[mrming]

I know, its a stupid question.

Am I in the backwoods, or is there just no civilian version of the hk g-36 in the US ? and for the big question.. Why? Most of it seems to be plastic, and the few reports I have seen indicate it might actually be a better rifle than the AR-15 series.

[Nightcrawler]

Well, one reason is because HK hasn't yet made a semiauto, importable, civilian legal, post ban G36 clone. It would require a number of US parts to be imported, lest it be castrated like the SL8 was. With HK opening a US plant now, we'll see, but I wouldn't hold my breath.

And, of course, people would say that they couldn't buy as much crap to hang off of a G36 type as they could for their AR-15. It doesn't even have any rails, for crying out loud! How can you have a tactical carbine without rails?? :neener:

Personally, I think that goofy integral scope needs to go, but I'm old fashioned.

[mrming]

I don't know. If the optical sights actually hold up, it would pretty much make the rifle. Only thing it is missing is an infrared sight.

I happen to disagree strongly with putting rails on rifles. If the attachment is really that important, it should be built on. If its not, then its just more junk to lose or break.

From what I've read, it wouldn't be that difficult to make a semi-auto only selector / sear. Only God knows what modifications the ATF would require, though.

[gun-fucious]

well there is the SL-8

and its on SALE!
http://www.impactguns.com/store/hk_sl8.html

[Nightcrawler]

Optical sights are very useful. However, the one on the HK is INTEGRAL. If it fogs up, or breaks, or gets coated with dust or mud, you could be in trouble. Some versions have only a scope (1.5x I think) and some rough pistol sights on top of the carry handle. Others have a 3.5x scope and a red dot sight that requires batteries.

A MUCH better setup would be a set of good iron sights with a solid mounting system (that either quick detaches and/or allows use of the iron sights) for attaching whatever kind of optics (scopes, dot sights, night vision, thermal, etc.) you could want.

[mrming]

http://world.guns.ru/assault/as14-e.htm

Unless i'm mis-reading, some variants also offer removable iron sights via a rail. To me, that sounds fairly reasonable. A backup-attachable iron sight system would probably be fairly hard to mess up. an attachable scope would be significantly more crushable. Build it into the rifle and they suddenly have to have done something stupid enough to seriously damage the rifle before the scope would fail, And they still have an iron backup.

As for mud, someone could get mud coated into the rear peep and be stuck looking around for something to clear it with. (bullet point would work I presume.. but still, its more fumbling than clearing a rough and tumble scope. Whipe it off with your hand and your good to go. Or if its really bad, attach you backup sights).

As for it breaking, really depends on the materials used. I could be wrong, but it looks like unless the plastic is pretty elastic you'd have to seriously damage part of the rifle before the scope would crack.

[Nightcrawler]

Ahh, but Mr. Murphy is with us always. Several members who've reported first-hand experience with the G36 have mentioned that the scope has a tendency to fog up under some conditions; if it fogs up on the inside of the glass, for example, you can't thumb it off.

A noticable detriment to an otherwise fine weapon, I'm told.

Also, the integral scope has a much narrower field of view than the larger battlefield scopes like the ELCAN, and the red dot sight is battery powered when tritium would've been a much better idea, if more expensive.

[mrming]

Pitty. I don't think anyone can argue that optical sights ( low powered scope or red-dot) are not an improvement over hard iron for the primary purpose.. getting the bullet put on target.

Its a question of when do they become hardened enough. Had hoped that HK wouldn't do it before it was ready.

I fail to see how its that hard of a concept. Create a solid block of optical grade plastic, laser cut the proper curves onto it. Already have embedded metal filaments to serve as crosshairs and guides for cutting the faces. Move the entire block back and forth via calibrated screws ala a G1 style Fal.

No interior fogging, can't crush the thing, no seals to break; not losing AO or magnification, it wasn't provided in the first place. If you've got the resolution, standard IR gear might even function w/ it, just for a shorter range than during daytime.

[vitiaz]

There are clones(converting SL-8 to G36 look alikes),

http://alpinetek.netfirms.com/guns/SL8/

Pretty pricey plus you have to get some of the parts from SW.
:banghead:

[Destructo6]

"Iron" sights on a rail like this?
http://www.hkpro.com/g36cwht.jpg

IR sight setup using the standard G36 dual optic carry handle.
http://www.hkpro.com/image/g36nvrear.jpg

I can argue that good optics gather light better than Mk1Mod0 eyeballs, therefore are better at putting rounds on target.

[Mannlicher]

as has been said, the G36 has not been made in semi auto. Frankly, from what I see and read, its not worth the freight anyway. I will stick with the AR15 Types.

