German Defense Minister: G36 Has “No Future” With Bundeswehr

0,,18302974_403,00

The fate of the trouble G36 rifle has been revealed: German Defense Minister Ursula von der Leyen announced on Wednesday that the Bundeswehr would seek immediate replacement for the rifle. From DW.de:

Germany’s military will have to find a replacement for the current G36 assault rifle, according to Defense Minister Ursula von der Leyen. Special Forces troops are to receive new weapons immediately.

Germany’s military was likely to get a replacement for Heckler & Koch’s G36 rifles after Defense Minister Ursula von der Leyen declared on Wednesday that the weapon had “no future in the German army in its current state of construction.”
The Defense Ministry would now work towards replacing the gun as soon as possible, von der Leyen said after she met with representatives of the parliamentary Defense Commission in Berlin.
Immediate replacement for soldiers
Special Forces deployed in conflict areas were to receive replacement weapons immediately, the minister added. However, she did not exclude the possibility of the army adopting a new version of the G36, produced by weapons company Heckler & Koch.
Problems with the assault rifle would be discussed within the Defense Ministry and initially there would be no parliamentary commission to examine the ministry’s findings, opposition parties said in Berlin.
The Left and the Green parties would at some point in time question Interior Minister Thomas de Maiziere on the G36 affair. De Maiziere served as defense minister in 2010, when problems with the weapon first came to light.
Low accuracy at high temperatures
The assault rifle’s capabilities came under scrutiny after a study commissioned by the German Defense Ministry last year claimed “the weapons system did not fulfill the requirements.”
The weapon’s capacity to hit targets fell to 30 percent when the surrounding temperature reached 30 degrees Celsius (86 Fahrenheit) or when the weapon became hot through constant use, the report said.
The reason for the gun’s poor precision was its “complete system,” the research revealed.

 

Von der Leyen did not exclude the possibility that the next rifle could be from Heckler and Koch, nor even that it could be a variation of the G36 itself. However, the possibility of retrofit of older rifles -beyond re-using some mechanical components – seems distant; the Bundeswehr appearsย thoroughly dissatisfied with the weapon.

What rifle will the Bundeswehr adopt to replace it? A month ago, I would have had a difficult time entertaining the thought of a German service rifle that was not from Heckler and Koch, but now the matter is much more opaque. Whichever rifle the Bundeswehr selects, the US adoption of the M4A1 and the German rejection of the G36 together signal a shift toward infantry weapons that can sustain intensive fire regimens and away from those designed for lightness uber alles.

Our previous coverage of this controversy can be found here, here, and here.

 

Thanks to Daniel for the tip.



Nathaniel F

Nathaniel is a history enthusiast and firearms hobbyist whose primary interest lies in military small arms technological developments beginning with the smokeless powder era. In addition to contributing to The Firearm Blog, he runs 196,800 Revolutions Per Minute, a blog devoted to modern small arms design and theory. He can be reached via email at nathaniel.f@staff.thefirearmblog.com.


Advertisement

  • Frank Aking

    They will go with the HK 416. German made, already in the arsenals of their special operations, fielded by several nations, STANAG and commonality of parts with US weapons, accessories etc.

    • UnrepentantLib

      If they want something immediately, that seems like the best course.

      • KestrelBike

        Vader over at HK flips the manufacturing switch from G36 to HK 416 – “All too easy”

    • I will laugh a lot if an AR-15 derivative replaces the G36. >:D

      • My bet is a 416

        • The 416 seems like an obvious candidate – but I wonder if it will be disqualified due to a combination of cost and animosity.

          • Esh325

            You mean animosity for using a design that isn’t completely German engineered like the G36 was?

          • No, I mean that the Bundeswehr does not seem to like Heckler and Koch very much right now.

          • aka_mythos

            Well the Belgian and Swiss speak German some of the time… I’m sure SIG and FN would love a shot at a contract.

          • Esh325

            The Belgians speak Dutch and French.

          • aka_mythos

            Their official languages are French, Dutch, and German…

          • Esh325

            Yes, you’re right my mistake.

          • roguetechie

            Except the only Sig branch capable of filling new orders speaks…. Erm American.

            And as for FN…. so which one would you suggest from the current product line?

            The 4 figure priced 22 mag

            The 4 figure priced tactical tuna

            OR
            The even higher 4 figure priced but we woulda charged 5 figures for if Bob’s rain gutter emporium wasn’t extruding our receivers for $40 a meter combination boat oar/anchor with adjustable paddle width?

          • iksnilol

            What about Sig in Switzerland and Germany? They suddenly can’t make rifles for some reason?

          • All the Raindrops

            Seems like everyone I hear from with a sig rifle has to send it back because of QC and malfunctions. .. and they’re buying those piston guns because they’re supposed to be more reliable than a ar15….. ironic.

          • iksnilol

            I don’t know. My experience with Sig pistols and their bolt actions has been positive.

            Their automatics I don’t know since I haven’t tried them.

          • M

            Sig Exeter (Sig usa) is different from the parent company. Different QC, and IMO they are more interested in putting out more variants and experimenting with different new products then selling a few well made/inspected flagshipflagship/core guns. It’s kinda going the way of Taurus (although not that bad yet… )

          • john huscio

            That assessment would’ve been accurate 5 or 6 years ago….not so much today…..their rifles still have some bugs but the p320 is a bonafide game changer (and excellent pistol)

          • They really don’t have the volume production capacity, as I understand it. I believe Sig sells more guns to US civilians than they do to the rest of the world combined.

          • Noodle rifle is the obvious choice.

          • roguetechie

            Yup lol, all FN has to do is bust out the spare pasta maker. Honestly I don’t actually have a problem with extrusions, what I have a problem with is paying a couple grand for the privilege of owning one.

          • nova3930

            If I’m not mistaken FN is currently producing M4s for the US Military. I’d imagine permission to produce some utilizing the TDP for a NATO ally would be a rubber stamp process…

          • roguetechie

            That’s making the assumption that Germany would touch the m4. Honestly if Germany went that route I’d lay my favorite AK and my good AR in a bet that they’d pay Diemaco for THEIR TDP.

          • nova3930

            Don’t misunderstand me. I don’t think it’s a likely outcome, just a possible one. Unless the well is just completely poisoned between the German gov’t and H&K, I’d lay $ on the 416. If the well is poisoned, I’m not sure where they’d go. Colt via Diamaco is certainly an option with the C7A3 or C8A3, depending on if they want a rifle or a carbine. Or maybe possibly something in between like the M-16A5.

          • roguetechie

            I like the way they built the Canadian army rifles with a 6 position and a 20 inch reasonable profile barrel. I’d love to get one of theirs to use for a year or two to see how the improvements they listed function.

          • Anon. E Maus

            Sig rifles would be a pretty good candidate for replacements actually.

          • MR

            Be kind of ironic if the Bundeswehr saved Colt from bankruptcy. It’d irritate the H&K fanbois nicely, too.

          • Joshua

            More than likely they would go with the Diemeco/Colt Canada.

          • MR

            Neither one is very likely at all, IMO, but either would be very entertaining. The pandemonium on the H&K forums. H&K would probably totally cut off the North American markets in retaliation.

          • Joshua

            Yeah I doubt any US company will be allowed to compete. Colt Canada is the only one would would stand a chance.

            But you never know, they may be willing to spend $1,500 to $2,000 per rifle for the 416.

          • LCON

            no way HK USA is more likely to spin off then be cut off.

          • THULE_NORD

            Exactly. I wouldn’t be surprised if they took a different design Hk dreamed up

          • Esh325

            For the Germany army though, it seems they want an immediate solution and wouldn’t want to wait the years it would take for H&K to make a new design. The only other modern design H&K has made is the XM8, but I think it may have the same problems the G36 has.

          • THULE_NORD

            I concur, but Hk may have designs in prototype ready to go for all we know. I just can’t see the German army using anything other than Hk, but they will absolutely use a German company.

          • n0truscotsman
          • Twistlock

            No, Schmeisser is to shady.
            They sold rifles and parts to russia without permission.
            I also doubt they had the capacity to fullfill a army contract.

          • LCON

            I doubt they have the size to keep up production for a rearmament of the German military.

          • All the Raindrops

            EG akm kits lol.

          • That’s because the XM8 *is* a G36, effectively.

          • Rusty Shackleford

            Except the G36 isn’t German-engineered. It was engineered by British Aerospace – Royal Ordnance Devision.

          • HK was owned by BAe at the time, but you’ll note that all of the patents were from HK employees.

          • MPWS

            …and weight, your favoured subject. Anything over 3kg is verboten!

          • Anon. E Maus

            Well, it works, but it does nothing that say, a Colt Canada rifle can’t do already at a substantially lower price.

            In my opinion, they should go for C7 rifles and C8 carbines, and then ponder if they figure the logistics are worth it to them to chamber the C8 carbines in .300BLK

        • Patrick Mingle

          Apparently there have also been complaints within the Bundeswehr about the capabilities of the 5.56 so maybe they look at the the HK417?

          • I don’t think there is any discussion of the next rifle being in a different caliber.

          • maybe so???

          • Well, thy just spent a lot of money on the MG4, so I doubt they are scrapping 5.56mm

          • Anon. E Maus

            If there’s complaints about the 5.56 it’s probably from the short-barreled carbines, 5.56 performs great out of a long barrel but it’s actually quite lackluster in a short gun, maybe they will consider the .300BLK for carbines if this is enough of an issue.

