Good-bye HK: The (probable) new German Army rifle

I served during the Cold War in a West German Panzergrenadier unit, as one of the elite combat forces, we shot twice as much as regular military and had the HK G3 as the standard issued rifle. When the G3 was replaced with the G36 it was issued to a different generation of Germans, people that had grown up resenting guns and were less exposed to them. A battle rifle in .308/7.62x51 with steel sights is a whole lot harder to shoot than a .223/5.56 with optics - and it showed in qualifications.
Much more soldiers qualified with the G36 the first time than with the G3 because it is easier to shoot with the optics. So the change to the G36 is making sense to me. As someone who did house-to-house training in Hammelburg and had to scale fences, climb through windows and so on, I learnt to prefer a lighter, shorter rifle.

I shot the G36 in reserve matches for years and found it absolutely adequate for the job and we did not experience the inacceptable inaccuracy that stems from the barrel being anchored in plastic when the gun is getting extremely hot, either from desert sun or long strings of full auto. I have to admit, we never used them a lot in full auto to begin with, only to burn through the rest of an ammo case at the end of the day.

In tests, the G36 was fired 200 rounds full auto with rapid mag changesand then tested for accuracy. That is where it was found to be inaccurate. The Rheinmetall MG3 was issued with a spare barrel and an asbestos glove and after 150 rounds of rapid full auto, we used the glove to change the barrel to avoid inaccuracy and damage to the barrel. Why was the standard for the G36 different than for the MG3, which was designed for full auto???

That MG3 is also going to be replaced with an easier to shoot light machinegun and already in the last decade fewer and fewer soldiers were MG3 certified.

No change to another weapon will bring the miracles that an incapable and clueless leadership, especially Uschi von der Leyen, is hoping for.

Andyd said:

I served during the Cold War in a West German Panzergrenadier unit, as one of the elite combat forces, we shot twice as much as regular military and had the HK G3 as the standard issued rifle. When the G3 was replaced with the G36 it was issued to a different generation of Germans, people that had grown up resenting guns and were less exposed to them. A battle rifle in .308/7.62x51 with steel sights is a whole lot harder to shoot than a .223/5.56 with optics - and it showed in qualifications.
Much more soldiers qualified with the G36 the first time than with the G3 because it is easier to shoot with the optics. So the change to the G36 is making sense to me. As someone who did house-to-house training in Hammelburg and had to scale fences, climb through windows and so on, I learnt to prefer a lighter, shorter rifle.

I shot the G36 in reserve matches for years and found it absolutely adequate for the job and we did not experience the inacceptable inaccuracy that stems from the barrel being anchored in plastic when the gun is getting extremely hot, either from desert sun or long strings of full auto. I have to admit, we never used them a lot in full auto to begin with, only to burn through the rest of an ammo case at the end of the day.

In tests, the G36 was fired 200 rounds full auto with rapid mag changesand then tested for accuracy. That is where it was found to be inaccurate. The Rheinmetall MG3 was issued with a spare barrel and an asbestos glove and after 150 rounds of rapid full auto, we used the glove to change the barrel to avoid inaccuracy and damage to the barrel. Why was the standard for the G36 different than for the MG3, which was designed for full auto???

That MG3 is also going to be replaced with an easier to shoot light machinegun and already in the last decade fewer and fewer soldiers were MG3 certified.

No change to another weapon will bring the miracles that an incapable and clueless leadership, especially Uschi von der Leyen, is hoping for.

Click to expand...

I've served on the G3 and the MG3 as well and I can only somewhat agree.

I loved the G3 and once you've found POA/POI you were good to go out to 400m. And even further if they would have let you but everything past 400 is for the machine gun to pick up. That's how we were trained.

The G36 is one ugly brick, only brought to life because of NATO but mainly because of the U.S. and the fact that many other countries used 5.56mm.

I can't speak for my whole generation but I'd prefer the heavy metal iron sight G3 over any 5.56 rifle.

I also remember the MG3 and the barrel changing process, it's great if you start the drill and didn't make sure you have the glove.... so your jacket it is (or whatever you can find). Good stuff, heavy metal machine gun in 7.62 with a felt 50lbs trigger pull. But nothing beats shooting that thing, mounted on a UNIMOG at night fire with tracer rounds.

And here's the link to the new gun;

MK 556 | C.G. Haenel GmbH

I don't care much anymore but I'm sure glad they got rid of the 36.

The main thing about the HK G3 was, of course, that the German Army never used it in battle

I never liked the thing and was happy to trade it in for an Uzi after basic, which luckily was standard issue for my assigned function.

