The Russian ergonomics and big hammer manufacturing....the tie looks neat.
http://www.recoilweb.com/wp-content/...or-300x200.jpg

Well after some looking it seems they brought it to the level of old galil or maybe actually downgraded.

Try staying low with this huge mag they love...might be difficult at times.



.............

The state attorney has launched investigations and one or two Bundeswehr officers were arrested over charges of corruption. The problems with the G-36 are mounting and so do the complaints of German soldiers in Afghanistan. Documents prove that already many years ago internal tests by the BW showed the rifles to become hot too soon, limiting their use in combat situations. As said, the complaints from Afghanistan have constantly mounted, the issue puts lives at risk.

Soldiers also complain about their lacking punch even when not being overheated. 'When having become hot, it becomes "incredibly difficult" to hit something with them at ranges beyond 100m, and the Manufacturer even warns to use them any longer then, since they can jam completely. Nice idea, you are i cover in a hut, Taliban are around the place, and you are being told you should not use your rifle for you have already fired two mags. Right that kind of call you need in that situation.

The rifle looks sexy, but it is more of use on parades than being a reliable weapon in intense combat.

With he concerned BW tester having warned of getting the rifle already years ago, the charges over corruption against those two officers are obviously linked to the question whether they have arranged the buying of these inferior rifles nevertheless and against the advise of testers and against all reason.

I do see German infantry carrying G3s in combat in many photos and film clips.Of course the G3 fires 7.62x51mm a full size rifle round which has a greater effective range than 5.56x45mm.

Which is a benefit right there as the Taliban like to ambush using PKMs and RPGs the PKM fires 7.62x54mmR a full size rifle round which has an effective range which exceeds that of 5.56mm the RPG does as well and they use it more like mortar firing dozens of them at an enemy position.If they are feeling extra aggressive another Taliban unit will attempt to flank and get in close for the kill.Although they are very careful with this plan of attack and only attempt when they know they have a clear advantage.

Still you want a G3 in order to cover the longer range an MG3 would also be nice though on a bipod mount its accuracy is rather poor at anything greater than 300meters the MG3 needs a tripod mount to be truly punishing to an enemy force.

In modern combat it is all about massed fire overwhelming your enemy when most of a NATO units small arms are firing 5.56mm ammo and only a few GPMGs and designated marksmen weapons firing heavier rounds it becomes difficult for a NATO unit to break contact with a foe that is attacking from ranges outside the 5.56mm window of effectiveness without the aid of air support which can take time to arrive time that an enemy can fade away during or if in large enough numbers overwhelm the contacted force.

These problems are only intensified if your weapon has performance issues.

Typical Germans. They make great weapons when we're at each other's throats, but start making crappy ones only a couple of decades after we all become allies again :O:

The G3 was designed in the late 50's and the MP5 was designed in the 60's and those firearms are both fairly well designed for the most part.The Leopard series of MBTs are at the top of the breed.

Honestly though the FN FAL is a better rifle than the G3 and the Germans could have simply kept using that rifle (they did use it for a few years in the later 50's) instead of the G3 the G3 does not perform any better than the FAL.

WWII German small arms varied some where outstanding others average most though where average and not notably better than what anyone else fielded.It is the discipline of the troops and the brains of the leadership that make the difference the Germans had discipline in spades in WWII but that was not always a benefit.

The MG3 is being phased out for the most now, and most ofd that - I read - is to be found on vehicle mounts only, up to Leopards. Infantry squads for long time also had to phase it out and replace it with versions of G36 as LMG. However, H&K now as delivered the successor to the legendary MG3 (legendary for its high firing rate), the HK121, which thankfully is a 7.62 again.

The new Puma IFV however will be armed with the 5.56 as secondary weapon again, and will not be upgraded with the new 7.62. The turret, so I was told be the experts in the eSim forum, has no room left to replace the intermediate comprise solution 5. 56 with the HK121. :/\\!! :/\\!! :/\\!! Heck, that is not just some armored bus - it's an IFV !

In the military, craziness has methodology, I think.

Not being an insider, but from an academical and fence-sitters' POV I hated that idea of NATO-wide ammunition and callibre standardization at the cost of the 7.62 and in favour of the 5.56 from the day on I first heard of it, some years ago. And it seems the majority of troops hate it as well. Many have "informally" smuggled MG3s to Afghanistan to replace their disliked 5.52 LMG as squad MGs with them.

The NATO standardization actually makes a lot of sense.For everyone to be using the same ammo types is greatly beneficial for supply and production.

