AR-15 Rifle Story, Parallel to HK G36?

[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...

Thanks to HK Pro 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!

 

[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.

 

[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.

 

[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]

Maybe the same reason we didn't adopt the FN-FAL?

"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]

Ooh, Ooh, Mr. Cotter, I know that one!

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.