JA Boomer

But does the G-36 offer anything over the H&K 416 models. My guess is no, and it would be far easier to implement the 416 than the G-36 within the current US Military M-16/M-4 stocks.

Spitzer

Good point JA Boomer. Honestly I don't know, the H&K 416 seems rather sound in the tests conducted, I'm just concerned that those old teething problems of the M16 & M4 will start showing their ugly face again when production of the H&K 416 is started in the states.

As to the implementation of the H&K 416 vs the H&K G-36, well both are different from the M4 & M16, one more so than the other, but I can't see how it would be far easier to implement the 416, unless the parts are directly interchangable with the M16 & M4 in stock ofcourse.

Officer of Engineers

No, it is not. If you have good weapons discipline, then the G-36 is not that much more dependable. If you have poor discipline, the G-36 might last you the 1st clip.

__________________
Chimo

leib10

It's already been considered and killed.

Pretty much the only guys who get them are special forces, such as Delta.

In a recent competition between the XM8, FN SCAR, HK416, and regular M4, the XM8 was the most reliable in dusty conditions. The FN SCAR and HK416 were so close as to not make much of a difference, and the M4 scored a lot worse than all.

However (as usual) the test has come under fire for being unfair.

There is a high parts commonality between the two weapons. You could take a regular AR lower and put on a 416 upper and it would function.

__________________
"The right man in the wrong place can make all the difference in the world. So wake up, Mr. Freeman. Wake up and smell the ashes." G-Man

Spitzer

I have to disagree, the G-36's operating system is superior to that of the M16 because it eliminates gas and powder fouling being blown back into the receiver - one major problem which has always plagued M16 & M4.

This sort of thing can prove decisive in combat, as many US troops have & are now experiencing in the middle east.

PS: The XM8 uses the exact same operating system as the G-36, and like lieb10 noted ti proved the most reliable in dusty conditions.

Officer of Engineers

You're not reading me.

Proper weapons discipline eliminates 99% of the problems. I've seen bad G-36s before. When they're ill maintained, they're ill maintained and no design superiority will ever fix that.

Alot of us have seen combat with the M-16. It is MORE than good enough. For the non-shooter, the M-16 5.56NATO is far superior than the G-36 7.62NATO. You need far less rounds with the M-16 to shoot gold than you do with the G-36. At the end of the day, it's placement that counts far more than whatever superior action.

Let's be realistic here. The difference is a few percentage points. We're not talking phasers.

Shamus

__________________
A positive attitude may not solve all your problems, but
it will annoy enough people to make it worth the effort.

Spitzer

You say you've seen G-36's malfunction before yet you seem unaware that the G-36 uses the 5.56x45mm Nato round, not the 7.62x51mm Nato, that seems strange. Are you sure it was G-36's you've seen ?

The M16 & M4 have a bad habbit of jamming in dusty conditions, despite proper maintenance, the G-36 doesn't. Thats my point.

Officer of Engineers

Get use to it. One of the problems of getting old. I was thinking of the G-3. My mistake.

The C7 never had this problem.

Spitzer

The C7A2 is used by us as-well, and it functions very well, no doubt, but it's apparently not the same with the American made M16 & M4. The Canadians seem better at precision manufacturing.

That having been said the C7 does double feed occasionally..

S-2

I understand that you are an engineer. That's why I found this comment-

"The C7A2 is used by us as-well, and it functions very well, no doubt, but it's apparently not the same with the American made M16 & M4. The Canadians seem better at precision manufacturing."

somewhat surprising when juxtaposed against this comment-

"Why not just buy the right to mass produce G-36 in the states ?"

You presume our competence at precision manufacture by your endorsement of licence production of G-36s in America yet we lack a certain "precision" when producing M4/M16s. This, of course, after 44 years of production experience with this weapon series.

"The M16 & M4 have a bad habbit of jamming in dusty conditions, despite proper maintenance, the G-36 doesn't. Thats my point."

Said with confidence. Point received. Anecdotal or data to support this assertion, particularly since our forces use the M4/M16 series today?

