Jump to content
tanknet.org

German Rifle Testing In Yuma, Arizona


Recommended Posts

But it was a cold war development. No single rifle bearing soldier was expected to even go through the basic ammo load. The engagement would be over (with the enemy dead or him dead) before firing off those rounds and he was meant to use single shot fire. So for what was required and for the design goals behind the G11, it worked reasonably well, those requirements just do not hold up today.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I would dare to say that requirements did not hold any reality, even back then, and whole "people will die w/o using whole ammo load" was a H&K marketing...

 

Local tests from 1962:

 

Round 1:

 

150 rounds - 60 with 3-5 rounds bursts, 60 with rapid fired semi, 30 with 3 x ~10-rounds bursts

forced cooling (dip in the barrel of water)

150 rounds (same as first time)

forced cooling (in the crushed ice, simulating snow)

150 rounds. (same as first time)

 

Round 2 - (not clear if same rifles as in round 1 or "fresh" ones):

 

300 rounds, 180 with rapid fired semi, 90 with 3-5 rounds bursts, 30 with 3 x ~10 rounds bursts

 

AR-10 (7.62x39mm version), AK, vz.58 passed both

In 1963, G3 in 7.62x39 also successfully passed those tests. FAL failed, ironically, becoming inoperable after 393 rounds in first test, 291 in second. FAL was however 7.62x39 version.

 

So why did people known for building "just good enough" weapons (Soviets) made a gun that will withstand those, when something lighter that could just blow through 150 rounds would be enough? And when updating it in the AK-74, they required that it should withstand more heavy fire before having to cool down. It is just like they knew something...

Edited by bojan
Link to post
Share on other sites

No, HK´s promotion line was that 500 rounds for HK G11 would weigh as much as the magazines and ammo for 100 rounds for the G3. They also improved the powder enough that the overheating was acceptable, which was also compensated by the rather slow rate of fire at full auto with 500 rds/m.

 

But in the end the focus of the whole project was on easy to fire, easy to use and likely to hit. For that they had the fast burst mode and the low recoil ammo. In the end it was working, but it was no breakthrough compared to conventional rifles, more like a trade-off with a very high price when it came to buying the guns and ammo.

Link to post
Share on other sites

But it was a cold war development. No single rifle bearing soldier was expected to even go through the basic ammo load. The engagement would be over (with the enemy dead or him dead) before firing off those rounds and he was meant to use single shot fire. So for what was required and for the design goals behind the G11, it worked reasonably well, those requirements just do not hold up today.

there were some dumb ideas back then, our guys got "64 pattern webbing" because everything will stay in the APC/truck and you fight light, with 4 mags and 1 in the rifle.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...