gatnerd

Military Guns and Ammunition

Hosted by gatnerd

This is intended for people interested in the subject of military guns and their ammunition, with emphasis on automatic weapons.

  • 3271
    MEMBERS
  • 185570
    MESSAGES
  • 0
    POSTS TODAY

Discussions

LMAO Germany adopts an AR-15   Small Arms <20mm

Started 14/9/20 by QuintusO; 39639 views.
Mr. T (MrT4)

From: Mr. T (MrT4)

27/4/21

When it comes to height over bore nothing exceeds current G36 with a Red dot on top of the rail.

roguetechie

From: roguetechie

27/4/21

The xm8 was kinda a warmed over but ultimately flawed G36 to begin with, I'm curious which part of it's IP you think should be resurrected though?

Im curious if you see something that I may have missed.

Edit to add: I'm also really not a fan of the Wilcox "fix" for the g36.

I think that the Germans would be better served going basically any direction but that one.

It's also the worst possible outcome for their own defense industrial base too and regardless of anything else that's an important consideration

Mr. T (MrT4)

From: Mr. T (MrT4)

27/4/21

Nothing that could be retrofitted. G36 is not a bad gun, XM-8 was for all intents and purposes improved, 

But to fix the rail height issue I would make the charging handle manually selected to stay either right or left side and drop the whole rail on top of with minimal gap ,add the  HK433 like forend and slightly shorter fatter Barrel and be done with it.

Euro gun optics approach was typically to make integrated sights specific to a gun (AUG,FN2000,G36etc..) ,but considering how long guns stay in service in European militaries that is not really practical anymore as optics are now improving much faster than the other elements.

HK already has a band-aid fix for the heat issue as well as the rail-mounted optics, rail system that also functions as a heat sink,the aluminum forend and top rail equipped rifle on one of my picts.

As seen in patent  DE102015013803 (A1) ? 2017-04-27

JPeelen

From: JPeelen

27/4/21

As Emeric showed a long time ago on this forum, the rail height is actually a non issue. Its impact on hit probability, considering realistic cant effects,  is of no significance.   

  • Edited 27 April 2021 16:13  by  JPeelen
roguetechie

From: roguetechie

27/4/21

I mean... I'm sure that emerics data was convincing...

To people who haven't shot rifles much.

Mr. T (MrT4)

From: Mr. T (MrT4)

27/4/21

I haven't seen much info on that concerning the assault rifles , but in sniper rifles where i am more at home we have seen some spectacular rifles that turned out less forgiving to shot well at distances purely because of the rail height. Remington MSR comes to mind

gatnerd

From: gatnerd

27/4/21

Mr. T (MrT4) said:

But to fix the rail height issue I would make the charging handle manually selected to stay either right or left side and drop the whole rail on top of with minimal gap ,add the  HK433 like forend and slightly shorter fatter Barrel and be done with it.

I had similar thoughts. Drop the rail as low as possible and just use a selectable left or right handed folding charging handle, and tweak the stock so that it corresponds to the lower rail height. Then use a 14.5-16" barrel, MLOK handguard, and whatever heat resistance upgrades are necessary.

Terrible sketch of lowered rail.

stancrist

From: stancrist

28/4/21

I sure wouldn't sacrifice the ambidextrous charging handle just to reduce rail height by half an inch.

Plus, I don't see all the concern over sight height above bore.  Has it been a problem in battle for troops armed with the G36?

Except for necessitating a slightly larger peephole when shooting from cover, was it ever of consequence in infantry combat?

gatnerd

From: gatnerd

28/4/21

stancrist said:

sure wouldn't sacrifice the ambidextrous charging handle just to reduce rail height by half an inch.

Well, the G36 is one of the only rifles to employ that style of charging handle. Most other ambidextrous systems (not counting the AR15 charging handle placement) employ a system where the shooter can choose whether to have the charging handle on the left or right side, depending on whether they are right or left handed. The SCAR and HK433, for example, employs that style of swappable charging handle.

If you look at that top picture, that red dot is so high its almost beyond chin weld to outright having the head off the stock. 

Basically, in order to optimize the ambidextrous charging (a pretty minimal convenience vs a swapable ambi) it sacrifices the much more important ergonomics of sight height. 

Having the sight that high makes it less comfortable / require more repositioning to switch between the magnified and red dot optic. It also means that at close range, the Red dot will have a much different point of impact. 

That Red dot looks to be what, 4.5-5" over the bore? That means that at close range (7-15 yards) the bullet is going to strike 4.5-5" below where the red dot is zero'd assuming a 50-100yd zero. 

Its very hard to find any 'perspective' photos of what a person looks like when firing from behind cover from the perspective of who they aiming at. This was the best one I could find.

If we imagine the above G36 putting the red dot on the center of this guys head, the bore offset may be enough that the round would actually strike the cover he's hiding behind. If we imagine that cover as a wall or berm (instead of this likely not bulletproof at all fiberglass ATV) we can imagine the problem that would be:

Likewise, if just the tip of a boot is exposed say from a wall or behind a car, that offset may be enough to induce a miss. 

On the flipside, having a sight that high exposes the shooters head that much more above a wall/vehicle/cover in order to use the red dot. Also not good.

Really from a firearm design standpoint, height over bore is generally something to be minimized. You can certainly work around it, but good ergonomics design delivers a product that work naturally without requiring work arounds. 

  • Edited 28 April 2021 4:11  by  gatnerd
TOP