I could agree that it's a very under-appreciated rifle, but there's obviously reasons for that. The SL8, which was an abomination, was such a far cry from the G36 was not only anti-climatic, but expensive for what it was. Converting one to G36 like features is very time consuming and expensive.

I know U.S. import laws and German export laws muddled what we in the U.S. could receive, but I'm wondering if they really made enough off the SL8 to even bother importing them.

I feel privileged to have shot a State Patrol G36 during my law enforcement academy training, even though time and ammo supply allowed us to shoot 10 rounds. I love the design and operation, but the scarcity is what makes it so under-appreciated.

Great write up though

RE: SL8. Please refer to the SL6 and 7. The SLs are "hunting" or "sporting" stocks using the same actions as the base rifles (ie SL6 to HK43/93). With the SL designation, the SL8 isn't supposed to be G36-like in appearance at all. Though I would have preferred HK went full-on wood (veneer?) stock like the earlier SLs.

The "sporting" stocks were also meant to get around import laws and clearly not meant to look like the G36, but due to laws and other factors, the SLs were the closest thing to a G36 civilians were going to get. Which again, is why I believe the G36 didn't have a chance at becoming appreciated.

Have a G36C here at my work and I gotta say, it's easy to work on, easily simpler to maintain and clean than any of the AR15's. That 8.9" barrel makes it a bit finicky with the lightweight stuff we use though. Also so loud.

Who thought that a 22.5 cm barrel for 5.56 was a good idea? In 300 BLK it would be really good but for 5.56? My ears ring from thinking about that.

Not only that, but why name the 8.9" barrel model the Carbine and the 12.5" barrel model the Kurz? Did that happen under British management?

Stuff like this is precisely the reason I am wary of Western weapons. Like what are you guys thinking!? Naming a firearm isn't that complicated, it really doesn't have to be.

I used to own a SL8 and I've regretted selling it for years. It was big, heavy and cumbersome but even with the cheapest ammo I fed it, it was remarkably accurate. Mangled my casings, though.

And so easy to clean! Having grown accustomed to DI guns and my only prior experience with piston-driven guns being an SKS, every range trip meant 2-3 cleaning sessions to get them cleaned to the standards I was taught. But the HK gas system? I'd drop the piston in a cup of CLP first thing and by the time I was ready to reassemble the rifle all it needed was a quick wipe.

It is a remarkable system all right.

The issue is that the standards we are taught to clean in the Military are not realistic. They are from the days of corrosive powders and primers and meant now days to keep soldiers busy.

In the field no one follows white glove cleaning regimens, and if you are spending more than 5-10 minutes cleaning your M16 or M4 you are overcleaning to a point that is completely unnecessary.

Sure op rod guns run cleaner in the upper, but the fouling also does not cause stoppages. It is completely cosmetic in that it is dirty and that bothers some.

To put it in short - G36 should have been U.S. service rifle/ carbine/ LSW for more than 20 years by now. It is fully integrated system and on cutting edge, even after those years - without any meaningful competition.
-
I consider centre of art of this design in insertion of barrel trunnion into plastic receiver; this being done in controlled automated process. Did not manage to find so far material composition of this part and its respective thermal properties, namely temporary heat absorption capability.

You can debate if the G36 is a better system or not. But the truth is its just not that much better (if at all) than the M4 to warrant a replacement.

For one of many reasons in favor of G36 you can read testimony by Canadian Vet, right below.

We tried that and the XM8 had numerous issues when pushed hard. And it was after all a reskinned G36.

Instead, running a PiP and fixing the issues with the M4A1 ended up cheaper, and got us a more capable weapon.

Appreciate your note; you sound like insider.

Lol edited my typo where I said it was a reskinned XM8. It was a reskinned G36 is what I meant.

I have my doubts that the G36 could have held up well against the sort of fully automatic firing schedules sometimes necessitated in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Further, the XM8 was realistically never going to meet its weight goal.

I'd say that source of many misconceptions is how rifle's role is perceived. If used in long term as LMG, well then is prone to fail. But you know all that.
-
XM8... hahaha, that looked to me as 'practical' and fashionable as Brazil's shoes. Actually, many brazil made shoes are really comfy.

