[Badger Arms]

In this post, I would like to make the case for the G36 rifle. The basis of my case is that the AR-15 rifle was adopted as an imperfect and underdeveloped rifle that, nevertheless, had many novel features. Many of these features were abandoned by Stoner and Armalite altogether as both technology and the understanding of firearms concepts increased. By 1980, technology existed to construct a rifle as good as the G-36 and yet the US Military chose to replace all of its rifles soon thereafter with a product improved version of an unrefined product.

Let's start with the similarities between the AR-15 and the G-36.
- Both use gas systems which involve loose tolerences and gas rings to seal the system. See the picture below.
- Both use lightweight composite plastic extensively.
- Both have Johnson-style bolts
- Both have in-line stocks
- Both have carry handles

The Differences are items I see as improvements.
- G36 utilizes optics, AR-15 uses iron sights
- G36 vents operating gas forward of gas block, AR-15 vents it into the action
- G36 uses ambidexterous charging handle/forward assist, AR-15 has ambi charging handle and right-handed forward assist added as an ugly afterthought
- G36 bolt rides on a single rod in-line with gas system with light weight spring, AR-15 uses very heavy spring, buffer system and bolt that bears on interior of aluminum receiver
- G36 has modular trigger group, fore-end, mag-well, and sight/carry handle, AR-15 has fixed mag well, trigger group, and some models have modular sighting system.
- G36 stock folds to the side significantly reducing size of weapon, AR-15 (M-4) has stock that telescopes only a short distance.

Here are the areas that probably should be improved in the G36:
- Fore-end should have heat-shields to prevent it from heating up. I prefer the M-4 style double-heat-shield.
- Trigger pull should be improved... significantly if the models I've examined are typical.
- Flip-up sights should be standard as a back-up to failure of the optical sights.

What I would like to know is that, from a design standpoint, why would it NOT be a good idea to adopt this rifle as standard issue for the United States? It's the best thing going...


http://www.hkpro.com/SL8gas.jpg http://www.hkpro.com/image/G36STRIP.jpg
http://www.hkpro.com/image/g36k.jpg http://www.hkpro.com/image/g36kfold.jpg
http://www.hkpro.com/image/bolt.jpg

Thanks to HK Pro (http://www.hkpro.com/G36.htm) for the above pictures.

[Triad]

It is being adopted as a component of the OICW. I would not be surprised if it gradually replaced the M16. OTOH, I would not be surprised if the M16 carried on until the 5.56 is abandoned. I would agree with your ideas for improving the G36, and I think the improved rifle would be superior to the M16.

[Destructo6]

Other than cost, which may be offset to some degree by using the M16 magwell, I don't see a reason. So, from the design standpoint, I see none.

[Kobun]

The plastics used in the G36 can't take cold weather.
I have information that the plastic in the folding stock on the G36 will crack when it gets subjected to very cold climates.
Some of the stocks on Norwegian G36's have cracked under use in Afghanistan!

Obviously they have not chosen the right material for the stock!
http://www.thehighroad.org/attachment.php?s=&postid=43854

[BigG]

Thanks for taking the time to write this up. Aside: what is is with these fershluginer short bbls?? Oh, I forgot. The COOLNESS factor. :rolleyes:

[whoami]

If you want to understand the 'whys' and 'why nots' of military, or just about any government, procument choices, you've got to stop thinking like a soldier or in this case gun afficionado, and start thinking like a bean-counter.

Sure, it might be a better weapon, but consider the following:

1. Will the benefits of switching to the G36 over the M16/M4 justify the cost of replacing existing current use M16/M4s in current service, much less existing stock?
2. Procurement: Will the company be able to handle mass orderings to supply a large military base? Will the cost of procurement of the G36 be more, less, or roughly equivalent to costs of supply for the M16/M4?
3. Logisitics: What are the costs and availability of spare/replacement parts? Can the manufacturer maintain a steady supply of replacement parts in an orderly and efficient manner?

One point I would like to make:
- G36 utilizes optics, AR-15 uses iron sights

Somehow I have a high doubt that most soldiers would consider this an 'improvement. No doubt optics are a great benefit....but optics fail. Plain and simple. Scopes get knocked out of alignment, or damaged. Red dots fail, or have dead batteries. Iron sights do not.

