# HK-417A2 a worthy replacement for G3 battle rifles.



## Kompromat

H&K have recently pulled out the upgraded Hk-417 called Hk-417A2. This now looks much more refined and suitable for a battle rifle than the previous 417. This would make a worthy replacement for the G-3s in service around the world including Pakistan.

Reactions: Positive Rating Positive Rating:
1 | Like Like:
14


----------



## Falcon29

How many more times expensive is it?

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## That Guy

It's also very expensive.

At this point, Pakistan needs to look for an alternative to the G-3, but it also needs to look at the total cost of replacement.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## DESERT FIGHTER

That Guy said:


> It's also very expensive.
> 
> At this point, Pakistan needs to look for an alternative to the G-3, but it also needs to look at the total cost of replacement.



Which new rifle with good ergonomics is cheap these days? apart from ak series.. none?

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## That Guy

DESERT FIGHTER said:


> Which new rifle with good ergonomics is cheap these days? apart from ak series.. none?


That's not a simple thing to answer. When buying in bulk, the rifles would be significantly cheaper to buy than they would be individually; Add to that, Pakistan probably wouldn't buy the latest rifle to come out of the wood work. What Pakistan should be looking for is something newer and better than the G-3, but not so new that the cost may not be worth the purchase. Maybe a rifle that's post 2000s, but pre-2010s.

Anyways, I'm not an expert on rifles, or their costs. I haven't kept up to date on the small arms industry in a long time, so all I can do is make guesses based on really old information.

tl;dr take everything I've said with a pinch of salt.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## DESERT FIGHTER

That Guy said:


> That's not a simple thing to answer. When buying in bulk, the rifles would be significantly cheaper to buy than they would be individually; Add to that, Pakistan probably wouldn't buy the latest rifle to come out of the wood work. What Pakistan should be looking for is something newer and better than the G-3, but not so new that the cost may not be worth the purchase. Maybe a rifle that's post 2000s, but pre-2010s.
> 
> Anyways, I'm not an expert on rifles, or their costs. I haven't kept up to date on the small arms industry in a long time, so all I can do is make guesses based on really old information.
> 
> tl;dr take everything I've said with a pinch of salt.



the answer is none... the cheapest would be AK variants... which we are already using... 

List of assault rifles - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

post 2000s... very limited choice..


----------



## razgriz19

I thought POF was developing newer rifles for the army

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## MilSpec

Aeronaut said:


> H&K have recently pulled out the upgraded Hk-417 called Hk-417A2. This now looks much more refined and suitable for a battle rifle than the previous 417. This would make a worthy replacement for the G-3s in service around the world including Pakistan.




it is a nice reliable rifle, but is an ar platform, so will be prone to good upkeep. G3's on the other hand are very durable tack drivers... 

Why does the G3 need replacement in the first place, they are pretty good rifles.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## That Guy

DESERT FIGHTER said:


> the answer is none... the cheapest would be AK variants... which we are already using...
> 
> List of assault rifles - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> post 2000s... very limited choice..


Oh really? Mind posting the prices, and the quality of each rifle that's been posted in the list your provided? It seems that you're making a very broad assumption.

The AK is not even a choice, because it's already in active service in Pakistan.



sandy_3126 said:


> it is a nice reliable rifle, but is an ar platform, so will be prone to good upkeep. G3's on the other hand are very durable tack drivers...
> 
> Why does the G3 need replacement in the first place, they are pretty good rifles.


The G-3 is an old system, and while it is good at what it does, it's also a burden (weight is far too much for a modern gun).

Also, the PA is a professional army, training soldiers to handle the rifle and keep it clean shouldn't be a major problem.


----------



## Desertfalcon

Aeronaut said:


> H&K have recently pulled out the upgraded Hk-417 called Hk-417A2. This now looks much more refined and suitable for a battle rifle than the previous 417. This would make a worthy replacement for the G-3s in service around the world including Pakistan.


That is a very good looking rifle and I think a worthy replacement. I still find it interesting that Pakistan's military is bucking the trend and sticking with the 7.62 NATO calibre. As for the AR style action, like the new American weapons, they are not the same as the old M16 series in that they are not a direct gas system but use a piston which greatly reduces chamber fouling and jamming. I think it will be great!


----------



## DESERT FIGHTER

razgriz19 said:


> I thought POF was developing newer rifles for the army



PK-10 died a natural death it seems.. last time i heard it was under going tests with the SSGs guys..







This is what we got in return:


G3S











G3 M

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Hakan

The new Turkish MPT-76 Battle Rifle may be an option for Pakistan. Apparently it is based on the Hk-417. Most likely it has a much lower price. Maybe at IDEAS we might see some discussions about this idea. We just have to wait and see.

Reactions: Like Like:
9


----------



## Desertfalcon

^^^ Another 7.62 NATO weapon. Nice!

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Hakan

Desertfalcon said:


> ^^^ Another 7.62 NATO weapon. Nice!


Soldiers headed for Afghanistan are being re-trained to use newly-converted, enhanced M14s. At Johnson Field in Ft. Campbell, Hopkinsville, Kentucky, and Clarksville, Tennessee, select soldiers from the 1st Battalion, 327th Infantry Regiment, 1st Brigade Combat Team, 101st Airborne Division, are training with their new Mark 14 Enhanced Battle Rifles (EBR). These troops are going to serve as an 11-man Personnel Security Detachment (PSD) team. 

What’s old is new again as the EBR is based on the 7.62 NATO M14 battle rifle and is set up as a Designated Marksman’s Rifle and issued to soldiers who need the more potent cartridge and increased range over what the 5.56 NATO M4 carbine provides. 




“Today we are practicing and familiarizing ourselves with our new M14 7.62mm weapon before we go to the range in preparation for our fall deployment to Afghanistan,” said Spc. Daniel Lueptow. “Though I understand the need for adjustment for this upcoming deployment, I enjoyed the older model and did well with it on my last deployment.” 

Since 2004 branches of the U.S. military has been re-issuing the M14 in EBR form, starting with the Navy SEALs and the Coast Guard. The Army has really embraced the EBR and has made two available for every infantry squad deployed to Afghanistan—it’s not just for select units.

For a time the Army re-issued standard M14 rifles but their fixed wooden stocks and lacking optics options made them a poor fit for modern soldiers. The Mark 14 is based on a standard M14 that has been outfitted with a shortened, heavy barrel with a new flash hider that has been bolted to a completely different chassis, complete with a quad rail, pistol grip and telescoping buttstock. These rifles are also issued with scopes for long-range shooting. 






These PSD troops are training on the Army-specific variant of the Mark 14 EBR, the M14EBR-RI. The Army’s EBR features a standard-weight and -length barrel, but otherwise maintains all of the other EBR improvements, including the chassis. 

“I am learning the basic know-how of the M14s on site picture, the trigger squeeze and just the fundamentals on the weapons system in preparation for deployment,” said Pvt. Dylan McGalliard. “Growing up the way I did, we had a lot of hunting rifles that were the same caliber as this one, but on the military side this is my first time with a fancy one like this.”

Many people are happy to see that the Army and other branches of the U.S. military are bringing back the big .30 caliber long-stroke gas piston-operated rifles, with about the only criticism against them being that they’re not lightweight rifles. The M14EBR-RI weighs about 11.5 pounds unloaded and measures in at 40 inches long. That being said, they’re also soft-shooting and effective well beyond 800 meters with glass. 

The Army is also testing new ammunition for the M4 carbine, improving its range to about 600 meters. Combined with these DMRs, our infantry are more effective at greater ranges than ever before. 

If you like the idea of decking out your own M14 in the new EBR style, you can get one of several different designs manufactured by Sage International, who also supplies the military with theirs. If you like the idea but want something a little different, check out Troy International’s M14 offerings.

_Photo credit Spc. Kadina Baldwin._

More Army troops getting enhanced M14 rifles - Guns.com


----------



## Umair Nawaz

Aeronaut said:


> H&K have recently pulled out the upgraded Hk-417 called Hk-417A2. This now looks much more refined and suitable for a battle rifle than the previous 417. This would make a worthy replacement for the G-3s in service around the world including Pakistan.


weird rifle.


----------



## RAMPAGE

Desertfalcon said:


> ^^^ Another 7.62 NATO weapon. Nice!


You a falconer ???


----------



## DESERT FIGHTER

That Guy said:


> Oh really? Mind posting the prices, and the quality of each rifle that's been posted in the list your provided? It seems that you're making a very broad assumption.
> 
> The AK is not even a choice, because it's already in active service in Pakistan.



These are post 2000 rifles:

QBZ-03 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Pindad SS2 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

IMI Tavor TAR-21 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Heckler & Koch HK416 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Beretta ARX 160 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

CZ-805 BREN - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

ČZW-556 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Desarrollos Industriales Casanave SC-2005 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

EMERK - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

FAD assault rifle - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

FN SCAR - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

FX-05 Xiuhcoatl - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Pindad SS2 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Special Operations Assault Rifle - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Type 11 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

T91 assault rifle - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Truvelo Raptor - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Robinson Armament XCR - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

VB Berapi LP06 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

W+F C42 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

XM8 rifle - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Zastava M21 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Now minus the colombian,taiwanese,malaysian,indonsian,mexican and the AK variants like bren or zastava... ur are left with US M...variant/based on weapons...,S.African raptor (shitty),Chinese QBZ,Israeli tavor,Scar,ARX,HK-417,c-52,VHS

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Desertfalcon

RAMPAGE said:


> You a falconer ???


I am indeed!

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## RAMPAGE

Desertfalcon said:


> I am indeed!


So which bird would you recommend for a beginner ???

Reactions: Positive Rating Positive Rating:
1


----------



## Desertfalcon

RAMPAGE said:


> So which bird would you recommend for a beginner ???


You live in Pakistan? I'm not sure what species are available or recommended there but I would definitely contact these guys...

Pak Falconry Assocation

They have a Facebook page as well...

Pakistan Falconry Association | Facebook

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## RAMPAGE

Desertfalcon said:


> You live in Pakistan? I'm not sure what species are available or recommended there but I would definitely contact these guys...
> 
> Pak Falconry Assocation
> 
> They have a Facebook page as well...
> 
> Pakistan Falconry Association | Facebook


 I think I will contact them. thanks. 

So which bird are you flying ???


