US Army Testing of the G3 rifle

[davidsog]

Came across this report. Thought it was interesting.

Zero stoppages and all malfunctions had to be artificially induced.

Similar to the FN-FAL, the HK93 prototype sent to the US Army for testing had a bolt hold open function that was eliminated in the service variant.

The US Army fired an average years worth of ammunition so the data is comparable to other US Army reports.

[TimW77]

"Came across this report. Thought it was interesting.
Zero stoppages and all malfunctions had to be artificially induced.
Similar to the FN-FAL, the HK93 prototype sent to the US Army for testing had a bolt hold open function that was eliminated in the service variant.
The US Army fired an average years worth of ammunition so the data is comparable to other US Army reports."

You might want to check your facts and model numbers...

T.

[davidsog]

You might want to check your facts and model numbers...

Specific facts you think are wrong makes a discussion easier.


For example:

Similar to the FN-FAL, the HK93 prototype sent to the US Army for testing had a bolt hold open function that was eliminated in the service variant.

L1A1 and the entire Commonwealth...
In other words, the majority of FN-FAL in military service.

The US Army fired an average years worth of ammunition so the data is comparable to other US Army reports."

610 rounds of fire represents an average year of use for service rifle testing.

Zero stoppages and all malfunctions had to be artificially induced.

Direct quote from the report...



In other words, the only malfunction that induced a stoppage was the result of artificially modification of the bolt to study the effect of rate of fire changes.

Maybe your are confused on what I actually said?

[davidsog]

From the US Army M-14 Cost Analysis:



610 Ball + 50 Tracer + 150 Blank = 810 rounds per Year average

270 days between Failures = 270 days /365 days = .739

.739 * 810 Rounds per year = 600 Rounds Between Failures with an Average of .6 hours to repair the failure

[T. O'Heir]

"...Similar to the FN-FAL..." The only similarities between 'em is the chambering and weight.
"...the US Army M-14..." The U.S. adopted the M-14 for political reasons. The FN beat the M-14 in every test except accuracy during the mid 50's trials.
"...fired an average years worth of ammunition..." Your tax dollar in action. That report was just ABERDEEN playing with stuff. The G3 had been in service for 10 years by 1969.

[davidsog]

Similar to the FN-FAL..." The only similarities between 'em is the chambering and weight.

Read what was written before commenting please and take what was written in CONTEXT. Otherwise you transform a truth into a fantasy of your own creation.

Thanks!


What was written:

Similar to the FN-FAL, the HK93 prototype sent to the US Army for testing had a bolt hold open function that was eliminated in the service variant.

"...the US Army M-14..." The U.S. adopted the M-14 for political reasons. The FN beat the M-14 in every test except accuracy during the mid 50's trials.

Maybe..Maybe not..and if you find that testing report would love to discuss the data in it.

"...fired an average years worth of ammunition..." Your tax dollar in action. That report was just ABERDEEN playing with stuff. The G3 had been in service for 10 years by 1969.

And I am not sure what point is being made here. It was a controlled test of the rifle with measured results. I fail to see how that fact effects anything. The G3 is still in service with the Bundeswehr and in still in service with many Armies in the world. It is still being produced for Military Contracts. The M14 was recently put back into service in the GWOT. I carried one and it is a great MBR.

The information present in the report is interesting. What it is not is an attack on your favorite rifle. It is simply factual information and things are what they are....no emotional nostalgia required or desired.

[50 shooter]

I think what he was getting at is the rifles, a G3 is not the same as a 93. The G3 is .308/7.62 and the 93 is .223/5.56.

[davidsog]

I think what he was getting at is the rifles, a G3 is not the same as a 93. The G3 is .308/7.62 and the 93 is .223/5.56.

Again, the similarity being the bolt hold open function. Like the FN-FAL, the bolt hold open function was eliminated in many service models. Is it somehow invalid because the HK93 is a different caliber??

No it is not.

The point being that a bolt hold open function is not considered all that desirable in European Armies. A bolt hold open function is an American thing.

I thought it was interesting that HK put one on the prototype.

[precision_shooter]

Interesting read, thanks for posting. I like the G3 so much, I made my own out of a PTR 91 pistol. A few months wait for the tax stamp to attach the stock was worth it. Draws a lot of attention any time I take it to the range.

[Geezerbiker]

Is it another roller delayed blow back design?

Tony

[dvdcrr]

I guess what stands out there is that it (7.62) is a heavy bugger.

[precision_shooter]

The HK G3 is, without getting too into detail, a SBR version of the HK91. Basically the 7.62x51mm HK version of the US M4.
And yes, it’s a roller delayed blow back design that chunks empty brass into the next county. Has a fluted chamber so it still runs even when really really dirty. But, the brass isn’t in the best shape for reloading if you’re into that.