NATO first standardization was for the 7.62x51mm round though may back in the mid 50's long before they made the 5.56mm round standard.The 5.56mm round is not bad at certain ranges it is effective and also a large amount of rounds can be carried and overwhelming firepower wins the day so the more rounds you can carry and place down range the better.

What NATO needs to do is come up with a round that covers the gap between 5.56mm and 7.62mm so that troops have a better range of weapons so that they are strong in all ranges of combat.The way it is now there is a heavy focus on closer range small arms and much less on longer range weapons.

NATO needs to come up with a new "intermediate" round something in the 6mm range that can be effective at closer range and longer range and be not be the close or long range compromise that both 5.56 and 7.62mm suffer.If they had weapons that covered all three ranges equally that would go a long way in making enraging a NATO unit in fire fight a risky proposition at any range.

The US Army has experimented with issuing M-4s with standard length barrels(14.5') and M-4s with a heavier longer barrel for increased range these troops also carry a heavier grain 5.56mm round than the standard issue finally you have a few troops in a platoon that carry a 7.62mm rifle the SAWs remain the M249 which is 5.56mm but gets very high confidence rating from US soldiers with that gun it lays down lots of rounds and is primarily a suppression weapon and it matters less that the rounds are 5.56mm.

It does seem odd to mount a 5.56mm MG on an IFV in the US military and British military that would mount an M240 or L7A1 7.62mm(same MG really the FN MAG). Though 5.56 is logical in a support weapon carried by infantry as long as you still have a few GPMGs firing 7.62mm to call on when needed.If the BW plans on issuing mainly 5.56mm HK121s I would say that is a bad idea they need some in 7.62mm.To place all of your eggs in the 5.56mm basket is a bad idea.

They could also buy MG3s from the Pakistani military they have used them for years German troops I mean or have a Pakistani arms smuggler get them some those guys answer to money.

I was unprecise. What I meant was not that standardization is senseless, but that it is stupid, imo at least, to give up the cal 7.62 in order to let its roles also be filled by 5.56. There was - and still is? - an intention to use just one callibre anymore - the smaller one. That'S what I meant. My fault.

The HK121 is 7.62. I just arrived summer last year. Before, the squads' support MG was to be some variation of the G36 with a bigger magazine ("Trommelmagazin"), and the MG3 were meant to be phased out, and mostly are. Here is hope the HK121 will enter service as squads' support MG. The G36 is just an LMG, the HK121 is a MMG.

I assume if the normal G36 has heating problems, the G36 used as a LMG shares these issues. What is that - a LMG that cannot live up to some intense firing rates? It's simply no good idea, I think.

I see what you mean of course the 7.62x51mm rifle never went away because NATO still used that caliber in its MG platforms(still does) that fact allowed units to keep a few of the older rifles in the armory.

The only problem was that in most units at least in the US military even in Vietnam by 1968 7.62mm was only available in mental link belts so you had to manually remove the links to then load up a rifle magazine.


My father served as a Ranger in Vietnam sometimes US, Aussie and New Zealand elite units would exchange troops to learn how others operated.The ANZAC SAS boys preferred their version of the FN FAL(L1A1) though they had access to M-16s like US troops did.My dad said that these guys would sit around and delink the 7.62mm M60 belts which took a lot of time but they refused to use the M-16 in most cases.

The MG36 only has a heavier barrel but nothing like a true machine gun so it would be as prone or more prone to over heat than a standard G36.Another thing that surprised me was the selection of those 100 round C-beta magazines those got rejected by the US military a few years before the G36 entered service.They where designed by some US after market company.

I got to fire the G36 and the MG36 when I was stationed in Germany.It seemed like a decent rifle but we where not firing them at anywhere near combat conditions.They wanted us to fire the MG36 on 3 round burst which I assume was to reduce heat build up.I could not understand much German at this point and time and the German was not very good at English so I only got the gist of operation.But I did think that the MG36 did not make a very good machine gun.No MG true can be magazine fed it must be belt fed and ideally have an interchangeable barrel.

Now the M249 though a 5.56mm weapon does have a the very nifty feature that it can also take any M-16 magazine and when firing from a magazine the RPM goes up to around 1,000.This is because a belt feed mechanism takes some energy so the bolt is working much harder with a magazine the spring is pushing the rounds in.

Of course the M249(FN MINI) is more or less an FN MAG shrunk down to 5.56mm size and the FN MAG took all of the good features of the MG42 and removed the bad ones.USSOCOM though had FN take the M249(MK46 to SOCOM) and convert it back to 7.62mm basically an M240 in a MK46 sized package.By the looks of it the HK121(MG4) has been inspired a bit by the MK48.