----------



## Desertfalcon

RAMPAGE said:


> I think I will contact them. thanks.
> 
> So which bird are you flying ???


Definitely contact them so you can find a falconer close to you that can help you.

I will not go trapping for a new bird for about another six or eight weeks as the birds need to mature and migrate north to where I live in Idaho, in the northwestern US. I trap and train a bird and then release them back to the wild after a hunting season. Sometimes I keep them over for the next season, but usually not. My last bird was a Red-tailed hawk. I hunted rabbits with him. Here he is...

Reactions: Like Like:
7


----------



## AUz

Desertfalcon said:


> ^^^ Another 7.62 NATO weapon. Nice!



Sir, are you for or against 7.62 rounds?

What is the advantage of adapting 5.56mm rounds over 7.62mm rounds? What are the draw backs? 

Which one would you prefer if commanding an army of your own? 

Little insights from the experts would be good for readers...

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Kompromat

Desertfalcon said:


> That is a very good looking rifle and I think a worthy replacement. I still find it interesting that Pakistan's military is bucking the trend and sticking with the 7.62 NATO calibre. As for the AR style action, like the new American weapons, they are not the same as the old M16 series in that they are not a direct gas system but use a piston which greatly reduces chamber fouling and jamming. I think it will be great!



We don't have money to replace them at once. They are upgrading them to G-3M standards for a stopgap. Pakistan Army prefers battle rifles to assault rifles.

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## RAMPAGE

Desertfalcon said:


> Definitely contact them so you can find a falconer close to you that can help you.
> 
> I will not go trapping for a new bird for about another six or eight weeks as the birds need to mature and migrate north to where I live in Idaho, in the northwestern US. I trap and train a bird and then release them back to the wild after a hunting season. Sometimes I keep them over for the next season, but usually not. My last bird was a Red-tailed hawk. I hunted rabbits with him. Here he is...
> 
> View attachment 32294


He's beautiful !!!

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Desertfalcon

AUz said:


> Sir, are you for or against 7.62 rounds?
> 
> What is the advantage of adapting 5.56mm rounds over 7.62mm rounds? What are the draw backs?
> 
> Which one would you prefer if commanding an army of your own?
> 
> Little insights from the experts would be good for readers...


For myself? Definitely prefer the 7.62. As for an army, probably depends on the war. In Vietnam, the 5.56 was better as you didn't shoot a long ranges. You needed lots of firepower and that means as much "lead down range" as possible, and you could carry far more rounds of 5.56 ammo than you could 7.62. In Afghanistan, I would prefer the 7.62 as it is very open, desert and semi-desert country and you shoot at much longer ranges. I think most armies prefer the 5.56, however.


----------



## DESERT FIGHTER

Aeronaut said:


> We don't have money to replace them at once. They are upgrading them to G-3M standards for a stopgap. Pakistan Army prefers battle rifles to assault rifles.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## DESERT FIGHTER

Desertfalcon said:


> Definitely contact them so you can find a falconer close to you that can help you.
> 
> I will not go trapping for a new bird for about another six or eight weeks as the birds need to mature and migrate north to where I live in Idaho, in the northwestern US. I trap and train a bird and then release them back to the wild after a hunting season. Sometimes I keep them over for the next season, but usually not. My last bird was a Red-tailed hawk. I hunted rabbits with him. Here he is...
> 
> View attachment 32294



old pic.. belongs to my brother:

Reactions: Like Like:
7


----------



## That Guy

DESERT FIGHTER said:


> These are post 2000 rifles:
> 
> QBZ-03 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> Pindad SS2 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> IMI Tavor TAR-21 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> Heckler & Koch HK416 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> Beretta ARX 160 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> CZ-805 BREN - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> ČZW-556 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> Desarrollos Industriales Casanave SC-2005 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> EMERK - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> FAD assault rifle - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> FN SCAR - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> FX-05 Xiuhcoatl - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> Pindad SS2 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> Special Operations Assault Rifle - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> Type 11 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> T91 assault rifle - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> Truvelo Raptor - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> Robinson Armament XCR - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> VB Berapi LP06 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> W+F C42 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> XM8 rifle - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> Zastava M21 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> Now minus the colombian,taiwanese,malaysian,indonsian,mexican and the AK variants like bren or zastava... ur are left with US M...variant/based on weapons...,S.African raptor (shitty),Chinese QBZ,Israeli tavor,Scar,ARX,HK-417,c-52,VHS



You realize that none of them actually have a price attached, right? The thing is that we don't have a clear idea on how much these rifles would cost in bulk + licensed assembly, we do know it'll cost over a $billion guaranteed, there is just no clue as to the total cost of training soldiers with a new rifle, the cost of scraping or storing the G-3s, and the added cost of ammunition and accessories. An expensive rifle could come with cheaper accessories, or could have a better survivability rate (ex, things like the barrel), or cheaper rifles could come with the exact opposite. The military will be looking at long term costs with these rifles, as well as short term costs.

There are way too many variables, so I'm not going to make a complete judgement. Like I said before, I'm not an expert, so take my words with a pinch of salt. Anyways, my point is simple, total cost + quality is what will determine Pakistan's future rifle of choice, nothing else. my time range was just a suggestion based on outdated information.


----------



## DESERT FIGHTER

That Guy said:


> You realize that none of them actually have a price attached, right? The thing is that we don't have a clear idea on how much these rifles would cost in bulk + licensed assembly, we do know it'll cost over a $billion guaranteed, there is just no clue as to the total cost of training soldiers with a new rifle, the cost of scraping or storing the G-3s, and the added cost of ammunition and accessories. An expensive rifle could come with cheaper accessories, or could have a better survivability rate (ex, things like the barrel), or cheaper rifles could come with the exact opposite. The military will be looking at long term costs with these rifles, as well as short term costs.
> 
> There are way too many variables, so I'm not going to make a complete judgement. Like I said before, I'm not an expert, so take my words with a pinch of salt. Anyways, my point is simple, total cost + quality is what will determine Pakistan's future rifle of choice, nothing else. my time range was just a suggestion based on outdated information.



which one would you pick?


----------



## That Guy

DESERT FIGHTER said:


> which one would you pick?


I don't know, because of the reasons provided. If it was just on terms of looking cool, the XM8 (which I believe was a cancelled project).


----------



## DESERT FIGHTER

That Guy said:


> I don't know, because of the reasons provided. If it was just on terms of looking cool, the XM8 (which I believe was a cancelled project).



scar is ubber cool.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Hakan

DESERT FIGHTER said:


> scar is ubber cool.


IMO the scar is too bulky. I hate it. It feels like your carrying around a brick or something.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## damdam786

Why cant Pakistan army sell G3 to civilians to get some money back? I know stupid idea but lol

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Hakan

damdam786 said:


> Why cant Pakistan army sell G3 to civilians to get some money back? I know stupid idea but lol


actually it could sell them to the u.s civilian market. Other countries do that so I dont see why it isn't possible.

Egyptian Maadi Side Folder AK 47 Rifle AK47 : Semi Auto Rifles at GunBroker.com

Turkish 1903 Mauser 8mm CAI : Bolt Action Rifles at GunBroker.com

Century Arms WASR 10 30 Round Mag 7.62x39 Layaway : Semi Auto Rifles at GunBroker.com


----------



## Desertfalcon

DESERT FIGHTER said:


> old pic.. belongs to my brother:
> 
> View attachment 32297


Saker falcon?

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Zarvan

Aeronaut said:


> H&K have recently pulled out the upgraded Hk-417 called Hk-417A2. This now looks much more refined and suitable for a battle rifle than the previous 417. This would make a worthy replacement for the G-3s in service around the world including Pakistan.


Well Yes Pakistan need a New Gun G3 is to big and heavy to carry and is also not that accurate we need to replace our Gun as soon as possibe Saudis by the way chose HK G36 but we should evaluate this Gun


----------



## Zarvan

*Heckler-Koch HK417 assault rifle (Germany)*
_


2006 prototype of HK417 rifle with 20" barrel; note that it used HK G3-compatible magazines
Image: Heckler & Koch_


_


Current (2008) version of HK417 rifle with 12" / 30cm barrel, basic version
Image: Heckler & Koch_



_


Current (2008) version of HK417 rifle with 12" / 30cm barrel, fitted withtelescope sight with night vision adapter, folding bipod and a sound moderator(silencer)
Image: Heckler & Koch_



_


Current (2008) version of HK417 rifle with 16" / 40cm barrel
Image: Heckler & Koch_



_


Current (2008) version of HK417 rifle with 20" / 50cm barrel, with telescopesight and detachable bipod
Image: Heckler & Koch_





*Caliber*: 7,62x51mm NATO
*Action:* Gas operated, rotating bolt
*Overall length*: 905 - 985 mm with 406 mm barrel / 35.6" - 38.8" with 16" barrel
*Barrel length*: 305 mm / 12", 406 mm / 16" or 508 mm / 20"
*Weight*: 4.36 kg - 4.96 kg, depending on barrel length
*Rate of fire*: 600 rounds per minute
*Magazine capacity*: 10 or 20 rounds



HK417 assault rifle was recently developed by famous German arms-making company Heckler und Koch, as a "big brother" to the 5.56mm HK416 assault rifle. Information on this weapon first surfaced in 2005, on the wave of new interest for the 7.62mm NATO caliber military rifles. This interestcame in from experience of international forces gained in Afghanistan and Iraq, where increased range and penetration of the 7.62mm NATO bullets was (and still is) quite useful. Several companies developed new or updated versions of 7.62mm weapons, with intent to sell to military, law enforcement and in certain cases - to civilian shootersas well. The HK417 is one of such weapons. It is primarily oriented toward US market, as it mimics the popular 5.56mm AR-15 / M16rifles in external appearance, controls, and many design features.However, there are more than few new and original features in HK417,including Heckler-Koch's patented piston-operated gas system,user-changeable barrels etc. Like most other competitors, HK417 riflesare available in several barrel lengths, suitable for full scale ofmilitary operations, from close combat in urban or forest areas and upto long-range accurate shooting.

