Replacement of Pakistan Army's G-3 Rifles.

[Irfan Baloch]

[MENTION=15272]Ir

(a) it was being inducted to begin with

(b) during the '80s when we had the sanctions lifted & the US aid flowing in

(c) during the early '00s when we again had the sanctions lifted & the US aid flowing in

a) you need to catch the cold for your body to learn the cure, the gun is good no doubt, its in use across the globe including Europe but times have changed. people moved on from say 303 or M1 rifles to G3 M16s etc and then to M4 for example.
now there is technology to lighten up the weapon, shorten up the size without sacrificing power , range or accuracy which demands redesigning.

b) US guns although awesome but are a nightmare to maintain , expensive too, they more or less suffer from same issues and then there is the doctrine of sticking to 7.62 round which the M-16's standard 5.56 NATO issue didnt fit the bill.

c) special forces of both NAVY and army use the M4s, our specialist units use all the latest weapons that are out on the offer in the international market and are mainly western Europe origin, so there is no stopping there. but changing the assault weapons of the entire army takes a while and during the time of conflict its hardly the best time to switch.

reason for my post is to reassess our needs understand whats out there and what are the failings of the current weapons and come up with a customized weapon parameters that can be developed inhouse or outsourced to experienced producer and then mass produce it under licence.

I mentioned the type 56 that is widely in use by the military and you see it side by side with G3 . I dont have any feed back about this gun but can guess its more or less on par with AK 47 experience a kind of a sub machine gun with least maintenance, excellent reliability, fire power but lacking the accuracy like the typical AK. A perfect mix is Americanized AK 47 which has addressed that issue without sacrificing the winning points of AK 47. look up its videos and literature because I dont want to lengthen my post but you will understand what is my line of thinking.

thats the kind foa gun I am thinking of. not just the cosmetic touch up with rail to add accessories and extra grip and retractable butt but a better firing mechanism and feed, good prolonged shooting without risk of jamming by taking care of the blowback gases more effectively and robust design. this comes with experience and right tools, computers here can help a lot to come close to that goal.

I dont care about the look, it might look as the behind of a baboon but I am all up for a reliable but compact gun with the stopping power of the G3.

ok I am adding the video for comparison and better understanding where I am going

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G6BpI3xD6h0

the All American Centurion AK 47

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6HRd289LdPs
http://www.gundigest.com/rifle-reviews-articles/centurion-ak-47-a-classic-comes-home

 

[batmannow]

Changing times needs changed equipments?
As our main doctrine tilt towardS terrorism we need a quality multi-purpose assult gun?
Yes we couldn't change whole dam G3s in a week time bt we could start with few units & their formational structures?
Like units in FATA's opreatIonal front could be equiped with better quality thn of G3 & type 56?
It could be lower in cost & ezyr to adopt with?
Thn we can move to LOC on kashmir???
What you think guys?
Which could be the best gun to be deployed in that 2 regions?

 

[haviZsultan]

How about G3KA4 variant. It is a pretty solid little gun I have heard?

 

[Irfan Baloch]

I am going to go through my "should be" list. what the military leadership decides in the end is a different matter

1. the starting point should be what G3 is offering in fire power, range
2. the transition to new gun should be smooth (i.e. ease in training & mastering the new gun)
3. it should be reliable & robust in our diverse environment including hot, freezing & humid conditions.
4. should be cost effective & simple design with quality as top prieority.
5. should be adaptable to modern auxiliaries like different sights, flash , sound suppressors etc & light & compact

and lets not keep our mind one dimensional, look at the actual package and think about improving it too. yes yes the bullet.. do some research as well, so my dear decision makers your Nikkah wont be annulled if you go for a different bullet with different shape, make or size the propellent. the newest guns that are being developed today are being built around the new bullet.

one of the things that eats up the life of the gun and causes the jam and performance issues (apart from environment) is the gas that the parts involved in the firing mechanism have to suffer after the bullet's propellent (charge) is ignited. if the gun's design is lacking in expelling those gases then they take the brunt, over heat, can cause the "cooking" effect where bullets go off due to over heat even when the trigger is not pressed and cause jamming. any better design that smoothly gets rid of those gases will prolong the life of the gun, reduce its recoil and improve the accuracy.

well above all the is the matter of fact statement. the challenge is to actually put this in to practice and come with a design that is a perfect trade off (yes in the real world you cant have it all) which gives you a gun far better than what you have at the moment.

 

[Last Hope]

How about G3KA4 variant. It is a pretty solid little gun I have heard?

I've seen this weapon, but I wasn't personally satisfied with it.

 

[The King Hamza]

THE BEST WEAPON FOR ME IS AN ideal AK105 or H&K 417/416.
The 417 uses same caliber as G3.
The 417s/416s cost above $5,000

 

[Irfan Baloch]

How about G3KA4 variant. It is a pretty solid little gun I have heard?

yes thats what it is , its little
its a Carbine class weapon. & is only lighter and shorter, if these were the only two reasons then it would have been good enough but thee are some issues with gun design causing problems which wont go away with a lesser velocity less accurate lesser range gun.

this will open another debate altogether whether we should replace an assault rifle with a carbine? and why?
currently M4 carbine and M 16 riles in US army are used side by side for urban and conventional warfare.

our type 56 and the G3A3 fill both of these roles. with type 56 losely filling up the carbine role ( essentially a rifle with a shorter barrel but same cartridge & less velocity)


if you guys press me then I will explain more otherwise its a time waster if the debate doesnt move further

 

[Skull and Bones]

Why not upgrade to G36?