[Badger Arms]

Cost, Logistics, etc. are all the same reasons they said not to adopt the M-16, the same reason the M-1 Garand was made in the obsolescent 30-06 caliber, etc. Fact is, the United States has virtually replaced the M-16A1 in service already with the M-16A2. The M-16A2 is in the process of getting replaced with the M-4 and, so they say, the HK OICW.

While this is often cited as a reason to stick with an inferior product, I think it is more often the case that stubborn fans of the M-16 type rifle have more to do with it.

Plastic cracking: Yeah, I've heard thinkgs about ALL plastic cracking in cold weather. This WAS a serious problem with the M-16 and remains a minor proble. Smack the butt of an M-16A2 or M-4 against something with force and it will crack. The stock of the M-14 will also crack with a little more force. Grunts can destroy ANY weapon. I doubt that it's a design problem. All folding stocks are notoriously more fragile than their fixed counterparts. I would question the method for locking the G-36, but it seems to work well. And finally, I'd like to see substantiating statistics and photos of the alleged problems with the G36. I don't doubt the stories, I want to see where and why they are cracking.

Optics: Yes, every time somebody mentions optics somebody else will say, "Iron sights are better because Optics Fail!" Yes, optics fail. It is my belief that the rate of failure of modern battlefield optics is mitigated by their benefit in terms of accuracy and effectiveness. Remember that the G36 has no less than two optical devices, both of which must fail before making the gun a "spray and pray" gun. The utility and low cost of backup iron sights is recognized and that's why I called for their use to improve the G36. And about soldier's preference, I don't doubt that modern soldiers prefer optics on the whole. They do like to have some backup system though. This is a generalized statement. How many modern hunters use open sights? Even in harsh environments? What is their failure rate with even cheap scopes?

[Andrew Wyatt]

a folding stock is a Disadvantage, because you cannot adjust it to fit when wearing body armor and the like.


I think a telescoping stock with clicks every half inch from 10.5 inches to 14 inches would be the ticket.

The modular mag well is a good idea. you can keep the fire control unit and have a rifle in .308 or .223 should you feel it necessary (with different uppers, of course.)

[T.Stahl]

Last Oct/Nov I spent four weeks at the army's NCO school and could try the G36 in more or less realistic scenarios.
It's a nice gun, but the one thing I truely hate about it, are its optical sights.
- No adjustment on the 3x sight, no glasses = no sharp sight picture.
- The lense diameters and fields-of-view of both sights are two small. Ever seen a red-dot sight with just 0.5" diameter?
- They are a PITA to keep clean and useable. They'll fog up from breathing water, rain or mud.

Ergo: The SL8 I bought this week will keep its open sights. ;)

[Badger Arms]

Would another optic like the ELCAN, SUSAT, or ACOG work better? Perhaps an Aimpoint Comp or one of them reflex sights?

[Badger Arms]

Well, I can understand the logic. Why spend all that money to replace everything if we don't get a significant benefit. The answer to that question is quite simple, we are going to spend the money anyhow. Assuming $2,000 per unit (cost of spares, new gun racks, tooling, training equipment, etc. all rolled into one. Now, take a 2 million unit purchase (that's a total, we wouldn't buy all at once, this is to replace the entire inventory). Multiply that and you have 4 Billion Dollars. Let's equate that with figures we know. That's 2 B-2 bombers, Most of an Aircraft Carrier, a squadron of F/A-22's (just the planes), or eight space shuttle launches. Spread this out over 10 years production and order all guns at once (yeah, never happen). and you could probably get the price down.

Let's equate this to what we are already spending on the infantry rifles. Let's say we stopped procurement of the M-16 cold and applied that money to the G36. Spares for the M-16 are gone in about 10 years of use assuming no replenishment but most are gone after 1-2 years. Virtually every barrel in the inventory will have been shot out beyond its useful life. We would have already purchased a plethora of M-4's, M-16's, and magazines that the cost of the G36 really wouldn't be that much.

Consider that the $2000 cost is less than it costs to have ONE soldier on the payroll for ONE month. You could pay for the program by allowing soldiers to leave one month early from their term of service. That ain't much money in Gov'mnt terms.

I don't think there is enough increased lethality to justify the switch. Maybe if it were TWICE as effective. I do, however, feel that it's the better weapon and represents at least 30 years of advances in design and manufacturing principles.

But we already know about all the political and procurement barriers, I'd like to know what the MECHANICAL barriers are. Optics are a good point, but are we all agreeing that the G36 is otherwise the superior weapon?

