Talk:Heckler & Koch G3
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. |
| B | This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale. |
|
Related task forces...
|
|
Why do US wikipedia articles alwayws read like an ad sponsored by the manufacturer or coming right out of the Pentagon? WTF is a PRA? AC-130 gunships scatter human beings? As in scattering hamburger meat all over the place? It was widely used in the Iran-Iraq gulf war! Sheesh! BTW, the magazine release (at least in original HK produced Bundeswehr G3 rifles) is both a knob which can be depressed AND a flapper. Either one can be used to release the magazine.
There is now a stub to define the term battle rifle, which may be a better fit for this rifle than the assault rifle category.
Contents |
[edit] G3 pro`s
I have used the G3 for several years in the Norwegian army. There is a reason why Norway, Germany and other countrys still use the G3 (we call it "AG3"). The G3 is a heavy weapon yes. And it is not very ergonomic no. But - the G3 is a extremly robust weapon. We have a very harch climate in Norway - and the G3`s was at the time - and almost are now - one of very few weapons to deal so well with our harsh and rapidly changing climate. The G3 is also a very accurate weapon. Another pro is the extreme caliber and range.
It is easy to use and handle. Modern improvements of the G3 include "push-through-butt", optics, new clips and so on...as mentioned. Though Norway now are buying new weapons, the G3 have survived for a long time and deserve to be reckognised for it.
Comments ?
- The AG-3 already has it's own article! bjelleklang 07:39, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
-
- "Some frequent complaints are that it is not very ergonomic and that manufacturing the rifle required more complex assembly than older rifles like the FN FAL." I believe the part about manufacturing is false. FAL is noted from it's machined bolt & bolt carrier which required VERY complex and time-consuming milling. AFAIK, G3 bolt design is much simpler and it uses much more stamped metal parts than FAL. --Mikoyan21 01:51, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
- Not design wise. The G3's bolt requires more parts. It has the firing pin, the locking peice, the rollers, and the other bits an ends for the bolt to delay blowback.
- "Some frequent complaints are that it is not very ergonomic and that manufacturing the rifle required more complex assembly than older rifles like the FN FAL." I believe the part about manufacturing is false. FAL is noted from it's machined bolt & bolt carrier which required VERY complex and time-consuming milling. AFAIK, G3 bolt design is much simpler and it uses much more stamped metal parts than FAL. --Mikoyan21 01:51, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
Veritas Panther 06:43, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
-
-
-
- Yes, I know it has more individual parts, but the question is, how hard those parts are to manufacture? --Mikoyan21 23:14, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
- Good rule of thumb is the smaller a part is the harder it is to manufacture it.
- Yes, I know it has more individual parts, but the question is, how hard those parts are to manufacture? --Mikoyan21 23:14, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
-
-
Veritas Panther 02:13, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
-
- That's not very good rule of thumb. You can see G3 bolt here. I have to say that both the bolt and bolt carrier look much more straightforward (a'la AK-47) than very complicated shapes of FAL bolt. Also, G3 receiver is stamped, whilst FAL receiver is machined. --Mikoyan21 21:13, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
- First of all it is pretty much fact, that the G3 is CHEAPER to manufacture than the FAL. The CETME requires 12 workhours and 10 kg raw material to manufacture whereas the FAL need 24 workhours and 24 kg raw material. I doubt the G3 is more expensive. My source is an evaluation report filed by the German Army in the year 1955 (mind to add that the FAL was still chosen). Second the whole section is heavily POV: Poor ergonomics are above all a matter of individual training and for every person complaining about its ergonomics you will find one praising it. I for one like its ergonomics very much. The layout was also copied in the Indian INSAS rifle, including the position of the charging handle and the magazine release, which is pretty much like that of the AK and therefore the most predominantly used type of magazine release (SIG550 series, G36 etc...). It seems to me like the author doesn't like the rifle or its layout and chose to put his POV in here which is not appropriate for a wiki-article. Leave your criticism to facts like trigger pull and weight. 84.152.117.236 11:25, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
- That's not very good rule of thumb. You can see G3 bolt here. I have to say that both the bolt and bolt carrier look much more straightforward (a'la AK-47) than very complicated shapes of FAL bolt. Also, G3 receiver is stamped, whilst FAL receiver is machined. --Mikoyan21 21:13, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
[edit] G3 nomenclature.
It seems someone has, erroneously I believe, attempted to rename the G3A3 to the G3A2, the G3KA4 to the G3KA3 and so forth. This would be in line with the usual HK naming procedure, with A2 being a fixed stock and the A3 being a telescoping stock. But the G3 did not follow the standard HK naming conventions. This is documented on nearly every website with information about the rifle. I have never seen any official HK literature or manuals referring to, for example, the G3 with drum sights and collapsing stock as the G3A3. Therefore, until shown evidence to the contrary, I believe the original names were correct and am changing them back.
