This is intended for people interested in the subject of military guns and their ammunition, with emphasis on automatic weapons.
Latest 10:59 by BruhMomento
Latest 10:20 by smg762
Latest 7:28 by schnuersi
Latest 16-May by TarheelYank
Latest 16-May by EmericD
Latest 16-May by graylion
Latest 14-May by Farmplinker
Latest 14-May by autogun
Latest 13-May by Petrus_Optim
Latest 13-May by Mr. T (MrT4)
Latest 12-May by graylion
Latest 12-May by gatnerd
Latest 9-May by DavidPawley
Latest 9-May by taschoene
Latest 9-May by gatnerd
Latest 29-Apr by mpopenker
Latest 28-Apr by taschoene
Latest 28-Apr by autogun
Latest 24-Apr by taschoene
Latest 24-Apr by Mr. T (MrT4)
Latest 22-Apr by stancrist
Latest 22-Apr by gatnerd
Latest 20-Apr by roguetechie
So technically you want to redesign the upper anyway to deal with the known overheating issues.
Okay. Is there any need to redesign the charging handle to fix the overheating issues?
If you're going to redesign it anyway, finding the most painless way to deal with charging the gun isn't a terrible idea. Neither is improving the bolt release and training your guys to use it instead of the charging handle as SOP.
I'm partial to the "If it ain't broke, don't fix it!" philosophy. If the German army is satisfied with the current SOP, why should they bother changing something that works the way they want?
As far as optics go, I'm strongly in favor of just mass issuing an lpvo with at least a 1-4x magnification range, a generous eye box, and decent eye relief.
Sounds good to me. Do the Germans want an LPVO?
I partially agree on the if it ain't broke don't fix it part... Personally I'd much rather see them find some clever way to just drift the pin out and replace the current bendable handle tab because the more you change it the more you're trying to design a new gun in the constraints of the old one.
That often ends bad.
I'd be surprised if the charging handle needs to be messed with to fix overheating.
On your final question, if they don't want LPVO's and their similar form factor full up fire control system in an LPVO counterparts they're doing it wrong.
Another decade of G36 it is! LMAO. The fact that it's yet again the magazine that is problematic is also hilarious.
Also regarding the updated G36, i don't really like how thin the structure of the stock is. For a service rifle i think it's not robust enough. The stock is the only thing that is bothering me about the new G36. Why they designed it like that is beyond me. I don't think weight is the reason for a gun with a lot of plastic material.
Steyr has released a (German but easy to understand) video of their G36 upgrade receiver.
Idea seems to be that the aluminum receiver improves thermal stability and reduces shot dispersion.
It’s the obvious solution, one I thought about when the polymer receiver / steel trunnion interface came up as an issue - odd that hk didn’t have it up their sleeve as a backup.
There is an English version as well,: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UwNZd194Hf4&ab_channel=STEYRARMS. INterestingly, this shows a slightly different modification, with a different top rail and a new integrated frontend (the Wilcox Fusion system, which integrates laser, flashlight, and optics, described here: https://www.wilcoxind.com/news/news_wilcox_steyr_g36.php )
By the time you make all the optional changes (barrel, fore-end and top rail, and magwell), the only original parts remaining seem to the fire control group (trigger and grip) and the buttstock.
Any sense of what the swap would do to the overall weight?
Here comes the eternal debate - which is better, red dot + magnifier, LPVO or fixed low magnification telescopic?
The round counter that reports via "encrypted cell phone" raised an eyebrow for me. I'm not sure how this is implemented, but the last thing I want is a rifle that phones home from the battlefield in real-time. It's not that hard to geolocate a cell phone signal, encrypted or not.
I am quite certain that the round counter is for maintenance purposes an HF RFID that you can read at hands length no more.