The G36's perceived issues, which kept journalists, politicians, and "experts" (not so much the soldiers) entertained for years, emerged when German troops actually went into a real war for the first time, and in Afghanistan of all places, where conditions resembled Rommel's African campaign more than the green pastures of Northern Europe for which they had trained.

I too used the HK(made by us under license) G3. It was adopted in 1961. And only now is being replaced by the FN SCAR.

Absalom said:

The main thing about the HK G3 was, of course, that the German Army never used it in battle

I never liked the thing and was happy to trade it in for an Uzi after basic, which luckily was standard issue for my assigned function.

The G36's perceived issues, which kept journalists, politicians, and "experts" (not so much the soldiers) entertained for years, emerged when German troops actually went into a real war for the first time, and in Afghanistan of all places, where conditions resembled Rommel's African campaign more than the green pastures of Northern Europe for which they had trained.

Click to expand...

Agreed, I don't think it has been tested enough under those conditions.... big money, contracts and deadlines are far more important than soldiers lives!

However, I didn't hear anything bad about the 36s performance in Kosovo. But then again, I'm not important.

Absalom said:

The main thing about the HK G3 was, of course, that the German Army never used it in battle

I never liked the thing and was happy to trade it in for an Uzi after basic, which luckily was standard issue for my assigned function.

Click to expand...

Not me personally(I arrived too late). But our Army used the G3 in battle, Extensively, I might add from 1961 to 1974/5 in 3 simultaneous war theaters in Africa. It was well liked, and did it's job well.

LVSteve said:

I asked somebody I know who has connections in the Bunderwehr about the G36 issues. He reckoned that the G36 had been known to be a dog for some time, but much like our own procurement process, getting some of those in charge to admit they bought a pup can be difficult. There was also strong resistance to buying a "quick fix" replacement like (shudder) the M4. Not designed by a German? Made largely by a Belgian company (FN)? Nope, that wasn't happening.

No doubt H&K will appeal the decision, and reading the specs of the different weapons, Haenel MK 556, HK 416 and HK 433, you have to wonder what the deciding factor might be.

Click to expand...

Really? Wow, I've really only ever heard good things about the G36, but then again, practically nobody Stateside actually owns one since they cannot be legally imported into the United States, (Thanks, Gun Control Act!) ergo the only folks who can really speak of them are foreign soldiers who most likely have little to no experience with other rifles.

Personally, I'll never be capable of grasping the concept of being so patriotic that you're actually willing to sacrifice combat effectiveness and by extension, the military's ability to defend your nation because you just cannot bear the thought of adopting a foreign-made firearm.
Fortunately, the U.S. Military obviously isn't like that.

REM 3200 said:

With that thinking the U S military would still be using flintlocks, after all, we whipped the British with them.

Click to expand...

Forgive me, I wasn't aware that the SIG M17 was so much more technologically advanced compared to the Beretta M9A3 that it was like the difference between a Flitlock and a Percussion Cap Revolver.

white cloud said:

Your post says it all for me. Yet they continue on. Russia is getting the AK-12 which looks like an AK-74 with improved furniture. The Marines are getting the HK. None of these rifles seem like a dramatic step forward to me. People keep complaining about how terrible .22 caliber service rounds are but armies keep issuing them. I guess these changes give the sense of progress.

I read that the U.S. Army is working on plastic cased ammo in a larger caliber. I hope they don't screw this up and get American soldiers killed over it.

Click to expand...

Oh, boy... Don't even get me started on the U.S. Military's ongoing attempt to replace the 5.56x45 NATO.

My favorite part is how various branches of the U.S. Military have collaborated with cartridge companies and/or funded the development of three different cartridges intended to replace 5.56 NATO, (The .300 AAC Blackout, .458 SOCOM, and 6.8 Remington SPC) yet none of them have been adopted.

If 5.56 NATO were as ineffective as they say it is, then it would have been replaced by now. Don't get me wrong, I know that 5.56 NATO is no powerhouse and has failed on occasion to reliably put down a threat, but if it were as grossly ineffective as some claim it to be, then nobody would use it anymore. PERIOD.
Obviously the U.S. Military isn't shy about spending money to upgrade the equipment, so I doubt it has anything to do with the expense of adopting new ammunition, especially when all three of the aforementioned cartridges were designed with the M4A3 in mind.