            I doubt they’d deploy the 417 as an infantry rifle, battle rifles for infantry use is not really a thing anymore, these days, they’re relegated to being designated marksman rifles or sniper rifles, which the Bundeswehr actually uses it for already.

        • Joshua

          Cost will be the biggest part of the 416. It ranges anywhere from $1,500 to $2,000 a rifle which is a lot.

        • Steve_7

          They’ve never had the money to buy enough G36s, so the chances of going to the 416 are basically nil. I’m sure the replacement will be old G3s.

      • Frank

        There’s that company in Germany who makes DI guns, Oberland Arms. I know they recently lost a trial against the HK 417 for a DMR rifle for the German military, but who knows how political that was given the same HK lost to the LMT 308 DI gun in British trials. Maybe the German made DI guns were of dubious quality, who knows.

        • Joshua

          The AR-10 is much tricked than the AR-15 to get right.

          I would bet LMT knows a lot more than Oberland about making them, which would explain why the Oberland lost.

    • THULE_NORD

      My first guess was 416 too. With the Germans it’s hard to say though, they won’t want to look too “American”.

    • Frank

      I just wonder how really proven the HK 416 would be. It’s used by special forces all over the world, but special forces guns get attention that regular service rifles don’t receive. They’re constantly inspected, rebuilt, and shot a ton in a short amount of time.

    • RealitiCzech

      Depends on how big a grudge the Bundeswehr have about this. The 416 is very expensive – not sure they’ll be too happy to fork out 2k a pop to the same company that built this disaster.
      They might just go with FN instead.

  • Guest

    I guess that means more G36’s for the Kurds

    • Or a lot more G36s for the Kurds.

      • Esh325

        Or some “moderate” Islamic Rebels.

      • Cal S.

        Laughing so hard right now!

  • TDog

    With France looking to replace the FAMAS, is there a possibility that Germany and France will field the same infantry weapon in the near future?

    • It’s conceivable.

    • idahoguy101

      That would make too much good sense!

    • Seburo

      They couldn’t make a Fighter jet together but that is due the impatience of the French. Although their SOF units buy the same weapons and both are funding the MBDA Meteor.

      • Yallan

        Fighter jets are arguably the most complex machinery on the planet, a rifle is a toy compared to that. Germany SHOULD adopt the same rifle as the French, as the latter are the most militarily active in the EU. And standardization is essential for european nations to work together in any military capacity.

        • Joshua

          And with France allowing only EU rifles to compete they eliminated any US or Canadian company from entering.

          Another sign the HK416 could be chosen.

  • Esh325

    The obvious,easiest, and perhaps the best choice would be the HK416. There’s nothing really wrong with the HK416 other than it doesn’t have a folding stock, and seems well liked with those who use it. If the German military doesn’t choose to upgrade the G36, you can pretty much consider the G36 a dead rifle with no future. Nobody will want to touch it.

    • Uniform223

      why does it HAVE to have a folding stock?

      • Yeah, I don’t see the folding stock being that big a deal, either.

        • Esh325

          It’s not like a dire absolute addition must need for a rifle, but is a very useful feature to have otherwise I don’t think so many countries would have made rifles that have folding stocks. The M4 would have a folding stock too were it not for its buffer design.

          • Would it? The AK-74 doesn’t, and the AK-74M only does in the interests of standardization.

            Folding stocks come with their own pros and cons, irrespective of the requirements they place on receiver design.

          • Esh325

            If there wasn’t any practical need for a folding stock, they wouldn’t have designed rifles that have them. The AKMS,AKS-74, and AKS-74U all had folding stocks. While not every soldier may have use for a folding stock, there are probably many who do make use it. In terms of cons, I don’t think there’s really that many to have a folding stock like a properly designed one found on the AK-74M.

          • I didn’t say there was no practical need. Folders are welcomed by vehicle crews, paratroopers, etc. However, folders come at a cost (higher weight, lower durability, and/or being very un-stocklike), and designs that lack them are not at a serious disadvantage.

          • Esh325

            I had an AK with the AK-100 style folding mechanism and just using it, it felt like it was one of the most robust solid looking folding stocks. As far being un stock like, it was a problem with older style folding stocks that were made out of meta mostlyl, but with newer designs like the AK-74M’s, it’s every bit as comfortable as a fixed stock in my experience.

          • I currently own an SLR-104FR. Yes, it’s a solid lockup. No, it’s not as good a stock as an AR-15’s slider (though it could be, I guess). Yes, it adds about half a pound to the gun.

          • Dario B.

            my sig 550 (stgw90, 1 meter long not folded) is perfect with the folding stock! It’s solid and well made, and i assure you that in vehicles and tanks it is just perfect! (I’m a swiss army sergeant)

          • iksnilol

            The Americans don’t want to admit how useful a folding stock is because their rifle can’t have one. That would mean admitting their rifle isn’t the best thing since sliced bread. Also because they don’t have them they never experience how useful they are.

          • Renegade

            I think the only significant instance of U.S. troops being issued a long arm with a folding stock was the M1A1 during WWII.

            We don’t see a lot of folding stocks here in the U.S. The only relatively-common ones that come to mind are the occasional AK and the Butler Creek stock for a 10/22.

            Aside from the AR being so ubiquitous, I think a big part of not seeing folding stocks is the NFA requirement that rifles must have an OAL of at least 26″

          • pc299

            Untrue, OAL is measured with stock extended

          • Renegade

            Quite right. I mixed CA law with Federal law.

            I’m used to California where the weapon Is measured in the folded configuration, not extended.

          • My SLR has a folding stock. Why do you think Americans can’t have rifles with folding stocks?

          • iksnilol

            I am not saying that you can’t have rifles with folding stocks.

            It is just that the AR-15 is the most popular rifle in the US… and it can’t have a folding stock (barring some stocks, but I don’t count them since they are hard to get, expensive and/or disable the rifle while they are folded).

            While AKs, VZ58s, SCARs, and a bunch of others usually come with a folding stock by default. If they aren’t necessary then millitary rifles that can have them wouldn’t have them.

          • AKs do not come with folding stocks by default; neither do Vz. 58s.

            The truth is that many Americans have experiences with folding stocks and don’t think they’re necessary or desirable. In fact, the SLR-104FR was my second choice for an AK-74; I wanted a fixed stock gun.

            What a coincidence it is, then, that many countries that use rifles that are compatible with folding stocks do not add that feature!

          • iksnilol

            Look for pictures of soldiers with VZ58s, I can almost bet a box of .22 that you will see more VZ58s with folding stocks than without in service. That is a bit telling IMO.

            Also, if you have been getting AKs that have been made in the last 20 years then most likely they have a folding stock.

          • Please, the primary variant of the vz. 58 is the fixed stock version. Shoot the folder sometime, and you’ll learn why.

            AKs are still made with fixed stocks, in addition to the folding variants.

            Fixed stocks are a luxury, and they don’t come for free. People who have shot a lot more folding stocked guns than you (IIRC, you’re 18 or 19 and don’t own firearms, right? It’s possible I have you confused with someone else) are telling you they’re not all they’re cracked up to be. You should listen to us. ๐Ÿ™‚

          • iksnilol

            All the VZ58s I have seen in service are folders. All the AK-100 series AKs have folding stocks.

            My personal firearm situation is a bit complicated. I live in two countries, and in the country I live in the least all the good stuff is. Here in Norway, I borrow until I get my license and get some decent and legal guns.

            Also, I hate to be rude, but how many people have you killed? Because I know a lot of people who have killed and they all prefered the folding stocks. Both for close quarters fighting and for practical purposes (y’know, cars, working, stuff like that). So, please tell me how a part-time historical researcher, apprentice small arms know-it-all (your words, not mine) blog writer knows better than battle-hardened veterans. Again, I don’t intend to be rude so I hope I don’t come off as rude.

          • Man, no offense, but you’re constantly rude; though I don’t think you mean anything by it. Your posting history is one of coming into conversations with an obvious lack of experience and then arguing with people who know what they’re talking about.

            It reminds me a lot of myself when I was younger, so it doesn’t make me angry, but I’m telling you now: I think a lot of folks would cotton to you better if you made the extra effort to speak more carefully, and to only make hard assertions about things you have direct experience with.

            I get the impression that you’re a young guy – I think you even said you were in your teens once before, right? If so, take it from somebody who’s got a few years on you, and who’s had similar experiences on the Internet: People will respect you much more if you choose your words carefully.

            I’m giving you a pass on the above comment – which I think could make another person pretty angry, especially if they had killed someone. Feel free to try again.

          • iksnilol

            Well, you guys asked for combat experience or credentials to back up what I am saying… So when I ask of the same from you, then it is seemingly a problem?

          • Mate, you asked me if I’d killed anyone. Do I have to spell out why it is a bad idea to ask a stranger that?

            I never mentioned anything about combat experience or credentials – you took us straight from 0 to “have you ever killed anyone”? What is the point of asking that question? Anyone who answers “yes” to win an argument about folding stocks almost assuredly has never done so.

            You’re not on the panel for the Congressional hearing on folding stocks, man. You’re talking to a guy on the Internet.