[Zak Smith]

A guy I know is a Class 3 dealer and shoots 3Gun. For fun, he's brought his real G36 - shoots it in semi during the match - it is not particularly accurate.

-z

[Destructo6]

A "SF" trigger group is available for the G36, just like they are available for the G3/HK33/MP5.

[Tamara]

Well, one reason is because HK hasn't yet made a semiauto, importable, civilian legal, post ban G36 clone. It would require a number of US parts to be imported, lest it be castrated like the SL8 was.

Well, technically the SL-8 was the castrated US-legal G-36 clone. ;)

Optical G-36-type carry handle sights to replace the rail are available for the SL-8, too. Bring money. :uhoh:

[ceetee]

Hmmm......... That's odd. I saw a thread on HKPro a while back titled "G36 receiver/barrel lockup area melting under sustained FA fire? "

It was all about how the plastic was not able to withstand the high heat of sustained rapid fire, and your first indication was your accuracy going from M.O.A. to M.O.Barn. The odd thing is that that particular thread has disappeared... tin hat time?

[mrming]

Disappointing. It sounded like a fairly reasonable step forward from the ar15 series but failed in the implementation.

[Kaylee]

mrming --

that solid-block optic sounds like a neat idea.. is anyone doing that yet? Or anything remotely similar? Sounds darn usable...


As to the G36... the one I got to play with struck me as cool.... but overrated. The points it gains for simplicity in the bolt/carrier it loses in the trigger group. The ambi charging handle was cool though, I'll admit.

The optic -- while INCREDIBLY great outside on a sunny range (you can't hadly miss!). once inside a dim warehouse was like looking through a shaded toilet paper tube (what reticule??) . The backup sights on top were..well... I've seen more usable sights on toys. now, both those problems are pretty easily fixed with that cool-looking rail thingie Destructo6 posted, so I can't fault it too much.

Overall... just seemed kinda clunky for what it was. It wasn't a bad rifle by any means. and I can even understand the folks who want to replace the M16 with an (essentially) G36. Just don't think it stands up to the "best thing since sliced bread" rep it had for a while.


-K

[uglygun]

G36 optics are some of the biggest "clusters" I've ever seen.


VERY limited field of view with the things due to small tube diameter in combination with a very large clunky sight housing, this is especially true of the dual optic sight that has these strange womanly "hips" type things coming out either side for storing batteries or adjustment mechanicals.


90+% of what I don't like about the G36 has to do with those crap optics, the long extended rail is much more sensible allowing for one truely good optic to take the place of the dual optic which compromises too much to try to do multiple jobs at once.

The rest of what I don't like about the G36 extends to things like typical HK ergonomics that I just can't get used to after finding other things which I like much more like the AR15/M16.


I REALLY do not understand what would be so difficult about adapting an AR18/G36 style gas system to the AR15/M16. They've been done before but the focus was on trying to adapt the AR18 type gas systems to otherwise unmodified AR15/M16 upper assemblies. The closest to a total redesign of the upper assembly only seems to be the ZM Weapons upper assemblies/conversions, look what it nets too, where after the conversions are done a folding stock can be implemented. Something like a full on G36/M16 hybrid could be designed, synthetic upper assembly with ques from the G36 yet fully compatible with the modularity of the AR15/M16 lower.

[Zak Smith]

The direct gas impingement system of the AR does have some drawbacks, but a big advantage over a gas-piston system is that is has much less reciprocating mass.

In a 223-class semiauto rifle, there are basically two actions that cause the rifle to move around: (1) the recoil from the bullet and escaping gases, and (2) the momentum transferred to the frame of the gun due to reciprocating mass. In an AR, the reciprocating mass effect is the bolt, bolt carrier, and buffer slamming to the rear (the first jolt) and then it slamming back into battery (the second jolt). Both of those will move the rifle "off target" for subsequent shots. If you have an AR with an effective muzzle compensator and either reduce the gas impulse or reduce the bolt carrier mass, it basically won't move off-target at all.

Direct gas impingement also makes the rifle lighter.

Piston designs are inherently cleaner in the bolt area (but much dirtier in the gas piston area) but have much more reciprocating mass flying around while the action is cycling.

-z

[Schuey2002]

Optical G-36-type carry handle sights to replace the rail are available for the SL-8, too. Bring money.
I only paid $265 for the 3x optical G36 scope for my SL8.

The dual setup (3x & red dot) is far pricier.. Like you said, Tamara, "Bring money". $500-600 should just about it. :p

[mrming]

Uglygun: it would be too politicaly inexpedent for after 30+ years to come out and say we were wrong, we need a gas piston. With 6.5mm, the old SAW round, and the landwarrior system all on the drafting table they probably feel enough 'new' systems are in development to not be interested in another incremental patch.