My biggest beef with the G36(K) is how they got a rifle made almost entirely of plastic minus the critical bits to be almost a pound and a half heavier than an M4, while having a shorter and thinner barrel.

More than anything else I think that's what killed the XM8. The aim was to get a weapon lighter than the M4 so they picked a base weapon that was heavier.

I would add that I think the weight requirements of the XM8 were entirely unrealistic for current technology. And of all the faults one might find with the M4 weight is not one of them. Yes lighter is nicer but not when it compromises reliability and accuracy.

Do you have any links that go into detail as to why the XM8 failed? It seemed like it had a lot going for it, such as its modularity, the ability to use a folding or completely collapsible stock, and its resistance to dust-induced malfunctions. Its PCAP system looked intriguing as well.

It's not a subject I have access to that many resources on, but if I had to guess, I'd say the XM8 was pretty typical of cancelled Army projects: It had no clear goal, unrealistic requirements (cut the weight of a G36 by something like 2 pounds without changing the architecture), and was redundant versus current issue weapons.

I know the H&K guys aren't going to want to hear this, but the XM8 isn't better than an M4 in any significant way. The only qualitative difference I can think of would be the removable stock (it was not foldable in most variations) - which was used in the almost useless "personal defense weapon" variant (which later got an H&K-style collapsing butt, making it actually useful). The advantage in reliability the XM8 supposedly had is questionable, and almost certainly not applicable to the modern M4A1, and the XM8 had some troubles of its own (as all development programs do).

The XM8 was never going to meet its weight requirement, and without that, how is it better than the upgraded M4? That was a very hard case to make.

The one thing I do think was unfairly dropped with the XM8 was the AMO integrated optic/sighting system. That thing was supposed to be hot shit, or so I hear.

Jim Schatz, who is definitely enthusiastically pro-HK, covers some of the XM8 developmental models in his powerpoint "The HK Decades".

Did you mean to say that the short-barrelled PDW variant of the XM8 was "almost useless" because it had no buttstock, not because of the very short barrel? What about the XM8's modularity? Would it not have worked in the field either?

Speaking of folding buttstocks, if that was something they could really use, why not try out the LR-300? That's one AR-15 variant which has no rear buffer tube and could use a folding buttstock, and supposedly had a gas system that could reduce recoil as well.

Still, we have something similar to the XM8 Automatic Rifle (the M27 IAR), and negative mounting points like the XM8's PCAP system are making headway now. So perhaps the XM8 has left behind more of a legacy than most would realize.

The lack of buttstock was the reason why I felt the PDW was almost useless, yes.

It was only later that the XM8 was given a folding stock.

The LR-300 is architecturally quite different; one might as well adopt an entirely new weapon.

Perhaps H&K thought that "Our stockless MP5K was a hit, so how about a stockless 5.56mm ultracompact carbine?"

At least the LR-300 would have had a similar manual of arms to AR-15 types, and if its recoil-reducing gas system worked, it could have offered better shooting performance without the need for compensators or sound suppressors.

The LR-300 just uses a DI system feeding into an extended carrier key that acts as a spring guide. I can't see how that would substantially reduce recoil.

I wouldn't call this an unbiased source, but you can see a video demonstrating the Para TTR (which the LR-300 became):

https://youtu.be/0g1X_7c2Kws

I wonder just how "recoilless" this would have been if it were in 7.62mm NATO.

I saw the XM8 as a last grasping of straws after it was concluded that the OICW would never be adopted, because the concept was inherently flawed IMO. I argued way back when that 5 lbs goal for the XM8 was a wet dream and the costs and complexity of the OICW was even more questionable.
Supposedly the XM8 superseded other designs (M4, SCAR, 416) during the 2007 dust tests, but, as brought up by many (and I think it was your article, nathaniel, credited to 'elements of power'), that those tests in fact raised more questions than they answered and weren't exactly "objective".
I think the main thing going against any effort to replace the M4 is really a catch 22:
Competitors to the M4 are 5.56 carbines, meaning they are limited to the 5.56 caliber. Any efforts to venture outside 5.56, for a supposed leap in lethality (which I remain dubious of anyways), are not practical due to the costs and diminishing returns. This means that any competitor will have to be a 5.56 carbine, which will not be measurably more lethal than the M4.
With the current evolution of the M4, it makes the future of any cartridge firing replacement a nebulous affair. MAYBE telescopic case will be the next leap forward.