[DrDremel]

There is only one reason that it will not be adopted. That is money. To throw away all of the m16 rifles, parts, accessories, and retrain for a rifle that does the same thing will not happen. Personally I think the m16 was a flawed design that still sucks. The g36 is great but that also means that the military has to admit that their choice was not a good one. The next rifle will have to do more than what the current .556 rifles out there does. Lets just hope it is not the OICW.

[Badger Arms]

True. I am pretty much resolved to this. Since I didn't get anybody to chime in yet, I will say that the M-16 has two things going for it, History and Accuracy.

History: Who doesn't know what an M-16 looks like. It is almost as ubiquitous as the AK-47. Everybody knows that the US Military uses the gun, but few know or care about what most students of the gun feel, it's a compromise. Good caliber choice for Vietnam, bad gas system, marginal magazines. In this air, most still think that the M-16 is this cute little puppy that always works and has seen the US Military through nearly 40 years of turmoil like the perfect product it is. Even if the Army decided it was trash, just the nastalgia might keep them from throwing it out. A century from now, students of the gun would be saying, "My, that M-16 was the best combat rifle ever made, why did they replace it with that horrible laser rifle?" Isn't that what some say about the Springfield 1903? The M-1 Garand? The M-14?

Accuracy: This is an accurate gun, even in its issue form. This plays well into the mystique of the gun, but also serves to perpetuate the myth that an accurate gun is best. If accuracy were paramount, why wouldn't the US Army choose to free-float the handguards? This is one of the major things we can do to improve accuray. Fact is, the M-16 is accurate enough to outshoot the vast majority of marksman. This is more than can be said of the Garand rifle or the AK-47, SKS, or any number of other prolific rifles. I'd rather have that margin of accuracy myself. The G36 can attain that level of accuracy, it just doesn't have the reputation.

[El Tejon]

Why? Why trade one Stoner design for the other?

I wannacoolgun virus has to be pretty strong to move the reality of logistics. If the go fast DDDs want HK50s, let them have them. The Big Army does not need them. It needs better com and more bullets.

[Badger Arms]

Why? At first look, you might think that the G36 was a direct decendant of the AR-18 rifle with an AR-15 bolt, etc. This is simply not the case.

Gas System: While the G36 does utilize the Armalite patent two-piece operating rod and return spring, it differs significantly in the makeup of its cylinder. First, the gas piston contains gas rings as does the AR-15 bolt. These allow a looser tolerance in piston design and therefore lowers cost. It also allows the rings to be replaced dirt-cheap instead of rebuilding the gas system as you have to do in guns like the M-1 Garand. Secondly, there is a protrusion on the front of the piston (see picture above) that blocks a hole in the front of the Gas block. Instead of venting to the side, the G-36 vents excess gas directly out the front of the block. These two differences are major innovations.

Bolt carrier system: While the carrier is essentially AR-18 (actually an unused patent for the AR-18 that used a single rod instead of two) it bears on each side by two metal plates molded into the receiver. This is an innovation. The charging handle is uniquely HK. It is COMPLETELY ambidexterous and flips forward, in-line with the barrel when firing. You can also push it in when flipped out to use it as a forward assist. Finally, the bolt is a Johnson design, not a Stoner design. Stoner borrowed this good design.

Receiver: This is the heart of the system. It uses the HK system of modularity. You can change the trigger group, mag well, or sighting system as easily as you would disassemble the gun. Composite construction of everything that doesn't need to be steel is also unique and lowers the weight of the system considerably. It also provides a corrosion-free system. Another advantage of composites is that they require no finish.

Intangibles: The G36 requires little maintenance. If the situation calls for it, the G36 can keep chugging with NO maintenance. This is a significant advantage in terms of manpower and time expenditures in time of battle. The G36 performs much better than the AR-15 in sandy and dusty environments.

No it is NOT a Stoner weapon.

[El Tejon]

Stoner or Stoner's child. 16 vs. improved 18. Distinction without difference.

In the big picture of logistics, Iwannacoolgun virus is properly seen as silly.

[BigG]

I still would like to know why they insist on shortening the bbl when the .223 earned its reputation using a 20" bbl? All the high velocity that the round depends on is bled off with that stubby tube making the .223 sort of like a loud submachinegun round.