          • iksnilol

            Well, one guy (Joshua IIRC) did ask for credentials (not you though, I will give you a point there). I just presume he is following this comment line.

            We all have to live with what we have done. Hiding bad/good stuff you have done won’t help you. Now I am not saying to confess to everything to a bloke on the internet but also don’t keep it deep down and hidden and all. If you do then it will eventually resurface and wreck you mentally… personal experience with that.

            I will just have to assume cultural differences. Where I am from most people are content if not happy for having killed someone, because in pretty much all cases it was killing people who commited genocide in your country. Not saying there aren’t people with mental issues or anything (also, you obviously wouldn’t be happy for accidentally killing someone or something like that. But those cases are rare). I presume most have PTSD from the daily shellings.

          • …What?

          • iksnilol

            Ah crap… you are shocked/surprised?

          • No. I have been set upon in a dark alley by the incarnation of total bafflement.

          • iksnilol

            Could have been worse… You could have either stubbed your toe or hit your head on the doorframe. Personally I don’t know which is worse.

          • Do you have a problem with me, or something?

          • iksnilol

            Nah, I have no problem with you. I just tried to be funny. I thought stubbing toes is one thing everybody has in common since everyone has done it.

          • Don Ward

            Now are we talking people Nathaniel has killed on accident or on purpose? Because I believe he has to count them differently for tax purposes.

          • Joshua

            One who admits he never served has no right to ask another to prove his worth by counting his kills.

          • Beyond that, I think it’s really funny that folks are taking such an obviously tongue-in-cheek author’s bio as absolute fact.

            Iks isn’t the only one, ARFCOM also was trying to grill me over it.

          • iksnilol

            Yes I have the right. You don’t need to be millitary to kill people with a clear conscience.

          • Esh325

            The military models AK-100 series/AK-74M all have folding stocks. Pretty much every newer AK design have folding stocks by default. The AK-74M,AK-12,Galil Ace,Serbian M21.

          • Yes. They all pay the price for that.

          • Phil Hsueh

            That’s not solid or conclusive evidence, that’s merely circumstantial at best and it would not win you a case in court. The only thing that most pictures of the VZ58 with folding stocks proves is that there are lots of pictures of them with folding but that doesn’t necessarily equate to the same thing as most of them have folding stocks. The reason being is similar to a lot these viral videos of police beatings, you’re not getting the complete picture. In the case of these VZ58s, do you know for a fact that each of these pictures is of a unique individual with a unique gun and not just a picture of the same guy carrying the same VZ58 but from another day, hour, minute, angle, location etc.? For example, if there are 1,000 pictures of Pvt. Snuffy carrying his folding stock VZ58 while on patrol in Nowheristan and only 100 of Pvt. Dilweed (not knowing that these were only 2 individual and not 1,100) and his fixed stock it’s going to seem like there’s 10x the number of folding stock VZ58s even though the actual ratio might be the opposite but because you saw 10x the number of pictures of Pvt. Snuffy and his folding stock VZ58 it only looks the folding stock is more common.

            The only way that you can definitively prove that folding stock versions of a given rifle or even SMG are more popular/common than the fixed stock version would be to take a look at the numbers. The numbers produced, sold, and issued/fielded and only then would you start to get an accurate idea of which is the most prevalent or popular.

          • iksnilol

            Well, if you could find production numbers for different variants of VZ58s then we could settle that matter properly. For now, we can only look at circumstantial evidence and of course if you look at the different variants available for sale you will see there are more versions with folding stocks than without.

          • Phil Hsueh

            That still doesn’t prove anything conclusively. What you’re stating is just an opinion based on circumstantial or anecdotal evidence and would never hold up in a court of law or any sort of peer reviewed scientific/professional journal. The lack of evidence is not the same as evidence of lacking, or something to that effect.

          • iksnilol

            Well, good for me I am nto in a court of law I would presume.

          • Phil Hsueh

            Nope, you’re definitely not, it’s the interwebz. Anyhow, the reason why I’m pointing out the fallacies in your argument is that the way you worded things you’re making it sound like that your photo evidence is conclusive evidence that folding stocks are more popular/fielded wth this gun where as all it does is support your opinion or is the basis for your opinion.

          • Jay

            They don’t like the folding stock, because the favorite toy, the ar15, can’t have it. So if something is not on the AR15, it must be bad.

          • My favorite toy is my AK, which has a folding stock. So why do I not like them?

          • Esh325

            The SCAR-H has a folding stock and it’s used by the US military. Why did Socom ask for a rifle that has a folding stock if it’s immaterial? I mean they very easily could have asked them not to have a rifle with a folding stock or even use the AR stock adapter, but they don’t.

          • Because they wanted one? They also wanted a reciprocating charging handle and for the rifle to be able to change calibers from 7.62 and 5.56. They also wanted quick barrel changes so that they could configure the barrel lengths for the mission.

            On this last, they found out that it was much better to just swap entire uppers, as you tend to change out your optics with your barrel length, and that way you can keep them zeroed together.

          • Joshua

            Because the Mk-17 clearly does not have a folding stock right?

            Like I said a few posts up, can you give me some situations you have found that a folding stock is useful that come from actual combat experience?

          • iksnilol

            I am not a soldier. So, no, I don’t have combat experience. I know plenty of people with combat experience though, I can always ask them. Most of them appreciated a folding stock (and some just removed the stock of their regular rifle) for close quarters fighting.

            Also, regarding the MK-17, does your average US soldier or marine use a SCAR or something in the AR family?

          • Literally the only time I ever say the word “need” in this conversation is this:

            “I didn’t say there was no practical need. Folders are welcomed by vehicle crews, paratroopers, etc. However, folders come at a cost (higher weight, lower durability, and/or being very un-stocklike), and designs that lack them are not at a serious disadvantage.”

            The point is that folder/not folder is pretty much potato potahto. Yes, a folding stock is something certain users can appreciate, but it’s not that big a deal, and it comes with its own set of tradeoffs.

          • egoman

            we are talking about military weapon not civilian’s toy

            if you don’t understand the importance of folding stock

            then you’re not a soldier

            Folding stock is quite big deal

          • Uniform223

            I was a soldier and I had familiarization training with foreign weapons that did have folding stocks, I didn’t care much for them. Does that make MY opinion less then a soldier that did have a weapon with a folding stock.

            From personal experience I would rather exit a HMMWV with a fully collapsed stock that I can quickly shoulder and bring to the ready than taking that extra second to pop out that stock. That is just MY VIEW as a FORMER SOLDIER. The only time I saw folding stocks folded was when they were not in use or in storage.

          • egoman

            and plz if you never been touched folding stock

            then never said about them

          • Google translate is not really working out for you, my friend.

          • egoman

            you are not a soldier are you?

          • All the Raindrops

            “only in the interest of standardization”

            Uh, no. It’s an added feature with no downside.

          • Adds weight, cost, and imposes architectural limitations that can also add weight and cost.

            Also most folders blow as actual stocks.

          • egoman

            did not add much weight nethier cost

            but give soldier a compactness even with a long barrel

        • Tom

          The thing is every rifle is going to be a compromise. You decide what you want to do well and what you are willing to sacrifice and go from there. The lack of a folder has not hurt sales of AR15 designs but then again most users of rifles which can use a folder do seem to do so.

          So in essence I would say a folder is a good thing but I do not see it as a deal breaker if its absent. Also the sliding stock of the M4 is preferable in many ways as it can be made to fit each user on the fly something which can be done (easily enough) with folders but adds weight and cost. Now the German military being comprised mostly of Northern Europeans does not have to worry as much about having a rifle which works for both tall and shorter troops like say the US military does.

      • Esh325

        A folding stock can come in handy in a lot of situations.

        • Joshua

          No not really. I can never recall any situation I was in that I wished I had a folding stock.

          • HobgoblinTruth

            Apparently it comes handy since so many rifles have folding stock. Most soldiers don’t see combat very often and when you carry rifle around folding stock probably becomes very handy (especially in vehicles).

            You must remember that most of the times soldiers aren’t in a combat and large majority never see direct combat with enemy.

          • Yallan

            A long rifle makes getting in and out of vehicles a choreographed dance move. When jumping out from a truck, the butt of a long rfile can shatter your teeth or knock you in the face. Hence the popularity of folding stocks. A better option would be a bullpup imo.

          • kontra

            Store your weapon in a vehicle when you are mounted?! Have your weapon with you when you jump out of an airplane etc (notin your jumping luggage)?!. A folding stock isnยดt a must…but it has its advantages.

          • Joshua

            Reminds me of when one certain HK rep loves to argue about how we should have adopted the XM8 because they offer a compact version for firing from within vehicles.

            Because rolling down your window when taking fire is a genious idea.

            The M4 is very easy to jump with, there just is no combat use for a collapsing stock that I have ever found.

          • Esh325

            But just because you haven’t found one doesn’t mean there aren’t people who have.

          • Joshua

            I could invent some. But real world use none popped up.

          • All the Raindrops

            Then why, in almost every pic on the internet of ak underfolders, do you see them folded while ppl carrying them are patrolling, or not taking direct fire at that moment.

          • Joshua

            I’m not sure what point your trying to make with that statement.

            Since almost every picture on Google image when searching for “ak underfolder” are civilian owned rifles.