HK417rifle is a gas operated,selective fired weapon of modular design. Ituses short-stroke gas piston located above the barrel, that operatesthe 7-lug rotating bolt. Barrels are cold hammer forged, and could bereplaced by end user in several minutes using simple tools. There are four basic patterns of barrels available for HK417 as of now (2008):305mm / 12" and 406 mm / 16" standard barrels and 406 mm / 16" and 508 mm/ 20" accurized barrels. Accurized barrels provide 1 MOA accuracy (with proper ammunition). Receiver ismade from high grade aluminum alloy and consists of two parts (upperand lower), connected by two cross-pins a-la AR-15 / M16 rifles. Combination-type safety / fire selectorallows for single shots and full automatic mode. HK417 retains all M16-style controls, including last round bolt hold-open device, bolt closure device, rear-based charging handle and magazine release button on the right side of the magazine well. HK417 isfitted with four Picatinny rails on free-float handguard as standard, and will accept any type of sighting devices on STANAG-1913 compliant mounts. It also can accept modified HKAG36/AG-C 40mm grenade launcher, which is clamped directly to bottom rail. Buttstock is of modified M4 design, multi-position telescoped. Production HK417 rifles useproprietary 10- or 20-round box magazines, made of translucent polymer(early prototypes used HK G3 magazines).
Modern Firearms - HK 417

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Zarvan

*Heckler & Koch HK416*
posted on MARCH 10, 2013 by GUNS WEAPONS in ASSAULT RIFLES with NO COMMENTS




Ads by Rich Media ViewAd Options

Using AR-15 platform Heckler & Koch manufactured HK416 as an improvement to the Colt M4 carabine with inclusion of gas–piston system derived from H&K G36. This design prevents combustion gases from entering the weapon’s interior, a shortcoming with direct impingement systems. The reduction in heat and fouling of the bolt carrier group increases the reliability of the weapon and extends the interval between stoppages. The barrel is cold hammer forged for better firing sesions.

Delta Force replaced its M4s with the HK416 in 2004 after tests revealed that the piston operating system significantly reduces malfunctions while increasing the life of parts. HK 416 is equipped with Picatinny rail forearm on four sides alowing it to be mounted with most current accessories. Pistol grip is designed by H&K with a selection of interchangeable trigger groups allow for safe semi-automatic and fully automatic options. HK416 includes a folding front sight, and a rear sight similar in design to the G3.

A modified variant underwent testing by the United States Marine Corps as the M27 Infantry Automatic Rifle. After the Marine Corps Operational Test & Evaluation Activity supervised a round of testing at MCAGCC Twentynine Palms, Fort McCoy, andCamp Shelby (for dust, cold-weather, and hot-weather conditions, respectively). As of March 2012, fielding of 452 IARs has been completed of 4,748 ordered. Five infantry battalions; 1st Light Armored Reconnaissance Battalion and 2nd Battalion, 4th Marines, out of Camp Pendleton, CA, First Battalion, 3rd Marines, out of Marine Corps Base HI, 1st Battalion, 9th Marines, out of Camp Lejeune, NC; and 1st Battalion, 25th Marines, out of Fort Devens, MA have deployed the weapon.

The HK416 models chambered for 5.56×45mm NATO available to the military and law enforcement market are:


D10RS: sub-compact with a 264 mm (10.4 in) barrel
D14.5RS: carbine rifle 368 mm (14.5 in) barrel
D16.5RS: rifle with 419 mm (16.5 in) barrel
D20RS: full-sized rifle 505 mm (19.9 in) barrel

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## That Guy

DESERT FIGHTER said:


> scar is ubber cool.


It's also apparently super heavy, from what I've heard.



damdam786 said:


> Why cant Pakistan army sell G3 to civilians to get some money back? I know stupid idea but lol


Because those G-3 are made as military grade rifles, and with Pakistani black market, those rifles could very well get into the hands of the insurgents.

Handing them off to local police forces, or selling them to a foreign military force might also be an option.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## MilSpec

DESERT FIGHTER said:


> the answer is none... the cheapest would be AK variants... which we are already using...
> 
> List of assault rifles - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> post 2000s... very limited choice..


What about the Chinese bullpups, they look n


That Guy said:


> Oh really? Mind posting the prices, and the quality of each rifle that's been posted in the list your provided? It seems that you're making a very broad assumption.
> 
> The AK is not even a choice, because it's already in active service in Pakistan.
> 
> 
> The G-3 is an old system, and while it is good at what it does, it's also a burden (weight is far too much for a modern gun).
> 
> Also, the PA is a professional army, training soldiers to handle the rifle and keep it clean shouldn't be a major problem.


g3 iis not heavier than a ar10 or a scar with a quadrail fore end.


----------



## That Guy

sandy_3126 said:


> What about the Chinese bullpups, they look n
> 
> g3 iis not heavier than a ar10 or a scar with a quadrail fore end.


Which is the problem, PA needs a lighter rifle. With the IA inducting light assault rifles in their forces, it'll give the IA infantry a distinct advantage, because they'll be able to carry more equipment and ammunition.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Ahmed Goundal

Wich rifle is the best ... I mean made in pakistan rifle


----------



## IndoUS

Does the army prefer a battle rifle or an assault rifle? They will be replacing G-3 which is a battle rifle.


----------



## That Guy

IndoUS said:


> Does the army prefer a battle rifle or an assault rifle? They will be replacing G-3 which is a battle rifle.


From what I'm been told, they prefer battle rifles, or at least they did. Ever since the insurgency began, that mindset has been changing, and there has been rumors circulating for the past 2 years that the PA may be looking for an assault rifle replacement to the G-3.

Still, battle rifles have their place in every military, so don't expect the G-3 to go out of service completely.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## A1Kaid

POF needs to develop a new battle rifle, mass purchasing a new standard issue rifle isn't the answer not economically nor militarily.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## RAMPAGE

A1Kaid said:


> POF needs to develop a new battle rifle, mass purchasing a new standard issue rifle isn't the answer not economically nor militarily.


What about the new concepts like the S&T Daewoo K11 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia ???

Do you guys think that these air burst grenades can be used in a scenario other than urban warfare ???


----------



## Zarvan

A1Kaid said:


> POF needs to develop a new battle rifle, mass purchasing a new standard issue rifle isn't the answer not economically nor militarily.


Sir we should take license of HK-417 and prodce it in Pakistan Sir


----------



## untitled

The best option for PA would be a develop a carbine version of the G-3 or any other rifle which fires the 7.62 NATO

I have never seen a carbine version of of 7.62 NATO rifle BTW


----------



## DESERT FIGHTER

sandy_3126 said:


> What about the Chinese bullpups, they look n
> 
> g3 iis not heavier than a ar10 or a scar with a quadrail fore end.




Paramilitary n civilian ATUs are already using QBZs ... personally ive never used one... so no idea.


----------



## That Guy

A1Kaid said:


> POF needs to develop a new battle rifle, mass purchasing a new standard issue rifle isn't the answer not economically nor militarily.


Actually, developing a rifle locally would cost a lot more than buying in bulk, an off the shelf system. Now, of course, there would be a licence production for the standardization of the rifle, so Pakistan doesn't need to develop it's own rifle just yet. Besides, it would take years to develop a brand new modern rifle, and Pakistan doesn't have the luxury of time.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## MilSpec

That Guy said:


> Actually, developing a rifle locally would cost a lot more than buying in bulk, an off the shelf system. Now, of course, there would be a licence production for the standardization of the rifle, so Pakistan doesn't need to develop it's own rifle just yet. Besides, it would take years to develop a brand new modern rifle, and Pakistan doesn't have the luxury of time.


Not a all.... developing an in house infantry rifle, and locally producing it would be much more feasable... Even if it costs the same as the importing, the bulk of the money will be going in to your own economy instead of paying a foriegn country. An AK retails around $350- 450 whereas the mfg costs are less than $80. Mark up on a small arms systems are tremendous. 

Pakistan especially has an illustrious rifleman culture and a very talented local gun smithing industry... I am hopeful that you guys can come up with a good indigenous functional infantry combat system

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## That Guy

sandy_3126 said:


> Not a all.... developing an in house infantry rifle, and locally producing it would be much more feasable... Even if it costs the same as the importing, the bulk of the money will be going in to your own economy instead of paying a foriegn country. An AK retails around $350- 450 whereas the mfg costs are less than $80. Mark up on a small arms systems are tremendous.
> 
> Pakistan especially has an illustrious rifleman culture and a very talented local gun smithing industry... I am hopeful that you guys can come up with a good indigenous functional infantry combat system


The problem is that R&D costs money, plus you have to add in the cost of manufacturing and training, etc, etc. If you want a military grade rifle that's future proof, you need to spend quite a bit of money. Yes, there are gun smiths in Pakistan, but that doesn't mean they have the technical know how to produce a brand new system that the military can use as a standard issue rifle, because most of them specialize in repairing or cloning existing weapons systems. Now, you do have a point that the money stays in Pakistan, but money isn't the only problem; I've mentioned it before, but time is also a limiting factor, Pakistan simple doesn't have the luxury of time.

Importing already manufactured guns, or getting a licensed manufacturing + production is quicker, easier, and more cost effective in the short term, because you don't have to waste time to wait until the rifle has been cleared by the military, which can itself take a heavy toll financially. Another problem arises that the locally developed rifle may not live up to military expectations, in which case the rifle could be cancelled anyway. It's happened with many military forces, simple example would be Korea.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Irfan Baloch

sandy_3126 said:


> it is a nice reliable rifle, but is an ar platform, so will be prone to good upkeep. G3's on the other hand are very durable tack drivers...
> 
> Why does the G3 need replacement in the first place, they are pretty good rifles.


post number 9 shows you what clue people have when they give a definitive verdict about a something with little to no knowledge and to be used by a service and in conditions they themselves never experienced
we run away from fancy AR platform due to their high maintenance for us the eastern European and Russian AKs and their chinese rip offs work best at best we need something that accommodates some accessories of modern times and specially in the current scenario is of carbine size and weight.
the western fancy guns will see use but they will be limited to airforce and Navys' limited special forces or our own special forces but then again our SSG/SSGN are already using M4 and Styr AUG. 

if a new independent airborne infantry brigade is raised on the lines of American Rangers or 101 then something lighter and modern may be adopted but thats already covered by our modified type 56/81

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## A1Kaid

That Guy said:


> Actually, developing a rifle locally would cost a lot more than buying in bulk, an off the shelf system. Now, of course, there would be a licence production for the standardization of the rifle, so Pakistan doesn't need to develop it's own rifle just yet. Besides, it would take years to develop a brand new modern rifle, and Pakistan doesn't have the luxury of time.



