H&K G36 civilian photos and details. UPDATED

you can't really call any report or study a red herring without many other documents showing the opposite or that "red" herring all of a sudden becomes just a herring as you have nothing to compare it to.
 
He gave you a perfectly valid reason as to why the beach test is a red herring and you glossed over it. If a test is intentionally made to highlight one platform while creating a disadvantage in another, what's the point?
 
bacon1337 said:
Can you provide some documentation? Or am I supposed to believe what you say at face value? Actual experience and test data? Why don't you post it?

You would already have it if you were in position to make requirements or understand the performance standards that the data represents, and there is a good reason why you don't see any current test data posted on the interwebs. CGN, as awesome as it is, is for gun nuts and not for selecting the next generation of infantry weapons. It is telling that only 2 countries procured the 416 in any quantity and the largest of those (Norway) are already being taken out of service for the reasons noted above. In this internet space we can debate about it all you want, but at the end of the day it did NOT prove itself to be enough of an improvement to replace the M4 other than is very small numbers - and the jury is till out on those.

The organization that make those decisions have the data, and the fact that most of the major users of the M16 FOW have chosen to complete midlife upgrades or PIPs show that these systems just don't meet the hype.

What different variety of ammunition has the c7 & c8 been tested with? How many different ammo specifications does it work with? The c7 and c8 are great, but the di ar is no longer the king of the hill. Sorry but that is the truth. Doesn't mean they suck all of a sudden, they are still excellent systems, but no longer the best.

This is a pointless line of inquiry. C7/C8 and M16/M4 meet the NATO standards and have therefore proven their reliability with all NATO STANAG ammo. The only ammunition they need to shoot is C77/C78, M855, SS109 etc. I have personally fired a wide variety of clean ammo, improved penetration ammo, experimental ammo, frangible ammo, etc, but who cares? All NATO weapons do this more or less. The expansion and bleed off system that stoner designed is still king of the hill - US army, CF, Denmark, Netherlands and dozens of other countries - including more NATO countries than any other weapon system still use this and will for the foreseeable future. No one has yet made a credible cost/benefit argument for the replacement of these systems.

The XM8 did nothing better than its rival? Where is the documentation? all the arguements I get back is people hated it, it performed no better, yet not a single piece of documentation ever comes up to back that statement up. Costs 3 times as much and lasts on third the time? The 416 costs roughly the same as the m4 for the us gov maybe slightly more but nowhere near 3 times as much.

That's not the data I have, but if you have the costing information publicly available then show it.

So my links are all red herrings and purple dragons, but I am seeing some pictures that do not support your argument in any relevant manner, show me links how badly is a 416 receiver mangled after 40k rounds of use? How badly is it messed up after 3000 rounds of suppressed use?

The tests i fired never made it to 40 k. That picture is 600 rounds from new. Take a look at the photos again. Why is the back of the carrier tapered down so much? Tilt? Why the beavertail and FP spring? Solution searching for a problem. If you know anything about the system these are pretty telling all on their own.

I never said pick up the g36. The poi shift was grossly overamplified by media and forums and has been long resolved since, and is now an errornet myth regurgitated just like m4s are unreliable and aks cant hit the barn.

And I mean it when I say this, show me how the c7 or c8 beats the 416. threefold like you said, in cost, in performance, and in lifespan. The only one I can believe is cost. The other two lol, till I see documented proof no dice homeslice.

If it was all it was cracked up to be it would be replacing systems everywhere. And it just is not doing that. That's proof enough for the internets. Even were it to be marginally better there are over 8 million M16 FOW in service worldwide that would need a competitor to show significant improvement to justify replacement . I don't need to, nor should I have to prove to the internet these facts. HK needs to prove them to the military test establishments. So far, they seem to do a very good job of convincing the internet, but not anybody that counts. Stoner system - still the king of the hill.

You can believe what you want, but wishing it was so won't get german perversions of stoner's design to replace the rifles that we currently carry. I'm trained to evaluate firearms. I've fired them all, I've tested them all.
Click to expand...

Anyway, this has gotten far enough off topic. My bad. I'm off to infract myself for getting sucked in...