The complaints in BH Down about the poor performance of M855 was because they were shooting it thru short M4 bbls, imho. :scrutiny:

[Badger Arms]

El Tejon...

Where do I start. I'm not going to spend that much time again if you didn't see it the first time. The AK-47 has more to do with the G36 than the AR-15 does and yet you refuse to agree. Provide your argument with a foundation perhaps?

[Badger Arms]

Big:

I, too, am very against shortening the barrel of the G36. I feel that this negates the whole purpose behind the 5.56 round. It should be noted that German and Spanish guns I have seen in news photos have been exclusively the 18" barrel version. A 14" barrel is just fine if it shoots 55gr bullets and uses 1-in-12 or 1-in-10 twist for lethality. Field reports of the failure of the M-4 to get the job done are interesting though. Funny how the Soviet 5.45 round with less power from about the same length barrel is more lethal.

[Gewehr98]

"If it ain't made here, the troops aren't gonna get it issued"

Kinda like the M14 vs. FAL.

Of course, then HK-USA will tool up to make them and try to win a government contract, just like when H&R made those evaluation FAL's...

[El Tejon]

Badger, uh, O.K. Given that money's in short supply, we stand on the possible brink of a couple of land wars.

How many 16s are there? # of 16s X per unit cost of HK50=gritty reality of the Iwannacoolgun virus.

Other than looking cool, what on earth does the HK50 give us? The HK50 gives us nothing but costs and logistical headaches.

[Gewehr98]

Other than looking cool, what on earth does the HK50 give us?

Another military armorer MOS specialty, right? ;)

[Correia]

I'm not convinced that the G36 is going to be that much better than the 16. Badger, I agree with your assesment of the design, it shows great promise, however I would want to see them rung out in actual hard use and combat first.

And it still uses a spring loaded ejector. Which is a tool of the devil. :)

[Badger Arms]

Given that money's in short supply, we stand on the possible brink of a couple of land wars.
Money is never in short supply, it's a matter of prespective. In an earlier post, I related the cost to real-world items. It amounts to the cost of paying less than a single soldier on the payroll for one month. We are talking about 2 million units over 10 years or so if we jumped in completely to reequiping. And I was including spares, training equipment, new racks, training, etc.
Other than looking cool, what on earth does the HK50 give us? The HK50 gives us nothing but costs and logistical headaches.
Fact is, we ALREADY REPLACED THE M-16 RIFLE ONCE. We are in the process of replacing it again with an neutered version, the M-4 Carbine. The "HK-50" as you call it costs less than the M-16 and is cheaper and easier to maintain.

I saw you write "IWANNACOOLGUN" a few times. This witty phrase was what got us the M-16 in the first place. Now people have apparently "Come to their senses" and wanna keep the cool gun at the expense of the better gun. I submit that it is the other way around. Don't know if you were alive when the M-14 was replaced, but you would probably have been riding the IWANNACOOLGUN bandwagon back then.

[Badger Arms]

Correia:

The plunger ejector is a necessary evil. It greatly simplifies design. I'd go so far as to say that on a rifle like the M-16 or G36, you almost NEED it. Blade ejectors work very well on guns with large, .473" diameter bases. When you shrink that down to half the area, you are looking at much more critical tolerances for that slot and that ejector is much smaller. It's worked on a few designs so I know it can work, it's just not as easy as with the plunger ejector.I'm not convinced that the G36 is going to be that much better than the 16. This can be said about anything new. Fact is, the G36 is over 10 years old and has a wealth of experience being fielded by two major armies and numerous other agencies. I am fairly sure that the British are being groomed to buy it with all the ongoing problems and negative pubilc opinion directed at their L85A2 rifle. The reason we haven't already replaced the M-16 is because of this philosophy. Weapon "B" has to be a quantum leap better than weapon "A" or else there is no reason to replace it.

Historically speaking, I can think of few choices that were made where this was not true. It held true with the Americans: Springfield Trap-Door, Krag, 1903, M-1 Rifle, M-14 (well, it did have a removeable magazine), and M-16. But looking at the exceptions is a better way of seeing things.

The British replaced an excellent weapon, the No.1 Mk III with another weapon with evolutionary changes in the No.4 rifle of WW-II. There was nothing wrong with the old rifle other than the fact that it was wearing out. My goodness, that was the reason we replaced the M-16A1 with the M-16A2. The older rifles were wearing out. When we replace the M-16A2 it will be with the Carbine version of the M-16A2 with NO OTHER CHANGES than in the stock, barrel and handguard length.