It doesn't matter if it cost more, in the long run it is better and a more sustainable policy. You don't see Germany, US, France, Israel, China, Russia, importing rifles to issue to their own army because those countries understand developing their own rifle is the best way. Also, no it wouldn't take years to develop a new brand rifle, if they really wanted to it could be done in 1 year with rigorous testing. "Doesn't have the luxury of time"? Why what's the hurry? Is the G3 falling apart? G3 is a solid platform, earlier you mentioned the weight being an issue, the weight isn't a significant factor, it's downside is that it isn't as tactical as new rifles.



That Guy said:


> The problem is that R&D costs money, plus you have to add in the cost of manufacturing and training, etc, etc. If you want a military grade rifle that's future proof, you need to spend quite a bit of money. Yes, there are gun smiths in Pakistan, but that doesn't mean they have the technical know how to produce a brand new system that the military can use as a standard issue rifle, because most of them specialize in repairing or cloning existing weapons systems. Now, you do have a point that the money stays in Pakistan, but money isn't the only problem; I've mentioned it before, but time is also a limiting factor, Pakistan simple doesn't have the luxury of time.
> 
> Importing already manufactured guns, or getting a licensed manufacturing + production is quicker, easier, and more cost effective in the short term, because you don't have to waste time to wait until the rifle has been cleared by the military, which can itself take a heavy toll financially. Another problem arises that the locally developed rifle may not live up to military expectations, in which case the rifle could be cancelled anyway. It's happened with many military forces, simple example would be Korea.



Why do you think we have a POF in the first place? You think importing is the solution to a new rifle which is really flawed thinking. It doesn't matter if developing one cost money, that's why we have a defense budget, raise the budget if need be, and collect more taxes. Besides, after Pakistan develops it's own rifle it can recoup and generate profit by exporting the new rifle to other countries.



> I've mentioned it before, but time is also a limiting factor, Pakistan simple doesn't have the luxury of time.



Why don't we have time? For over a decade Pakistan has been using the G3 and it is reliable as it was then as it is now. Pakistan has all the time it needs, a new rifle could be developed if POF was really pushed in a year.



> Another problem arises that the locally developed rifle may not live up to military expectations, in which case the rifle could be cancelled anyway.



Then you fix the problem, you don't not build a rifle because it may not meet military expectations, you design and engineer it right by developing prototypes first.



RAMPAGE said:


> What about the new concepts like the S&T Daewoo K11 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia ???
> 
> Do you guys think that these air burst grenades can be used in a scenario other than urban warfare ???




Air burst grenades can absolutely be used effectively in the close-range field to hit enemy targets that are entrenched in a specific area or taking cover.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## A1Kaid

Kaan said:


> IMO the scar is too bulky. I hate it. It feels like your carrying around a brick or something.




Are you serious? I had the opportunity to check out the Scar-H and Scar-L and both were surprisingly light weight.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Hakan

A1Kaid said:


> Are you serious? I had the opportunity to check out the Scar-H and Scar-L and both were surprisingly light weight.


im saying the shape. For me it doesn't feel smooth. It is light though.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## A1Kaid

Kaan said:


> im saying the shape. For me it doesn't feel smooth. It is light though.




Yeah it does kind of have a block like shape on the upper receiver however that was done to support the top long p-rail. Though I didn't see that as a negative because my hand is going to be on the pistol grip and my finger on the trigger. The rifle feels good, only one thing I didn't like was the stock charging handle it didn't feel solid, but you can obviously change the charging handle.



This is the Scar-L

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## That Guy

A1Kaid said:


> It doesn't matter if it cost more, in the long run it is better and a more sustainable policy. You don't see Germany, US, France, Israel, China, Russia, importing rifles to issue to their own army because those countries understand developing their own rifle is the best way. Also, no it wouldn't take years to develop a new brand rifle, if they really wanted to it could be done in 1 year with rigorous testing. "Doesn't have the luxury of time"? Why what's the hurry? Is the G3 falling apart? G3 is a solid platform, earlier you mentioned the weight being an issue, the weight isn't a significant factor, it's downside is that it isn't as tactical as new rifles.
> 
> 
> 
> Why do you think we have a POF in the first place? You think importing is the solution to a new rifle which is really flawed thinking. It doesn't matter if developing one cost money, that's why we have a defense budget, raise the budget if need be, and collect more taxes. Besides, after Pakistan develops it's own rifle it can recoup and generate profit by exporting the new rifle to other countries.
> 
> 
> 
> Why don't we have time? For over a decade Pakistan has been using the G3 and it is reliable as it was then as it is now. Pakistan has all the time it needs, a new rifle could be developed if POF was really pushed in a year.
> 
> 
> 
> Then you fix the problem, you don't not build a rifle because it may not meet military expectations, you design and engineer it right by developing prototypes first.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Air burst grenades can absolutely be used effectively in the close-range field to hit enemy targets that are entrenched in a specific area or taking cover.


Your entire argument can be debunked in two questions, who's going to pay for the development? What is the military going to use to fight this current war as a replacement for the G-3 (as a stop gap)?

The situation isn't as simplistic as you're making it out to be.


----------



## A1Kaid

That Guy said:


> Your entire argument can be debunked in two questions, who's going to pay for the development? What is the military going to use to fight this current war as a replacement for the G-3 (as a stop gap)?
> 
> The situation isn't as simplistic as you're making it out to be.





> who's going to pay for the development?



The same who pay for the military and POF. You act as if the country doesn't have money to mass produce a rifle, that is the flaw in your logic. Who appointed you secretary of the Treasury, you're cost arguement is baseless, because as I told you and others told you that for Pakistan developing a new rifle is more beneficial both militarily and economically. First, money would be spent inside the economy supporting domestic arms industry. Second, it's a more sustainable policy than just importing new rifles--because in actuality many new rifles (especially western manufactured ones) are more expensive than what Pakistan or POF could manufacture one for. Third, once a new rifle is developed Pakistan can sell it for export to other countries and recoup all cost incurred during development phase and generate profit afterwards.




> What is the military going to use to fight this current war as a replacement for the G-3 (as a stop gap)?



We're not discussing stop gap, we're discussing a new standard issued rifle. G-3 is fine for current war and insurgency, it doesn't need to be replaced because of the current war, it needs to be replaced because there's a need for a new and more tactical rifle one that preferably has a piston upper and other advantages.

The fact that you think we need a "stop-gap" proves you are simply thinking short-term, and that is we're we differ. I don't even think you ever fired a G3, they are solid and dependable in battle and the "current war" is no matter for the G3.

G3 has been used in these conflicts.



> Portuguese Colonial War
> Rhodesian Bush War
> Six-Day War
> South African Border War
> Carnation Revolution
> The Troubles
> Iranian Revolution
> Iran–Iraq War
> Salvadoran Civil War
> Kurdish–Turkish conflict
> Ethiopian Civil War
> Gulf War
> Yugoslav Wars
> Sierra Leone Civil War
> War in North-West Pakistan
> Operation Enduring Freedom/ISAF—Afghanistan
> Second Gulf War
> Mexican Drug War
> Syrian civil war


Wiki

All of a sudden we need to get a "stop-gap" rifle because of what? The insurgency in Waziristan? Can you specifically cite any failures that you can attribute to the G3 rifle in counter-insurgency operations?


----------



## A1Kaid

That Guy said:


> The problem is that R&D costs money, plus you have to add in the cost of manufacturing and training, etc, etc. If you want a military grade rifle that's future proof, you need to spend quite a bit of money. Yes, there are gun smiths in Pakistan, but that doesn't mean they have the technical know how to produce a brand new system that the military can use as a standard issue rifle, because most of them specialize in repairing or cloning existing weapons systems. Now, you do have a point that the money stays in Pakistan, but money isn't the only problem; I've mentioned it before, but time is also a limiting factor, Pakistan simple doesn't have the luxury of time.
> 
> Importing already manufactured guns, or getting a licensed manufacturing + production is quicker, easier, and more cost effective in the short term, because you don't have to waste time to wait until the rifle has been cleared by the military, which can itself take a heavy toll financially. Another problem arises that the locally developed rifle may not live up to military expectations, in which case the rifle could be cancelled anyway. It's happened with many military forces, simple example would be Korea.






> Importing already manufactured guns, or getting a licensed manufacturing + production is quicker, easier, and more cost effective in the short term



Whose going to give POF a license? Licensing is out of Pakistan's hands and makes Pakistan dependent on a foreign country for licensing it's own standard issued rifle. Did you ever think about the cost of foreign dependence or do you only factor in cost of rupees? Two importing already manufactured guns is only a quick solution but isn't a good one, as we are discussing a long-term solution. We don't need a short-term rifle, G3 is fine, if we're going to replace G3 it needs to be replaced with a well invested and long term rifle platform--one that is domestically developed and manufactured.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## That Guy

A1Kaid said:


> The same who pay for the military and POF. You act as if the country doesn't have money to mass produce a rifle, that is the flaw in your logic. Who appointed you secretary of the Treasury, you're cost arguement is baseless, because as I told you and others told you that for Pakistan developing a new rifle is more beneficial both militarily and economically. First, money would be spent inside the economy supporting domestic arms industry. Second, it's a more sustainable policy than just importing new rifles--because in actuality many new rifles (especially western manufactured ones) are more expensive than what Pakistan or POF could manufacture one for. Third, once a new rifle is developed Pakistan can sell it for export to other countries and recoup all cost incurred during development phase and generate profit afterwards.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We're not discussing stop gap, we're discussing a new standard issued rifle. G-3 is fine for current war and insurgency, it doesn't need to be replaced because of the current war, it needs to be replaced because there's a need for a new and more tactical rifle one that preferably has a piston upper.
> 
> The fact that you think we need a "stop-gap" proves you are simply thinking short-term, and that is we're we differ. I don't even think you ever fired a G3, they are solid and dependable in battle and the "current war" is no matter for the G3.
> 
> G3 has been used in these conflicts.
> 
> 
> Wiki
> 
> All of a sudden we need to get a "stop-gap" rifle because of what? The insurgency in Waziristan? Can you specifically cite any failures that you can attribute to the G3 rifle in counter-insurgency operations?