Are the G36 and 416 coming to Canada? Sound like it. Great. More guns to play with for those that have wads of cash.

Are they replacing military weapons. Nope. Everything else is just CGN speculation.
 
knock-knock said:
He gave you a perfectly valid reason as to why the beach test is a red herring and you glossed over it. If a test is intentionally made to highlight one platform while creating a disadvantage in another, what's the point?
Click to expand...

OTB capabilities may be a red herring in his opinion but from what I read on m4carbine.net it's a rather valuable feature for sof units to have, so many of the rivals of the m4 have the capability, tavor, ak, g36, how is it not a disadvantage? How is it a red herring? Can we get any input from a JTF2 guy if this is a valuable feature or not?

C77 said:
Anyway, this has gotten far enough off topic. My bad. I'm off to infract myself for getting sucked in...

Are the G36 and 416 coming to Canada? Sound like it. Great. More guns to play with for those that have wads of cash.

Are they replacing military weapons. Nope. Everything else is just CGN speculation.
Click to expand...

http://soldiersystems.net/2013/03/30/canipe-correspondence-retiring-my-416/
67000 rounds with no carrier tilt issues.
17000 rounds between cleanings(unsuppressed, nonetheless I want to see one di gun that can do that)
17000ish rounds of suppressed fire.
And all it ate was a buffer spring.

Why don't you give me some test data on some of the c7s and c8s? Comeon man it can't all be classified.

You said you test the guns for a living, so the german ar that broke after 600 rounds I assume is a 416. Give me the full story on it.


I never said they are replacing the weapons. Like I said I have backed up statements with documentation, all you did was say, I disagree and because I am in this industry you should believe me with no supporting counter documentation. I never said what the cf will do. I said what they said they should do in a few years in my opinion.


And obviously people aren't buying new guns, no one has any money to buy them with. Like I said the m4 is still a perfectly servicable rifle. Run them till they blow up or till they get some cash to buy something new.

If you wish I would be happy to discuss this over PM
 
Last edited:
bacon1337 said:
OTB capabilities may be a red herring in his opinion but from what I read on m4carbine.net it's a rather valuable feature for sof units to have, so many of the rivals of the m4 have the capability, tavor, ak, g36, how is it not a disadvantage? How is it a red herring? Can we get any input from a JTF2 guy if this is a valuable feature or not?
Click to expand...

I'll assume we're talking about the Colt AR blowing up when being fired right out of water in the HK test? Sorry, I didn't read this whole thread and don't intend to. I personally don't see how or why this feature would be a deal-breaker for a new rifle. There's a very quick and easy method to fire a previously submerged AR… drain the barrel of water by cracking the bolt open slightly and tilting the gun back or forward! I can't think of any operational situation where a person would willingly want to fire their gun upon surfacing from under the water… in fact I'd wager a guess that special forces types would tell you that if they had to do such things, they probably failed in their insertion to begin with. Why you'd wanna shoot from the water, where you're not mobile and are completely exposed away from cover, is beyond me. If you don't have the time to clear the water out of the barrel before taking a shot, you're likely a dead man.

Sorry to digress.
 
knock-knock said:
I'll assume we're talking about the Colt AR blowing up when being fired right out of water in the HK test? Sorry, I didn't read this whole thread and don't intend to. I personally don't see how or why this feature would be a deal-breaker for a new rifle. There's a very quick and easy method to fire a previously submerged AR… drain the barrel of water by cracking the bolt open slightly and tilting the gun back or forward! I can't think of any operational situation where a person would willingly want to fire their gun upon surfacing from under the water… in fact I'd wager a guess that special forces types would tell you that if they had to do such things, they probably failed in their insertion to begin with. Why you'd wanna shoot from the water, where you're not mobile and are completely exposed away from cover, is beyond me. If you don't have the time to clear the water out of the barrel before taking a shot, you're likely a dead man.

Sorry to digress.
Click to expand...

Because nothing ever goes wrong in a mission right? Accidents and unlucky coincidences happen. Sometimes you don't have a choice. I am no expert. Why don't you ask LAV or Jason Falla on M4 carbine.net? If you can't be inclined I will be happy to ask them myself.

