Talk:Heckler & Koch G3

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Rhodesian Use?[edit]

It's well known that in the final years of the Rhodesian Bush War as sources for FALs dried up that large numbers of G3s were imported to Rhodesia from Portugal. But they were mainly issued to police, paramilitray and other secondary formations. I would hardly call these "select units" which implies that quality formation got them. In fact the G3 was not popular amongst Rhodesian troops who prefered their FALs. The current article even mentiones the Grey's Scouts. I've never seen a photo of a Grey's Scout with a G3. Would someone like to provide some information supporting the current version of the text before I alter it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Trench raider (talkcontribs) 15:49, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Also, added a photo of a G3 in Rhodesian service. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Trench raider (talkcontribs) 16:15, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Merge Scandinavian variants?[edit]

I put up tags to merge the Swedish Ak 4 and Norwegian AG-3 into the main body. Not enough unique features or even information to warrant separate articles IMNSHO. Koalorka (talk) 01:33, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

US as user[edit]

Why do people keep deleting my mention of the US as G3 user? The List of individual weapons of the US armed forces clearly states to G3 as in use and the image on this page also shows a US marine using a G3. ANK —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 21:06, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Please indicate your source. The G3 used by the Marine is likely captured from insurgents or confiscated from a civilian. The closest the US armed forces came to using an HK roller-delayed firearm was the H&R T223, which is a license version of the HK33, used in VERY small numbers by special task groups in the 1960s/70s. Koalorka (talk) 21:10, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

In List of individual weapons of the US Armed Forces the G3 is listed as in active service, so that is mainly my "source" if that counts. ANK —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs)

As a member of the U.S. military and knowing many past and present soldiers, and by researching and finding no trace of the G3 being used by the U.S. Military or even U.S. Law Enforcement Agencies including the "List of individual weapons of the US Armed Forces". There is absoutly no prove that the G3 is or has ever been used by the U.S. in any offical way, and should thus be removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 01:02, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

It's not there, and if it ever was, it must have been a mistake or somekind of oversight.Koalorka (talk) 21:17, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
Well, I removed it. It's one of those "Special Forces limited use" type of entries. If so, the US used the Mig 15 and Mig 25 as well. --'''I am Asamuel''' (talk) 21:18, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Whatever man, I dont feel like debating so ill just let it go. ANK —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 21:23, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

If we had a solid source, I don't see why it couldn't be included. We list individual PD's on some guns... Koalorka (talk) 00:54, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Edit warring[edit]

There is obviously a dispute at this page; however I am not seeing corresponding discussion at talk. Please, as soon as reverts start, it is essential to explain things at the talkpage. Don't just battle it out in edit summaries. Thanks, Elonka 00:23, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

User Quicload insists on littering the development history with images from other linked articles. Also the CETME Modelo C is a divergent design that did not affect the G3, therefore it should be omitted. Koalorka (talk) 02:27, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, I'm having a bit of trouble following, since there are so many reverts... I'm not seeing which images are being discussed? The most recent reverts don't seem to have anything to do with pictures? --Elonka 02:37, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
Okay, I've stepped through the contributions here, and I have to say that I'm disturbed by the type of edit war that's been going on with this article. I see two editors who should know better, who are abusing the "undo" button in a content war, even for something as trivial as changing a paragraph spacing or moving an image from left to right, which is a completely inappropriate reason to revert. Gentlemen, as a reminder, edit wars are a completely ineffective way of forcing through your desired changes, and using the UNDO button to revert every single thing that another editor did, is highly disruptive. Instead, take conflicts to the discussion page, and work it out. If there's disagreement about text that has been added, tag it with {{fact}} and request a source. If no source is provided, the information can be removed. As for the quantity of images, try to find a compromise, but do not just keep reverting each other. The next editor to revert the other, may have their account access blocked. --Elonka 03:04, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Hello, there are very simple things to check:

1) I explained every significant addition and/or edition I did

2) The pictures I added were exactly the pictures with clear demonstration of the technical and historical points that were exposed in the text.

3)There are pictures of soldiers holding rifles in "development" section of every article related to one specific rifles that do not bring anything to the comprehension of the text. The one labeled as historically important by K that I replaced and it seems it started this war was an out of focus large size irrelevant picture showing a smiling german bearded soldier holding a rifle on his side, the rifle being almost totally hidden. K said (check edit explanation) that it was an historically important picture necessary to understand the early development of the G3 but at the same time he specified "1988" that means 30 years after the G3 appeared and one year before it went out of service. I replaced it by a clear sharp high definition picture of a US soldier aiming a G3 in the foreground where all details are present.

