Britain to dump sa80 for g36?

[Mister Frag 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Blaegis @ July 14 2002,11:55)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">G11 is a beaut allright. At least the technology still remains and maybe someday they'll do something worthwhile with it. BTW, does anyone know if HK has resolved the ammunition cook-off problem they had with the G11?<span id='postcolor'>

Yes, that particular problem was solved by Dynamit Nobel when they reformulated the propellant composition.

[Mister Frag 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Paratrooper @ July 14 2002,12:56)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">But should it be adopted by the British Army? It is not NATO standard ammunition and the program would be expensive.

But it is a first class weapon and would put the British Army at the vanguard of infantry weapons.

Or would the more orthodox G36 be better?<span id='postcolor'>

For a number of reasons, I think the G36 would be a better choice. I'm not sure how the thread has even drifted to the G11...

[Paratrooper 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Mister Frag @ July 15 2002,01:02)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Paratrooper @ July 14 2002,12:56)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">But should it be adopted by the British Army? It is not NATO standard ammunition and the program would be expensive.

But it is a first class weapon and would put the British Army at the vanguard of infantry weapons.

Or would the more orthodox G36 be better?<span id='postcolor'>

For a number of reasons, I think the G36 would be a better choice. I'm not sure how the thread has even drifted to the G11...<span id='postcolor'>

Lol! that was me, I was posing the question, tried and tested; or revolutionary replacement to the SA-80.

[Guest]

I would choose the G11 over the G36 any day. Why invest in old technology when you can invest in new? And besides all the praise that the G36 is recieving is undeserved. The rifle has yet to be tested in the field and under harsher circumstances then you have at a shooting range. I don't know how this myth about the G36 reliability has emerged. It is very accurate, yes but very reliable: no.

[Warin 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (denoir @ July 15 2002,01:17)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I would choose the G11 over the G36 any day. Why invest in old technology when you can invest in new? And besides all the praise that the G36 is recieving is undeserved. The rifle has yet to be tested in the field and under harsher circumstances then you have at a shooting range. I don't know how this myth about the G36 reliability has emerged. It is very accurate, yes but very reliable: no.<span id='postcolor'>

The same thing can be said for the G11, Denoir. Since it isnt even a production rifle, how can you really know how it would react to the abuse that some nugget private would put it through in the field?

Did someone from HK pee in your corn flakes, Denoir old bean? You seem to be pretty down on them for some reason

[Guest]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Warin @ July 15 2002,01:22)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Did someone from HK pee in your corn flakes, Denoir old bean? You seem to be pretty down on them for some reason <span id='postcolor'>

I had to use, carry, clean and maintain their bloody G3 during my basic training in the military. God how I hate that rifle!

It is actually a good weapon but it is so heavy and difficult to clean. It doesn't handle water or mud very well (which is a bitch when you are in an amphibious unit).

Anyway we later switched to the FNC 80 which is way way way better IMO, so happy ending there

Edit: I should perhaps add that the G36 is however a great improvement compared to the G3. The reliability is very good in the weapons range, but I have heard from German soldiers in Kosovo that the rifle fails quite often under normal environmental conditions in the field. Overheating of the forearm is apparently a problem too. Assembly and disassembly of the rifle should be much better because of the modular design.

[Satchel 0]

The guidelines and goals behind designing of the G11 are also it´s problem that is yet to be solved.

The goal was to increase the hit probability in burst mode even for moderate shooters, so that accuracy and therefore combat efficiancy would drastically increase.

Theoretically burst function is supported by many firearms, but in reality, the recoil after the first shot would put the weapon off target, making it hard if not impossible to hit moving targets with multiple projectiles, as 3 projectiles are considered as optimal to incapacitate an opponent.  

The principle therein was to hold the succession of shots in burst mode this high, that all 3 shots of a volley are discharged before the recoil would be noticeable to the shooter.

A realistic firing rate to this purpose could be designed in speeds around the 2.000 rds/min mark.  

