What rifle is this?

[peggs82 0]

It is most absolutely a HK G36. As josheezammit added, it is the "C" model.

Interestingly enough, a departure in HK's normal termanology of "K" for their compact weapons

As it has been mentioned, it is not a UMP.

The G36 and the UMP are both from HK's new generation of weapons utilizing plastic for the recievers.

The G36 has suffered a bit in the American market from rummors of the recievers melting after sustained fire. These rumors can also be associated with the death of the XM8 rifle, which was being tested as the replacement for the M16.

Recently HK stopped selling the G36 in America. Some blame it on these melting rumors, weak sales, and lastly on HK's 416 platform. Basically a piston driven version of the M16 which is direct gas blowback opperation (dirty).

The UMP was marketed as the replacement for the venerable MP5. To match the rising availiblity of body armor to everyday criminals, law enforcement officials wanted something with a little more stopping power than the 9mm. The UMP is available in 9mm, .40, and .45, and can be easily converted between the calibers by simply changing the barrel.

Short barrels will effect accuracy yes, but the idea is increased penetration to defeat body armor vs. the traditional 9mm cartridge. Hell I have a .308 caliber weapon with a 8in barrel. It is a flame thrower!

Want one for yourself in the USA, you can buy a USC, or an SL8. Which are the civilian equivilants of the UMP and G36 respectively. They will cost you roughly 2,000-4,000
I have them both

My collection

[steve1 5]

Quote

Short barrels will effect accuracy yes, but the idea is increased penetration to defeat body armor vs. the traditional 9mm cartridge. Hell I have a .308 caliber weapon with a 8in barrel. It is a flame thrower!
reply]

Short barrels also reduce the speed that a bullet travels in a very negative way. So, I wonder if you really are getting increased penetration. A 308 has great penetration in a 22 inch barrel but I doubt if it's very effective or efficient in an eight inch barrel. The reason it looks like a flame thrower is because much of the powder has not had a chance to burn inside the barrel. The bullet has already left the barrel while the powder is burning outside the barrel. I'd bet there would be a lot of unburned powder being thrown out as well. Go out and shoot it in the snow. I'd bet there would be unburned powder everywhere.

It doesn't make sense to me to use a rifle cartridge with a pistol barrel. And I really doubt if you are getting increased penetration.....Steve1

• Quote

[josheezammit 0]

you'll find 10.5" barrels for M4/M16 that are chambered for the 5.56 nato

Ahh, what a wonderful world.

[ExAFO 0]

Quote

Hmmm. When I was a copper they just issued us with wooden sticks.

[Ofc Kallend] "Stop! Or I'll say 'Stop!' Again!"[/Ofc Kallend]

Heh. Unarmed Cops...how impotent...

Illinois needs a CCW Law. NOW.

[steve1 5]

Quote

you'll find 10.5" barrels for M4/M16 that are chambered for the 5.56 nato

It would be interesting to shoot one through a chronograph to see what kind of velocity you got with that short of a barrel. It would probably convince you to go with a longer barrel.

I have a 26 inch barrel on my 300 Winchester. I could have bought the same gun with a 24 inch barrel, but it will shoot flatter and hit harder with that extra two inches. This isn't true with all calibers though.

Some cartridges can develop maximum velocities with a shorter barrel. My wifes 243 for example has a twenty inch barrel on it. A twenty two inch barrel might be a little better, velocity wise, but not all that much. Any longer barrel in that caliber wouldn't help much at all. A shorter rifle fits her better, so we bought it in a 20 inch barrel.

A 300 Winchester in a twenty inch barrel would be a piece of junk in my opinion. You'd lose way too much in velocity. I'm pretty narrow minded when it comes to an ideal rifle, and I'm sure there are others on here who know more than I on this subject. I'd like to hear your opinions. Where's John at today?....Steve1

[bch7773 0]

ammo can be custom made to be fired out of short barrels... like quick-burning powder, or different bullet weights.

expensive yes, but also very effective even out of short barrels

MB 3528, RB 1182

[steve1 5]

Quote

ammo can be custom made to be fired out of short barrels... like quick-burning powder, or different bullet weights.

expensive yes, but also very effective even out of short barrels

That is a good point. A different load can make a cartridge more efficient, but the velocity of that bullet is still (in most cases) going to be a lot slower (depending on the cartridge).

For example in a 300 Winchester there is no way you can get the higher velocity of a 26 inch barrel if you cut the barrel down much. (Despite which powder you use.) That is if you compare a hotter load to a hotter load in each barrel....Steve1

[SkyDekker 1,465]

Quote

Heh. Unarmed Cops...how impotent...

Nah, I know it is hard to imagine for Americans, but there was a time in different countries where people didn't constantly shot at eachother. Where even a majority of criminals had some sense of respect for life.

[steve1 5]

But then again, on this topic of shorter barrels....I think there is a pistol made to shoot a 308 round (come to think of it). Maybe with some creative hand-loading this could be done.

It seems that with a cartridge that burns less powder, it is possible to cut the barrel down in length with a less dramatic affect on bullet speed. So possibly even a 223 could be shot out of a much shorter barrel too. It certainly has less powder behind it than a magnum caliber does. Magnums are very fussy in terms of velocity when shortening the barrel.

I'm no expert on this. I'd like to learn more on this subject myself.