          • Esh325

            If you’re trying to argue that a folding stock is absolutely useless and has no place on military rifles then that’s a very silly argument based on how many countries have fielding rifles with folding stocks with the Russians being the best example issuing folding stocks to vehicle crews,paratroopers, and other soldiers.

          • No, we’re saying that the lack of a folder on the AR-15 family of rifles is virtually immaterial.

          • Esh325

            If its immaterial on the AR15 then that would make it immaterial on every rifle that uses a folding stock which I don’t buy considering the mass use of folding stocks. Like I said, not a huge disadvantage, but a nice feature to have.

          • From where I’m sitting, I am seeing a whole lot of rifles that lack folding stocks, even though they could have them. I think this nail’s hammered in all the way, but I’ll repeat myself:

            Comfort
            Durability
            Lightness

            With folding stocks, choose two.

          • Joshua

            I also wouldn’t consider Russia a military to model one after.

            They are horribly outdated with the vast majority of their equipment.

          • Esh325

            I don’t think it’s really fair to say they’re “outdated” when there are really totally different dynamics when it comes to comparing say the US military and Russian military. If the US military had to deal with the climate,geography, and mass size of Russia I’m sure they would have “outdated” equipment too. And even if we buy your argument that Russia is “outdated” there are still plenty of Western armies that issue folding stock rifles with the Belgians being one.

          • Joshua

            I’m just saying, their training is dated, a lot of their soldiers get issued chest rigs, alot get issued flak jacket, and only their best yet real armor.

            They resemble how our soldiers were equipped in Desert Storm for the most part.

    • egoman

      We are talking about military weapon not civilian’s toy

      if you don’t understand the importance of folding stock

      then you’re not a soldier

      Folding stock is quite big deal

  • Southpaw89

    Have to wonder how such a glaring issue was missed in the initial testing.

    • Esh325

      Just look at how the M16 was originally issued…

      • Southpaw89

        The way I understand it the issues with the M-16 did not arise in testing, but showed up later when it was issued with substandard ammunition.

        • gunsandrockets

          Testing? What testing? That was the problem with the M16. Its flaws were not readily apparent until combat because those in charge assumed it was perfect as is. No ordinary testing or field trials came before hundreds of thousands were purchased and issued for combat.

          • Southpaw89

            While I could certainly stand to brush up on the history of the M-16, I do recall that many of the initial failures were due to the propellant in the ammunition being both hotter and dirtier than the M-16 was designed to handle. A significant and tragic oversight, but one that was eventually corrected.

          • gunsandrockets

            The ammunition was hotter because original ammunition failed to reach specified muzzle velocity. With the new ammunition about half the M16 produced would perform poorly. But rather than give up that specified muzzle velocity and change the ammunition back, the M16 was modified to work better with the new ammunition.

          • Of course, you need to remember that the concept of “high velocity = lethality” was one of the cartridge’s selling points. The great irony was that the military was trying to adopt Remington’s TDP for the cartridge as-is.

          • Joshua

            Then explain the AR-15 the Navy SEALs and ARVN used prior to the AR-15 getting adopted, or getting the XM16 name.

          • gunsandrockets

            The experimental issue of a small quantity of AR-15 is not comparable to actual field trials of mass produced M16. The AR-15 was railroaded into Army service, bypassing ordinary routes of adaption. That’s why when the flaws of the M16 were revealed by combat in Vietnam it was so catastrophic.

            Not only was the M16 not working right in Vietnam, there was pressure from the chain of command to keep the failures concealed. Why? The word had come on down from up high in the DOD civilian leadership, that no more resistance to the M16 would be tolerated.

        • When rapidly introducing a totally new rifle and kind of ammunition, problems are bound to arise.

          Having said that, the failure to issue M16s with chrome-lined bores sticks out to me as particularly egregious.

        • WillLeach

          Have you seen the recent inrange interviews with the M16 co designer? He admits that there were problems with the rifle beyond the ammunition, not that the ammunition wasn’t a problem.

          • Southpaw89

            No I haven’t, might have to look that one up.

          • Southpaw89

            Just watched the video, sounds like the M-16 was on the bleeding edge of failure and the new powder was the last straw. I guess that those that chose to use the new ammo were focusing too much on saving money to consider testing it in the new rife.

      • mosinman

        the M-16 was fixed though ๐Ÿ˜‰

      • n0truscotsman

        Well, the original, as in the “AR15” was generally fine. Until they changed it :/

        • gunsandrockets

          James Fallows certainly agrees with you.

          • n0truscotsman

            LOL james fallows hates the M16 in general and considering his lack of knowledge about the history of the weapon (which is hilariously ironic), I doubt he would “agree” with my opinion about the original AR15.

          • gunsandrockets

            Go read Fallows original article about the M16 that he wrote in 1981. I have.

            Your statement about the AR-15 is a distillation of what Fallows said about the AR-15.

          • n0truscotsman

            Fallows didn’t create that source of information.
            That is the technical comparison between the original AR15 and the XM16E1. In a nutshell, ill repeat myself again: The AR15 worked, and the subsequent “improvement” (using that term lightly) was flawed until it was “improved” again.
            Im not sure what is so contentious about that.

          • gunsandrockets

            Hugely amused at how simpatico your opinion on the AR-15 is with Fallows.

          • n0truscotsman

            Im not interested in being “simpatico” with fallows. Im interested in highlighting the fact that the original AR15 was different than the subsequent main service rifle during that time.
            Something that has been repeated ad nauseum because people like you still aren’t getting it.

          • I read Fallows’ book “National Defense” around 30 years ago. Since that time, I’ve come to the conclusion that it really doesn’t hold up. Fallows parroted the narrative spread by the Ichord Subcommitte’s report, but if you read the transcripts from the hearings, the technical information being presented was often over the heads of the congressmen.

          • gunsandrockets

            About that same time I read the portion of “National Defense” dealing with the M16. Fallows is a talented writer and very persuasive but also very inaccurate. Little did I know when I first read his story, that Fallows had basically written a one sided article of a two sided controversy, where he chose to champion the view of of the OSD and belittle the Army. Fallows viewpoint is almost Animal Farm like in simplicity, civilian = good, military = bad. Fallows simplistic and almost criminally libelous viewpoint on the M16, was that the AR15 was perfect as first proposed to the military, then after the Army was forced to adapt it, the Army ruined the AR15, even to the point that the M16 got soldiers killed in Vietnam.

          • Note that the Ichord Subcommittee report advocated the retention of unchromed barrels and the Edgewater buffers, over the improved chromed barrels and Sturtevant buffers. They argued that the latter modifications wouldn’t have been necessary if the Army had only retained IMR 4475 as a qualified propellant.

            During the hearings, the congressmen routinely mischaracterized the Sturtevant buffer as containing ball-bearings. Stoner mentioned multiple times that he didn’t know the specifics of the new buffer design, but that didn’t stop him from speculating that it wouldn’t slow the unlocking of the action It wasn’t long after that comment that Stoner stated that you would need to add weight to the action parts to slow the unlocking. Mind you, the Sturtevant buffer was nearly twice the weight of the original Edgewater buffer.

      • Joshua

        tisk, tisk, tisk.

        The AR-15 first issued to Navy SEALs and ARVN did fine. It was not until the Army pushed it through and cut chrome lining, cleaning kits, and training to get the M16 fielded faster did issues crop up. Even then the issues have been blown out of proportion and there were many units that saw no issues because they cleaned their rifles despite being told it was not needed.

        • Uniform223

          US Army Special Forces advisory and Ranger units also got the AR-15 before 1965 during project AGILE. Recommendations were made, none were done to my knowledge.

        • The chrome-plated bore wasn’t cut out by the Army as it was never part of the AR-15’s original design. If fact, I suspect if the Army had pushed the issue in 1963, the OSD would have shot it down as too expensive and unnecessary.

          • It’s almost like development programs are a prerequisite to sound procurement. ๐Ÿ˜‰

      • Yallan

        M16 was introduced in the middle of a conscription soldier war that wasn’t going well. Germany being tight with money is not an excuse. (considering the rifle is the most important weapon in the entire military)

    • M

      Desperation might have had something to do with it. IIRC, around the time the weapon was adopted, Germany had its defense funding cut. HK was all ready to provide them the G41 but they kept asking HK to go cheaper. The company was also not doing too well so HK also had the incentive to meet the cost requirement to secure the govt contract. That might have meant overlooking some things and cutting corners

      • Southpaw89

        Certainly believable, low budgets could also have limited testing.

  • Gunhead

    This is bigger than a technical problem. Everything about this smells like a political-industrial hit. It’s the same kind of intrigue you see with the Aerospace industry in the US.

    • MPWS

      You may be right; nothing is what it looks. There is always story behind story.
      Logic – pure and simple: why it took 20 years to figure it out and why it comes right now? It’s time to make bundle!

      • Joshua

        It’s been reported for years.

        • Yup – and HK and HK fanbois have been screaming “There’s nothing to see here!” for years.

          It’s just that, NOW, the Bundeswehr is fed up with HK excuses and attempts to blame everything *but* their inferior attempt to make an AR18 appear to be “revolutionary” when all they did was ruin it.

  • n0truscotsman
      • Joshua

        Yep. ^^^ would be the best choice for them.

      • n0truscotsman

        Man, that is beautiful.