Yes, it is heavy, but it’s all steel. I’d say it’s the same or lighter than a M14 or Garand. Have to remember, aluminum wasn’t what it is now back in the 50’s when this was designed.

[davidsog]

I guess what stands out there is that it (7.62) is a heavy bugger.

The 7.62mm Main Battle rifles are heavier as a result of their cartridge and design purpose.

They all weigh the same.

G3:



10.81lbs loaded

FN-FAL:



9.25lbs empty

Loaded Magazine = 1 lbs 9.74oz

9.74 oz / 16 oz = .6lbs

Loaded Magazine = 1.6lbs

9.25lbs + 1.6lbs = 10.85lbs for the Loaded rifle


M14 rifle:



11lbs - .27 lbs for the sling = 10.73lbs

One could argue that the G3 has the heavier wood furniture and is lighter with the polymer, the FN-FAL would be lighter with polymer magazine or without carrying handle, the M14 could have been measured with the leather sling..etc...etc...etc

In the end the tiny fractions going back and forth does not change the fact that in any practical way, the rifles all weigh the same.

It is like the recoil impulse. The M14 and the G3 have the exact same recoil impulse as measured by the US Army. I am sure the FN-FAL is right there with them.

Why? Physics...same weight, same energy = same result. That is assuming properly set up and maintained rifle.

I like the G3 so much, I made my own out of a PTR 91 pistol.

Outside of the MP-5 which was the only real choice for so long if you wanted a modern sub gun...I was not a fan of the Roller Delay designs. For one thing, it lacked a bolt hold open function. I can remember as a private in 1/75th everybody just running down the AK47 and MP-5 for that reason. We had reload contest, etc....

It was only after seeing them in use on the battlefield, having to maintain the weapons as well as train soldiers using them, that I really came to respect the design. Familiarity did not breed contempt.

[davidsog]

The HK G3 is, without getting too into detail, a SBR version of the HK91.

No, I think you made a typo.

This is factually incorrect if we are talking the G3 rifle. The G3 is the military service rifle variant of the HK91. It is the difference between the M14 and the M1A.

The only difference in the G3/HK91 is the trigger group and housing on the HK91 is clipped, shelved, and the pin removed to eliminate the full auto functionality.

Because the magazine release paddle shares the same pin housing, it was also eliminated on the HK91. Aftermarket redesigns are available to reinstall the paddle release and it comes standard on many clones.

[davidsog]

Interesting read, thanks for posting. I like the G3 so much, I made my own out of a PTR 91 pistol. A few months wait for the tax stamp to attach the stock was worth it. Draws a lot of attention any time I take it to the range.

Nice! The SBR versions of the G3 are:

G3k series = just a slightly shorter barrel variant sort of like the 16in FN-FAL's. Was used in service for Armour crews IIRC


HK51 = 9" or so barrel, looks like a larger MP-5. Never used in any service and is most useful for pissing off the guy next to you on the range, LOL.

Looks very cool.

https://www.gunbroker.com/item/805515996

There is a bewildering amount of variants on the Roller Delayed Rifles. It is another Barbie Doll for men!

https://www.militaryfactory.com/smal...allarms_id=127

[precision_shooter]

You are correct mine is a G3K clone with a 12” barrel. I finally found a linear comp with the right threads to replace the flash hider. Much more enjoyable shooting experience for the shooter and bystanders. Just wouldn’t want to shoot it in low light/nighttime conditions.

[Geezerbiker]

Originally Posted by precision_shooter

The HK G3 is, without getting too into detail, a SBR version of the HK91. Basically the 7.62x51mm HK version of the US M4.
And yes, it’s a roller delayed blow back design that chunks empty brass into the next county. Has a fluted chamber so it still runs even when really really dirty. But, the brass isn’t in the best shape for reloading if you’re into that.

Yes, it is heavy, but it’s all steel. I’d say it’s the same or lighter than a M14 or Garand. Have to remember, aluminum wasn’t what it is now back in the 50’s when this was designed.

I suppose the ruined brass isn't a problem for the military but it is for me...

Tony

[precision_shooter]

With plenty of milsurp ammo available, I didn’t care too much about the brass. It’s not a precision rifle, but a battle rifle. I no longer own any other .308 rifles so don’t intend to load .308/7.62x51

[davidsog]

I suppose the ruined brass isn't a problem for the military but it is for me...

You can reload the brass. Lots of people do and have no issues.

https://www.google.com/search?q=relo...hrome&ie=UTF-8

[davidsog]

One other thing, may people like to say that the HK rifles eat up the brass so it can’tbe reloaded. Nonsense. The case mouths get dinged sometimes but they are easily un-dinged with a bullet or other tool. And those distinctive flutes do nothing to keep you from resizing the brass and re-using it. It’s a non-issue.

http://www.commanderzero.com/?p=3427

[davidsog]

With plenty of milsurp ammo available, I didn’t care too much about the brass.