One rifle cartridge that works very well in a pistol barrel is a 22 L.R....Steve1

[peggs82 0]

Quote

Short barrels also reduce the speed that a bullet travels in a very negative way. So, I wonder if you really are getting increased penetration. A 308 has great penetration in a 22 inch barrel but I doubt if it's very effective or efficient in an eight inch barrel. The reason it looks like a flame thrower is because much of the powder has not had a chance to burn inside the barrel. The bullet has already left the barrel while the powder is burning outside the barrel. I'd bet there would be a lot of unburned powder being thrown out as well. Go out and shoot it in the snow. I'd bet there would be unburned powder everywhere.

It doesn't make sense to me to use a rifle cartridge with a pistol barrel. And I really doubt if you are getting increased penetration.....Steve1

Oh yes, agreed. The .308 rifle is just a fun rifle. They make them because they can, not intended for practical use. A .308 coming out of a barrel that short has GREATLY reduced velocity and penetration. And yes, I realize the unburned powder is why it is a flame thrower...thats why I like it
Yes, shorter barrel also decreases velocity. I have read numerous debates on the .223 in CQB situations using short barrels, and all I've really gathered is its a toss up. A debate which neither side will ever seem to convince the other side.

The only consensus I seem to see people aggreeing upon is that 9mm is seen as insufficent for defeating body armor.

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

It seems that with a cartridge that burns less powder, it is possible to cut the barrel down in length with a less dramatic affect on bullet speed. So possibly even a 223 could be shot out of a much shorter barrel too. It certainly has less powder behind it than a magnum caliber does.

It's not just the amount of powder, but also the type of powder. There are literally dozens, maybe hundreds, of different varieties of gunpowders. One of the variations in all these is the burn rate. Some are slow-burn powders, where a bullet is accelerated over a long barrel length, like in high-power rifles. Others are fast-burn powders, for accelerating bullets in a very short distance, such as in handguns. There are a wide range of these available, and handloaders have to be very careful not to use the wrong powder for an application. For example: fast burn powders typically require a smaller amount of powder, so if you pick up a can of fast burn powder, and use the same amount of it in a cartridge that you usually load for a slow-burn powder, you might blow your gun up, and blow your eyeballs out.

So if you try and shoot a .308 in an uncharacteristically short barrel, then the usual loads won't be worth a crap, as much of the powder won't burn before the bullet exits the barrel. You would have to handload using a faster burn-rate powder, and then you're on the bleeding edge of new innovation, and great caution should be exercised. You've got to throw out all the decades of research from traditional loads and barrel lengths, and start from scratch. I'd let someone else go first.

[warpedskydiver 0]

G36 Heckler and Koch

[warpedskydiver 0]

Quote

Look again at the gun in the back (the third guy)

then look at the second pic down on this site. The mags seem more similiar. But like I said, could be perspective issues. It just doesn't really look like the back gun is a G36.

that is also a G36 with doubled mag, they snap tgoether.

[kbordson 8]

Quote

that is also a G36 with doubled mag, they snap tgoether.

Thank you... I knew it looked wrong, just had a hard time seeing how (although I did think about two mags connected, I couldn't see the clamp)

(note to josheezammit - That is how you act nice and informative )

edit to add: for the record - We only have 5 HK's in the collection ... none of which is a 36C or a UMP. Now had he asked about more refined weapons (AI's, M40A3, M24's...) I would have had a better knowlege. But I'm glad you were there to help him with that quality of systems.

[GQ_jumper 4]

Yes, shorter barrel also decreases velocity. I have read numerous debates on the .223 in CQB situations using short barrels, and all I've really gathered is its a toss up. A debate which neither side will ever seem to convince the other side.

Quote

Maybe i can help you on that one a bit, and all this information is coming from actual combat application, not any tests in some lab with ballistic jelly and computers. A 77Gr. .223 round is more than adequate regardless of barrel length in a CQB environment.

I'd be more than happy to post pics for you if it wasn't for the fact that this is SC and it would immedeatly turn this into a conversation about how we're no better than the terrorists for posting pics which would morph itself into whether or not there were WMD's in Iraq followed by North Korea and how they are more of a danger than the Canadian moose knuckle league because we have faulty intelligence on Canada proving that Bush lied to the nation about whether he has a GE or Kenmore washer and dryer because it matters so much because GE dryers are quickly exterminating the worlds fish population

But apart from that we have proven in countless "tests"(firefights) that the shorties work great, I'm actually ordering one for my m4 before I go back over in a few months, it will be one of the new ones with a gas tappet operating system similar to the one that HK is putting out soon.

History does not long entrust the care of freedom to the weak or the timid.
--Dwight D. Eisenhower

• Quote

[GQ_jumper 4]

It would be interesting to shoot one through a chronograph to see what kind of velocity you got with that short of a barrel. It would probably convince you to go with a longer barrel.

Quote

With a 5.56 round the lower velocity achieved with a shorter barrel would actually be a good thing unless you intend to take it out to a longer range. it's well known that 5.56 overpenetrates and doesn't cause enough damage, a slower round would be great especially if working with standard ball ammo. As for effectiveness out further with the short barrels, bringing the range your zero is dialed in for from 300 to 250 is no biggie, and most shots in combat are 250 or less anyways, you want to go out further that's why you have a designated LR shooter on the team

we also have barrels shorter than 10.5, I think the shortest I've ever seen was a 7.5, i don't like the way they feel that short though.

History does not long entrust the care of freedom to the weak or the timid.
--Dwight D. Eisenhower

• Quote