Nightcrawler
Member
Lots of people on the board speak very highly of the Heckler & Koch G36 rifle. I guess it's the next big thing.
My question is, how many of us have actually handled a G36, muchless fired one? If you've never fired or handled one, and still love the rifle, what are you basing your opinions on?
I'm not saying it's a bad design; by all accounts it's a very reliable weapon. Though I'll say straight up that I do not like the sighting arrangement. Without actually having handled the weapon, I can say that the dual reticle system looks uncomfortable to me. I also consider reliance on a battery-powered sighting device to be a design flaw.
Now, the other version of the G36 has only one reticle, which features a 1.5x (I believe) scope (as opposed to the standard 3.5x) and no red dot sight. A crude set of pistol sights are molded into the carry handle (or whatever they call that thing) for emergency close-in sighting.
Personally, I'll take a quick-detach scope over a set of irons any day. Iron sights work perfectly well for shooting; there's no point in having a red-dot sight in addition to a scope on your weapon. If you have a scope, use the scope for long ranged shooting and the irons for close.
If you really want a dot-type sight (and they do have their merits) then it seems to me that the best choice are the tritium powered ones that don't rely on batteries, though those are more expensive.
Just some thoughts. I wonder, because while the G36's method of operation certainly looks sound, the weapon remains for all practical purposes untested. Has there been much in the way of feedback, good or bad, from soldiers who've carried the weapon in the field?
My question is, how many of us have actually handled a G36, muchless fired one? If you've never fired or handled one, and still love the rifle, what are you basing your opinions on?
I'm not saying it's a bad design; by all accounts it's a very reliable weapon. Though I'll say straight up that I do not like the sighting arrangement. Without actually having handled the weapon, I can say that the dual reticle system looks uncomfortable to me. I also consider reliance on a battery-powered sighting device to be a design flaw.
Now, the other version of the G36 has only one reticle, which features a 1.5x (I believe) scope (as opposed to the standard 3.5x) and no red dot sight. A crude set of pistol sights are molded into the carry handle (or whatever they call that thing) for emergency close-in sighting.
Personally, I'll take a quick-detach scope over a set of irons any day. Iron sights work perfectly well for shooting; there's no point in having a red-dot sight in addition to a scope on your weapon. If you have a scope, use the scope for long ranged shooting and the irons for close.
If you really want a dot-type sight (and they do have their merits) then it seems to me that the best choice are the tritium powered ones that don't rely on batteries, though those are more expensive.
Just some thoughts. I wonder, because while the G36's method of operation certainly looks sound, the weapon remains for all practical purposes untested. Has there been much in the way of feedback, good or bad, from soldiers who've carried the weapon in the field?