4) It looks like K has the same modus operandi to place pictures of soldiers holding rifles in all his article's development sections instead of going further to find technical drawings and historical pictures both relevant to the point that is being made. He does not like anybody to edit something he has done. He uses various irrelevant explanations to revert edits. When I posted pictures of MG42/MG3 roller system and G3 roller system that show both different and similar points of the designs that are the genesis of the H&K G3 rifles from a modified WW2 era machinegun short stroke gas operated locking roller system to a 1950s delayed roller blowback system without use of the gas, he simply asked me to prove the link between the MG and the rifle and removed the pictures. When I brought the evidence by citing some of the most significant historical and technical research works, K simply starting to revert without explaining.

5)K even goes to the extent he makes up reasons and the only weak reason he cites above, is:

"User Quicload insists on littering the development history with images from other linked articles."

Since when posting an image demonstrating both an historical and a technical significant point is littering?

" Also the CETME Modelo C is a divergent design that did not affect the G3, therefore it should be omitted"

The Modelo C is not a divergent design as falsely/wrongly exposed by K but the model that is the closest to the G3 since its main drawback that was the use of a specific spanish weakened load of the ammunition has been solved by the use of a roller ramp angle identical to the one present on the G3. This was triggered by the refusal of Germany to employ the non NATO standard specification round called 7.62 CETME NATO as used with the Spanish Modelo 58 aka CETME B. Common work of H&K and CETME technicians produced both the H&K G3 and the CETME C using common parts and the common NATO ammunition.

and K comes with this weak and inaccurate justifications to back his reckless unjustified reverts? As per the quantity of images, there are 3 pictures only and they were the only pictures refering precisely to the technicalities exposed in the "development" section. I will repost these pictures, I will remove them at once if the irrelevancy of said pictures is demonstrated. I hope some expert will chime in and check the points I exposed, there are a few of them posting in Wiki as I noticed.


Edmond HUET (talk) 09:26, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

2. The pictures you added to this page (and approx. 10 other pages) belong in the delayed blowback article, not every single firearm page that uses the same operating system. It's illogical to have these duplicate images in 10 or more related firearms when instead they could all be concentrated on the proper page through a link provided in the firearm description page. What you've done was spamming. Here are the following pages you have included the images in: MG42, MP5, HK33, MG3, G3.
3. Very rarely do we have images that would correspond to each section of an article, i.e. development, variants, design details, users etc. Pictures of prototypes are extremely scarce, even more so for those that are free. It is unrealistic and impossible to illustrate every section, what I've decided to do is use the left block of text (usually occupied by the development section) to insert a representative in-service type image that would show the weapon's employment in common military/law enforcement type applications, a natural setting. I've received no complaints over the years save Quickload's latest disruptive edits.
4. The roller locked short recoil system would only confuse the already complex roller delayed blowback system employed on the G3.
5. What I meant to say about the Modelo C, is the G3 is not derived from the Modelo C. The Modelo C and later CETME rifles had no influence on the G3. The lineage split and the Modelo C was developed at a later stage. Therefore, not relevant to the G3.
You will not revert the pictures without consensus, and let me be the first to OPPOSE that. Good luck convincing others. Koalorka (talk) 16:53, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

No need to lose my time, those who will dig the subject and check the bibliography references I supplied will see by themselves what it is all about.

Edmond HUET (talk) 16:25, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

MC51 merge[edit]

I've noticed the MC51 page lacks content and is pretty much a copy-paste from Security Arms. It is nothing more than a custom-made chopped variant of the G3 manufactured by FR Ordnance in very limited numbers and has seen little use with the SAS. The mention of it on this page is sufficient in my view. Koalorka (talk) 02:26, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

SR9 Section[edit]

I've changed "get around the Semi-Auto Import Ban of 1989" to "comply with the Semi-Auto Import Ban of 1989", as the former version is in my view POV (i.e. it suggests that by introducing the SR9, H&K was attempt to circumvent US laws). I also changed "high-capacity magazine" to "standard-capacity magazine". The standard magazine capacity for all G3-variants is 20 rounds. (talk) 11:51, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Short magazines?[edit]

On first inspection two of the images appear to show soldiers holding rifles that do not have magazines; the photograph with the telescopic sight, and notably the shot of the Portuguese soldiers disembarking from a helicopter. In theory there's nothing wrong with this (although the caption of the second image implies that they soldiers are in action) but just to make sure, is this really the case? Or is there e.g. a five-round magazine for the G3 which does not extend beneath the magazine slot? -Ashley Pomeroy (talk) 22:42, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