        • MR

          Is that what H&K is saying to the German government?

        • johnhender

          what movie is that ?

          • Joshua

            Watchmen.

          • johnhender

            Thanks

          • n0truscotsman

            Watchmen.

            Its awesome.

      • Mmmm, Colt Canada IUR. I should buy one of those…

      • LCON

        They already have.

        • I dunno if they’re going to adopt the G38. It may be too expensive and/or they may be too unhappy with H&K

          • LCON

            If the Germans Drop HK for this they are going to need to empty the whole armory. Hk USP, HK MP5, HK UMP, HK MP7A1, HK G28, HK G3 ( if any are left), HK MG4, HK AG36, HK GMG, HK69A1, HK121 that got to be 80% of there Small arms

          • I don’t know if they’re that unhappy with H&K.

            Anyway, I didn’t say the G38 isn’t a contender, but it’s just not the obvious choice anymore.

          • LCON

            I am not thinking HK is just going to just squeak it in. In all likely hood HK is going to have to pay a penalty and have the German MOD watching over there shoulders

          • Anon. E Maus

            Why would they drop all those weapons when they’re all perfectly fine? They’re dropping the G36 because it is seriously flawed.

          • LCON

            That’s kinda my point. Germany has two established Assault rifles for issue the G36 ( the Trouble maker) For general issue and the G38 (HK416A5). The Trend here seems to be everyone saying, “HK Screwed up so Germany is going to drop them.” But HK has a lot more systems in the German military that have proven workable. SO Why would this suddenly shutter HK? Yes G36 is broken but given the record and the Already approved for service (G38) Why Would Germany Suddenly jump to Colt Canada or Steyr or FN or Sig or Schmeisser?
            They wouldn’t.There is no reason to.
            They will Fine HK a few million for the Faulty G36’s Quietly retire the Army Inspectors who missed what was happening and then place Large Orders for HK416A5 and beyond that will pay off the Fine and leave a profit.

  • Don Ward

    To quote one Lili Von Shtupp, “You’re finished. Fertig! Verfallen! Verlumpt! Verblunget! Verkackt!”

  • Lance

    416 or M-16/M-4 the Euro lovers must be crying all night tonight.

    • Lance

      Or does Beretta get a major win for its ARX-160???

      • Joshua

        No, just no.

      • John

        So far, the ARX has not been impressing many buyers. The countries that accepted them only did so because Beretta offered to both build a factory in their country AND let them modify the design based on their needs.

        They’re currently in the new French rifle trials. If Paris doesn’t like them, Berlin certainly won’t.

    • iksnilol

      Well, HK brought it on themselves. They thought connecting the barrel to the sights with plastic was a good idea.

      Personally, I am waiting for the MSBS or the AK-12.

  • MountainKelly

    Whoa

  • Matt

    I wonder if thousands of demilled parts kits are about to make their way here though I’m not sure what they’d be good for

    • Maybe someone will make a cast aluminum receiver. Of course, the barrels won’t be importable, so why bother?

  • MR

    I think this was the exact situation the AR18 was designed for. For which the AR180 was designed. Sorry.

    • MR

      The full auto variant. Whichever one that was.

      • Sam Schifo

        The AR18 was the select fire variant.

    • Well, the G36 is nothing but an “improved” AR18 (only using plastic where metal should have been used…)

  • Ed

    Aug

  • UCSPanther

    The G36 could have been so much more, but alas, it was botched. Hopefully, H&K will continue for the civilian market. I may decide to get an SL8 one day…

  • n0truscotsman

    Its true.

    But again, im making a broad recommendation in favor of a general M4-type you “attention to detail” bastards ๐Ÿ˜‰

    • Uniform223

      Ever since boot, attention to detail was drilled into our heads.

  • A

    I really hope they go for something exciting and out of the box.

    Like, the most conservative choice would be C8 rifles (the AR rifles used by Denmark and Canada) in 5,56, or maybe SCAR 5,56 rifles. The SCAR has such a fantastically rational design that I think a large order of it would be among the least expensive of comparable rifles, but that’s just speculation from an engineering student.

    But what if they go for something a lot more exciting? “The 5,56 is too weak for the Bundeswehr, and we don’t want to retrain every rifleman, therefore we want HK to develop a new lightweight rifle similar to the g36, but with a rigid, heat resistant connection between the barrel and the sights and in a new six point something caliber” That would be very exciting to follow.

    Or a complete surprise, like a pre-order for the ak-12 in 6,5 Grendel.

    Yes, I’m excited!

  • idahoguy101

    Did Germany store or destroy their G3 rifles?

    • John

      Not only stored, but the G3 is issued as their dedicated marksman rifle. It’s also one of the top 5 rifles used worldwide.

      • mig1nc

        Well, that gives them the specified “immediate replacement” option then.

        • Tom

          Whilst the cost would be less they would still need to retrain a lot of soldiers who have used nothing but G36s and issue new (old?) load bearing gear plus ramp up production/acquisition of 7.62mm ammo.

  • John

    1. The G36 gets remade, and this time back to spec.

    2. A new version of the G36 gets made, not only with metal in the right places, but a carbine version with a full-length accessory rail on top, and rails on the sides and bottom.

    3. The 416 becomes standard issue.

    Option 3 presents the most logistical problems, so I think it’ll be the other two. Can’t fully piss off HK, you don’t want to end up like France and be completely dependent on outsiders for military supply. On the other hand, you can’t fully piss off the German government, or they WILL absolutely destroy you. Hmm.

    • mig1nc

      Given that they have stockpiles of 5.56mm ammo and G36 mag, not to mention load bearing gear – my money is on HK416 for KSK but new G36s for everybody else. Most likely your option #1. However a really cool option #4 would be for a new HK416 with a G36 mag well. I’ve never had any strength problems with my AR mags, but they do say the G36 mag is a better design. Would be neat for them to partner with Colt on a CM901 lower module that took G36 mags. But I’m really just fantasizing here.

      • Joshua

        They also say the G36 is a better design.

      • Yallan

        Good opportunity to switch to M16 magazines.

  • DW

    Anschluss Austria so that AUG becomes German :^)
    Yeah I was kidding, the anschluss part, AUG is a proven and sound design, and they can choose either the A3 or the F90 from Thales

    • LCON

      AUG was the competing design that lost to HK G36, 20 years ago

      • Anon. E Maus

        The AUG doesn’t have serious problems with accuracy and sustained fire though, wouldn’t be a bad idea for them to reconsider the AUG, even if I personally think that Colt Canada is the ticket they’re looking for.

        • LCON

          They Won’t Change Horses. Even if they did They wouldn’t buy a rifle made in the new world.

    • Yallan

      The successor to the Aug is not the A3 but the Australian modified Thales F90, it comes with a case deflector, reduced weight, tri-rail, integrated lightweight grenade launcher and rigorous testing. It’s about time Germany adopted a bullpup. They should adopt the as yet unannounced new rifle of France, by far the most active european military. And go further down the path of standardization.

  • Colin

    Back when HK got the SA80 a2 upgrades contract, elements of the press and armed forces said we should just buy the G36 instead. Bet they’re keeping their heads down right about now!

  • Frank

    I don’t get the whole point of the polymer upper receiver/Trunnion covered in plastic. The loaded weight of a G36 with it’s optic loaded is nearly the same as the AR-18 with an ACOG and red dot. Even less so if you pair it with something lighter. And that’s for a rifle that’s made out of steel sheet metal stampings.

    • MPWS

      My sense when looking at this design is that what they saved in usage of material, they lost in bulk. AR18 is slim while HK G36 is bulky. Weight saving is more psychological affair than anything else.

    • kyphe

      The point is that it cost a fraction of the manufacturing costs, not so good for the end user though.

  • Alex Nicolin

    HK416. It’s basically a piston driven AR, has already been tested and adopted by some branches of the US armed forces and it’s compatible with most AR accessories out there. So the platform is proven and modular. HK should give them a steep discount in order to offset the poor quality of the previous platform.

    • Cost and bad blood between H&K and the Bundeswehr are its biggest obstacles.

      • Joshua

        Not to mention the only reason the 416 caught on in the USA was because 2 units did not want to wait for the Mk18 which everyone else uses.

  • HobgoblinTruth

    CZ-805 BREN is problem free, no? They should take a look at it.

    • It weighs as much as an MBT and has a thirst for the user’s blood. Not my choice.

      • n0truscotsman

        I heard through the rumor grapevine that the Czechs were having teething issues with them. This is unsubstantiated rumor ill admit, but the person I heard it from hasn’t been wrong about issues like that (he also told me about the G36 POI issues back in the early 2000s, I thought he was nuckin futs, and now the humble SOB wont even gloat to give me an opportunity to feel sorry for myself).

  • forrest1985

    I would have loved to see HK fix the problems but they don’t seem to want to accept there are any! With german govt. saying “it has no future” pretty much kills that right there! It would be nice to see something other than an AR derivative particularly considering 416’s price tag.

  • Geoff a well known Skeptic

    How about license production of the Tavor? The Budeswehr Heer used the Uzi SMG for many years. Geoff Who was in FRG guarding a border which no longer exists.

    • Seburo

      Is the German army in need of a multi-caliber weapon? They already have the MP7 to replace the UZI.
      The lack of a folding stock is a point against it for vehicles. The smaller X95 variant would be better.