EDIT: Don't worry about it I just asked him
 
Of course I can't be inclined, Im not ever going to be in such a situation and this conversation has very little merit to most of us.

Perhaps those guys will tell you they chamber AFTER emerging from the water? I don't know what their procedures are, but surely SOMEONE had this conversation with someone else long before HK made their little video. There are plenty of youtube videos out there of DI AR15s firing after being submerged… the operator simply chambers the round after pulling the gun out of the water. Seems pretty straight forward to me and takes but a fraction of a second.
 
knock-knock said:
Of course I can't be inclined, Im not ever going to be in such a situation and this conversation has very little merit to most of us.

Perhaps those guys will tell you they chamber AFTER emerging from the water? I don't know what their procedures are, but surely SOMEONE had this conversation with someone else long before HK made their little video. There are plenty of youtube videos out there of DI AR15s firing after being submerged… the operator simply chambers the round after pulling the gun out of the water. Seems pretty straight forward to me and takes but a fraction of a second.
Click to expand...

And makes noise that could alert patrol. Or get them unwanted attention from elsewhere, and fractions of a second can cost lives, and in case of sof missions jeopardize national security, either way it is inferior approach to a problem that really doesn't exist anymore.

I agree it has no merit for us civilian shooters. Especially an ar platform that punches holes in paper at a nice clean range and on a worst case scenario outside on a match. Hence why I own a DI ar.
 
So many Heckler & Koch tears in this thread...

B-but, but, they are three TIMES as expensive! They must be better, right guys?

Nope.

And the G-36 is still one of Eugene Stoner's creations - it uses the same action as the AR-18, but is encased in a plastic shell.
 
DoubleA said:
So many Heckler & Koch tears in this thread...

B-but, but, they are three TIMES as expensive! They must be better, right guys?

Nope.

And the G-36 is still one of Eugene Stoner's creations - it uses the same action as the AR-18, but is encased in a plastic shell.
Click to expand...

Read the bloody links I posted the unit cost of a hk416 is approximately $1425 per rifle, the current m4 is approximately 1k, 1300-1400 with the kac rails installed. Does that sound like 3 times more to you? If it does I recommend a lesson in math class.

It doesn't matter whether it is a H&K or bersa, if it proves itself to be fully functional and top notch hardware it gets my attention.

And nobody here is bashing stoner, the man chucked out some stellar designs. These in my opinion is revised and tweaked to the full extent of the design potential using the materials that we know of at this time.

This is a particularly peculiar trend in this industry that baffles me slightly, while every other industry such as automotive, and aerospace are pushing the boundaries of what is possible and what is the pinnacle of what is possible, yet here everyone is content to run something that is over half a decade old, without ever asking the question what if we can make it better? No desire to try and improve something. There is always a way to improve something. For all I know 15 years down a new design will come in, and make the 416 look like it's archaic and outdated. And I will be happy to embrace it as well. I like encouraging progress and improvement. Then again half the clowns are happy to run a century old design handgun that is behind any modern handgun for capacity or reliability so why am I even surprised?
 
bacon1337 said:
Read the bloody links I posted the unit cost of a hk416 is approximately $1425 per rifle, the current m4 is approximately 1k, 1300-1400 with the kac rails installed. Does that sound like 3 times more to you? If it does I recommend a lesson in math class.

It doesn't matter whether it is a H&K or bersa, if it proves itself to be fully functional and top notch hardware it gets my attention.

And nobody here is bashing stoner, the man chucked out some stellar designs. These in my opinion is revised and tweaked to the full extent of the design potential using the materials that we know of at this time.

This is a particularly peculiar trend in this industry that baffles me slightly, while every other industry such as automotive, and aerospace are pushing the boundaries of what is possible and what is the pinnacle of what is possible, yet here everyone is content to run something that is over half a decade old, without ever asking the question what if we can make it better? No desire to try and improve something. There is always a way to improve something. For all I know 15 years down a new design will come in, and make the 416 look like it's archaic and outdated. And I will be happy to embrace it as well. I like encouraging progress and improvement. Then again half the clowns are happy to run a century old design handgun that is behind any modern handgun for capacity or reliability so why am I even surprised?
Click to expand...

