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; 39682 views.
stancrist

From: stancrist

28/4/21

gatnerd said:

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.

Swappable =/= Ambidextrous.

Being swappable means it can be configured for a righty OR a lefty.  Being ambidextrous means it can be used by either, without reconfiguring.

gatnerd said:

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.

That's a consequence of the "piggyback" mounting of the red dot, NOT the rail height above the bore.

Put a red dot atop a low-mounted, primary optic, and you won't be able to get a proper cheek weld when aiming with the red dot, either.

gatnerd said:

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.

So you reduce the rail height by half an inch, and that 4.5-5.0" changes to 4.0-4.5" difference in point of impact (at 7-15 yards).  Whoopie.

gatnerd said:

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.

Again, that's a consequence of the "piggyback" mounting of the red dot, which would still be very high even if the receiver were to be reconfigured as you propose.

gatnerd said:

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.

Wow.  You are really "reaching" there.  "Okay, men.  Now remember, when you shoot for the tip of their boot, aim a few inches high!"

C'mon, get serious.

gatnerd said:

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.

Granted, but yet again, that's a result of mounting an auxiliary sight on top of the primary.  You would have the same issues with the red dot, even if you mount the primary optic lower.

gatnerd said:

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.

I agree.  And if we were designing a new rifle, I'd say make the rail as low as possible, and configure the charging handle as necessary.

But, if a G36 variant is to remain the standard issue rifle, I think it is not a good idea to change one of its operating controls just to decrease sight height a fraction of an inch.  IMO, the height of the primary optic afforded by the current rail is unlikely to be an issue on the battlefield, and it avoids the problems that would be inherent to redesigning the charging handle and receiver.

roguetechie

From: roguetechie

28/4/21

So technically you want to redesign the upper anyway to deal with the known 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.

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.

Lpvo optics are a force multiplier and as such it's not a bad idea to tailor your redesigned upper or whatever you do specifically for them. I imagine that there's some interesting ways you could go about this.

stancrist

From: stancrist

28/4/21

roguetechie said:

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?

roguetechie said:

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?

roguetechie said:

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?

roguetechie

From: roguetechie

28/4/21

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.

tidusyuki

From: tidusyuki

29/4/21

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.

In reply toRe: msg 124
gatnerd

From: gatnerd

19/5/21

Steyr has released a (German but easy to understand) video of their G36 upgrade receiver. 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wNX0TTDDwSU

Idea seems to be that the aluminum receiver improves thermal stability and reduces shot dispersion. 

DavidPawley

From: DavidPawley

21/5/21

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.

taschoene

From: taschoene

21/5/21

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?  

renatohm

From: renatohm

21/5/21

Here comes the eternal debate - which is better, red dot + magnifier, LPVO or fixed low magnification telescopic?

taschoene

From: taschoene

21/5/21

LOL.

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.  

TOP