      • Joshua

        The X95 has a pretty poor track record so far. It however is cheaper so it gets procured more than the Tavor.

        • Joe Schmoe

          What’s your source for the X95’s poor track record?

          My friends in the army all use it, and they love it. Some of them also had the older Tavor, and say that the X95 is much better in every way.

          • Joshua

            Maybe they improved it. I did some training with the rifle when it was new so it could have been teething problems, but the Tavor was a better rifle then.

          • Esh325

            Every rifle that isn’t a M4 seems to have “teething problems” apparently.

          • Joshua

            Wow dude, you need to get over it. The Tavor came out of the door in a really good state.

          • Joshua

            Actually come to think of it, the Tavor is probably the best release of a rifle ever. That thing came out as a mature system with little to no problems.

            It does what it was designed to do and achieves the reliability and durability requirements set for it.

            The X95 however had a different start.

          • Esh325

            Why did they replace the M4 and M16 with the Tavor?

          • Joshua

            If TFB submits my post its well thought out, but your being a total tool.

          • Esh325

            What does that have to do with why they replaced them? Nathaniel doesn’t have military experience either to my knowledge, yet you don’t bring that up as as straw because he agrees with you.

          • Joshua

            Like I said I submitted a response and it is awaiting moderation. I will keep this short.

            Tavor begins trials in 1997. M4 enters service in 1994.

            Tavor gets tested in 2000 against a 2000 model M4.

            Tavor replaced the M4 in 2002.

            Colt submits reliability enhancing ECP in 2003 and it gets approved late 2007. SOCOM adopts the Block II modification soon after.

            2002 Tavor > 2002 M4.
            2015 SOPMOD M4A1 > 2015 Tavor.

            Hopefully that helps.

            And FYI in Nathaniel made stupid comments like “I thought M4 was bestest in world 4 evah” I would call him on it to.

          • Esh325

            Stupid or not stupid, military service doesn’t automatically make you right and the other person wrong. If they tested the M4, then they also tested the M16 against it. So you’re saying the Israelis said “The M16 already fulfills our combat and reliability requirements for a rifle, but the shorter M4 doesn’t, therefore instead of trying to make the M4 as reliable as the M16 like other countries have tried, we’re going to to spend years and much more money and effort making the Tavor rifle that is radically different than a rifle we are already satisfied with.” Yeah, that makes a lot of sense. But isn’t surprising really that your idea has so many holes in it because it’s just something you made up off the top of your head, and don’t have a real source to back it up. I’m not going to pretend I know the exact reason why they replaced the M4 and M16 with the Tavor.

          • Joshua

            Umm I said why.

            The Tavor was superior to the M4 in 2000.

            Did you miss the whole 2002 Tavor > 2002 M4?

            Also the M16 is a musket, no one wants the M16 now days, especially Israel given their CQB distances.

            Have you ever tried clearing a room with a M16? It was a non starter basically when looking for a front line rifle.

            The M16 did not fulfill any requirements due to length and handeling.

          • Esh325

            You don’t seem to understand what I’m saying, let me tell you again. If the M16A1 and M16A2 the Israelis were using at the time fufilled all reliability and combat requirements, except length, and the M4 of 2002 fufilled all combat requirements except reliability, then why did they choose to replace the M16 and M4 of 2002 with a rifle that is so radically different even though they were already satisfied with the M16 and M4 except for a few things. Why didn’t they make an M4 that was just as reliable as the M16A1 or M16A2? You’re saying the Israeli arm industry is incompetent they couldn’t even do that even when other countries were doing it?

          • Joshua

            If you never noticed Israel did not make M16 or M4s. They got what Colt gave them.

            Like I said, Israel got the Tavor made, tested, and fielded before Colt even submitted the ECP in 2003.

            Sounds like they made a good choice back then.

          • Esh325

            I realize that, and in that case why didn’t they just make their own improved M4’s or a rifle that heavily resembled the M4? They didn’t choose to do either even though they had the ability to.

          • Joshua

            I have no idea of the legalities of them being given M4’s. Nor the legality of backwards engineering guns given to them by the US Government.

            That’s out of my lane, but I have a feeling there was legal things involving the TDP which is a sole source product that belongs to Colt.

            But I cannot say with absolute certainty. All I can say is the Tavor was better than what Colt gave them in 2000. But that was 15 years ago and thanks to SOCOM and their hard work on the M4A1 things are different.

          • Esh325

            That doesn’t really add up either as there already were other manufacturers of AR/M16/M4 rifles besides Colt that made them legally during the time period the Tavor was made and a TDP didn’t stop them.

          • Joshua

            Like I said not my lane. I know of no Israeli made AR-15’s though.

            You would need to ask the IDF why they did not make their own M4’s.

            I do know mods made by Colt to the Israli M4 would have had to be approved by the US Military first since we were giving them US Military rifles.

          • Esh325

            There are. http://www.gilboa-rifle.com/page7/page21/ The company has been in business since 1995 which was around the time the Tavor was being developed, but I’m not sure when they started making rifles. It’s probable the Israelis tested multiple rifles against the Tavor which might have included an improved M4 for all we know. Perhaps even if we believe your theory that the M4 back in 2002 was not as reliable as the M4 today maybe the Israelis found that even the M16 wasn’t reliable enough for their new requirements? But this is purely speculation on my part.

          • nadnerbus

            Theory on my part here, but the politics of Israel and the rest of the world in general probably had something to do with everything.

            Israel has an “us versus the world” mentality sometimes, and not without some reason. A domestically designed and manufactured weapon that could not be held up by politics in the US or elsewhere likely factored into their considerations. Also, maintaining industrial skill sets and manufacturing, in the same way the US doles out ship building contracts to the two or three main naval shipyards left.

            A clean sheet design made in country satisfies those concerns.

          • n0truscotsman

            You are correct IMO.

            Israeli has many benefits from domestically producing their own rifle. In a world where the efficacy of military aid can become compromised by the political climates of allied suppliers, they benefit greatly from weapons like the Tavor.

          • That is a strawman, though it pains me to play this card. No one on our side has argued that military service automatically makes you right.

          • Esh325

            He always brings it up when he argues with me even though I never mentioned anything about having combat or military service which he’s using to imply his opinions automatically hold more weight,

          • I think experience with the rifles in question does make one’s opinion hold more weight.

            That’s what he said, not that some POG waterboy automatically has a more valid opinion than any civilian.

          • Esh325

            Just because you “think” The tavor was only favored because there wasn’t a reliable enough M4 at the time doesn’t mean you can peddle it as absolute fact You can theorize it, but it’s a poor theory.

          • Unless, you know, you actually have experience with the M4 and know it’s history.

            What you’re doing is like arguing that we can’t prove that Teddy Roosevelt negotiated the end of the Russo-Japanese War; you’re fundamentally arguing against the historical record.

          • Esh325

            Even if you do, it still can’t be peddled as fact. How do you know they didn’t test an improved M4 against the Tavor? And if they tested an M4 it’s almost certain they also tested an M16. What if their reliability requirements required a weapon more reliable than the M16A1 and M16A2 of the time? That would make Joshua’s argument null about the M4. There is no public historical record for what he’s arguing. He can only theorize like I can. I happen to think his theories don’t really make a lot of sense.

          • I do not have military experience and will be the first to deny any claim that I do. My father was a United States Navy officer, and I take correct representation of military service – or in my case, lack thereof – very seriously.

            However, that doesn’t mean I don’t have experience with the M4 or Tavor. I do, and the M4 is in my opinion a decidedly better weapon than the Tavor.

          • idahoguy101

            The Israeli M4 and M16’s are wearing out. Israeli Defense Industries wanted to make the replacement weapon. Which they can now market internationally and make money off of it.

          • Esh325

            Yeah, and if they really wanted a M4 to replace the Tavor then they would have bought new ones, or made ones themselves.

          • I am positive they did not want ’90s era M4s, even new ones.

            Neither would I.

          • Esh325

            Not saying it isn’t true, but I never could find much evidence that M4’s of that era were much less reliable than current ones.

          • Then you’re not looking. Off the top of my head, here are some of the changes:

            1. Buffer weight increased. This increases the mass ratio during certain parts of the cycle, and also slows down the ROF allowing the magazine to better catch up with the bolt. It also improves the bolt’s ability to feed rounds into the chamber.

            2. New magazines. The tan follower mags are better than the green follower mags, which are in turn better than the black follower mags that were most common before 2001. The tan follower mags are in turn being replaced by a new pattern of magazine.

            3. Extractor spring. Initial M4s used the same extractor spring as the M16, which was replaced by the gold extractor spring on the later M4s, and which IIRC also supplanted by a new heavier spring in later M4A1s, with further improvements likely to come in the M4A1+.

            4. Fire control. The new S-1-A trigger groups of the M4A1 are much simpler, more reliable, and a big confidence boost. The old 3 round burst mechanism was a dog, and it was one of the last major problems of the rifle to be fixed.

            That’s four improvements to the major operating components, from memory alone.

          • Esh325

            The new magazines are really the only one that rings a bell. I have looked, I have a couple of books on the AR and it doesn’t seem to mention that.

          • You haven’t heard about the Colt gold extractor spring, H2 buffers, and the new S-1-A FCGs?