They're weapons of war, and as such, are improved at the behest of the potential buyer. If a request comes out and manufacturers with deep enough pockets want to risk the R&D costs on it, we potentially see a better weapons system once completed. Unfortunately it takes untold resources to re-equip an entire military, let alone train them and their supporting roles on the new system. At the end of the day they have to make the call whether these marginal improvements are enough? I mean its still just a rifle shooting a primitive bullet... Its inherently limited by physics.

Is the 416 better than a standard AR? perhaps... But certainly not enough to negate the above. Same goes for most new rifles.
 
knock-knock said:
They're weapons of war, and as such, are improved at the behest of the potential buyer. If a request comes out and manufacturers with deep enough pockets want to risk the R&D costs on it, we potentially see a better weapons system once completed. Unfortunately it takes untold resources to re-equip an entire military, let alone train them and their supporting roles on the new system. At the end of the day they have to make the call whether these marginal improvements are enough? I mean its still just a rifle shooting a primitive bullet... Its inherently limited by physics.

Is the 416 better than a standard AR? perhaps... But certainly not enough to negate the above. Same goes for most new rifles.
Click to expand...

Negate what? This mythical 3x pricetag per rifle?

I don't disagree with you, but my question to c77 was what made it inferior to the c7/c8, he said it offered no advantages with more drawbacks, which implies it is inferior, then he just said I am an industry pro. Trust me.

Sorry industry pro or not you have to show trial data, whether it is your own or not.
 
Last edited:
bacon1337 said:
Then again half the clowns are happy to run a century old design handgun that is behind any modern handgun for capacity or reliability so why am I even surprised?
Click to expand...

Look man, arguing about the merits of HK hardware is NOT the point of this thread. As C77 said, we have G36's and 416's coming, if you want one, buy one. If the M16 platform isn't the holy grail of firearms design, then slapping a piston into one isn't likely to make it so. For my own little dissertation, calling out the M1911 on reliability is just silly. Load a properly made 1911 with the correct ammo in the correct magazine, and it will function all day long. Slap components that were never intended for the design in there, and it fails. Simple as that.

Negate what? This mythical 3x pricetag per rifle?
Click to expand...

FAR more than 3x in the short term. Retraining an entire military, plus re-tooling for the new design costs a ridiculous amount of coin. As a Tool and Die maker in training, I can tell you for a FACT that even acquiring the tooling to mold new pistol grips or stocks can cost hundreds of thousands of dollars, PER mold! The mass production industry is incredibly expensive to change, especially when over a half decade of infrastructure already exists for the M16 platform. The 416 may or may not be better than the M4, but the amount of improvement that it would have to offer to justify the millions (at LEAST) that it would cost to replace the M4's with them would have to be astronomical.

TL;DR HK is cool, but they're not the messiah of firearms design. Buy one if you like them, don't if you don't.

Getting this back on track, I personally like the G36, and I'm ecstatic at the chance to add an IDZ spec rifle to my collection. Diversifying the black rifle choices, especially NR ones that are available to us is just icing on the cake for this gun nut!
 
The small arms world is already hit a pinnacle and is limited mostly by the ammunition right now, without any major wars on the horizon I doubt the need for newer system will be as abundant in terms of R&D spending for a while.

That being said I hope the G36 comes to market here in Canada very soon.
 
Btw this unit cost you keep bringing up... I don't suppose that includes massive armourer inventory overhaul and training updates does it? If you're wondering why a military won't switch to an HK416 that's 'only' a few hundred bucks more, that may be a clue. Marginal upgrade for not-so-marginal dollars.
 
Athrun[Zaft said:
Look man, arguing about the merits of HK hardware is NOT the point of this thread. As C77 said, we have G36's and 416's coming, !
Click to expand...

Sorry I missed where HK416 are coming into the country? Do you mean MR223/MR556? Which are already available?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom