AR-15 Rifle Story, Parallel to HK G36?

[Glock Glockler]

Extreme temperatures

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: ) 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.]

M-16 vs. G36

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..