Yeah, it's a good design and works most of the time, why change it? We are already changing it. Let's say you are buying a new car. If you have a 1992 Nissan Sentra, you don't buy a 1992 Nissan Sentra, do you? In this case, you would be buying a 1956 rifle to replace a 1956 rifle. Things have changed in 50 years, most notably in manufacturing and materials. Few of these changes have made it into the M16. Those changes were, most notably, in plastic materials and the coatings on aluminum and steel parts.

My concern is that we will keep on replacing the M-16A2 with the M-16A2 in perpetuity. The longer it stays in service, the more deeply rooted it will become. If we don't concern ourselves NOW with replacing it with innovative and evolutionary guns, we will be doomed to keeping it when that Plasma Rifle is being fielded by every other major Army in the world. The battle cry in 50 or 100 years will likely be, "Well it will cost us $50 zillion to replace the M-16A2 rifle. It was good enough for Vietnam, and it still works (as long as we keep it clean)." What a crock of BS.

[Glock Glockler]

Apparently it's a bit weak in cold, but how will the plastic when firing hudreds of rounds through it in short time? At what temperature will the plastic start to bend and warp? About 700 degrees from what I've heard.

So when things get nasty will the gun hold up? It seems that it has been fielded but it hasn't been bloodied yet. It might make a fantastic police rifle or carbine but I'm not to sure I'd want to rely on it during battle.

[Badger Arms]

700 degrees!!! Do you realize how hot that is? That's 80 degrees hotter than the melting point of lead. Were the BARREL to get that hot, bullets would melt as they sat in the chamber. One thing I can agree with is that the plastics will probably withstand that. I do think that a heatshield is needed in the foregrip though. Understand that this is no different than the handguards on the AR-15. I've gotten those QUITE hot. We aren't talking milk-jug plastic here.

[Scott Evans]

I see nothing in the G36 that elevates it to a position of being "clearly superior" to that of the M-16 A2. Exactly what about it is noteworthy as relates to its use on the battle field? In what current or likely military action of our time will the A2 fail and why; whereas in the same scenario the G36 would not?

Certainly I have heard and nearly bought the explanation of the inherent weakness of the AR gas system blowing into the receiver. However; I have yet to see an AR shot into a failure caused by this system. Hence I don't think such is as weak as many theorize.

All that said I do not see the AR platform as perfect. I do see it as the best option in moving development forward though, in this quest for the "ultimate" battle rifle. The A2 was definitely an advance from its predecessor but the move to the M-4 is in my opinion a mistake and will take us further away from the goal. What I think is most needed (but least likely) is an upgrade to a more lethal caliber and round. .270 or .308 are my first choices. Next I would construct the uppers as "Flat-tops" and make them from steel. Last the barrels for standard infantry units would remain 20". Iron, fully adjustable, fold down sights should be a standard attachment augmented by any number of optical sighting devises. A solid fixed stock is best for infantry. Form here any number of variants can be employed for use by specialized units. i.e. short barrel's and collapsible stocks for the Ninjas, officers, vehicle operators and so on.

[Badger Arms]

Scott:

Thanks for the imput. I am completely in agreement with your statement about the M-4 carbine. This is DEFINITELY the wrong direction to go. Problem is, this is exactly what is happening.

Folding stocks... yes I agree that rank-and-file infantry need a fixed stock. The folding stock on the G36 is part of the design. I doubt a fixed stock would be specified.

The AR-15 gas system is flawed. Clear evidence of this can be found in the fact that NO OTHER WEAPON BEFORE OR SINCE has used it. Simply retrofitting the G36 gas system on the AR-15 platform would satisfy me.

I expected to get debate over this. Here's a question:

When should the M-16A2 / M-4 Carbine family be replaced? At what point will we say, enough is enough. Will it be 200% greater effectiveness? How about half the replacement cost? How about 10% of the maintenance time? It's absurd to say that the M-16 will last forever, so when do we replace it?

In the face of biting criticism, the British are still holding fast to their POS bullpup. Are we going to follow the same die hard (Or not so hard if you have an SA-80) path that kills American soldiers. We have, from nearly every conflict, stories about the lack of effectiveness of the M-16A2 and M-4. Heck, if we were just to change the twist on the barrels we'd end up with a better gun.