Okay, first of all, no need for personal attacks. Whether or not "I fired a G-3", or I'm a "secretary of the treasurer of Pakistan" has nothing to do with this argument, that's an ad hominem. In fact, I can very well send a similar argument right back at you, and you'd realize just how bad that argument is.

My argument stands, simply saying it's invalid doesn't make it invalid.

Replacing the rifles of an entire military force is expensive, and takes years to do. Pakistan would need over 600,000+ rifle to effectively replace the current G-3. Now, your basically comparing the replacement of the entirety of the G-3 stockpile, with manufacturing more G-3s, that's your argument. Replacing the entire stockpile would cost a lot more, because you're literally replacing all the G-3s in the military. Pakistan Army already takes a lion's share of Pakistan's total budget, increasing it any further in today's economic situation would be disastrous. Hell, I'm against the very idea of even replacing it right now, but there is no doubt that there is an urgent need now to replace it, in care of conflict with a neighboring country (and no, I'm not talking about India, but it would be even more urgent to do so if India is considered). The G-3 would be perfectly acceptable if modern warfare was still fought in trenches or hills, but they're not.

Next, your argument is that importing the rifles would cost more, but that's not my argument at all. In fact, my argument is that Pakistan should do exactly what it did with the G-3. Getting licensed manufacturing would mean local production and manufacturing capability for the new rifle; this way, the rifles aren't being imported from a foreign nation. So your argument that it would be more expensive from imports doesn't make much sense here. Next, developing a rifle takes time and money, the reason why I said that Pakistan doesn't have the luxury of both is that Pakistan's neighbors are already going further and further ahead of Pakistan in terms of infantry systems. The G-3 is good, but it is outdated for a reason, guns are replaced based on current requirements, not because of the rifle is good or not; why do you think the French are replacing the FAMAS, which is also a good rifle?

Another false argument you've made is that Pakistan can just sell the rifle to a foreign nation to turn a profit, tell me who's going to buy it? By your own very logic, they could just manufacture their own rifles, because it would be cheaper than buying from Pakistan. You're basing your argument on a simple assumption.



> Whose going to give POF a license? Licensing is out of Pakistan's hands and makes Pakistan dependent on a foreign country for licensing it's own standard issued rifle, two importing already manufactured guns is only a quick solution but isn't a good one, as we are discussing a long-term solution. We don't need a short-term rifle, G3 is fine, if we're going to replace G3 it needs to be replaced with a well invested and long term rifle platform--one that is domestically developed and manufactured.



I'm sorry, but where do you think the G-3 came from? It's not a domestically developed rifle, it's made by Heckler and Koch, a German company. In fact, a vast majority of the weapons that come out of POF are either clones or license produced systems of foreign defense corporations.

As for who's going to give POF a license? There are plenty of global manufacturers that are already selling weapons to Pakistan, so a reluctance to sell isn't a problem. Next, when you're going to standardize a rifle for your army, and foreign consortium get involved in a competition, it's a given that they must offer licensed production so that the military in question can continue to produce the rifle even when the foreign nation has stopped supporting the weapons system design.

Your argument that Pakistan would become dependent on a foreign nation (i.e sanctions prone) is misplaced here. Small arms aren't like tanks or jets, once you get a license for producing a certain small arms weapon system in your country, and get all the equipment, once sanctions come into play, it's very hard to get the production lines to stop. Why do you think the G-3 continued to be produced in Pakistan Ordinance Factories, despite the fact that Pakistan was under economic and military sanctions from the EU and the US for a few years? Your concern is misplaced.


----------



## A1Kaid

A1Kaid said:


> pay for the development?
> The same who pay for the military and POF. You act as if the country doesn't have money to mass produce a rifle, that is the flaw in your logic. Who appointed you secretary of the Treasury, you're cost arguement is baseless, because as I told you and others told you that for Pakistan developing a new rifle is more beneficial both militarily and economically. First, money would be spent inside the economy supporting domestic arms industry. Second, it's a more sustainable policy than just importing new rifles--because in actuality many new r





That Guy said:


> Okay, first of all, no need for personal attacks. Whether or not "I fired a G-3", or I'm a "secretary of the treasurer of Pakistan" has nothing to do with this argument, that's an ad hominem. In fact, I can very well send a similar argument right back at you, and you'd realize just how bad that argument is.
> 
> My argument stands, simply saying it's invalid doesn't make it invalid.
> 
> Replacing the rifles of an entire military force is expensive, and takes years to do. Pakistan would need over 600,000+ rifle to effectively replace the current G-3. Now, your basically comparing the replacement of the entirety of the G-3 stockpile, with manufacturing more G-3s, that's your argument. Replacing the entire stockpile would cost a lot more, because you're literally replacing all the G-3s in the military. Pakistan Army already takes a lion's share of Pakistan's total budget, increasing it any further in today's economic situation would be disastrous. Hell, I'm against the very idea of even replacing it right now, but there is no doubt that there is an urgent need now to replace it, in care of conflict with a neighboring country (and no, I'm not talking about India, but it would be even more urgent to do so if India is considered). The G-3 would be perfectly acceptable if modern warfare was still fought in trenches or hills, but they're not.
> 
> Next, your argument is that importing the rifles would cost more, but that's not my argument at all. In fact, my argument is that Pakistan should do exactly what it did with the G-3. Getting licensed manufacturing would mean local production and manufacturing capability for the new rifle; this way, the rifles aren't being imported from a foreign nation. So your argument that it would be more expensive from imports doesn't make much sense here. Next, developing a rifle takes time and money, the reason why I said that Pakistan doesn't have the luxury of both is that Pakistan's neighbors are already going further and further ahead of Pakistan in terms of infantry systems. The G-3 is good, but it is outdated for a reason, guns are replaced based on current requirements, not because of the rifle is good or not; why do you think the French are replacing the FAMAS, which is also a good rifle?
> 
> Another false argument you've made is that Pakistan can just sell the rifle to a foreign nation to turn a profit, tell me who's going to buy it? By your own very logic, they could just manufacture their own rifles, because it would be cheaper than buying from Pakistan. You're basing your argument on a simple assumption.
> 
> 
> 
> I'm sorry, but where do you think the G-3 came from? It's not a domestically developed rifle, it's made by Heckler and Koch, a German company. In fact, a vast majority of the weapons that come out of POF are either clones or license produced systems of foreign defense corporations.
> 
> As for who's going to give POF a license? There are plenty of global manufacturers that are already selling weapons to Pakistan, so a reluctance to sell isn't a problem. Next, when you're going to standardize a rifle for your army, and foreign consortium get involved in a competition, it's a given that they must offer licensed production so that the military in question can continue to produce the rifle even when the foreign nation has stopped supporting the weapons system design.
> 
> Your argument that Pakistan would become dependent on a foreign nation (i.e sanctions prone) is misplaced here. Small arms aren't like tanks or jets, once you get a license for producing a certain small arms weapon system in your country, and get all the equipment, once sanctions come into play, it's very hard to get the production lines to stop. Why do you think the G-3 continued to be produced in Pakistan Ordinance Factories, despite the fact that Pakistan was under economic and military sanctions from the EU and the US for a few years? Your concern is misplaced.






> My argument stands, simply saying it's invalid doesn't make it invalid.



You're argument doesn't stand on two legs, your argument is shortsighted and your only answer is import.



> Replacing the rifles of an entire military force is expensive, and takes years to do. Pakistan would need over 600,000+ rifle to effectively replace the current G-3. Now, your basically comparing the replacement of the entirety of the G-3 stockpile, with manufacturing more G-3s, that's your argument. Replacing the entire stockpile would cost a lot more, because you're literally replacing all the G-3s in the military. Pakistan Army already takes a lion's share of Pakistan's total budget, increasing it any further in today's economic situation would be disastrous. Hell, I'm against the very idea of even replacing it right now, but there is no doubt that there is an urgent need now to replace it, i





> Replacing the rifles of an entire military force is expensive, and takes years to do.



That's why it's best to have invest and develop a new rifle rather than importing new rifles. It is less expensive in the long run for Pakistan to develop a new rifle than continuously import new rifles. When you issue standard rifles there must be a long-term investment in the platform and the best option is to develop your own when one has the resources and Pakistan certainly does, despite what you believe.



> Another false argument you've made is that Pakistan can just sell the rifle to a foreign nation to turn a profit, tell me who's going to buy it? By your own very logic, they could just manufacture their own rifles, because it would be cheaper than buying from Pakistan. You're basing your argument on a simple assumption.



Wrong, because not every nation has the resources to mass produce their own military rifles. Simple economics, and for some countries it may be more expensive to manufacture a rifle than buy one, depending on their labor costs. Pakistan has low labor cost and can mass manufacture rifles less expensively. Go read about competitive advantage.



> In fact, my argument is that Pakistan should do exactly what it did with the G-3. Getting licensed manufacturing would mean local production and manufacturing capability for the new rifle; this way, the rifles aren't being imported from a foreign nation. So your argument that it would be more expensive from imports doesn't make much sense here.



See this is the shortsightedness of your suggestion, we are back to square one with the foreign import argument and getting licensed manufacturing. Most licensing manufacturing Pakistan could potentially acquire will be for older rifles, not the ones that would really benefit the Pakistani military--so you're argument is based on a false assumption we can acquire foreign license as if it is our choice. Two, what are you going to do every time weapons need to be phased out? You're answer is import, when what POF really needs to do is develop and manufacture a new military rifle that will not only address the necessity of a new rifle for the future, but boost the domestic firearms industry in Pakistan.