I also believe the section on loading/unloading should be removed. This is not an instruction manual we are writing here. Telling the reader how it works is one thing, having instructions on how to load, unload, and fire is another thing. A thing outside the scope of this article, I would say. But I will leave it up until there has been further discussion
--Fean 17:41, 2005 July 19 (UTC)
[edit] G3 usage with US SOF
Is there actually any evidence of this? I've never seen any pictures, or have seen anything official. Kevin Dockery is a noted expert on this subject and says that these reports are erroneous, and I'm inclined to believe him. I'm just curious where the evidence for post-Vietnam usage is coming from too. Besides scattered police usage of HK rifles, DSS is the only US government group I've ever seen with the G3. --thatguy96 16:45, 2005 November 18 (UTC)
- Well, Operation Urgent Fury [1] for one. Ve3 23:13, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
-
- What kind of evidence exists for its usage during Urgent Fury in Grenada? I've never heard that, and I haven't seen any photographic documentation. Not saying its wrong, I'm just curious as to any other sources besides that website. That website has a number of typo/inaccuracies, such as "AH-1 Blackhawks," that only the US Army used the AH-1T (the US Army never used the AH-1T, the AH-1T is the Seacobra), and I was also unaware that the Bofors AT-4 in any iteration was in use by the any US forces in 1983. --thatguy96 18:33, 2005 November 18 (UTC)
- Semi-OT, but any chance you have these pics of DSS with them? Ve3 00:12, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
- I don't, I saw a special on the discovery channel some time ago on DSS and the guy had a G3 of some form. I remember clearly because he also had one of the rare 50 round drums. --thatguy96 20:00, 2005 November 18 (UTC)
- G-3 in Vietnam ? I have read on the page List of individual weapons of the U.S. Armed Forces "Navy SEALs only (not 'nam)", but I have read too on this page that SEAL used G3 in Vietnam... What is the truth ? "rob1bureau" (my name on the french wikipedia)
- The picture that is often cited as SEAL use of the G3 in Vietnam is the only one that shows a G3 and not an H&R T223 (HK 33). Kevin Dockery, a respected source on such information says it is this picture where the confusion began, and it is true that the G3 and the 33 are relatively identical when viewed from above making identification hard. However, seeing as there is no official note of G3 usage, but there is much mention of the T223, I would think this would be final evidence enough. --thatguy96 11:15, 2005 November 13
-
- who the F*** is this kevin dockery you keep mentioning as a "respected source"? unless he was part of the operations taken underway by the US SOF , how the hell would he know?
- Kevin Dockery was in the US Army, and is a respected published military historian. His work was done with extensive cooperation from the SOF community, primarily the US Navy SEALs, the subject of a lot of his work. Who the f*** are you? Thatguy96 04:36, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
- I thought Dockery was a SEAL, actually, but thatguy96's point remains accurate: he's a hugely published military historian.⇒ SWATJester Ready Aim Fire! 18:43, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
- That's what I thought as well, and had initially posted that. However, a search online quickly came up with the Army connection. Wednesday when my copy of one of his books arrives I'm sure I'll be able to find out the correct information from the dust cover or elsewhere in the book. -- Thatguy96 21:29, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
- I thought Dockery was a SEAL, actually, but thatguy96's point remains accurate: he's a hugely published military historian.⇒ SWATJester Ready Aim Fire! 18:43, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
- Kevin Dockery was in the US Army, and is a respected published military historian. His work was done with extensive cooperation from the SOF community, primarily the US Navy SEALs, the subject of a lot of his work. Who the f*** are you? Thatguy96 04:36, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
- who the F*** is this kevin dockery you keep mentioning as a "respected source"? unless he was part of the operations taken underway by the US SOF , how the hell would he know?
