Anyone used the HK G3?

RNoN · Post by **RNoN** » July 15th, 2005, 11:09 am

We still use it as our normal service weapon, even though the higher-ups have been talking about changing to 5.56 for 15 years now (some spec-ops use Diemaco C8 and HK G36 though).

So, do any of you have any experience with it? I hear many US Army soldiers have tried it while in Norway on winter training.

Common complaint from those accustomed to the M16 and other 5.56 weapons is the powerful recoil, but I guess that is just a question of habit.

Flesh Thorn · Post by **Flesh Thorn** » July 15th, 2005, 11:53 am

The G3 and 7.62 NATO ammunition is too fucking heavy in comparison to the AR 15/M 16/ M4. The recoil of 7.62 NATO isn't going to much of an issue for Rangers or other studs. I like the delayed blowback operating system and the design of the weapon, but I don't like the weight.

Silverback · Post by **Silverback** » July 15th, 2005, 12:59 pm

I've carried the G3 (tactically) quite in a bit in my career. It's a decent weapon with good stopping power. Yes it is big and heavy.

Towedjmpr · Post by **Towedjmpr** » July 15th, 2005, 1:01 pm

I used it in Korea with the ROKs. I like it.

Goog · Post by **Goog** » July 15th, 2005, 2:05 pm

Silverback wrote:I've carried the G3 (tactically) quite in a bit in my career. It's a decent weapon with good stopping power. Yes it is big and heavy.

I have used it also, we used to call it "The Hammer".

RNoN · Post by **RNoN** » July 15th, 2005, 4:22 pm

Ranger Flesh Thorn, the weapon itself isn't really that much heavier than a M16A2, is it? 9.25 lbs unloaded, 10.35 lbs loaded - barely a pound heavier than the M16A2.

I find the G3 does get rather messy when shooting, the Navy "Coastal Ranger" unit here uses the G36, which appears to be on a completely different level in terms of cleaning required.

Our neighbours the Swedish Army changed to 5.56 some years ago (the FNC rifle, Swedish designation AK-5), but are returning to the G3 and 7.62 for their urban operations unit, as they found the power of the 5.56 insufficient in a city environment where the enemy is likely to be covering behind concrete and steel. Also I assume they consider the advantage of light ammo weight is irrelevant in the city, where resupply is just a vehicle away.

Also, about recoil not being a problem for "studs". We don't officially consider it a problem for our female soldiers, but unofficially it's a completely different story :D

fireranger · Post by **fireranger** » July 15th, 2005, 9:26 pm

I have shot one that my buddy owns. It is a nice weapon, although it cost him over 2K.

Goog · Post by **Goog** » July 15th, 2005, 9:36 pm

RNoN wrote: Also, about recoil not being a problem for "studs". We don't officially consider it a problem for our female soldiers, but unofficially it's a completely different story :D

That's why we called it "The Hammer" After you fire alot of rounds it hammers your shoulder. Never bothered me, but definetly more recoil than the M16/M4.

RGR_Dan · Post by **RGR_Dan** » July 15th, 2005, 9:45 pm

Our SWAT team is going to dump all the G36's we bought and buy M-4's again. The iron sights don't hold their dope and when you mount optics neither one will keep a group. Great idea, they look sexy but not battle tested enough yet.

Flesh Thorn · Post by **Flesh Thorn** » July 20th, 2005, 7:32 am

I don't like the options for mounting optics to the G3. All of the mounts clamp or attempt to clamp to the reciever. I have heard of drilling and tapping the reciever and mounting a Weaver rail to the top.

BadMuther · Post by **BadMuther** » July 22nd, 2005, 12:32 am

I have a Springfield SAR 8 (G3/HK 91 copy). Shoots fine, it does hammer the shoulder though.

Fleshy, the new clones all have a built in rail on top.

I'm curious about some of you guys carrying them on duty. Only ones I saw in batt were when we did foreign weapons demos.

RNoN · Post by **RNoN** » July 24th, 2005, 12:39 pm

(Ranger?) Sine Pari, our Coastal Ranger unit who use the G36 share some of your observations on the G36.

-A plastic piece in the receiver would break while firing, fall down into the trigger assembly and jam it in full-auto, so it would fire until the magazine ran dry. This was fixed quickly on the Norwegian ones, I assume everyone else using G36s prone to breaking have been told how to fix it.

-Optics are easily knocked out of position. Don't know if they have come up with a fix for it yet, back when I was active they'd use the G36 on the firing range and during "easy" exercises, but revert to G3 for exercises where the guns were likely to receive harsh treatment - not good!

-Haven't heard anything about problems with the cocking handle though - but the version used by our Coastal Rangers is not identical with the "normal" version used by the German armed forces. I believe ours is called G36KV, but not sure.