> Getting licensed manufacturing would mean local production and manufacturing capability for the new rifle; this way, the rifles aren't being imported from a foreign nation. So your argument that it would be more expensive from imports doesn't make much sense here



Licensed manufacturing from other countries doesn't lead to long-term sustainable solutions, because every time you have a new necessity you are seeking additional licenses to meet those challenges that too from foreign companies. Developing your own allows you to address your own issues in your own hands.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## That Guy

A1Kaid said:


> You're argument doesn't stand on two legs, your argument is shortsighted and your only answer is import.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's why it's best to have invest and develop a new rifle rather than importing new rifles. It is less expensive in the long run for Pakistan to develop a new rifle than continuously import new rifles. When you issue standard rifles there must be a long-term investment in the platform and the best option is to develop your own when one has the resources and Pakistan certainly does, despite what you believe.
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong, because not every nation has the resources to mass produce their own military rifles. Simple economics, and for some countries it may be more expensive to manufacture a rifle than buy one, depending on their labor costs. Pakistan has low labor cost and can mass manufacture rifles less expensively. Go read about competitive advantage.
> 
> 
> 
> See this is the shortsightedness of your suggestion, we are back to square one with the foreign import argument and getting licensed manufacturing. Most licensing manufacturing Pakistan could potentially acquire will be for older rifles, not the ones that would really benefit the Pakistani military--so you're argument is based on a false assumption we can acquire foreign license as if it is our choice. Two, what are you going to do every time weapons need to be phased out? You're answer is import, when what POF really needs to do is develop and manufacture a new military rifle that will not only address the necessity of a new rifle for the future, but boost the domestic firearms industry in Pakistan.
> 
> 
> 
> Licensed manufacturing from other countries doesn't lead to long-term sustainable solutions, because every time you have a new necessity you are seeking additional licenses to meet those challenges that too from foreign companies. Developing your own allows you to address your own issues in your own hands.


All of what you said is true, expect for the parts that include all of what you said.

You keep cherry picking a few lines and basing your arguments on those, and making false assumptions (such as foreign sales, my stance on imports, and what your continued assumption on total costs of both dev and import). You don't seem to understand how licensed manufacturing works, and how a military standard rifle competition seems to work, despite the fact that I've pointed out how it does. You're also, making an assumption on whom Pakistan would market a domestic rifle towards, and the client nation's manufacturing capabilities, hell, you're assuming foreign forces would be interested in a Pakistani rifle.

Look, there is no point in continuing this argument, I'm know for a fact that I'm right, and you think you're right too, so we're at an impasse.


----------



## Thəorətic Muslim

Irfan Baloch said:


> if a new independent airborne infantry brigade is raised on the lines of American Rangers or 101 then something lighter and modern may be adopted but thats already covered by our modified type 56/81



Apparently theres a Pakistani 50th Airborne Division. Any details on that?

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## A1Kaid

That Guy said:


> All of what you said is true, expect for the parts that include all of what you said.
> 
> You keep cherry picking a few lines and basing your arguments on those, and making false assumptions (such as foreign sales, my stance on imports, and what your continued assumption on total costs of both dev and import). You don't seem to understand how licensed manufacturing works, and how a military standard rifle competition seems to work, despite the fact that I've pointed out how it does. You're also, making an assumption on whom Pakistan would market a domestic rifle towards, and the client nation's manufacturing capabilities, hell, you're assuming foreign forces would be interested in a Pakistani rifle.
> 
> Look, there is no point in continuing this argument, I'm know for a fact that I'm right, and you think you're right too, so we're at an impasse.





> You keep cherry picking a few lines and basing your arguments on those, and making false assumptions (such as foreign sales, my stance on imports, and what your continued assumption on total costs of both dev and import



I've addressed every little point you made, no cherry picking. No false assumptions, it's you who made false assumption that one Pakistan can acquire a licensed to manufacture any new or suitable rifle. First you said there is no money for R&D do you realize that many rifles pretty much work the same in principle and there isn't much R&D to do, Pakistan already has the knowledge to develop a rifle and it's mechanics are well understood. So what R&D would be so expensive for Pakistan not to develop it's own rifle than mass manufacture it?

You also didn't answer my last point that stated...



> See this is the shortsightedness of your suggestion, we are back to square one with the foreign import argument and getting licensed manufacturing. Most licensing manufacturing Pakistan could potentially acquire will be for older rifles, not the ones that would really benefit the Pakistani military--so you're argument is based on a false assumption we can acquire foreign license as if it is our choice



Why don't you tell me which company is going to give Pakistan a license to manufacture their rifles? You don't even need to license to manufacture a rifle if you make some alterations to the design, that is another thing you don't understand you would just be wasting money on purchasing a license we don't need. License is needed when making exact rifle replicas.

Best thing to do is have POF develop a rifle and if it pass all requirements, mass manufacture. Look at what happened to France they are regretting their firearms company MAS who manufactured the FAMAS has shut down and now they are desperate and looking for a new rifle from other European countries. That is why supporting your firearms industry is important, self-reliance.




> You're also, making an assumption on whom Pakistan would market a domestic rifle towards, and the client nation's manufacturing capabilities, hell, you're assuming foreign forces would be interested in a Pakistani rifle.



That's not assumption, like I told you go read about competitive advantage not all companies have the capability or money to develop their own rifles and mass manufacture them, in Asia and Africa. If marketed properly sales can be made, Pakistan already is exporting the POF-5 to US market, so no assumption is made. People like you would have argued Pakistan should just buy rifles, Pakistan's firearms exports are already growing and developing a new rifle would be great both for business and military.


----------



## Irfan Baloch

Thəorətic Muslim said:


> Apparently theres a Pakistani 50th Airborne Division. Any details on that?


sorry I dont have details on that . I understood the para jumping as an extra for the different arms without a dedicated force by the way POF has already few variants of H&K with modern rails for new gizmos rails in Carbine size...
re gun in the OP, question is how good are they in field cleaning and repair in case of a jam.


----------



## That Guy

A1Kaid said:


> I've addressed every little point you made, no cherry picking. No false assumptions, it's you who made false assumption that one Pakistan can acquire a licensed to manufacture any new or suitable rifle. First you said there is no money for R&D do you realize that many rifles pretty much work the same in principle and there isn't much R&D to do, Pakistan already has the knowledge to develop a rifle and it's mechanics are well understood. So what R&D would be so expensive for Pakistan not to develop it's own rifle than mass manufacture it?
> 
> You also didn't answer my last point that stated...
> 
> 
> 
> Why don't you tell me which company is going to give Pakistan a license to manufacture their rifles? You don't even need to license to manufacture a rifle if you make some alterations to the design, that is another thing you don't understand you would just be wasting money on purchasing a license we don't need. License is needed when making exact rifle replicas.
> 
> Best thing to do is have POF develop a rifle and if it pass all requirements, mass manufacture. Look at what happened to France they are regretting their firearms company MAS who manufactured the FAMAS has shut down and now they are desperate and looking for a new rifle from other European countries. That is why supporting your firearms industry is important, self-reliance.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's not assumption, like I told you go read about competitive advantage not all companies have the capability or money to develop their own rifles and mass manufacture them, in Asia and Africa. If marketed properly sales can be made, Pakistan already is exporting the POF-5 to US market, so no assumption is made. People like you would have argued Pakistan should just buy rifles, Pakistan's firearms exports are already growing and developing a new rifle would be great both for business and military.



Okay, fine, you want me to answer you, I'll do it.



> I've addressed every little point you made, no cherry picking. No false assumptions, it's you who made false assumption that one Pakistan can acquire a licensed to manufacture any new or suitable rifle. First you said there is no money for R&D do you realize that many rifles pretty much work the same in principle and there isn't much R&D to do, Pakistan already has the knowledge to develop a rifle and it's mechanics are well understood. So what R&D would be so expensive for Pakistan not to develop it's own rifle than mass manufacture it?



Actually, you haven't addressed my points at all, especially my cost argument, which you continue to ignore.

You don't actually understand how rifles work, no they don't work on the same principle. An AK-47 doesn't have the same mechanics as an M-16, which doesn't have the same mechanics as a FAMAS, which doesn't have the same mechanics as a G-36. The only things all these rifles have in common is that they all shoot bullets. By your logic, India should already have their rifle up and running, and it shouldn't have cost them as much as it has already.

So R&D does matter, because if you're building a brand new rifle, you need to built it's internal components from scratch.



> See this is the shortsightedness of your suggestion, we are back to square one with the foreign import argument and getting licensed manufacturing. Most licensing manufacturing Pakistan could potentially acquire will be for older rifles, not the ones that would really benefit the Pakistani military--so you're argument is based on a false assumption we can acquire foreign license as if it is our choice
> Why don't you tell me which company is going to give Pakistan a license to manufacture their rifles? You don't even need to license to manufacture a rifle if you make some alterations to the design, that is another thing you don't understand you would just be wasting money on purchasing a license we don't need.
> 
> Best thing to do is have POF develop a rifle and if it pass all requirements, mass manufacture. Look at what happened to France they are regretting their firearms company MAS who manufactured the FAMAS has shut down and now they are desperate and looking for a new rifle from other European countries. That is why supporting your firearms industry is important, self-reliance.



Actually, that's a lie you just spoke right there. A great example would be Pakistan's current rifle of choice, the G-3, which was still relatively new when it was first fielded by Pakistan. Pakistan's next rifle of choice will depend on certain requirements that the new rifle must fulfill, so as long as it fills those requirements, it matters very little how old or new the rifle is. You seem to be confusing old with obsolete, which is a false assumption to make. Pakistan can go for a G-36, which is offered as with foreign export variant by HK, and it would be fine. This "newness" of a rifle completely depends on who bids on the rifle contract, and which rifle they offer against their competition. I doubt any nation would block such a large order, especially in today's economic climate.

Now who would offer licensed manufacturing in Pakistan? Literally any company bidding in the competition. That could include consortium's like HK, Colt, FN, or a number of Chinese, European and Russian companies...etc; Basically anyone who's interested in the bidding process, because the process would include a demand for such a thing.

What happened to France is not what you're claiming. The French didn't shut it down because they wanted to, it's because there was no more demand for the FAMAS, and with no foreign orders, the company went bankrupt. It had nothing to do with France purposefully shutting it down. Don't misrepresent the situation. Also, do you know how long it took to develop and deploy the FAMAS? From 1967 to 1978 when it was put into full production, that's 11 years.

Like I said, it's not easy to develop rifles, you said it yourself...



> Best thing to do is have POF develop a rifle and* if* it pass all requirements, mass manufacture



...IF.



> That's not assumption, like I told you go read about competitive advantage not all companies have the capability or money to develop their own rifles and mass manufacture them, in Asia and Africa. If marketed properly sales can be made, Pakistan already is exporting the POF-5 to US market, so no assumption is made. People like you would have argued Pakistan should just buy rifles, Pakistan's firearms exports are already growing and developing a new rifle would be great both for business and military.


