Ad blocker detected: Our website is made possible by displaying online advertisements to our visitors. Please consider supporting us by disabling your ad blocker on our website.
Travis Ward wrote:A friend and I were having a discussion. He thinks that the M4/M16 series of carbines and rifles in use with the military (or at least SOCOM units) should be replaced with the G36 series. I have never handled an M4 or M16, so I am not going to pretend to be an expert. He seems to think that every Ranger, Special Forces, SEAL, etc. are disappointed with M4s and would much rather prefer the G36. I'd say that a might large assumption, but I'd like some opinions. I am not trying to start a "this gun is better than that gun" discussion; I'd just like to know whether or not you Rangers believe the M4/M16 is past it's time and due for replace, or if you have the mindset, "If it ain't broke, don't fix it." Thanks for your time.
Travis:
Hey, I don't know what your background is or anything, but I've shot the M16 quite a bit when serving as a Ranger in 2/75. I don't claim to know much about the G36 series as I've never fired it or even held it, although I did look it up at this site.
It appears, on the surface and without experience with the rifle that it would be a pretty good rifle, incorporating the best features of operation from different rifles, creating a few new, and integrating them all into a single rifle. I like the description of how they vent the gases to reduce fouling and gunk collecting on the bolt.
I don't agree with the concept of "If it ain't broke don't fix it" though. There is always plenty of space to improve weapons systems from several perspectives, be it ease of use, making it lighter so you can operate longer, making it more accurate. There is always new research and science being performed to make things better.
I think the progress we will see in the future, as far as the US is concerned will be in adding capabilities to the rifles that have not existed before, such as sensory equipment, better night vision, etc....
There is a consensus among many individuals within the Special Operations community that the 5.56 is not as effective as many would like it to be. Therefore, your questions about the G36 vs the M4/M16 don't really seem that pertinent to me as there are other more important questions surrounding the lethality of the round, which is common to both rifles.
If you have experience either range firing and/or using the M36 in the field as a soldier, I'd be very interested in hearing what you have to say about it.
Fuchs is in Germany, it'd be great if would weigh in on using it, if he has.
The first year in the army I was issued the G3A4 (retractable butt stock), but from then on I almost only used the G36, which has now been adopted for the infantry completely and for all crisis reaction forces. It is likely that it will replace the G3 in the German Armed Forces completely soon.
Before I come to some details I want to agree with pneves that the far more important question for infantry and special forces is the kind of ammunition used as far as ballistics/lethality is concerned. The lack of impact is of course even more severe for carbine versions of assault rifles (because of the lower speed of the projectile, then in turn resulting in a less stable trajectory), and what I have heard is that that soldiers in Afghanistan criticized the performance of the 5.56mm round. Many soldiers in the German Armed Forces are not happy that also we have at last gone the way to take over 5.56 - shooting the 7.62mm G3 meant knowing that something happened on the other side of the rifle…
At the same time, instructing soldiers to use the G3 properly was very time consuming, time that you nowadays don’t have for normal soldiers. This is generally different for special forces, and some versions of the G3 are still being used by the KSK for particular missions.
On the whole the G36 is an extremely fine weapon – very clean, simple, robust, easy to shoot and to clean. I have never experienced a stoppage or jam with service ammunition, and the shooting results have generally improved very much in the army. The gas operation is at least as good as its reputation, and the bolt is as simple as it can be. Re-zeroing, if needed, can be done by anyone quickly, given that he has some kind of adequate shooting range. The blow back very weak. Well, compared to the G3, it seems almost that the G36 is a (very good-looking) toy for children, but such a comparison is of course not very sensible and useful.
But the G36 system doesn’t only have advantages:
The dual combat sighting system (3.5x optical sight and red dot sight with daylight operation plus battery for low-light conditions) is over all very intelligently solved, but the first lot of rifles had problems with the rubber coating on the red dot sight. That has been solved with the newer lots.
Still, in extreme weather conditions, a mechanical sight does have its advantages, since they won’t steam up or freeze – soldiers using optical sights may agree with me here. Using a piece of cloth is not the optimal solution. Still, the red dot sight which we use up to 200m (which is the most probable range for the infantry) is easy to handle, and is operated with daylight during the day. Having to use a battery in low-light conditions is a typical disadvantage of technical progress for soldiers.
The NSA80 night vision device is very good. No zeroing needed, though you can only use the 3.5x scope when it is attached, not the red dot sight.
For the case that the whole sighting system cannot be used any more, an auxiliary sight is molded into the carrying handle. I have never had to use that one, and we do not teach that (you would first have to get rid of the sighting system).
I have heard that HK doesn’t produce the G36-version with the Hensoldt dual combat sighting system anymore, but the version with the 3.5x optical sight plus a short Picatinny rail on top of it – as used by the KSK, that installs Bushnell Holosight sights (and Aimpoints?) onto the rifle (either G36K or G36C, which had the Picatinny rail from the beginning – a long one though). (Neglecting the problem with the parallax failure on short distances?)
Another source for problems can be the folding stock: once folded, it is possible to shoot, but the mechanism that holds the folded stock opens quickly during movements. This can be annoying when climbing in the mountains or in FIBUA in small rooms. A retractable stock, which I would prefer, would give soldiers the possibility to change the length between shoulder and sight, as is possible with M4.