Of course the course will want to make its subject sound good, unless it's covering a subject like secret policing in communist Albania. There are just two problems with the G36:

1. End user reports indicate that the G36 is not as reliable or user-friendly as other platforms. Various groups in the U.S., including the Capitol Police, adopted and used the G36 before dropping it to revert to AR-platform rifles, citing issues with reliability, durability and performance.

2. The G36 is well-known for having problems with bits breaking off and with the gun going melty and experiencing horrific inaccuracy and chronic wandering zeros from heat no greater than that of a summer's day in Kabul.

Do you have links to those end-user reports? Maybe even photos of G36 rifles "drooping" in the heat of summertime daylight in Kabul?

Doesn't sound very much like a "family" of weapons to me, with just shorter and longer barrel versions. The G3 was 7.62x51, and had 5.56 versions and the 9mm MP5 was also based on it. Also there is the PTR-32 in 7.62x39 if you want to count it.

Does the G36 have a big brother in 7.62x51? Or a little brother chambered in a pistol caliber? Or is the SL-8 just a retarded half-brother to the G36?

If it's wrong to drool over that G36C... I don't want to be right

IIRC those problems were ammo related (bad copper jackets or something).

They are being blamed on bad ammo along with massive quantities of very rapid fire.

Having said that as I understand the theory about poor accuracy is a result of the barrel being attached to the polymer receiver and thus if the receiver heats up to much it becomes soft and the barrel can move.

I know about that. I find in general polymer to be a bad idea, but if I mention that I am suddenly old fashioned and stuck in the past.

Polymer works for handguards, cheek rests and grips... otherwise metals reign supreme.

You're not alone, I have always felt polymer for receivers is a poor idea for rifles.

It is common sense: If it gets hot then maybe making it out of something vulnerable to heat isn't such a good idea?

You worry to much what's the worst that could happen :)

I have seen evidence of the plastic "trunnion" deforming with heat, but no scientific study of it. That I would very much like to see.

I think one of the reasons why so many of us are quite willing to believe that softening of the polymer is to blame are that 1) it makes sense from what we know about most polymers that being that they soften from less heat than aluminium or steel. 2) It would not be the first time that a military has blamed something other than a weapon for its failures :)

But as you say we have no scientific or impartial testing. Time to start a collection to get the Firearms Blog a full auto G36 and a few thousand rounds of ammo :) we will leave it to you guys as to who gets to be the lucky one doing all that shooting.

Nathaniel,

. We have something almost as good as scientific evidence and testing in the case of the g36 luckily. What might that be you ask? Well shortly after the delft university report hit the net, but long enough that your average person wouldn't remember what they read from the delft report coverage, the German government quietly cut ALL funding to buy new g36 rifles and even cut the funds for buying spares.

In the months since they seem to have given away some here and there too. Now because of the nature of military logistics they could have a decade or more before they absolutely MUST buy new rifles of some kind. My gut instinct tells me though that either HK is quietly developing something new which we'll see as a last second entry into the French rifle competition. Or we'll just see the German government and HK push hard for France to adopt the 416, and offer to make it a combined buy to achieve economy of scale pricing by the German military adoption of the 416 simultaneously with French adoption.

Honestly I'd bet money on this scenario personally. It just makes way more sense than either the French or Germans adopting the cz805 or Polish weapon system! Hell even if the respective militaries wanted either system neither the German people nor the French public would allow it to happen!

As I understand it the Germans have a massive hole in their defence budget. Plus the G36 was in service by 99 so i imagine they have all the rifles they need by now. So I for one would not read too in to this for now.

On the issue of France's new rifle if Berretta stick to their promise and make it in France in that's what the politicians will go for whether the military like it or now.