That's the civilian market you're referring too. That's loose change and isn't enough to keep an entire industry going. If demand wasn't so high with the PA, POF would have been bankrupt years ago. Even now it's facing shortage of funds, and is in debt. The POF-5's sales aren't even known either, so we can't really call it an export success, as we don't know the number of civil sales on the gun. So you are not only basing your argument on a simple assumption that because on rifle was export to another nation (by misrepresenting facts), you're saying that this result would automatically make the new rifle just as successful. It's a buyers market out there, if they don't like your product, they don't care how cheap it is or how good your last product was.
-----------------

Look, you don't have to admit you're wrong, just ignore my comment and move on.


----------



## rockstar08

this Gun looks nice, but i think Army will be thinking not just about design but other things as well, like fire rate , weight etc


----------



## A1Kaid

That Guy said:


> Okay, fine, you want me to answer you, I'll do it.
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, you haven't addressed my points at all, especially my cost argument, which you continue to ignore.
> 
> You don't actually understand how rifles work, no they don't work on the same principle. An AK-47 doesn't have the same mechanics as an M-16, which doesn't have the same mechanics as a FAMAS, which doesn't have the same mechanics as a G-36. The only things all these rifles have in common is that they all shoot bullets. By your logic, India should already have their rifle up and running, and it shouldn't have cost them as much as it has already.
> 
> So R&D does matter, because if you're building a brand new rifle, you need to built it's internal components from scratch.
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, that's a lie you just spoke right there. A great example would be Pakistan's current rifle of choice, the G-3, which was still relatively new when it was first fielded by Pakistan. Pakistan's next rifle of choice will depend on certain requirements that the new rifle must fulfill, so as long as it fills those requirements, it matters very little how old or new the rifle is. You seem to be confusing old with obsolete, which is a false assumption to make. Pakistan can go for a G-36, which is offered as with foreign export variant by HK, and it would be fine. This "newness" of a rifle completely depends on who bids on the rifle contract, and which rifle they offer against their competition. I doubt any nation would block such a large order, especially in today's economic climate.
> 
> Now who would offer licensed manufacturing in Pakistan? Literally any company bidding in the competition. That could include consortium's like HK, Colt, FN, or a number of Chinese, European and Russian companies...etc; Basically anyone who's interested in the bidding process, because the process would include a demand for such a thing.
> 
> What happened to France is not what you're claiming. The French didn't shut it down because they wanted to, it's because there was no more demand for the FAMAS, and with no foreign orders, the company went bankrupt. It had nothing to do with France purposefully shutting it down. Don't misrepresent the situation. Also, do you know how long it took to develop and deploy the FAMAS? From 1967 to 1978 when it was put into full production, that's 11 years.
> 
> Like I said, it's not easy to develop rifles, you said it yourself...
> 
> 
> 
> ...IF.
> 
> 
> That's the civilian market you're referring too. That's loose change and isn't enough to keep an entire industry going. If demand wasn't so high with the PA, POF would have been bankrupt years ago. Even now it's facing shortage of funds, and is in debt. The POF-5's sales aren't even known either, so we can't really call it an export success, as we don't know the number of civil sales on the gun. So you are not only basing your argument on a simple assumption that because on rifle was export to another nation (by misrepresenting facts), you're saying that this result would automatically make the new rifle just as successful. It's a buyers market out there, if they don't like your product, they don't care how cheap it is or how good your last product was.
> -----------------
> 
> Look, you don't have to admit you're wrong, just ignore my comment and move on.






> You don't actually understand how rifles work, no they don't work on the same principle. An AK-47 doesn't have the same mechanics as an M-16, which doesn't have the same mechanics as a FAMAS, which doesn't have the same mechanics as a G-36. The only things all these rifles have in common is that they all shoot bullets. By your logic, India should already have their rifle up and running, and it shouldn't have cost them as much as it has already.



I said as in the same principle meaning all modern rifles basically do the same operation when the trigger is engaged the hammer strikes the firing pin which strikes the primer of the round. This fundamental principle, something you obviously don't understand, this is found in nearly every rifle and that is how rifles are made today, no R&D required for this. Other mechanics may differ but the fundamental principle is quite similar.



> By your logic, India should already have their rifle up and running, and it shouldn't have cost them as much as it has already.



They recently developed a multi-caliber rifle, that already is a major step.



> Pakistan's next rifle of choice will depend on certain requirements that the new rifle must fulfill, so as long as it fills those requirements, it matters very little how old or new the rifle is. You seem to be confusing old with obsolete, which is a false assumption to make. Pakistan can go for a G-36,



Said nothing about new vs old, new as in the next rifle, G3 is an old rifle and it serves the army well. Pakistan can go for G-36, a rifle you know nothing about. Problems have arisen with the G-36 from loss of accuracy, barrel, and lack of heat dissipation according to Der Spiegel German troops reporting failures; and no Pakistan isn't interested in the G-36. G-36 doesn't have any significant advantages that it could give Pakistani troops that the G3 can't. Now you would have known that had you actually done some research yourself into the G36.




> What happened to France is not what you're claiming. The French didn't shut it down because they wanted to, it's because there was no more demand for the FAMAS, and with no foreign orders, the company went bankrupt. It had nothing to do with France purposefully shutting it down. Don't misrepresent the situation. Also, do you know how long it took to develop and deploy the FAMAS? From 1967 to 1978 when it was put into full production, that's 11 years.


The company shutdown because they didn't innovate and made a bad product (Famas) and was purchased and merged with Nexter that now manufacturers a multitude of military hardware.



> Also, do you know how long it took to develop and deploy the FAMAS? From 1967 to 1978 when it was put into full production, that's 11 years.



France's firearms company had little experience with NATO specification 5.56 which was a new caliber at the time, since then many firearms manufacturers have learned more about 5.56 caliber rifles. That's one major reason why R&D back in that era took longer as a new NATO 5.56, NATO magazines, and all new specifications were introduced and implemented by NATO for a standard issued rifle. Again, something you of course didn't know. R&D for a .308 or 5.56 rifle wouldn't necessarily take 11 years to do to develop a new rifle, POF has years of firearms manufacturing experience.

Do you know how long it took the US to develop and deploy with the M-16? Five years, and they had already issued it, which is very feasible for Pakistan as well.




> Now who would offer licensed manufacturing in Pakistan? Literally any company bidding in the competition. That could include consortium's like HK, Colt, FN, or a number of Chinese, European and Russian companies...etc; Basically anyone who's interested in the bidding process, because the process would include a demand for such a thing.



Why do companies like HK, Colt, and FN, and Norinco exist? Because those companies develop their own military rifles and firearms, and have invested in a long-term sustainable policy of development and manufacturing the same POF must do. You defeated your own point.


----------



## A1Kaid

@That Guy 


The fact that you don't support the domestic firearms industry makes you look like a sellout. Let's just import it's cheaper, faster, and superior... That's basically what you're saying.

When reality is it is only a short term solution to a long term problem. I support POF developing a new rifle for the army, brings jobs, more money into domestic firearms industry, better domestic firearms manufacturing capabilities, and modifications can be made, and per unit can be made less expensive than many foreign military rifles.

All this talk of foreign licenses manufacturing, or purchasing from foreign companies. Is something that has been tried and done, Pakistan is at the stage where it needs to develop a new rifle, and many other members think so as well just you're hard ignorant head thinks otherwise.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Zarvan

A1Kaid said:


> @That Guy
> 
> 
> The fact that you don't support the domestic firearms industry makes you look like a sellout. Let's just import it's cheaper, faster, and superior... That's basically what you're saying.
> 
> When reality is it is only a short term solution to a long term problem. I support POF developing a new rifle for the army, brings jobs, more money into domestic firearms industry, better domestic firearms manufacturing capabilities, and modifications can be made, and per unit can be made less expensive than many foreign military rifles.
> 
> All this talk of foreign licenses manufacturing, or purchasing from foreign companies. Is something that has been tried and done, Pakistan is at the stage where it needs to develop a new rifle, and many other members think so as well just you're hard ignorant head thinks otherwise.


I support the local firearms but developing a Gun like HK-417 is difficult and why waste time and money on designing new one when you have so many options in the world only issue is do you have the money to get the license to produce some Gun

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## A1Kaid

Zarvan said:


> I support the local firearms but developing a Gun like HK-417 is difficult and why waste time and money on designing new one when you have so many options in the world only issue is do you have the money to get the license to produce some Gun



HK417 is a great option, however HK has not given anyone for that matter a license to manufacture one of their best rifles. So I doubt they will give Pakistan a license. Makes no business sense for them to do so. HK417 is exclusive to HK as of now.

That's why I support pakistan developing its own battle rifle something that can match a great rifle like the HK417. There's no reason why Pakistan can't do that. There is no wasting time it is a long term investment and a more sustainable policy.


Good luck trying to convince HK to give you a license to manufacture one of their newest and best rifles.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## That Guy

A1Kaid said:


> @That Guy
> 
> 
> The fact that you don't support the domestic firearms industry makes you look like a sellout. Let's just import it's cheaper, faster, and superior... That's basically what you're saying.
> 
> When reality is it is only a short term solution to a long term problem. I support POF developing a new rifle for the army, brings jobs, more money into domestic firearms industry, better domestic firearms manufacturing capabilities, and modifications can be made, and per unit can be made less expensive than many foreign military rifles.
> 
> All this talk of foreign licenses manufacturing, or purchasing from foreign companies. Is something that has been tried and done, Pakistan is at the stage where it needs to develop a new rifle, and many other members think so as well just you're hard ignorant head thinks otherwise.


So, from what I can tell, you have no real argument to stand on, and have resorted to calling me a sell out. C'est la vie, I guess.

Just a question, who am I selling out to?