A couple of months ago shooting with the folded stock was forbidden by the Army, because the back plate (what is the proper technical term?) is only attached to the case with a small plastic nose and a pin, and may not hold the load of the bolt action while shooting. When the folding stock is pulled out, it supports the back plate. Heckler&Koch should have constructed a more robust back plate, and might do so in the future. I hope.
The magazine holding mechanism is not very good, it does happen that magazines go lost if the soldier doesn’t check the proper hold in the magazine holder. The magazines are reliable, but not compatible with our allies’ system, which is usually the M16 system. Because of the clips (which allow to clip magazines together) which are not only unreliable (we still use additional tape or bands for security here), but also quite big, our mags often incompatible with other nation’s assault vest. A lot of ammo take up very much space on the load carrying systems.
Finally, the handguard can become quite hot when shooting a lot of rounds. We use the regular G36 with a folding bipod and Beta C-mags as a light Machine gun (NOT the LMG36 with the heavier barrel) as an additional support weapon to the MG3.
Some experience will still have to be made – when I was on the shooting teacher course for small arms and anti-tank small arms in 2000 for instance, not much was known about this rifle that came directly from the field.
You see, the G36 is a very good and advanced weapon system, but not yet perfect. As any new weapon, it still has its teething troubles (or how do you say?). I think that the M4 is a reasonably good weapon, and that the differences are now rather marginal.
KSK commandos appreciate the SOPMOD kit by the way – They didn’t have such a system at the beginning of their foundation. Now they use handguards from Knights armament as far as I know, but there is no attachment like Picatinny rails for tactical lights or laser systems on the regular weapons, which means that we have to help ourselves with attaching our private sure-fire lights onto the handguards, with tape or cable binders etc. Not very professional. In 2004 the German infantry will (hopefully) be issued the new Infantry System (Infanterist der Zukunft), which includes an Oerlikon tactical light and laser (active/passive) module for the G36.
I will never understand why the weapon and the sling are black, a colour that doesn’t exist in nature. Why not olive green?
Last edited by Fuchs on April 4th, 2003, 9:31 am, edited 1 time in total.
DocHoliday wrote:Hey does Airborne Infantry get to use M4's also or is the M4 only for Special Ops Units?
When the army fields new equipment for light infantry, it generally starts with Special Operations units, then those in the 18th Airborne Corps next, then, unless it is highly specialized equipment, everyone else. Also, the Army does publish this information on the Internet, so if you spend some time looking around, you can locate the information about when the rifle is being deployed throughout the army. This is a taxpayer spending issue, so when several millions of dollars are involved, you can find information on it in the .mil namespace.
Now, there are more than likely some of the complimentary gear that goes with the weapon that does not make it to every unit in the Army, but that's a bit different than the basic M4 rifle.
And, as far as the G36 rifle as Fuch's mentioned, it has it's shortcomings in its current form and soldiers are already attaching extra gear to it for greater utility. It won't be long before the military starts developing a kit similar to what the M4 SOPMOD kit is for that rifle and enhancing it's capabilities. When that happens, it could very well end up being even more robust and capable than the M4. Look back to when the M16 was first introduced before they advanced it to it's current state of being an M4. The G36 has a long way to go to reach maturity. It should be viewed as a basic platform now, with advanced engineering. It will be interesting to see how it looks in 4-5 years from today.
Thanks for the reply. Man i searched everywhere I went to army.mil and searched for AIRBORNE INFANTRY weapons, I went to google and searched there also. I even went to the Ranger Forums at Socnetcentral.com/vb and looked and I came up with nothing, So i decided who knows better about the M4's then the Rangers they must know something, so I came here and asked. Thanks again for the reply sir.
Best thing to get good results is not to search through specific sites, but use a good search engine like Google. Put in M4, or SOPMOD Kit, or stuff like that and you'd be suprised at some of the stuff that comes up, especially the stuff that is not on the first page. Go all the way down to 15-20 pages in the search results, only clicking on links with .mil.
personally ,
loved my c.s.o.u, loved my m4 even more, hated the m16.
doubt that i would have cared for any other long rifle (especially when wearing the r.b.a.)
We didn't have much mods in terms of weapons during my stint. Had the M16A1, then the M16A2. Changed out 45s for 9mm. Took away the MP5s, although I heard they later were returned. I think they had the 90RR the whole time. Didn't get RSOVs until after I left.
got the rsov when i was a very young private so we still had the jeeps when i got there. that had to be '92
phased out the 90mm somewhere around '93
still had mp5s but hardly ever took them out
car,shotgun,over,under. car15 and a sawed off remington 870
it mounted much like the m203 but weighed a ton so we bought grips and never carried it together . the s.a.w. is the best weapon we had but the the shotgun was a close second if only for the sound,
it made eveyone look for cover.
VEGA175 wrote:car,shotgun,over,under. car15 and a sawed off remington 870
Gday fellas, my first time here... very interesting forum.
This weapon you're talking about, is it anything similar to the "masterkey" that is floating around the internet?
I searched around and found a picture for you all to have a look at, is this what you mean? http://www.securityarms.com/20010315/ga ... 0/1408.htm
Have a nice day.
Jim
I also can not write anything bad about the m4. I had a 4 powered scope attached and loved to fire and carry it. Due to the size, it was a very easy weapon to maneuver. After I got issued a M4, I never wanted an M16 again. I agree with Ranger Vega, an M4 with an assault sling worked well with the RBA.
I have to say though this is a very interesting forum.
