What's new

Replacement of Pakistan Army's G-3 Rifles.

which?


  • Total voters
    87
Status
Not open for further replies.
Any bullpup rifle is better than g3. The compact size allows for easier carrying and greater maneuverability


Bullpups are for CQB / rapid assault. For infantry you need long range heavy caliber rifles to inflict crippling injuries or causing death. Any rifle which can fire a high velocity bullet which tumbles on striking the body causes heavy internal damage and bleeding, like 222but they are ineffective against body armour, heavier steel core ammo is preferable to defeat body armour.
Pak should design their own caliber suitable for our environmet, lighter to enable more rounds for same weight yet effective in inflicting body damage and should be armour piercing too.

---------- Post added at 09:59 AM ---------- Previous post was at 09:57 AM ----------

Excuse ME,

Once you go Colt M4, you never go back to other CQB carbine,
I shot more then 5000 rounds and not a single jam, its 4500$
well worth.
Second, it depend on the bullet, as a range/target shooter i found
JHP is BETTER the FMJ to do MORE damage and last but not least
there are people you cant down even you hit with 7.62 with FMJ
in compare to NATO SHP or FMJHP, please live in reality instead of
reading/pasting other posts.

Regards,
Zshan Durrani.:pakistan:



only on a shooting range, not in a battle field. M4 and its variants are prone to jamming more than any other assault rifle
 
Excuse ME,

Once you go Colt M4, you never go back to other CQB carbine,
I shot more then 5000 rounds and not a single jam, its 4500$
well worth.

There is difference between firing the weapon at a range and battle conditions
 
Don’t know why everyone would like Pak Army to opt for HK16 or HK17 or any other rifle for that matter. A new rifle would cost at least $1000 to make; reequipping the entire army would cost at least $500-million at the very least. Changing the calibre down to 5.56 would raise the total cost to nearly $1-billion.

AK47 is cheap to make, is very sturdy and needs very little training to operate and maintain. Therefore it is the ideal infantry weapon. G3 has better range and a bigger kick; and also we are already making it. Both the guns are good weapons.

If anyone cares to read the discussion between 7.62 & 5.56 mm NATO rounds; one will find opinions equally divided. As a country perpetually short on funds, don’t see the reason for spending vast sums of money when net effect on the battlefield and fighting ability would minor.

Must we change for the sake of change? Arguably AK47 along with younger sister AK74 (5.45 mm) are the best assault rifles ever. I would propose keeping the current mix of AK47 and G3 for the foreseeable future.
 
Don’t know why everyone would like Pak Army to opt for HK16 or HK17 or any other rifle for that matter. A new rifle would cost at least $1000 to make; reequipping the entire army would cost at least $500-million at the very least. Changing the calibre down to 5.56 would raise the total cost to nearly $1-billion.

AK47 is cheap to make, is very sturdy and needs very little training to operate and maintain. Therefore it is the ideal infantry weapon. G3 has better range and a bigger kick; and also we are already making it. Both the guns are good weapons.

If anyone cares to read the discussion between 7.62 & 5.56 mm NATO rounds; one will find opinions equally divided. As a country perpetually short on funds, don’t see the reason for spending vast sums of money when net effect on the battlefield and fighting ability would minor.

Must we change for the sake of change? Arguably AK47 along with younger sister AK74 (5.45 mm) are the best assault rifles ever. I would propose keeping the current mix of AK47 and G3 for the foreseeable future.

what will be the possible cost of upgrading our G3 and AKs with dot sights/reflex sight, aim point, etc
 
roflz Americans are changing their M4s with AKs due to jamming..... roflz and you saying this hahaha....... be practical yar

Last time I checked the U.S. military is still using the M4 and M16A2. :rolleyes: 99% of the bad reputation of the system was from bad early days in Vietnam, when the military changed the powder in the cartridge from clean stick to dirty ball. Since then, the system has matured to a reliable platform. Polls taken of troops returning from war have shown an overwhelming satisfaction with the Stoner platform.