To achive this H&K designed special caseless ammunition in order to skip the process of bullet casing ejection, so the next round could be loaded directly after the first shot.

The problem was to develop a charge durable enough to fullfill combat- and safety requirements, such as avoidance of barrel grease contaminants by charge leftovers and prevention of unintentional shot triggering, caused by a heated weapon or outside factors.

These problems couldn´t be eliminated completely in practical application, the G11 tends to overheat quickly and firing rate had to be reduced considerably in fully automatic mode to 600rds/min.

The non detachable scope offers 1:1 magnification and is zeroed for 300m.  

Regarding firepower the caseless 4,73x33 mm G11 ammunition devellops a max. of 1460 Joules at 930 m/s measured at the muzzle, compared to an 5,56x45mm standard NATO projectile fired from the G36 which rates 1725 Joules at 920m/s, putting the usage of the G11 against protected opponents (flak/shrapnel protection vest) in question at 300m engagement ranges the G11´s optic is zeroed for.

The G11 despite handicaps is very expensive, and after the fall of the warsaw pact, western germany decided against the G11 as the cost/value relation was not given. The G11 participated in the US ACR trials, but the US government decided also against the G11 in favor for the M16A3.

BTW: Wouldn´t be a bad choice for Britain to adopt the G36, only drawbacks of it are the Buttstock which isn´t suited for CQB, and the optics block that tends to get foggy in according environmental conditions, if no preperations are taken.

Apart from that you´d get an reliable and extremely accurate rifle.

[Paratrooper 0]

How is it's bayonette?

[Mister Frag 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (denoir @ July 14 2002,16:17)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I would choose the G11 over the G36 any day. Why invest in old technology when you can invest in new? And besides all the praise that the G36 is recieving is undeserved. The rifle has yet to be tested in the field and under harsher circumstances then you have at a shooting range. I don't know how this myth about the G36 reliability has emerged. It is very accurate, yes but very reliable: no.<span id='postcolor'>

I would stick with the tried and true cartridge-based ammunition. If you want to go with new technology, why not make the leap to the OICW?

Regarding reliability, I have yet to hear any complaints about the G36 -- have you? It has been used extensively in the Balkans and Afghanistan.

[Mister Frag 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Satchel @ July 14 2002,17:22)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"><Snip>

BTW: Wouldn´t be a bad choice for Britain to adopt the G36, only drawbacks of it are the Buttstock which isn´t suited for CQB, and the optics block that tends to get foggy in according environmental conditions, if no preperations are taken.

Apart from that you´d get an reliable and extremely accurate rifle.<span id='postcolor'>

Well, at least the buttstock on the G36 does fold, which can't be said for a good number of other similar assault rifles, such as the M16 or SA80. Also, there are other G36 variants more suited to the CQB role, such as the G36C or G36K.

[Paratrooper 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Mister Frag @ July 15 2002,05:37)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I would stick with the tried and true cartridge-based ammunition. If you want to go with new technology, why not make the leap to the OICW?

Regarding reliability, I have yet to hear any complaints about the G36 -- have you? It has been used extensively in the Balkans and Afghanistan.<span id='postcolor'>

Because the OICW probably won't be available for several years, it will be complicated and heavy. What will troops on the ground do with a 20mm cannon?

Anyway the G11 would provide an infantry weapon to the British army like no other in the world. But I can see the G36 being adopted and I wouldn't mind that.

Does the G36 have provision for a good bayonette? Would a British version have to have a solid butstock?

[Mister Frag 0]

Yes, the G36 takes a bayonet, but like most, it attaches vertically, rather than horizontally, which would ease penetration between ribs.

There's no solid buttstock version. The frame of the existing folding buttstock allows the brass of spent cartridges to be ejected through the center of it.

[Hit_Sqd_Maximus 0]

I thought modern bayonetts had a kind of X shape to them so the wound didnt close when the pulled the knife out and bled more?