[Scott Evans]

Lack of hitting power is not a design issue of the Rifle itself. Far more could be pulled out of the 5.56 if we left the insane notion of restricting ourselves to ball ammo only. But better then that is moving up to a larger, harder hitting round. I realize that this increases the difficulty involved in pushing a new weapon but from a tactically pure perspective such is currently MORE necessary then the upgrade of the rifle alone if you retain the same round.

The AR-15 gas system is flawed. Clear evidence of this can be found in the fact that NO OTHER WEAPON BEFORE OR SINCE has used it

I would submit that operational failure would be better evidence of a flaw. How many rounds at the weapons maximum sustained rate of fire can be fired before a failure with the average A2? I certainly would like to see a side by side round for round go at it against the G36.

When should the M-16A2 / M-4 Carbine family be replaced?

When something is presented that is clearly superior overall and puts forward improvements that are noteworthy as they relate to use on the battle field.

Near future the only scenario I can invasion to drastically shake the military off the M4 would be the genuine likely hood of an all out ground war with China. (Currently everyone wants to look like they are special opps. And this more then anything is driving the M4 into general infantry use) The M4 is not a better choice then the A2 when facing human wave assaults. To this scenario the G36 brings no improvement or bearing on the repelling of such an assault either. With things as they stand now in North Korea I think we should consider the repelling of such attacks a primary roll of our main battle rifle. Accurate and hard hitting out to 500m and capable of long sustained fire.

The ergonomics of the AR platform are excellent … in fact I would say unequaled. Particularly the speed that one may reload the weapon. The gas system should be looked at if one that is better (that is clearly demonstrated in actual head to head firing endurance test) can be incorporated into a new flat-top upper. The round however still remains as the single most improvable element to increase effectiveness of the system.

[Badger Arms]

Ahhhhh, two reasons.

1) AR-15 is more ergonomic. I'd submit this was familiarity rather than superiority. I have to doctor my AR-15 up because I feel the pistol grip is WAY too small and stock still a bit short (which is fine).

2) Faster reloads. You got me on that one. I will add that the G36 needs a bolt release. Currently you must swing, pull, and release the bolt handle.

[Glock Glockler]

Badger Arms,

While we're on the subject, what type of gun do you think would be a worthy successor to the M16? Would the G36 be it or would you want to go with a different design, perhaps one not even developed yet?

[Correia]

Badger, you bring up several very interesting points. And I want you to know that I agree with you more than I disagree.

Put me firmly in the replace the M16 camp. I think that we could do better if we really wanted to.

As for money, the government is going to spend tons of it either way.

My personal opinion though... If we are going to go through the trouble of adopting an new rifle. Lets switch from .223 to a new designed from the ground up intermediate cartridge. End the complaints about the .223 once and for all. It doesn't have to be as big as the .308. We have come a long way in the design of cartridges. We can get flat shooting, light recoil, but greater hitting power. No problem.

As for spring loaded vs. fixed ejector, I see what you are saying about the tolerences on a .223 sized case, but IIRC, the Aug, FNC, AR70-90, and G33/G41 all used fixed ejectors, as well as the AK 74 with its 5.45 cartridge. I think that it can be done. I have experience horrible malfunctions with an AR from getting tiny bits of brass shaving stuck under the roll pin. No way to fix it in the field either, and you have pretty much a single shot rifle.

I agree about direct gas impingement. I think it is kind of silly. I issued a challenge once on TFL for people to find me an infantry rifle designed after the AR that had direct gas impingement. Believe it or not there have been a couple, but no really successful ones. (including the G11, which surprised the heck out of me, I had to go look at the schematics when I heard that).

If we are going to switch guns, then I think we should ditch the Nato Stanag AR mag. What a flimsy piece of crap. Sure they are light, but they are weak and hard to strip. If you want to see a great light weight .223 mag, take a look at the East German Weiger mags. That is what the AR mag should have been.

I'm not adverse to switching to the G36. I just would like to see them get the heck tested out of them first. (by us, not the Germans or the Spainards. And there ain't no way I'm going to trust the British after thier last rifle) :)

[Badger Arms]

Well, looking at the design, we can START with the G36. The bolt has to be redesigned a bit. A blade ejector CAN be installed but it may take changing the bolt cam slot geometry or repositioning it slightly. We might also have to alter the bolt lug geometry and perhaps the number and location. That is probably not that difficult.