There is a reason Russia switched from 7.62 to 5.45mm... those pesky Americans had the right idea.
 
Last time I checked the U.S. military is still using the M4 and M16A2. :rolleyes: 99% of the bad reputation of the system was from bad early days in Vietnam, when the military changed the powder in the cartridge from clean stick to dirty ball. Since then, the system has matured to a reliable platform. Polls taken of troops returning from war have shown an overwhelming satisfaction with the Stoner platform.

There is a reason Russia switched from 7.62 to 5.45mm... those pesky Americans had the right idea.

I rather use M4 than an AK.
And I agree with you.
 
Don’t know why everyone would like Pak Army to opt for HK16 or HK17 or any other rifle for that matter. A new rifle would cost at least $1000 to make; reequipping the entire army would cost at least $500-million at the very least. Changing the calibre down to 5.56 would raise the total cost to nearly $1-billion.

AK47 is cheap to make, is very sturdy and needs very little training to operate and maintain. Therefore it is the ideal infantry weapon. G3 has better range and a bigger kick; and also we are already making it. Both the guns are good weapons.

If anyone cares to read the discussion between 7.62 & 5.56 mm NATO rounds; one will find opinions equally divided. As a country perpetually short on funds, don’t see the reason for spending vast sums of money when net effect on the battlefield and fighting ability would minor.

Must we change for the sake of change? Arguably AK47 along with younger sister AK74 (5.45 mm) are the best assault rifles ever. I would propose keeping the current mix of AK47 and G3 for the foreseeable future.

But sir, I have been assured that the talks are over and we have now finalized a new weapon as an alternative to G-3.
We now can witness some soldiers using G36Cs on the western border and in Balochistan.

Maybe the cost-benefit analysis proved it to be worth a change.
 
But sir, I have been assured that the talks are over and we have now finalized a new weapon as an alternative to G-3.
We now can witness some soldiers using G36Cs on the western border and in Balochistan.

Maybe the cost-benefit analysis proved it to be worth a change.

anymore info? the G36C is the variant with the shortest barrel length, even if PA was to procure the G36 it would look at the other variants.
 
The G-3 in service, Type 56 used in WoT and according to Last Hope induction of G-36. All these rifles. It can turn in to a logistics nightmare for ammo
 
anymore info? the G36C is the variant with the shortest barrel length, even if PA was to procure the G36 it would look at the other variants.
Classified. Only insiders are supposed to know it yet. G36C is not the replacement.
The G-3 in service, Type 56 used in WoT and according to Last Hope induction of G-36. All these rifles. It can turn in to a logistics nightmare for ammo
We are changing the rifles keeping in mind the ammunition.
G36C is not induced on full scale. Some FC use it for testing of the new weapon induction. More like asking for feedback.
 
Last time I checked the U.S. military is still using the M4 and M16A2. :rolleyes: 99% of the bad reputation of the system was from bad early days in Vietnam, when the military changed the powder in the cartridge from clean stick to dirty ball. Since then, the system has matured to a reliable platform. Polls taken of troops returning from war have shown an overwhelming satisfaction with the Stoner platform.

There is a reason Russia switched from 7.62 to 5.45mm... those pesky Americans had the right idea.
the ak47 is still much more reliable then any m16 and m4, you can dig an ak47 in the sand, come 5 years later and it will still work! there is a reason why the ak47 is much more successful then the m4 or m16. besides, the ak47 is faster, easier and more cheaply manufactured then a m16 or m4 which makes it more cost effective!
 
G3 is a excellent weapon why replace it?
it has great range and accuracy
it is very powerful and pretty reliable
all the negative things I can see about the rifle is its recoil and weight, but soldiers are trained for that kinda stuff. they aren't untrained wimps who complain about a guns kick or weight.

But if the G3 is to be replaces then I suggest from my own point of view that we should switch to the HK 417 or maybe the newer AK models with increased range and accuracy
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom