SpecOps warriors opinion of G36 in comparion to M4A1/M16

[Rgr_MindRiot]

Been on R&R from the Batt. for some time now so can't speak from experience about the M4 or the new G36 system. However, do have some experience with M16A2H and G3, and do have some rants about sighting systems. First, both of the weapons i mentioned above were counter sniper systems and some of you may infer from my comments some similarities to those systems issued to our military. Beyond that, the rest is FYI. Beyond personal preferance, the major advantage that the G3 has over the M16 or any of its variants is penetration and accuracy (as influenced by environmental conditions). The M16A2H is a match barrel A2 and shoots a 5.56 round which is just as accurate at short distances as the 7.62 round and it is devastating to soft tissue (shoot a watermelon). However, when you have a greater distance to the target the round is hampered by environmental factors which affect accuracy much more that the 7.62, and it dumps all of its energy once it strikes an object thus hampering penetration of objects other than soft tissue. This is not a bad thing in urban combat where ranges are close and there is concern about over penetration with civilians or your team members around. Also, the weight of the weapon makes it more manueverable and the size of the round allows you to cary more. The G3 and its 7.62 round is a bit more to bring to bear on a target than the M16 but it is a great shooter and it will definetly reach out and touch someone. The system that i would use would depend on the type of combat that i was expecting ie. urban warfare or everything else but this is not a luxury that the average soldier has. Much more to say about the G3 but don't want to bore (no pun) you.

As far as sighting systems go, the average soldier needs to ultimately rely on iron sights. Some low power scopes are okay if they can hold up in combat coditions or take all the abuse that some REMF can give it. But, if it fails, then a soldier must be able to remove the scope and rely on iron sights. This is also true for the "Aim Point' or Red Dot sights. Most of the civilian versions will not hold up under combat conditions and unless the military has come up with some that can, i would avoid using them. If they do have a mil spec sight with some sort of Red Dot system, then the advantage they provide is that they can be used under low light conditions. Also, the sights are designed to be used with both eyes open. So, as long as your one eye can see a dot and your other eye is looking at the target you can deploy the weapon without actually looking through it as with a regular scope with magnification. But, have the battery die at just the right moment and BAD MOJO ! The same is true for weapons equiped with "Lazers". Aside from the battery issue, it is much faster to acquire a target using iron sights as opposed to a lazer. If you don't belive me try a exercise where you fire a round on a target at 25 yards from a ready position (port arms) and time yourself. Watch how much time you waste trying to find the little red dot. While Lazer sights look cool in the movies in the real world that extra time means you or one of your brothers is dead ! Enough already ! LOL Did see a picture of the G36 and it reminds me of something that was made from spare parts. Hopefully, it will evolve into some more weildable that shoots a 7.62 round!!!

RLTW