[Paratrooper 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Mister Frag @ July 15 2002,07:11)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Yes, the G36 takes a bayonet, but like most, it attaches vertically, rather than horizontally, which would ease penetration between ribs.

There's no solid buttstock version. The frame of the existing folding buttstock allows the brass of spent cartridges to be ejected through the center of it.<span id='postcolor'>

Well a British rifle will nees a good buttstock and bayonete.

We don't want to be without the cold steel!

[Guest]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Mister Frag @ July 15 2002,05:37)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (denoir @ July 14 2002,16:17)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I would choose the G11 over the G36 any day. Why invest in old technology when you can invest in new? And besides all the praise that the G36 is recieving is undeserved. The rifle has yet to be tested in the field and under harsher circumstances then you have at a shooting range. I don't know how this myth about the G36 reliability has emerged. It is very accurate, yes but very reliable: no.<span id='postcolor'>

I would stick with the tried and true cartridge-based ammunition. If you want to go with new technology, why not make the leap to the OICW?<span id='postcolor'>

Because the G11 is more novel and advanced then the OICW. The OICW has very little actually that is new: the electronics and the modular design. The kinetics package is however old-school.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Regarding reliability, I have yet to hear any complaints about the G36 -- have you? It has been used extensively in the Balkans and Afghanistan.<span id='postcolor'>

Yes in Kosovo. Dirt int the reciprocating parts (bolt and bolt carrier) makes the weapon malfunction. From what I heard from German soldiers in Kosovo, this was quite common. While the rifle doesn't need much cleaning from just shooting it doesn't handle environmental abuse very good. As I said, there is a big difference between using a weapon for sport shooting and using a weapon in the field. The demands on the weapon are far greater in the second case.

[Paratrooper 0]

I'd like the SIG 550 for Britain as well, reliable accurate and light.

[Paratrooper 0]

Denoir do you use the Bofors Ak5? If so what do you think of it?

[Guest]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Paratrooper @ July 15 2002,09:49)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Denoir do you use the Bofors Ak5? If so what do you think of it?<span id='postcolor'>

Best weapon I have ever fired

It is small and light (aluminium construction), you can fold it, accurate, easy to maintain, can fire underwater, doesn't jam...

(Ak5 = Swedish modification of the FNC 80 / CGA5 for you who don't know)

[USSoldier11B 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Best weapon I have ever fired

It is small and light (aluminium construction), you can fold it, accurate, easy to maintain, can fire underwater, doesn't jam...

(Ak5 = Swedish modification of the FNC 80 / CGA5 for you who don't know)

<span id='postcolor'>

I trust your opinion on this. Can I borrow yours for a week? We can call it a foriegn weapons exchange for evaluation.

[Renagade 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Paratrooper @ July 15 2002,03:10)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">How is it's bayonette?<span id='postcolor'>

heheh

[Paratrooper 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Renagade @ July 16 2002,05:00)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Paratrooper @ July 15 2002,03:10)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">How is it's bayonette?<span id='postcolor'>

heheh <span id='postcolor'>

It's the most important part!

[USSoldier11B 0]

I think bayonets are lousy weapons. Just a good way to bend your barrel and fuck up your rifle. I would prefer to wallop someon with my e-tool. Alot of guys in my unit carry non-issued bladed weapons (including myself) such as combat/throwing knives, tomahawks etc.

[Tex -USMC- 0]

...he said tool... *giggle*

[USSoldier11B 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">...he said tool... *giggle*<span id='postcolor'>

Shut yer cock holster Tex.

(j/k)

[Paratrooper 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (USSoldier11B @ July 16 2002,05:42)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I think bayonets are lousy weapons. Just a good way to bend your barrel and fuck up your rifle. I would prefer to wallop someon with my e-tool. Alot of guys in my unit carry non-issued bladed weapons (including myself) such as combat/throwing knives, tomahawks etc.<span id='postcolor'>

Every Brit knows that nothing beats the Cold Steel!

A good bayonete and rifle shouldn't bend it. I'm not saying it doesn't happen though, before you start with the anecdotes.