I strongly doubt that plastic cased ammunition will ever be viable. It's based upon the fundamentally flawed concept of cases which are strong enough to be fired safely once, but cannot safely be reloaded and fired so that insurgents or enemy combatants cannot reload the cases. The problem is, not even expensive, impact-resistant polymers used for the frames of firearms can hold up to the pressures of firing a single handgun cartridge without failing. Honestly, think of the KABOOMs that destroyed Glock 22 frames just because the barrels didn't provide adequate chamber support, and that was with the .40 S&W cartridge, which is hardly the highest pressure pistol cartridge, so how on Earth do they expect to make cases out of thin polymer for rifle cartridges, if the impact-resistant bulky polymer frames of a Glock 22 could even withstand the intermediate chamber pressures of .40 S&W?

"If 5.56 NATO were as ineffective as they say it is, then it would have been replaced by now. Don't get me wrong, I know that 5.56 NATO is no powerhouse and has failed on occasion to reliably put down a threat, but if it were as grossly ineffective as some claim it to be, then nobody would use it anymore. PERIOD.
Obviously the U.S. Military isn't shy about spending money to upgrade the equipment, so I doubt it has anything to do with the expense of adopting new ammunition, especially when all three of the aforementioned cartridges were designed with the M4A3 in mind."

This is my thinking also. My father and his buddies carried M16s in Vietnam. To a man they praised the rifle and cartridge. You would think it pretty obvious that chopping the barrel down to 14.5" with a cartridge that depends on velocity to be effective was a bad idea.

Probably an evolution of the Carcal 816.

The Carcal 816 was designed by the same team that designed the HK 416.

malph said:

Probably an evolution of the Carcal 816.

The Carcal 816 was designed by the same team that designed the HK 416.

Click to expand...

That is correct and points to another delicate issue being discussed in German media:

C.G. Haenel is now, just like Caracal International, a subsidiary of EDGE, a defense industries conglomerate wholly owned by the United Arab Emirates.

We're all friends now and all that, but there have been snide remarks about the Bundeswehr's new "Arab rifle" ....

The Krauts probably could have saved a boat ton of money just buying kits and lowers from Palmetto State Armory and letting the Bundeswehr boys build them while celebrating Oktoberfest at their favorite hofbrau haus!!

Avoiding the purchase of foreign made weapons is a likely national security issue for any nation. Anything that chokes off deliveries or could do so is a big fat hairy deal.

I always liked the H&K 93 myself, but I guess I am old school.

Larry

Most military contracts have a clause or language requiring the weapon/design to be manufactured domestically.

The Beretta 92 is a great example. If memory serves me, after the first year following adoption, Beretta had to have a facility in the US producing the M9 for the US military.

Doug M. said:

Avoiding the purchase of foreign made weapons is a likely national security issue for any nation. Anything that chokes off deliveries or could do so is a big fat hairy deal.

Click to expand...

Nationalism has a lot to do with it too.

Read the story of the T48 (FAL) vs. the T44 (M14) sometime.

The best candidate doesn't always win.

Scharfschuetzer said:

I wondered if it would use a conventional gas piston. Good idea to drop the direct impingement (Lgungmen-Stoner) gas operation for a more conventional gas piston. While the direct impingement system is very reliable, dumping gas directly into the action results in a lot of cleaning and eventual carbon build up.

Click to expand...

My AR-180, also a Stoner design, has a pushrod short-stroke piston design. I guess Stoner figured out that venting gas into the bolt was counterproductive to cleaning and extended functioning.

John

JJEH said:

........I can't speak for my whole generation but I'd prefer the heavy metal iron sight G3 over any 5.56 rifle.

Click to expand...

Although I'm a generation earlier, I agree. Thing is a lot heavier now than when I got it. Joe

quikdraw67 said:

Nationalism has a lot to do with it too.

Read the story of the T48 (FAL) vs. the T44 (M14) sometime.

The best candidate in the most suitable caliber doesn't always win.

Click to expand...

Fixed it for you.

I always liked most of the rifles and pistols HK made and Sig rifles seem to be excellent also so I'm quite surprised Germany picked a copy of our M16/M4 that MANY Americans harshly criticized for its first 40 years of military service.

Farmer17 said:

I always liked most of the rifles and pistols HK made and Sig rifles seem to be excellent also so I'm quite surprised Germany picked a copy of our M16/M4 that MANY Americans harshly criticized for its first 40 years of military service.

Click to expand...

It's not a copy. It uses a short stroke gas piston system in operation that fixes the "poops where it eats" issue of the M16/M4.

Now, if you want to complain about the wisdom of shooting 5.56 NATO from short barrels, I'll back you up.