someone is just not sporting).
Link Posted: 7/18/2003 9:00:45 PM EDT
G36 is a budget rife made for an army on budget. it is innovative in the way how economically a rifle can be made. It does not necessarily mean a bad thing but the focus is definitely not giving the user the most durable piece. I am generally very receptive to plastic but I actually appreciate my AR more than ever aftering getting my hand on a G36.
Link Posted: 7/19/2003 5:04:22 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 7/19/2003 5:10:11 AM EDT by coldblue]
First off, when the military, or part of the military needs a new ??? whatever, you got to really bad-mouth what you have now to make a case to spend new money$$$. Secondly, in America I think we still have something called "free and open competition". So I don't think that with the politcial power Colt and others can wield, that subjectively selecting an existing standard cartridge firing gun from a nation that so well supported President Bush's efforts to get UN support for "dropping the hammer on this Sadam guy", without issuing a public Request for Proposal or any other form of Solicitation is remote. Now there will be (and is) a hell of a ram it down their throat thing going on, but as far as I know, Ft. Benning (the Infantry's small arms user representative) is still on record as wanting a "revolutionary" increase in performance, not an "evolutionary" (aka: G36) "baby step" that might be attained by replacing the M16/M4 with a G-36. Free-and open competition would also include SIG (great rifle/carbine design), as they are also the new FBI/DEA 5.56mm Carbine. Also include the Travor (Israel), Singapore, etc. And if its really fair and open, then the Army would also need to Product Improve (PIP) the M16/M4 so their resulting "objective" testing and selection included the "best of the best". If this M16/M4 PIP effort is also competitive, think about all the good AR ideas that would be brought to the table by American private industry. I mean, Knight's is not the only domestic company with a superior new AR bolt design that "kicks dirt" in the face of a G-36, also count Karl Lewis of LMT, along with a bunch of others. On the otherhand, we do make a great FF Barrel RAS for the G-36 (also fits the US domestic SL-8)which the German Army has purchased for their G-36 Carbines along with a version of our M4 QD Suppressor. So its not like you can't make a SOPMOD/Modular Weapon System (MWS) from a G-36, but you can do that to a SIG, etc., as well. By the way, the best thing about the G-36 and the SIG are their magazines. Of course, they are many times more expensive than our "throw-away" AR mags.
Link Posted: 7/19/2003 10:17:30 AM EDT
Is there a FF RAS in the works for the Sig rifles?
Link Posted: 7/19/2003 11:34:01 AM EDT
Originally Posted By 3rdtk: I'm glad that someone made public what US troops already know, THE G36 IS A PIECE OF PROPAGANDA CRAP! The gas system is a very close to a WW2 german design found in the G and K43 Nazi semi auto rifles that had problems. The top rail of the G36 is made of plastic that is usless for mounting anything and not even close to mil spec. The rear sight is a bad joke plus made in plastic to make it even worse!. JACK
View Quote
So what are the chances of it being inflicted on our people? The poor performance hasn't stopped other pieces of equipment like the M9 being forced on them. Does it have a good chance of being killed.
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 2
Top Top