"This sort of thing can prove decisive in combat, as many US troops have & are now experiencing in the middle east."

Aside from relevant data (recent, please) and anecdotes as aforementioned, could you please provide the significant moments when these jams and decisive combat intersected? Specifically Afghanistan and Iraq? Should be easy with the "many US troops" that have been in actual combat. Some here, even, who've carried the M16/M4 in battle.

I look forward to your replies on these questions. Thanks.

__________________
"This aggression will not stand, man!" Jeff Lebowski

Spitzer

S-2,

Its only what I hear, I don't have any other proof really. Please note that I am in no way an expert on the subject at hand, I'm just trying to make an objective assessment of things. But I've talked to many who've used the M16 & M4, and they've acknowledged these problems. Ofcourse its not like the weapon will jam all the time, and perhaps I should have made myself abit more clear on that part. But the gas & powder fouling is a geniune problem for the M16 & M4.

Btw, the C7A2 isn't entirely identical to the M16 if I remember correctly.

As for the Canadians seeming better at precision engineering, well thats just a general experience of mine. The C7A2 has always demonstrated better reliability than the M16 in all our comparative tests. Also the American produced XM8 demonstrated good reliability in the states, implying that producing the G-36 shouldn't prove to much of a problem, its a rather simple but genius design.

I remember when the US decided to license build the German Rheinmetall 120mm L/44 smoothbore gun for their Abrams tank, they had to simplify the design (Creating the M256) as US industry couldn't manufacture the original design to the same degree of precision as could the German industry.

.

S-2

"Its only what I hear, I don't have any other proof really... I'm just trying to make an objective assessment of things."

Said in the space of two sentences, sir. Objective?

"Ofcourse its not like the weapon will jam all the time...But the gas & powder fouling is a geniune problem for the M16 & M4."

An absolute or relatively "genuine" problem?

"The C7A2 has always demonstrated better reliability than the M16 in all our comparative tests."

You're "in no way an expert" yet you've participated in numerous comparative tests...on behalf of the Royal Danish Army, I presume? Can you provide links to this data for some of those WABBITS interested in small arms? I'd presume (perhaps wrongly) that there's nothing particularly classified about this data.

Your conclusions about our "precision" are reached in an unusual manner, it seems. C7A2s function well. M16s/M4s don't, hence American manufacturing lacks precision. I'm sorry. As yet, you're unconvincing that M16/M4s are a poorly functioning weapon, much less that this very debatable condition arises from poor techniques of precision American manufacturing.

You offer the Rheinmetall 120mm L/44 as an un-related example, citing the U.S. M256 variant as another indication of imprecision. That imprecision has been validated in combat exactly how? Is it possible, even assuming that tolerances may vary slightly, that other considerations are at play or is your judgement absolutely salient and final here?

I'm curious-was the British L7 105mm licensed as the U.S. M68 105mm gun also another example of inadequate "precision"?

Spitzer

Hehe no I didn't participate in those tests S-2, I just know the conclusions as told to us, hence our adoption of the C7A2. (Its called the M-95 here btw)

I am no expert on the M16 or M4 and never claimed to be, but having talked to many who've used it for years in duty I have gotten some insight on its problems - the gas & powder fouling being noteworthy.

Also I never claimed that US is incapable of precision manufacturing, however they couldn't manage to build the Rheinmetall gun to same degree of precision for the same amount of money as the Germans, to attempt do so would cost way too much according to US studies. So the US simplified the design to use fewer & less complex parts, the M256 was the result.

The US today is perfectly capable of precision engineering, as can be seen in many products.

And please there's no reason to take offense as I sense you are, I'm not trying to slam the Americans if thats what you think. Remember it's just a debate.

Stan187

Do you relevant links? I'd like to to read up on this variation, and to see if I come to the same conclusion as you have.

__________________
In Iran people belive pepsi stands for pay each penny save israel. -urmomma158
The Russian Navy is still a threat, but only to those unlucky enough to be Russian sailors.-highsea