 

[Amaa'n]

Why not upgrade to G36?

because, its a completely different platform, Training and Mastering tactics with this gun will take time.

 

[Skull and Bones]

because, its a completely different platform, Training and Mastering tactics with this gun will take time.

Replacing G-3s for G-36 will be time consuming and will be an expensive proposition, but it'll be a move in the right direction.

 

[Amaa'n]

yes thats what it is , its little
its a Carbine class weapon. & is only lighter and shorter, if these were the only two reasons then it would have been good enough but thee are some issues with gun design causing problems which wont go away with a lesser velocity less accurate lesser range gun.

this will open another debate altogether whether we should replace an assault rifle with a carbine? and why?
currently M4 carbine and M 16 riles in US army are used side by side for urban and conventional warfare.

our type 56 and the G3A3 fill both of these roles. with type 56 losely filling up the carbine role ( essentially a rifle with a shorter barrel but same cartridge & less velocity)


if you guys press me then I will explain more otherwise its a time waster if the debate doesnt move further

I am no military expert but We don't have the capability to produce enough 5.56 ammo to meet requirements. If we move to 5.56 or any other platform then we have to upgrade machinery at PoF. So changing to 5.56 is not a good idea. Even if we look at Iraq and Afganistan, Nato forces faced alot of jamming issues with M4/m16 carbines, even there M9 handgun had some hiccups.
Then comes the issue of resupplying the ammo on long enduring missions/patrols, in iraq soliders from 75th Ranger Regiment used to ran out of ammo,
Knight Armanent Company came with new design called SR-47, which was basically m-4, but it would take magazines and bullets from enemy 7.62 AK-47.
This is one of the reason for us to stick with 7.62 x 39 ammo.
SR - 47

 

[Amaa'n]

Replacing G-3s for G-36 will be time consuming and will be an expensive proposition, but it'll be a move in the right direction.

Changing a platform during a War is not a good idea, plus we lack the resources to fund a project at a large scale as this. As i said above, G-36 / 5.56 is good for a Urban warfare but when comes to long range you need more power and kinetic energy to knock down the terrorist.
5.56 ammo has more range but transfers less kinetic energy to the victim, hence you have to shoot twice or thrice for the kill.
I am not saying 5.56 cannot kill, infact it brings a painfull death, but at the spot, a terrorist shot with it will make it to hideout.

it is one of the lethal round because when it enters the body it scatters inside the body and causes more internal damage.

 

[Irfan Baloch]

I am no military expert but We don't have the capability to produce enough 5.56 ammo to meet requirements. If we move to 5.56 or any other platform then we have to upgrade machinery at PoF. So changing to 5.56 is not a good idea. Even if we look at Iraq and Afganistan, Nato forces faced alot of jamming issues with M4/m16 carbines, even there M9 handgun had some hiccups.
Then comes the issue of resupplying the ammo on long enduring missions/patrols, in iraq soliders from 75th Ranger Regiment used to ran out of ammo,
Knight Armanent Company came with new design called SR-47, which was basically m-4, but it would take magazines and bullets from enemy 7.62 AK-47.
This is one of the reason for us to stick with 7.62 x 39 ammo.
SR - 47

I never advocated adopting 5.56 round in that post.


yes for the decision makers, any new gun must have the stopping power of 7.62, 5.56 round is big no no, the setup costs are prohibitive anyway

my post never suggested going for a smaller cartridge , I was just explaining the difference between carbine and a battle rifle. they exist side by side for a reason. G3KA4 is simply a carbine version of G3A4 variant (a G3 with collapsible stock)

battle rifle or assault rifle still exists because as of now a carbine wont cover its role.
both carry same round anyway carbine is simply the shorter , hence lighter version.

but thats not even the debate here as far as I am concerned. I am more interested in discussing the feeding, triggering, firing mechanism and also te field service and durability of the proposed weapon.

 

[Amaa'n]

I never advocated adopting 5.56 round in that post.


yes for the decision makers, any new gun must have the stopping power of 7.62, 5.56 round is big no no, the setup costs are prohibitive anyway

my post never suggested going for a smaller cartridge , I was just explaining the difference between carbine and a battle rifle. they exist side by side for a reason. G3KA4 is simply a carbine version of G3A4 variant (a G3 with collapsible stock)

battle rifle or assault rifle still exists because as of now a carbine wont cover its role.
both carry same round anyway carbine is simply the shorter , hence lighter version.

but thats not even the debate here as far as I am concerned. I am more interested in discussing the feeding, triggering, firing mechanism and also te field service and durability of the proposed weapon.

My point was in reference to your post where you said that we need to design the weapon along the bullet, am just saying that be it the 5.56 or the spc 6.8, both have their issues.
Russain came up with their own round and that is 5.45 x 39, whatever is on internet, AN94 is a brilliant design but even Russians couldn't issue it to the entire army due to economical reasons, that was my point.
As i said earlier if we want ti adopt a new weapon system or bullet then we need to have resources for it which we don't.
I agree with you on g3k4, i have seen it and a big no from my side, too small, with a heavier round with a low mag capacity.
Type 56 has some hand guard heating up issue, as i was told by a major in infantry.
G36 is a very old and trusted design with simple mechanism, only if we coukd chamber it for 7.62 x 39

 

[Irfan Baloch]

a new bullet design can entail different propellent or different gun powder and the projectile of different make while keeping the same dimensions. I am considering 7.62 to be the constant here and designing everything around it.
i know my statement was too general and implied a new bullet in shape and size as well which wasnt my point but I am sure as the time passes this might happen where a smaller round will offer the same accuracy and velocity and eventually the stopping power which is only possible through 7.62 but not jsut now