Personally I Think a serious re-think is needed. 5.56 is too short-legged for wide open spaces (tm), yet too much to be a proper sub-gun. I could be horribly wrong in this notion, but perhaps weapons should be like camo. You have standard issue, but theater issue as well. Say good-bye to berreta's and 9mm in general. Everyone is issued a P90, and they always keep it. Your a heavy weapons squad and someone has got to clear a sniper out of a building? Great, sling those tow's over your shoulder and go get the job done. Doing police or CQB? Couple of guys carry extra ammo and gernades to go w/ the p90, issue a few 12 gauges, an accurate 6.5mm assualt rifle or two and a 6.5mm belt fed.

I know it seems silly to branch into multiple calibers again, but its not really that bad. 7.62 is more or less eliminated, 9mm is gone entirely, as is 5.56. 12 gauge, a rimfire, and 6.5mm. It shouldn't be any worse than currently, and it solves a long-standing problem. If you have just a hammer everything looks like a nail, but sometimes its actually a screw. 5.56 isn't a sub-gun round. Its too big, too heavy, and is wasteful efficency wise out of a short barrel.


Kaylee: I think there has been some use of solid block optics in displaying documents in muesums. Why they aren't used more often? No idea. Lenses require a relatively small amount of optical grade material, while the block concept is going to chew up at least a 6" length that will have to be air-bubble free. No room for error either, since your effectively grinding both lenses onto a single piece. Either one out of spec, and your sunk. I would rather expect an issue with a lower precent of light transmission too. In short, its cheaper and easier to use existing researched technology and just scale it back for lower magnification optics than diverge. Besides, even if it did work out it couldn't replace existing scope technology w/ adjustable magnification or objectives; and no one would accept it on a mini-30.

[uglygun]

I'll support replacing the M16 if they sell the surplus rifles to civilians inorder to raise funds towards the purchase of new designs. CMP M16s, HUZZA! As if that will ever happen.


As opposed to spending tax payer dollars to destroy the things or send them off to some 3rd world country(which seems to be less and less politically acceptable).

[Zak Smith]

re: te P90. Is the 5.7mm good for anything besides piercing body armor? Once through, it does about as much damage as a .22LR.

-z

[mrming]

22RF has produced one-shot kills before. But thats not the point of the P90. 50 round mags, full auto. put 4-8 rounds in the upper torso and you've just pierced most of the major organs. Its not a one shot-kill weapon, just like 9mm isn't really.

Just on a side note, its 5.7 x 28 mm. I don't have any hard numbers handy, but it should put it much closer to the WRM and HMR range rather than RF. Energy wise it probably is coming in around 50 ft-lbs less than 9mm. 900 rpm, 15 per second. Maybe a half second on target to dump 5-8 rounds into a target? Even if it does take 5 hits to stop someone you've still got the capacity for 10 fatalities per mag, each mag only weighing in at 0.5 kilo's. M16 on 3 round burst has the same 'number of fatalities' if we wish to speak of such fantasy numbers, but weights in at 0.71, can't penetrate body armor, and in its current form can't provide full auto suppressive fire. It even weighs 1.2 kilo's less.. thats 2-3 extra mags.

As I see it, it has some significant advantages for non front line units, and as a backup / primary weapon with enough ammo for front line. It weighs less, it is full auto, can carry half again as much ammo per weight, ignores body armour, AND soliders won't be able to report that its taking multiple hits, or more hits to stop people. It always will take several hits, but it will work even if you have to drop 1/5th of a mag into them. Even then, you'll take less than a second to do it. They know it has its range limits, but that should be the only complaint they could have. Might inspire more confidence in the weapon. Sucks past 150 yards, but will do a number on anyone closer than that regardless of what they might be wearing.

[Nightcrawler]

We've discussed before the idea of replacing infantry weapons with the P90 or a conceptually similar chattergun (in this case the Nightcrawler Advanced Tactical Carbine, or the Nightpup 2000, as it was dubbed).

Check it out. (http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?s=&threadid=15436)

It really comes down to how much ammo you want to have versus how powerful you want your ammo to be. Smaller cartridges are easier to carry. Bigger cartridges can offer more power. What's the exact correct tradeoff? Who knows?

[mrming]

Thanks NC, definitely missed that one.

Whatever happens, they'd better hurry up and do it. Got to wonder how long before people are lumbering around in a powered exoskeletons where a 50 cal is the smallest round that would penetrate.