Since the G36 is largely made of polymer, is it still robust enough to be use as a serious military rifle? I have done a bit of research myself and I ran into various claims of how the rifle often crack or melt when fire in full auto repetitively. Are any of this true?
Tough question to answer with any finality. We did run into some of these problems (albeit not to the level that some would have you believe) when the rifles were tested here, and yet, it’s been fielded with the Bundeswehr for many years now, and most of my German friends in-the-know seem to like the rifle just fine – apart from it’s 5.56 NATO chambering, anyway. (Some may feel a bit of nostalgia for the 7.62, but no one misses lugging a G-3 around all day.)
I suspect we will never know for sure, since the closest we can seem to get over here is a random selection of costly, and sometimes fragile, SLR-8 conversions. in fairness, I’m not convinced that any of those are really built to the same quality standard as the original rifle. It’s a shame, too, because I’m sure that HK USA could have sold a great many HK-36s (semi-automatic) on our shores. I certainly would have bought a couple.
AC
During my time in astan, I saw more Germans with G3s all souped up than anything else.
Sent from my SGH-T989 using Tapatalk 2
However…
Most military rifles are carried a lot and shot very little. I don’t think any modern rifle gets treated to high round counts like the M-4. I am not taking anything away from the German contribution in Afghanistan, but the G36 is simply not taking the abuse that the M-4 does almost daily.
I haven’t used it enough to comment on it’s robustness, but the gun is an ergonomical nightmare…
I think it should be indicative that the German KSK have used the G36 for over a decade… and are now buying HK416s.
(Not necessarily that the G36 is a bad rifle, just that it is not as good as an HK416… which may have been selected as much for being German as for being an AR-15 variant.)
In what way?
Not trying to be a smartass, but I’d assume because it’s not an AR. We live in an age where a reciprocating charging handle is a great sin despite them having served well for decades. It seems like the AR is considered the grail and any rifle that deviates from its pattern of operation is considered inferior in the ergonomics department. I’ve used the G36 and I thought it was fine ergonomically. I didn’t like the feel of the actual weapon, but I think it’s generally pretty well thought out and head over heels above the roller delayed guns (in terms of ergos, IMO).
I’ve spoken with a few people who have extensive experience with the weapon, and none liked it. Complaints about ergonomics, layout and function.
The AR is the best laid out rifle in service anywhere.
Put an FAL-style non-reciprocating side-charging handle on the AR-15 and I’d agree. Until then…
It’s a combination of shitty ergonomics and a poor layout/design.
-Charging handle parallell to the receiver; not ideal, to say the least, when it is extremely cold and using winter mittens
-Height over bore ratio is too high, IMO
-Non-adjustable LOP
-Bulky magazines
-Bulky weapon overall
-Inferior magazine release to the AR-15
I much prefer either the AR-15 design, or the old G3 design over the G36 (weapon design, not internals). The G3 uses the same mag release principle as the G36, and suffers from non-adjustable LOP (except for our newest model), but charging handle is much better and it is a much sleeker weapon.
I agree that the CH location on the AR is less than ideal.
Off topic but after spending some time with a lwrc repr i am not a fan of the side charging handle. It eliminates the possibility of ambi use.
I have never used it or really studied it but American Spirit Arms has a side charging handle that I believe is not reciprocating.
I would disagree with this. IMO, it’s the only charging handle design on a rifle that I’m aware of that can be ambi. (With the addition of something like the BCM Gunfighter Ambi CH, AXTS RAPTOR, etc.)
I actually would say the AR charging handle is ideal in placement, and I’d take it over something like a SCAR any day.
It seems a lot of people don’t like it because it’s slow to clear malfunctions.
I would disagree with that, if you practice with it, you can clear malfunctions plenty fast. And if you’re actively shooting at something, and the gun malf’d then IMHO you should be transitioning to pistol anyway. Deal with your primary weapon malfunction when your threat is taken care of.
Check out the episode of TacTv where Larry Vickers goes through a tour of HK museum in Germany. He talks about the G36, and says it is very reliable. He also mentioned it was based on a Stoner design. He also said that the SCAR is very much based off the G36.
The main advantages of the AR CH is that it can be ambi and it does not interfere with accessories. It is not a poor design, and that is not what I intended to imply. I like the ergonomics of the AR platform, extremely well. The only thing I would change is the location of the CH. It might not be feasable though, considering the layout of remaining controls and handguard design.
For manipulation, a CH located in a more forward position is better, in my opinion. A CH located in the fore-end area, like the cocking lever housing above the barrel on a G3, is more easily manipulated by left handed shooters than CH’s located on the side of the upper reciever (AK for right handed shooters, FN FAL).
And the point about transitions does not apply as a general rule, IMO. Not all soldiers are issued secondary weapon systems. I am issued one, Glock 17, but I rarely carry it. I train with it though, to stay proficient. Not all situations indicate a transition either, it is range and terrain dependant. Also, most soldiers do not operate in a vacuum, they have team mates in close proximity who can and should prosecute targets that you are unable to. Infantry tactics differ a bit from your standard carbine course POI.
The G36 is based off of the AR-18.
I think there are advantages for both placements, but I personally prefer the AR location, because pretty much the only time I even use the charging handle is when I’m loading/clearing the weapon. If your weapon malfunctions enough to where it becomes THAT big of an issue, then you may have other problems. Even with AR CH placement, a tap/rack only takes like 3 seconds tops. The same drill with a SCAR type CH would shave maaaybe a second off of that, but now your CH may interfere with your gear, or hand placement, and has no possibility of being a true ambi control. For some the trade off is worth it, to me it’s not.
For manipulation, a CH located in a more forward position is better, in my opinion. A CH located in the fore-end area, like the cocking lever housing above the barrel on a G3, is more easily manipulated by left handed shooters than CH’s located on the side of the upper reciever (AK for right handed shooters, FN FAL).
I’d agree, for manipulation the SCAR/ACR/G3/FAL type placement is better, (though on a SCAR, I’d run the CH on the right side, like an AK so there’s a way to release the bolt during a reload on that side, FNH really should’ve put a KAC style ambi-bolt release on the SCAR), but like I said before, there are trade offs. If it was a stock gun, that I couldn’t flip the charging handle on like an issued 416 (which fits your context) then I agree 100%. But my context comes from personal weapons that I can modify in any way I want.
And the point about transitions does not apply as a general rule, IMO. Not all soldiers are issued secondary weapon systems. I am issued one, Glock 17, but I rarely carry it. I train with it though, to stay proficient. Not all situations indicate a transition either, it is range and terrain dependant. Also, most soldiers do not operate in a vacuum, they have team mates in close proximity who can and should prosecute targets that you are unable to. Infantry tactics differ a bit from your standard carbine course POI.
You’re completely correct about the pistol thing, that was kind of an ignorant statement on my part. I apologize.
In my opinion the G36 is not a bad weapon - but not a great one either
It has some good features and is very reliable but a few things ergonomically and design wise are less than ideal in my opinion
It certainly wouldn’t be my first choice in a 5.56mm assault rifle - but it wouldn’t be my last one either
It is very interesting in the respect that both the SCAR and Masada/ACR are heavily G36 inspired - and the G36 is an adaptation of the AR-18 ; truly the unsung hero of the Stoner design team - it has influenced far more weapons after it’s introduction than the M16 ever did