            Why are you making claims about the M4, then? All of this has been well-publicized for a long time.

          • Esh325

            Some of it is well publicized I’ll admit, but not all of it.

          • All of those improvements have been the subject of national online news articles.

          • None of this is remotely “news” to anyone with more than a passing awareness of the M4’s military history.

          • Uniform223

            Also as I see it as a layman, why get US produced M4s albeit newer ones, through an arms package deal with the US and Israeli gov’t when you can boost your economy and even possibly national pride by making and issuing your own rifle? Of course I could be wrong.

          • Yes, by developing and producing the Favor, they got a short, handy rifle, superior to the Clinton era M4 they were comparing it to, *and* they *aren’t* trying to compete head to head with Colt, Colt Canada, FN, and HK in an already saturated “M4” market.

            In many cases, *not* being an M4 is a sales advantage, particular to nations that *do not want* to be thought of as an “American client state”.

            So, they can market in a much less crowded field, without the twin drags of ” Oh, it’s just a ‘cut rate’ clone of an American rifle” and, “Oh, it’s just a rehash of a 1950s design.”

            With the Favor they ate opening markets that frankly, an Israeli made M4 wouldn’t be nearly as competitive is. This allows them to offset the cost of arming the IDF by selling rifles.

          • Damned auto-mistake…

  • WillLeach

    It seems like sustained automatic fire still matters. I wonder if they will go with something with a slower firing rate and greater control, something like L James Sullivan’s designs (Ultimax), perhaps a modified HK 416.

  • Seburo

    What the mall ninjas touting their favorite rifle fail to understand is that the German Army has stockpiles of G36 magazines.(Something someone else already brought up in a post above mine) There are only two other rifles that exist that will feed them. The VHS and the XM8.

    • MR

      I’m sure they could get a volume discount on P-mags, H&K might even be able to get a licensing agreement with Magpul, if they pinky-swear to use the correct polymers. Why, if the German Army were so inclined, I’d bet they could get an exemption to sell their old mags on the U.S. military surplus market. If an exemption is even required, hard to keep up on all the sanctions and executive actions flying around these days.

      • Seburo

        Keep in mine that buying both new magazines and new rifles are a logistics nightmare. So any gun will have to take the G36 magazines.
        HK selling magazines that aren’t their own? Not likely.

        • MR

          Well then, it would seem this whole dust up is much ado about nothing. They’ll be keeping the G36’s they already have, because they’re already in inventory.

          • MR

            Now that I mention it, this may just be a noise making exercise before an election to raise the candidate’s profile. Once the election is over, this may get pushed to the backburner in favor of issues more in line with party platform. After all, plenty of people claim that the M4 is just the worst rifle ever, and that’s clearly nonsense. Oh well, all our bickering and reasoning isn’t going to make one iota of difference, once the final bribes are in.

      • n0truscotsman

        They need to just as Oberland Arms for them
        ๐Ÿ™‚

        http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2012/04/05/will-the-real-pmag-please-stand-up/

    • Tom

      Could something like the Colt 901 be made to work with G36 mags as its got a larger mag well to begin with?

    • n0truscotsman

      yeah because those M4/M16 magazines are so expensive and rare, due to their construction from unobtanium!!! Its not like 50 plus nations have them in service or anything like that…

      ๐Ÿ˜‰

    • What do you think the Germans will be doing with the G36 rifles? Smart money says they sell them, with mags and specialized tools, to some sucker who isn’t in a position to be too picky.

      I know it’s hard to imagine to mall ninjas, but when you’re talking about a wholesale replacement of a rifle for being a POS, mags are just the sprinkles on the doughnut in the big scheme of things.

      Good, STANAG pattern AR mags (even Magpuls) can be picked up for significantly under $10/mag when you’re buying in quantities of “a metric butt-tonne”. Look at the price of, say, an HK416, and ask yourself, ” Self, would $100 worth of mags make or break this deal?”

      The G36 is done in German service. The XM8 is just another G36 variant, so it is a non starter. The Bundeswehr *won’t* be buying the “finest example of Serbo-Croatian military technology”. I don’t expect them to buy a Galil (even the IDF realized its shortcomings), an AK84 pattern rifle, or a Mini-14. That leaves basically two mag patterns in play – *neither* of which is compatible with the G36. (And Steyr will merrily make AUGs that take STANAG mags.)

  • Gwolf

    I’m just going with a wild supposition but something tells me Colt Canada will have a shot.

    • Jay

      Doubt it. With Colt Canada being owned by the bancrupt Colt defense, I wouldn’t get nothing from them until it’s got the ownership “fixed”. I don’t know how much the Dutch paid for their c8’s, but last I’ve heard, Colt Canada milks the Canadian government somewhere around 2500-2700 canadian dollars. The Germans could get some brand new 416 version for better price.

  • MoPhil

    Since I am from Germany, I am closer to the news reports and the current debate around the G36:

    The true reason, besides the obvious technical flaws, the G36 has, is, that the Defense Secretary von der Leyen wants to become the next Chancelor.

    There are so many construction sites within the German Army, the G36-problem is just one of many. But for von der Leyen it seems to be the problem, where she can gain the most ground.

    So much about politics.

    My bet is also the HK416A5, which has already received an official designation by the Bundeswehr as “G38” rifle. Therefore the HK416A5 makes perfectly sense.

    • G38 was initially the horse I backed, as well, but I’m less sure now.

      • MoPhil

        What makes you doubt? The behavior towards HK is typical for German politics of our days: one day you are ones best friend, the next day he hates you. The day after the day he hated you, he is your best friend again. A lesson they learned from US-foreign policy. ;-P

        HK won’t be the “bad child” forever. But at the moment politicians needed an “a$$hole for beating up” and that was/is HK.
        But if you prefer another solution, meanwhile we have plenty and capable manufacturers of AR-style rifles in Germany: Oberland Arms, Hera Arms, Schmeisser, Haenel, DAR (which stands for Dynamic Arms Research, but they are from Thuringia). Oberland Arms and Haenel also developed a short stroke piston AR.
        What do you think, who will make the race?

        • MoPhil

          Oh yeah, I forgot: Switzerland also could be in the race with their SAN Swiss Arms 55x series.
          Or Brugger&Thomet with their APC556. Also a very nice rifle.

          • FWIW: The SG551 is already the G37.

          • Joshua

            G37 the next gun, cause it’s one betta…..ok I feel ashamed now.

          • FWIW: It was a GSG9 issue item, not KSK.

        • I doubt it because the G38 is expensive, and because the Bundeswehr has been really prickly towards H&K lately.

          I don’t think it’s out of the running entirely, though. In fact, it is probably the horse to beat for anyone else seeking to take the contract.

  • Cal S.

    Let’s see, what’s a proven combat weapon in the same caliber with the same magazines that can be obtained quickly…

    …It’s on the tip of my tongue… Might start with “M” end in a ‘4’ and not have too much inbetween.

    • MR

      I don’t think the G36 uses STANAG mags. It’d be nice to carry over the accessories that you already have, but if those accessories only fit junk, new accessories may be in order.

    • Joshua

      Nope, G36 mags are proprietary.

      • Cal S.

        Ah. Poorly-informed assumption on my part then.

        Europeans and their greed. Oy vey.

        • iksnilol

          Well, to be honest the original aluminum mags were intended to be disposable which is also why they updated them with better followers and stuff.

          If you want a good 5.56 mag then the AUG mag is in my opinion hard to beat.

        • Esh325

          I suspect the reason why they designed the G36 to use a proprietary magazine might have been that at the time AR magazines were still junky aluminum mags and not as good as they are today.

          • That’s *exactly* why. At the time the G36 was designed, the crappy aluminum mags with Vietnam era followers *were* the “good” M16 mags (remember Thermelts, I mean Thermolds? ๐Ÿ˜‰ )

  • I was super-mega-duper impressed with the C8IUR and with Colt Canada’s reps at SHOT 2015. I really like the big lug on the 6 o’clock rail, which is recoil surface for underbarrel grenade launchers. Gib 50mm GLs plz.

  • Azril @ Alex Vostox

    If the Defense Minister said that G36 is bad, WHY THEY USED IT FOR FIRST PLACE?

    • Because they needed a rifle in a hurry when Reunification killed the G11 (for cost reasons), insisted on a “German” (meaning HK, especially since they had just cancelled a major HK program) solution, and wanted something “new” (which kept out the G41).

  • Jimmy Cricket

    Strange, Hk struggles financially and problems come up with a rifle that’s been around for 20 years.

  • nova3930

    $10 says it’s either a 416 or an M4 of some flavor. Although if they want a rifle length weapon, the M16-A5 is a very remote possibility…

  • LCON

    Here are the options as I see it.
    1) most likely HK G38 based on the HK416A5
    2) Tied with #1 HK cooks up a G36A7 with a totally new receiver
    3) less likely HK offers a new Receiver version of XM8
    4) the least likely, a Totally new system outside of HK is adopted. like the AR15’s from Schmeisser

    • The G36 is actually up to G36A11 already.

      • LCON

        Fine G36A416

        • Joshua

          I prefer the G36A20 myself,

    • It would *far* faster and cheaper to buy an AR type rifle, even an HK416 at retail, than to “fix” the G36 design. A “corrected” G36 would have less in common with a current G36 than an HK416 has with a Vietnam era M16A1.