IMHO the FN MAG(MAG 58) is the best machine gun in the world some nations like the UK realized this shortly after it was first placed on the market back in 1958 I think.Other nations like the US took much longer first it became the co-axial MG in 1977 and finally in 1996 they realized that the M240 was a far better MG than the M60 go figure.Is the HK121 better than the current MAG 58? I doubt it.But I think that the German defense ministry has the same mentality that the US Department of Defense had for many years which was a believe American engineering was some how superior regardless.

If you look around on youtube and liveleak you'll find some very interesting rigging of M240s by their gunners a carrying handle turned to the left hand side seems very popular allowing the shooter fire from the hip by grasping the carrying handle with his left hand and balancing the gun between his left and right hands and the sling.

Here is such a rig in a hemp field.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yRPCN...FCBEB5383A1C6F

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IyUtUwmjlJ4
:) The fun begins at time 2:00 or so. :D Rumballern...!

I know almost nothing about such weapons, but I fall for looks sometimes, and I cannot help it, that thing simply looks - well, by the looks I simply like it. :haha: At least as long as nobody points it at my direction. Because then I probably would hate it.

By ergonomics, the new MG4 has obviously quite some advantages over the old MG3.

National edition of Der Spiegel quotes an internal document by the Bundeswehr that so far is kept secret from the public, it is the final report of the itnernal examination process of the BW on the issue with the G36.

The report mentions - original quote - "enormous problems" with the rifle, coming from extreme sensitivity to heat, and even normal warmth. The plastic parts of the rifle start to distort at temperatures of 23°C already. The rifle form then on looses its precision and has its bullets straying 60cm off the zero mark at 100 meters. This also is the case after having fired 90 rounds, three magazines in a short time (1 ongoing firefight). The ability of soldiers to continue firefights successfully, is being put in doubt by the report. Not only does the rifle not allow to hit enemy fighters once these critical conditions are met, but it also erodes the soldier's trust into his weapon, and his own shooting skill, with significant psychological consequences, it is said.

23°C already. Now imagine the rifle being exposed to sunlight. :o Not in moderate-climate like Europe, but Afghanistan. BTW, our summer this year reached temperature up to almost 40°C.

I am no rifle nuts, and know little about these things. But I know that a rifle spraying over half a meter at 100m, is a useless piece of kit in combat in the open. I also know that the 23°C temperature barrier gets met and exceeded with materials in spring and summer, and when by the warmth created by your hand holding it, easily.

Late spring there was another report, I do not have the source anymore, it was in German, quoting German soldiers in Afghanistan with expressing extreme criticism and distrust with the rifle.

Maybe they should not use the rifle in summer, and plan their patrols for winter and nighttime only.

The "Mann-Stop-Wirkung" of the rifle also was heavily criticised by vets.

A critical factor also is when the rifle gets warmed up unsymmetrical. It seems the rifle must be frequently turned, like meat on a rotating grill spit. :doh:

The BW refuses public comments. Officially the rifle is hailed and celebrated and claimed to be precise, robust and reliable.

Spiegel claims to have internal documents from earlier that also give evidence that the BW knows very well of the lackign quality of the rifle.

The defence ministry tries to keep the ball low. They have had many problems in past months, with derailing projects, failing projects, exploding costs, bad quality. Latest news is that the new IFV, "Puma", is delayed even longer (it was set to start in regular service in 2008), and that beside all attempts to stabilise the bad main gun the tank still is unable to fire in a straight line. Also, many electronic components were used that were already inadequate and outdated at the time the vehicle was designed and planned, adding to the overall problems it has. It already is the world's most expensive IFV - and is set to become even more costly.

Sounds much like the military industrial complex in the US.

Given that H&K has the experience of modernizing the L85 to the L85A2 standard I find it hard to believe that they would repeat the issues those rifles faced. But then again incompetence is abundant.

It's the Bundeswehr's own closing examination report after it conducted checks for some longer time now, analysis it ran after the first info on the failing weapons were leaked to the media.

Warnings by independent experts who tested the weapon during the phase when the BW tested the weapon to form a decision whether or not they want to buy it, were ignored and according examination results and reports disappeared.

Some month ago the state attorney started investigations over corruption and bribery as well, in May it was reported. The suspects are those BW officers who were in an overwatching position during the assessment phase and who wrote the final verdicts in favour of buying the G36.

The BW still keeps the report now hidden from the public.

The article I read this in, also mentions pistols and ammunitions so weakly produced that they tend to explode in the shooter's hands. I am not certain, but I seem to recall they said there were 15 such incidents since 2011 when the rounds exploded within the weapon when fired.

If I were the owner of such a pistol, I would not trust it.

The defence ministry currently is very busy with trying to calm quite many failed projects.