Mt1

Germany and Spain already adopted the G36. Wouldn't it had been better to adopt the M16 or was it the right decision to choose the G36? I mean the M16 is now (A2,A3,A4) a excellent and battle-proven rifle. Or does the G36 have the potential to be a worth alternative to the M16?
Personally I think it wasn't wrong to adopt the G36. Of course adopting the M16 wouldn't be wrong, too.

leib10

For whatever reason, the Capitol Guards opted for the G36 instead of the M16/M4. The G36 has the advantages of having an integral red-dot or optical sight (depending on the model) and is probably more reliable than the M16. The only complaint I've heard about the G36 is the tendency for the handguards to heat up during sustained firing.

__________________
"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

Terran empire

it also has a side folding stock, compared to the M4's collapsing stock it means that the police can carry them in a smaller space then the M4 or M16

__________________
"Finger never touches Trigger unless some one is going too need a grave digger" (Me)[

leib10

The receiver is also made of some sort of plastic, which is to my understanding a superior material than the steel or aluminum in the M16 receivers. The bolt also has a looser fit than the M16, which contributes to reliability.

Terran empire

I don't think it's the tightness of the bolt as much as the gas system.

bonehead

Any gun that shits where it eats is going to have reliability issues without a constant cleaning ritual.

leib10

Yep. The M16's direct gas operation leads to carbon fouling and therefore reliability issues.

Mt1

This problem should be fixed already with an alushield in the handguard.

Other complains I have heard:

Optics getting "blurred" when it is cold but should be fixed, too.

The polymer is not as ruged as it is said. Sometimes the carryinghandle break, the housing of the red-dot sight break, the butstock and even the insertionport for the magazine what is fatal.

The handguard is rattling.

The trigger is (too) hard. Hard enough that the G36, cocked and with safety off, will not shot when it is dropped from a heigh of 4 meter. Of course this pays off in higher safety.

A little bit off-topic:
Refering to the data I have found the M16A2 having a muzzle velocity of 950m/s(M855) while the G36 having only 920m/s(855). How much does this matter?

sniperdude411

As far as quality and just the specs of the gun, the G36 is superior. But having the US switch to them isn't very smart. It would cost an ungodly amount to change manuals and reteach the teachers. It just isn't worth it.
And I am a fan of the m16a4 over the G36.

Mt1

What specs do you mean?

Ishapore41

G36 hands down. As good as the M16 is, it isn't as reliable as the G36. We will eventually adopt the XM8 (G36) but in a better caliber.

sniperdude411

Don't be too quick to conclusions...
I've learned my lessons here, and you will eventually learn yours. Not that it's bad or anything, it's just that you remind me of me when I first joined here.

lemontree

Ishapore41,
Whats the story behind your ID, its sounds like the name of a DRDO copy of the G41.

__________________

Cheers!...on the rocks!!

Ishapore41

Well I have my knowledge from the experience of others, plus I'm not 14.


The G36 is accurate, reliable and a weapon of the 21st Century.

The M16 and the AK-47 are the exact opposites of each other.

M16--very accurate, high rate of fire, reliability is fair-good

AK-47--accuracy is rather low, moderate rate of fire, reliability is excellent.

If you check my sig I have a No1 MK III*. It was made in Ishapore, India in 1941.

lemontree

The No.1 Mk III Lee Enfield was first introduced in the British Army in 1907, however, it was later manufactured in Australia and India too. The No.1 Mk III Lee Enfield was manufactured in Ishapore as early as 1909.