Comment by manfredo | Hacker News Reader

Comment by manfredo | Hacker News Reader

> it sounds like an exaggeration to compare Germany’s Bundeswehr to “The Gang that Couldn’t Shoot Straight,” look no further than the army’s standard-issue assault rifle, Heckler & Koch’s G36. The government decided to scrap the weapon after discovering that the gun misses its target if it’s too hot.

Is this actually indicative of a design flaw? All guns' accuracy degrade as the barrel heats up. The metal flexes more and expands, thus throwing off the zero. Weapons like belt fed machine guns mitigate this by having heavy barrels to soak up heat, and quick-change barrels to swap them out with fresh cold ones. Internet searches about the G36's accuracy problems seem rife with fudd-lore. Government studies did not find said accuracy problems: https://m.dw.com/en/heckler-and-koch-vindicated-in-g36-accur...

Other firearms like tank cannons get around this by having barrel sag sensors that adjust the crosshairs to compensate for the effect of the sag.

I get that nit picking the anecdote in the opening statements is kind of pedantic. But it shapes my senses of the author's technical understand (or lack thereof) for the rest of the article.

Due to the extensive polymer use in it's construction the G36 is more sensitive to heat buildup than other assault rifles. Therefore it is very likely that the rifle did in fact perform underwhelmingly in hot areas at high rates of fire. Moreso than a metal construction rifle would. It's almost certain that the new rifle will be the HK433.

It's a funny statement when you think about it

> the gun misses its target if it's too hot

What does 'too hot' mean? Too hot... to do what? How do we define 'too hot'? Too hot to hit its target? Well that's tautological then isn't it - a rifle that is too hot to hit its target will not hit its target.

Presumably all rifles at some point get too hot to hit their targets, because at some point they're going to simply melt. So all rifles miss their targets when they get too hot. If they're not missing their targets then they're not too hot are they?

I guess what they mean is that the rifle starts to miss its targets at a lower temperature than other rifles, but that's not what they said. It's one of those statements that seems to make sense on first reading but then when you really think about what it says, it doesn't say anything and you could say it about all rifles and be truthful.

> What does 'too hot' mean?

"The weapon's capacity to hit targets fell to 30 percent when the surrounding temperature reached 30 degrees Celsius (86 Fahrenheit) or when the weapon became hot through constant use, the report said."

https://www.dw.com/en/german-defense-minister-says-no-future...

I mean, I guess they could limit their military operations to temperate days, and not shoot the rifle too much to avoid these kinds of problems.

Right - that's what I suggested it really meant. I was commenting on how the article was phrased not actually about the rifle.

> I mean, I guess they could limit their military operations to temperate days, and not shoot the rifle too much to avoid these kinds of problems.

It's important to remember that the German army's equipment was originally intended for NATO defense of western Europe, basically to defend a conventional soviet attack in Northern Germany. That's true for the tanks and armored vehicles as well, which also had issues when Germany first took them to places like Afghanistan. Germany participating in operations externally to Germany is only a thing since 1999 (Kosovo).

I don't think it's important to remember that in context of the G36. The gun basically doesn't work if you pop a couple of rounds through it, or if it's hot out. I'm certain it didn't pass any of their mil specs.

It passed all the military specs. That has been settled in court, the manufacturer H&K didn't have to pay any damages.

Ian McCollum of “Forgotten Weapons,” who I hold to be an authority on the subject, commented on this in a recent video. IIRC, in his view, this problem is not nearly as big of a deal as it’s been made out to be.

Yes! Ian does such great work,one of my all time favorite YT channels!

Yeah, the main problem was that the weapon is not designed to work in conditions like in Afghanistan. That's why soldiers in Afghanistan (righfully) complained.

Then, the weapon trades of weight (plastic), against accuracy (in long fire fights). And if that is the correct trade-off to make is of course debatable and depends on the usage.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com