         No, the second picture is a training excercise.  A short, 5 round mag would probably be a real pain to pull out once you're done firing.  And imagine trying to adjust that magazine if you don't seat it properly... you jammed that puppy in there with all the force your arm could generate, now lets see you pull it out with your fingertips...
A 5-round magazine makes sense for a sniper rifle, which would also explain the telescopic sight. Snipers do not put out large volumes of fire, but key in on select targets. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 16:45, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
Those aren't short magazines, those are G3's without magazine. Can't really say much more than that, other than that I served the German Army while the G3 was still in service, and am somewhat familiar with the design. ;-) -- DevSolar (talk) 14:45, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
Is it possible for a G3 to use a 10/15 round magazine? ----Hardtofindausername (talk) 18:59, 6 April 2013

DIO G3 Bullpup[edit]

I just have a few questions about the Iranian version of the G3:

  • Can it be mounted with an M203 or other 40mm grenade launcher?
  • Can it be modified with a collapsible and/or folding stock?
  • Can it be given the 50 round drum magazine as well as the 20 round box mag?
  • Does it have selective fire?

Any answers or possible answers to any number of the above questions would be useful and appreciated. BleedingEffect (talk) 00:27, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

File:G3StatsBC2.png Nominated for speedy Deletion[edit]


An image used in this article, File:G3StatsBC2.png, has been nominated for speedy deletion for the following reason: All Wikipedia files with unknown copyright status

What should I do?

Don't panic; you should have time to contest the deletion (although please review deletion guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to provide a fair use rationale
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale, then it cannot be uploaded or used.
  • If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Deletion Review

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 20:56, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Main picture of the Article is not a G3A3??[edit]

I noticed it doesn't have a paddle release, indicating it has a semi auto shelf welded in — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 15:30, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Assault Rifle or Battle Rifle?[edit]

The source on the page,, categorizes the G3 as an Assault Rifle. "Battle" rifle is a vague and poorly defined category of firearm created in the 1980s by American gun magazines such as Soldier Of Fortune, Battle Rifle is a term not used by any military or by other countries outside the US in the english speaking world. To some, a Battle Rifle is a variant of Assault Rifle, to others, it is distinct from an Assault Rifle. Since the G3 is German made gun, it would make sense to call it a Battle Rifle only if Heckler & Koch called it that, and I don't see a source of HK doing that. The assault rifles that are more generally categorized as Battle rifles by American gun magazines are heavier descendants of the M1 Garand such as the M14 and Springfield M1A. Then there is the FN FAL and its many variants, which all straddle the line between Assault Rifle and Battle Rifle. Not so much the select fire G3.Walterego (talk) 01:43, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

It doesn't matter what the definition of an assault rifle is in Russia, the definitions used on WP is that weapons chambered for full power cartridges, such as the 7.62x51mm, are battle rifles, not assault rifles. Thomas.W (talk) 07:29, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
According to the Encyclopedia Britannica, the G3 is specifically categorized as an assault rifle. "Widely used assault rifles are the United States’ M16, the Soviet Kalashnikov (the AK-47 and modernized versions), the Belgian FAL and FNC, and the German G3." Walterego (talk) 12:29, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
Which, as I have pointed out to you, are examples that contradict the first sentence of Encyclopaedia Britannica's definition of "assault rifle". Thomas.W (talk) 12:32, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
The Encyclopedia Britannica doesn't contradict itself. It contradicts your notion of what that sentence means, a notion which you have formed from elsewhere. The source specifically supports that the G3 is an assault rifle. Can you supply a source that states otherwise? Walterego (talk) 12:51, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

50 Round drum on a G3[edit]

a 50 rd drum is seen on — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hardtofindausername (talkcontribs) 12:19, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Vietnam War?[edit]

Who exactly used the G3 during Vietnam? Source?-- (talk) 08:39, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

G3 never been used in Vietnam war. (talk) 00:02, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

People keep saying the G3 was used by Navy SEALs as they have never heard of the Harrison Richards T223( a Heckler & Koch HK33 clone made under license.) However it seems that Thailand was using the G3 at that time. (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 05:35, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Heckler & Koch G3. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:40, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Twist rate?[edit]

The text reads "4 right-hand grooves with a 305 mm twist rate".

I'm familiar with twist rates specified as the number of turns in a given distance along the barrel, such as a rifle with a 1:10 twist being 1 turn in 10 inches. Is the text trying to say one turn in 305 mm? Let's clarify this. Poihths (talk) 23:55, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

305mm is approximately 12 inches, so 1 in 12 is my guess. That's pretty standard for 147gr 7.62x51mm NATO. — Bardbom (talk) 05:22, 18 April 2017 (UTC)