-
- The picture that is often cited as SEAL use of the G3 in Vietnam is the only one that shows a G3 and not an H&R T223 (HK 33). Kevin Dockery, a respected source on such information says it is this picture where the confusion began, and it is true that the G3 and the 33 are relatively identical when viewed from above making identification hard. However, seeing as there is no official note of G3 usage, but there is much mention of the T223, I would think this would be final evidence enough. --thatguy96 11:15, 2005 November 13
- G-3 in Vietnam ? I have read on the page List of individual weapons of the U.S. Armed Forces "Navy SEALs only (not 'nam)", but I have read too on this page that SEAL used G3 in Vietnam... What is the truth ? "rob1bureau" (my name on the french wikipedia)
- I don't, I saw a special on the discovery channel some time ago on DSS and the guy had a G3 of some form. I remember clearly because he also had one of the rare 50 round drums. --thatguy96 20:00, 2005 November 18 (UTC)
- Semi-OT, but any chance you have these pics of DSS with them? Ve3 00:12, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
- What kind of evidence exists for its usage during Urgent Fury in Grenada? I've never heard that, and I haven't seen any photographic documentation. Not saying its wrong, I'm just curious as to any other sources besides that website. That website has a number of typo/inaccuracies, such as "AH-1 Blackhawks," that only the US Army used the AH-1T (the US Army never used the AH-1T, the AH-1T is the Seacobra), and I was also unaware that the Bofors AT-4 in any iteration was in use by the any US forces in 1983. --thatguy96 18:33, 2005 November 18 (UTC)
[edit] Portugal
Just to say that the Portuguese army still uses the G3, the majority of them were already used in Africa, in the three fronts of the colonial war, from 61 to 74. After that they continued in service, so, the Portuguese army uses 40 years old rifles. Some friends of mine who served in the army told me that the G3 rifles are constantly jamming, that happens so regularly that the recruits just need to raise their arm and a helper will quickly show up and fix the problem. Afonso Silva 23:00, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
--i think you will find those G3s are quite old , and in bad condition to start with. G3s are extremely relaible , almost near the AKM (AK-47) level of reliabilty. the only problem is , once a G3 goes down - and they seldom do - (im talking about serious problems , not just a jam , jams happen to every firearm in the world) , they're very hard to repair back to a good state , you would often have to send the entire unit back to HK.
[edit] Effective range
Right now, there are two conflicting values for the effective range of the G3 in the article - 250 m and 400 m. In other articles, such as the FN FAL (relatively similar in power and accuracy) the value is even 600 m. How shoul the effective range be determined? The range at which a rookie private can hit accurately (250m)?
- During Army exercises i could reliably hit targets up to 100m with "my" AMD-65. :))
The range at which a trained sharpshooter still hits well (400m)? The range at which the weapon can be used with a good telescopic sight (600 m or more)? -- Marcika 14:50, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
- The range at which a user can hit accurately is perhaps too subjective... different shooters of different skill, and even within a group of similar skill (e.g. among 'rookies' and among 'sharpshooters') would produce different values. As for a telescopic sight, IMHO generally a weapon's effective range should be measured in its standard configuration using the standard sights (whatever that may be, telescopic or open).
- So what figure for the effective range? Unless an official figure is stated by the manufacturer, it's pretty much anyone's guess. IMHO, this heading of 'effective range' in wikipedia is not very useful because this information is generally difficult to obtain for every weapon in existence. Perhaps a useful reference points would be the maximum sight adjustment value on the gun, which in the G3's case is 400m. Thus this figure would likely be the best available for this purpose.
Elevating the gun a bit may also improve range. Dudtz 9/25/06 6:44 PM EST
[edit] Operation
This looks more like a user guide than an encylopedic article. I don't want to make any broad, sweeping changes to anything so far removed from my field of expertise, but I do believe someone more experienced than myself would be well advised to trim this down, if not fully omit it. It's interesting and all, but it feels far beyond Wikipedia's scope. --Matt S. 02:39, 21 June 2006 (UTC) Insert non-formatted text here
[edit] Oops
This image does not belong here, and it's caption is incorrect, so I have removed it from this page.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/f/f9/Misccaparms.jpg/800px-Misccaparms.jpg
The second gun from the left is the FN FAL, not the HK G3. (USMA2010 01:07, 8 July 2006 (UTC))
- You are incorrect. It is clearly a HK G3A4. Note the slim handguard, diopter sights, and the design of the collapsable buttstock. --D.E. Watters 15:27, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
Uh that's definately not a FAL dude. ⇒ SWATJester Ready Aim Fire! 00:11, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Infobox
Replaced the current template with the recently standarised Infobox: Template:Infobox created by the Wikipedia:WikiProject_Military_history/Weaponry task force. Deon Steyn 12:33, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Automatic Fire is employed !!!
in a part of the article , it says Automatic fire was never used beyond point blank ranges on the G3 due to the recoil generated by the 7.62x51mm cartridge ... this is not true! i know someone personally , who served in the Norwegian Army. he said with the AG-3 he could quite fairly hit a target at 100-120m with a double tap or a quick 2-3 round burst. the rifle is actually heavy enough to dampen recoil. it's all a matter of training and concentration. this should be replaced in the article , with something like "auto fire is not commonly employed"