Next step, a bolt release. Three options here. We could have a simple AR-15 style bolt catch and release. We could also have an ambidexterous release or one that can be operated from inside the trigger guard? A third option is a release that actuated when a new magazine was inserted. Off the top of my head, I cannot think of a time when the bolt has been locked back and I've wanted to insert a magazine, loaded or full, without next slapping the bolt release. Why have that extra step

Install a heat shield in the fore-grip. I don't know if this is already done, but it was a problem early on. There's enough room in the fore-end for a double heat shield like on the M-4

Replace the dual-optics system with a solid, proven scope like the SUSAT, ELCAN, or ACOG. These sights, or modifications of these sights, could be integrated into the carry handle and allow for a passable backup iron sight on top were the optics to fail.

As for the Magazine, you're right about that. I don't think that it needs to be plastic either. Maybe a Glock-like design with metal insert but tough plastic outside. I don't like them nubs on the outside of the mag, they make them too thick and catch on stuff. If you want to connect two or three magazines, there are fine products out there like Mag-Cinch that will do the trick.

Okay, that's the fantasy.

I'd rather not go that deep into ammo. My dream cartridge is a 6mm caliber, 90-100gr VLD bullet at 3000fps from an 18" barrel. Steel case, copper bullet with tungsten or steel penetrator tip but fragile enough that tip and core will separate in soft tissue. Case can be based on 250-3000 round. Logistically speaking, one can replace both the .308 and .223 in all services with such a cartridge.

[Glock Glockler]

Correia,

Those Weiger mags you mentioned seem interesting, would you have any pics or info on them? Also, how do you think that AUG mags compare to the Weigers, I've heard they rival AK mags in toughness?

Thanks

[TheLastBoyScout]

What's the point?
I mean really, there might be some advantages of a G36, but are there really enough to warrant getting rid of an established weapons system, buying all the new gear (mags, repair kits, spare parts etc.) in addition to new rifles and then retraining all of the soldiers and Marines who would use them?
If we go to a new rifle, I would like to see a HUGE leap over M16 capabilities. Like a new cartridge (10MM-short-caseless-light-armor-piercing-explosive maybe...rolleyes: :what: :p ) with associated ballistic adavntages....:

[TheLastBoyScout]

Near future the only scenario I can invasion to drastically shake the military off the M4 would be the genuine likely hood of an all out ground war with China

The Marines have already found it lacking. They were gonna replace their M16A2s with M4s, but instead they're getting M16A4s (Flattop 20 inchers, possibly with full auto and foregrip rails, but I'm not sure about the last 2 because I read the article 2 months ago.)

[T.Stahl]

I wish we had gone straight for the G11 instead of the G36 and thus omitted this silly and unnecessary standardization on 5,56x45.

[Tom C.]

My dream cartridge is a 6mm caliber, 90-100gr VLD bullet at 3000fps from an 18" barrel. Steel case, copper bullet with tungsten or steel penetrator tip but fragile enough that tip and core will separate in soft tissue. Case can be based on 250-3000 round. My dream cartridge is a 6mm caliber, 90-100gr VLD bullet at 3000fps from an 18" barrel. Steel case, copper bullet with tungsten or steel penetrator tip but fragile enough that tip and core will separate in soft tissue. Case can be based on 250-3000 round.

This is actually the direction some of the high power shooters are going. Requires an AR-10 reciever due to increased length. Long bullet has plenty of room and doesn't have to be deep seated, as it would in a .243 Win case.

That said, I don't like any of the M-16/ M-4/ G36 class guns. Don't like aluminum receivers, don't like the sealed nature of the M-16, don't like the gas system, don't like lots of things about it. The G36 has different problems, but problems non the less.

For the Afghan caves, we are apparently sending a varian of the M-16 set up to use AK mags in 7.62x39, with a surpressor so we can use local ammo and not blow out ear drums in the caves. I like that, but would go with the Stoner designed and updated M96. Lots of steel, limited plastic, adjustable oprod gas system, optical or iron sights.

Afghanistan is just confirming what we found in Somolia, that the 5.56 is too small. When you really need to put someone down, you need something bigger. 7.62 NATO is probably bigger than needed, 5.56 is smaller. Somewhere between 6 mm and 7 mm is probably optimum. But getting ready for another war isn't the time to be changing something as important as the infantry battle rifle.

[Schuey2002]

Finally, a quality "Hk vs." post.. :)