  • I’m betting one American dollar that the G36 will be replaced by a licensed copy of the latest Steyr AUG design or Sig 550.

    • I’m rooting for an AR-15 derivative, because the irony would be overpowering.

      • Sweet Providence the AR15 fanboy gloating would be insufferable. Might even need to find a new LGS for a while if this happens ha.

  • HenryV

    Perhaps our MoD in the UK can give them the name of the company that remanufactured our L85A1s to see if they can do anything for the G36? ๐Ÿ™‚

    • LCON

      The Sarcastic Irony in this post is so thick one needs a Chain saw

      • HenryV

        Chainsaw? Dude I am drilling holes for the C4 right now…….. ๐Ÿ™‚

  • Cknarf

    Kalashnikov or Armalite Rifle. Everybody just needs to pick one and be done with it.

  • Esh325

    Not every soldier needs a folding stock, that doesn’t mean folding stock have any less utility. That’s why most modern rifles today have both an adjustable stock and a folding one so you can cater to both users.

    • Except all the AR derivatives, which collectively are still tremendously popular.

      • Esh325

        I have seen folding stock AR designs, but they never caught on and I highly suspect the only reason why is because it simply isn’t feasible with the AR design. Pretty much every rifle designed from the ground up today where it’s technically feasible to have a folding stock has one.

        • You’ll note that limitation hasn’t really held the AR back in sales, even with paratroops, vehicle crew, etc.

          • Esh325

            It’s not a big enough limitation to hold back sales, but none the less, a limitation.

  • Esh325
    • Uniform223

      (my ocd) gahd look at that lack of cheek to stock…

  • mosinman

    if the scandal is as big as they’re making it out to be , i couldn’t see them going to HK again, even if the 416 works

  • LCON

    Why do you think Batman wears a Yellow Belt… That’s Right It’s Not just a Utility belt

  • Esh325

    When did I use Vietnam as an example to talk about the current M16 and M4’s reliability?

    • Hyperbole. He means you’re using rifles that are mechanically XM4 spec to represent the modern post-GWOT M4A1.

      They are totally different animals.

    • john huscio

      Vietnam uses tavors now…..just sayin…..

  • IXLR8

    I am truly impressed by the amount of responses here.

    The US should help Germany by allowing the import of these poor weapons, and make them 1989 NFA exempt. You know let us sacrifice to help out fellow Germans… ๐Ÿ™‚

    • Nergyl

      There’s only one way to respond to this:

      • MR

        ‘Bout time for another press release, so we can start fresh with the comments. Gets to be a chore, scrolling through all this, looking for new (mis)information.

  • Nergyl

    Here’s hoping they switch to the 416. All the M4s in the world could spontaneously turn into dust and I would shed no tears for them.

    Sorry, I just had some pretty unpleasant experiences with those things.

    • Yellow Devil

      Why, were you OPFOR?

      • Nergyl

        lol. Anyway, on all three occasions I used a gun in the DI AR family it suffered some sort of malfunction. DPMS, Bushmaster, Colt…they all jammed in one way or another within three magazines. And they were all in good condition.

        Granted, it’s easily possible I just had really crappy luck. But after that, I lost my taste for most ARs. It’s kinda like going to McDonald’s and finding a dead cockroach in your Big Mac: even if it’s incredibly unlikely to happen again, it’s hard to go back.

        • Yellow Devil

          Too bad, I can understand if a couple of bad apples rot the whole barrel (pun not withstanding). Could be the magazines though. From my experience, both military and as a silly-vilan, the weakest link was (usually) crappy magazines. And it’s not that good magazines are that expensive anymore, I was really impressed with Lancer magazines and they are really good priced.

          • Nergyl

            You definitely have a point about the magazines–in fact, the Bushmaster’s issue seemed like a classic double-feed malfunction. I couldn’t quite figure out what went wrong with the other two,
            but it’s possible I could’ve had a way better time with something other than the stock aluminum mags.

          • Well, neither Bushmaster nor DPMS is what I would judge a current M4 against. And, even then, most problems with an AR come from using magazines that should be smashed with a hammer to avoid anyone trying to keep using them.

        • Did you use the same mags for each? If so, then there was probably a bad mag you should have thrown out.

          • Nergyl

            No, each one had its own magazine.

  • Esh325

    Russian SF use the SRVV side folding trunnion which takes a M4 style stock AND folds to the side. I found this out in Larry Vickers video about Russian SF AK’s, so your statement isn’t exactly true. https://www.full30.com/video/d358fd55c821212258dd715a19c5c92b

  • Here’s an episode of Larry Vickers’ show Tactical Arms from 7/14/2010, where he talks about the G36’s heating issue. For those who asked about why this hasn’t come up before, the answer is that it’s been known for at least five years, but only now has H&K been taken to task for it:

    Go to 11 minutes, 16 seconds.

    • Esh325

      Admittedly, when I heard him say it back then I thought it might have been just him having personnel squabble with H&K, but now his concerns about the G36 are pretty much confirmed.

      • Uniform223

        He did work with HK to develop the 416 and then the Compact SOCOM 45 (HK45).

  • RealitiCzech

    How did nobody catch this in all the years the G36 has been issued?
    “The weaponโ€™s capacity to hit targets fell to 30 percent when the surrounding temperature reached 30 degrees Celsius (86 Fahrenheit)” – I can understand a pencil barrel becoming less accurate after several mag dumps, but how terrible is your design that it becomes a sewer pipe when the ambient temperatures hit ‘warm day’ levels?

    • It’s been an issue, but HK has been lowing smoke and screaming, “It’s not the rifle!” for just as long. HK fanbois have been lapping up the Koolade the whole time. Witness the denial of the reported issues with the Son of G36 – the XM8.

  • guest

    How odd. H&K had an outstanding design ready back in the 1970s for the Bundeswehr, for the day that they decided to go from the G3 to the 5.56mm cartridge: the G41. For those unfamiliar with the G41, it is a roller-locked select-fire rifle similar to the HK93 but which uses STANAG magazines. The design was tested, finalized, and ready to go more than thirty-five years ago. It may even be a better design than the G36. I can only wonder why it was never accepted, and why no one’s talking about it today.

    • Max Glazer

      One of the reasons was its cost. Also G-36 is noticeably lighter.

      • guest

        Cost? The G41 is made of stamped sheet metal, just like the G3 and MP5. I have seen no studies but I would be astonished if manufacturing cost per unit were higher than the G3.

        And given that the G36’s light weight is achieved with polymer construction that tends to, well, er, melt… it seems inevitable that the Bundeswehr’s next rifle will weigh more than the G36 regardless.

        • Max Glazer

          AFAIK it was over 1400 each. Not cheap for a stamped steel weapon.

          The used incorrect polymer on G-36. Rather then glass-filled polyamide, they used polyethilene which has lower melting point. ARs, AKs, TARs, SARs use plastic hand guards and I haven’t heard of them melting. All they need to do is make new ones and use CORRECT SPECIFIED material. We all know what happens when unspecified substance is used.

  • Raguel A’septem

    Send old G36’s to the US for parts kits!
    Not the best combat rifle but damn fine for security and recreation!

  • Max Glazer

    Replacement of the weapon itself will likely be offered updated with different materials or get a slightly different receiver.

    I cannot see German military being supplied with KH416 as a principle weapon due to simple pride. Germans wouldn’t want to be seen adopting a weapon that is A) of questionable fame even if the issues are mostly ironed out, B) of foreign design. They’d rather design a whole new rifle that would build on experience of AK, AR, AUG, G-36, Tavor and other all-different platform to be able to make a design that surpasses them.Germans are pragmatic. Corruption is present everywhere. Doesn’t mean normal processes should stop. AK-74 had at least 2 different updates since its introduction in 1974. M-16 had been updated twice since A2 model in a short-ish time span. Can’t see why HK can’t do the same.

    • The problems with the G36 are *inherent* to the design. I say that as a former infantry NCO and a current engineer.

      To “update” the G36 to eliminate the problems would end up with a wholly different rifle, after years of development.

  • hikerguy

    In the end I feel the HK416 will be the new rifle/carbine. However, the government and army will expect a discount on the new rifles, or expect HK to buy back the G36s. The Kurds will get even more G36 rifles then.

  • Steve_7

    The German MoD has never had the cash to properly field the G36, so the odds of them buying an entirely new rifle and retraining everyone is remote imo. What they’ll probably do is pull out G3s from the war reserve and use those while H&K comes up with a fix for the G36. They might buy a few SCAR-Ls for the special forces or something like that.

  • New Man

    Although most of us don’t have the privilege of owning a real deal G36 to test it out.. There are a good deal of people out there who own an SL8. Can someone here who own an SL8 test it out for us? Fire several magazine in rapid semi auto and then test to see if there’s POI shift?

  • Howcanname?

    I’m willing to bet money that they go for the 416. It’d be a lot cooler, in my opinion, if they went for the HK33 though. Perhaps one modified with a carry handle/red dot sight similar to that of the HK36

  • Joshua

    It goes down as like one of the top questions you do not ask anyone who was in the Military.

    Should be common knowledge at this point…I guess not though.

  • Brian M

    Wow, I’m surprised that they’re actually doing something other than patronize the public and resolving harder to not get caught again.