I am the same way. In fact, I used to use only NATO milsurp ammo. Recently tried some steel cased 150 grain cheapo ammo. The rifle love it. It grouped well and ran flawlessly.

Even read rumors the G3 was designed for steel case ammunition but have never seen anything official or seen that in any factory publication. All I have found is the rifle is designed to shoot NATO standard ammunition I am not aware of any NATO milsurp steel cased ammo.

It is interesting that the Bundeswehr did use cupro-nickle bullets but I have found no steel cased ammunition.

https://www.outdoorlimited.com/rifle...t-1000-rounds/

[Bart Noir]

Not sure that Euro statement holds water . . .

FN in Belgium designed the FAL with a empty magazine bolt-hold open device. When the British Commonwealth (led by Canada in this case) went to the inch-pattern FAL, they reduced that to being only a manual hold open device.

And Belgium is in Europe. Heck, in these days of the EU it seems to be the political center of Europe.

I'm too lazy to go look at my books and do the sums, but I'd hesitate to state that the Commonwealth inch pattern FALs outnumbered the metric FALs used by almost everybody else. Except for the USA and those saying "nyet".

Bart Noir

[Bart Noir]

David, thanks for passing that file along. I notice that the testing was done on 2 calibers of HK weapons. Both 7.62 and 5.56 versions were tested.

I'll take a closer look at the report later. Boy can they make interesting stuff sound dull.

Bart Noir

[davidsog]

Not sure that Euro statement holds water . . .

FN in Belgium designed the FAL with a empty magazine bolt-hold open device.

It does hold water and is based upon sound principle.

Here is the FN-FAL design competition as per FN's description of the FAL:



There is only ONE semi-automatic rifle in service at the time with an automatic BHO feature.....the M1 Garand.

Once more very few European designs that are contemporaries of the FN-FAL have an automatic BHO. H&K roller locks, Kalashnikovs, CETME, Valmet, and the Inch Pattern FN-FAL's come to mind.

While not "European" I would say the Galil is most definitely has European influence and lacks an automatic BHO.

I went to combat multiple times with a rifle equipped with an automatic BHO and fought alongside indigenous forces who did not use an automatic BHO equipped rifle.

In combat, an automatic BHO makes absolutely no difference. When it malfunctions or when you have a stoppage instead of an empty weapon, it tends to add complexity and time for most soldiers. It adds complexity in training as well as manufacturing.

The lack of an automatic BHO simply means the soldier performs the first step in clearing any stoppage to include being out of ammunition every time the rifle quits shooting. When your job is to perform simple mechanical tasks while scared "s----less"....reducing the number of tasks is paramount.

He opens the action and removes the source of feed, each time, everytime, all the time. It is a sound principle which is why the Commonwealth eliminated the automatic BHO on the FN-FAL.

[JJ45]

Originally Posted by davidsog

It does hold water and is based upon sound principle.

Here is the FN-FAL design competition as per FN's description of the FAL:



There is only ONE semi-automatic rifle in service at the time with an automatic BHO feature.....the M1 Garand.

Once more very few European designs that are contemporaries of the FN-FAL have an automatic BHO. H&K roller locks, Kalashnikovs, CETME, Valmet, and the Inch Pattern FN-FAL's come to mind.

While not "European" I would say the Galil is most definitely has European influence and lacks an automatic BHO.

I went to combat multiple times with a rifle equipped with an automatic BHO and fought alongside indigenous forces who did not use an automatic BHO equipped rifle.

In combat, an automatic BHO makes absolutely no difference. When it malfunctions or when you have a stoppage instead of an empty weapon, it tends to add complexity and time for most soldiers. It adds complexity in training as well as manufacturing.

The lack of an automatic BHO simply means the soldier performs the first step in clearing any stoppage to include being out of ammunition every time the rifle quits shooting. When your job is to perform simple mechanical tasks while scared "s----less"....reducing the number of tasks is paramount.

He opens the action and removes the source of feed, each time, everytime, all the time. It is a sound principle which is why the Commonwealth eliminated the automatic BHO on the FN-FAL.

Makes a lot of sense davidsog. I have a PTR91 GI...takes some getting used to since my only other true battle rifles are M1s. Apples and Oranges.... It is a blast to shoot but a PITA to clean. Even though the actual process of disassembly and cleaning is quite simple, the amount of crud is really something...I even though about taking the barreled receiver to the car wash

Two of the most reliable battle weapons would be the AK47 and G3 neither, of which, is equipped with a BHO DEVICE.