----------



## That Guy

A1Kaid said:


> I said as in the same principle meaning all modern rifles basically do the same operation when the trigger is engaged the hammer strikes the firing pin which strikes the primer of the round. This fundamental principle, something you obviously don't understand, this is found in nearly every rifle and that is how rifles are made today, no R&D required for this. Other mechanics may differ but the fundamental principle is quite similar.
> 
> 
> 
> They recently developed a multi-caliber rifle, that already is a major step.
> 
> 
> 
> Said nothing about new vs old, new as in the next rifle, G3 is an old rifle and it serves the army well. Pakistan can go for G-36, a rifle you know nothing about. Problems have arisen with the G-36 from loss of accuracy, barrel, and lack of heat dissipation according to Der Spiegel German troops reporting failures; and no Pakistan isn't interested in the G-36. G-36 doesn't have any significant advantages that it could give Pakistani troops that the G3 can't. Now you would have known that had you actually done some research yourself into the G36.
> 
> 
> 
> The company shutdown because they didn't innovate and made a bad product (Famas) and was purchased and merged with Nexter that now manufacturers a multitude of military hardware.
> 
> 
> 
> France's firearms company had little experience with NATO specification 5.56 which was a new caliber at the time, since then many firearms manufacturers have learned more about 5.56 caliber rifles. That's one major reason why R&D back in that era took longer as a new NATO 5.56, NATO magazines, and all new specifications were introduced and implemented by NATO for a standard issued rifle. Again, something you of course didn't know. R&D for a .308 or 5.56 rifle wouldn't necessarily take 11 years to do to develop a new rifle, POF has years of firearms manufacturing experience.
> 
> Do you know how long it took the US to develop and deploy with the M-16? Five years, and they had already issued it, which is very feasible for Pakistan as well.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why do companies like HK, Colt, and FN, and Norinco exist? Because those companies develop their own military rifles and firearms, and have invested in a long-term sustainable policy of development and manufacturing the same POF must do. You defeated your own point.


Oh my god, the number of straw man arguments, and basic misrepresentation of facts in this quote of yours is amazingly high.

The G-36 was an example, i said nothing about if it was Pakistan's only choice. Again, a straw man argument.

Next, you're ignoring every other component of a weapon with your "basic principle",and saying that no R&D is needed, when clearly it is. India's multi-caliber rifle is still in development, and has been for years now.

Now you're saying that the company didn't innovate and made a bad product, which are all your own subjective opinion, so don't pass them of as facts.

Frances firearms industry had quite a bit of experience with NATO caliber rounds, and was one of the first nations to adopt the new caliber. You're giving too much importance on a caliber of a bullet as related to the development of a rifle. A bullet's shape and size is usually addressed with the magazine size and barrel length and weight, as well as material used in the barrel (such as chrome), nothing else is effected.

How do you think HK Colt, FN, and Norinco made their rifles? With money, which they had,and it took them years and many failed attempts to make their desiges feasible. Hell, the Colt M-16 was originally an Armalite (AR-10) design, which Colt bought, because Colt had for years failed to make their own design of an assault rifle viable. POF has experience with cloning and making existing designs, not creating a brand new rifle. The POF-5 example you gave previously,is an MP-5 clone. Designing a brand new rifle is completely different than cloning an existing rifle, ask any gun enthusiast here or anywhere.

The M-16, when it came to production, was terrible. The short amount of time that was spend on developing it, ended up costing the lives of US soldiers in Vietnam. The rifles were actually sent back at one point, and redesigned so jamming and ammunition waste wouldn't be a problem. The M-16 has been redesigned multiple times to fix it's continued problems, and 90% of it's problems were addressed only dozens of years later.

Look, your argument doesn't have a leg to stand on, just stop.


----------



## A1Kaid

That Guy said:


> Oh my god, the number of straw man arguments, and basic misrepresentation of facts in this quote of yours is amazingly high.
> 
> The G-36 was an example, i said nothing about if it was Pakistan's only choice. Again, a straw man argument.
> 
> Next, you're ignoring every other component of a weapon with your "basic principle",and saying that no R&D is needed, when clearly it is. India's multi-caliber rifle is still in development, and has been for years now.
> 
> Now you're saying that the company didn't innovate and made a bad product, which are all your own subjective opinion, so don't pass them of as facts.
> 
> Frances firearms industry had quite a bit of experience with NATO caliber rounds, and was one of the first nations to adopt the new caliber. You're giving too much importance on a caliber of a bullet as related to the development of a rifle. A bullet's shape and size is usually addressed with the magazine size and barrel length and weight, as well as material used in the barrel (such as chrome), nothing else is effected.
> 
> How do you think HK Colt, FN, and Norinco made their rifles? With money, which they had,and it took them years and many failed attempts to make their desiges feasible. Hell, the Colt M-16 was originally an Armalite (AR-10) design, which Colt bought, because Colt had for years failed to make their own design of an assault rifle viable. POF has experience with cloning and making existing designs, not creating a brand new rifle. The POF-5 example you gave previously,is an MP-5 clone. Designing a brand new rifle is completely different than cloning an existing rifle, ask any gun enthusiast here or anywhere.
> 
> The M-16, when it came to production, was terrible. The short amount of time that was spend on developing it, ended up costing the lives of US soldiers in Vietnam. The rifles were actually sent back at one point, and redesigned so jamming and ammunition waste wouldn't be a problem. The M-16 has been redesigned multiple times to fix it's continued problems, and 90% of it's problems were addressed only dozens of years later.
> 
> Look, your argument doesn't have a leg to stand on, just stop.






> Frances firearms industry had quite a bit of experience with NATO caliber rounds, and was one of the first nations to adopt the new caliber. You're giving too much importance on a caliber of a bullet as related to the development of a rifle. A bullet's shape and size is usually addressed with the magazine size and barrel length and weight, as well as material used in the barrel (such as chrome), nothing else is effected.



The caliber of the round can/does alters the magazine size, the firing pin, the buffer tube, barrel (not necessarily it's length like you said--you can fire a 5.56 from a 14.5"-20" barrel), as well as the chamber and many other factors of the rifle. Change of caliber is a big factor, and the 5.56 being new at the time was studied and researched how it's pressure in the chamber and barrel would work best those are very important factors. New barrels and rifling needed to be developed to make the 5.56 work best, testing on which barrel lengths achieve the best stability and muzzle velocity on the round had to be researched, new trigger groups had to be developed, new buffer tubes that would suppress the recoil, a full-auto sear had to be developed, and other dynamics had changed with the introduction of the 5.56 rifles.



> nothing else is effected



Wrong, it effects the chamber, feed ramps, buffer tube, firing pin, the bolt carrier group, and alters the trigger group. See you don't know much about this topic, so just zip it.



> The M-16, when it came to production, was terrible. The short amount of time that was spend on developing it, ended up costing the lives of US soldiers in Vietnam. The rifles were actually sent back at one point, and redesigned so jamming and ammunition waste wouldn't be a problem



The M-16 wasn't at fault, that is a myth only internet fools keep believing, talk to real Veterans and even Eugene Stoner clarified on this topic the soldiers at the time were wrongfully told by the army that they didn't need to clean and lubricate the rifle, so the rifles would get dirty (especially in the chamber and bolt carrier group) and then begin to create some trouble. M-16 passed military testing and was then approved. Yes, the M-16 has had further enhancement further improving it's design... This is no valid reason not to develop a new rifle yourself, that's what the design process is, you learn from these things and produce a great rifle that the Ar-15/M-16 is today. It's not like all soldiers had these problems but many that were remiss did.



> The G-36 was an example, i said nothing about if it was Pakistan's only choice. Again, a straw man argument.



And it was a very bad example, why would you use a bad example to make a point?

You really don't know much about firearms in general, and just use google to aid you in your arguments.


The only reason you don't support developing a new rifle because something could go wrong? You might as well not develop anything based on your argument, you might as well let other countries and companies do all the work and then hope to get licensed manufacturing from them. What a pathetic argument you have.


----------



## That Guy

A1Kaid said:


> The caliber of the round can/does alters the magazine size, the firing pin, the buffer tube, barrel (not necessarily it's length like you said--you can fire a 5.56 from a 14.5"-20" barrel), as well as the chamber and many other factors of the rifle. Change of caliber is a big factor, and the 5.56 being new at the time was studied and researched how it's pressure in the chamber and barrel would work best those are very important factors. New barrels and rifling needed to be developed to make the 5.56 work best, testing on which barrel lengths achieve the best stability and muzzle velocity on the round had to be researched, new trigger groups had to be developed, new buffer tubes that would suppress the recoil, a full-auto sear had to be developed, and other dynamics had changed with the introduction of the 5.56 rifles.
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong, it effects the chamber, feed ramps, buffer tube, firing pin, the bolt carrier group, and alters the trigger group. See you don't know much about this topic, so just zip it.
> 
> 
> 
> The M-16 wasn't at fault, that is a myth only internet fools keep believing, talk to real Veterans and even Eugene Stoner clarified on this topic the soldiers at the time were wrongfully told by the army that they didn't need to clean and lubricate the rifle, so the rifles would get dirty (especially in the chamber and bolt carrier group) and then begin to create some trouble. M-16 passed military testing and was then approved. Yes, the M-16 has had further enhancement further improving it's design... This is no valid reason not to develop a new rifle yourself, that's what the design process is, you learn from these things and produce a great rifle that the Ar-15/M-16 is today. It's not like all soldiers had these problems but many that were remiss did.
> 
> 
> 
> And it was a very bad example, why would you use a bad example to make a point?
> 
> You really don't know much about firearms in general, and just use google to aid you in your arguments.
> 
> 
> The only reason you don't support developing a new rifle because something could go wrong? You might as well not develop anything based on your argument, you might as well let other countries and companies do all the work and then hope to get licensed manufacturing from them. What a pathetic argument you have.



You know what? I'm done. If you don't want to listen to facts, and want to continue with presenting the same tired old argument over and over again, that's up to you. I've made my argument quite clear, and so far you haven't presented a single piece of evidence to prove I'm wrong. I'm seriously tired of your personal attacks and your misrepresentation of information, you win.


----------



## DESERT FIGHTER

Thəorətic Muslim said:


> Apparently theres a Pakistani 50th Airborne Division. Any details on that?



Not much info but the 50th airborne was involved in swat offensive.. 

*Pakistan troops kill over 50 Taliban*
BY JAVED KHAN







BUNER, Pakistan Thu Apr 30, 2009 12:10am BST

(Reuters) - Pakistani troops took the main town in strategically important Buner Valley on Wednesday after dropping by helicopter behind Taliban lines, killing more than 50 militants in two days, the military said.



Thəorətic Muslim said:


> Apparently theres a Pakistani 50th Airborne Division. Any details on that?



Not much info but the 50th airborne was involved in swat offensive.. 

*Pakistan troops kill over 50 Taliban*
BY JAVED KHAN






BUNER, Pakistan Thu Apr 30, 2009 12:10am BST

(Reuters) - Pakistani troops took the main town in strategically important Buner Valley on Wednesday after dropping by helicopter behind Taliban lines, killing more than 50 militants in two days, the military said.


----------

