Why does Pakistan Army use G3

[manzar]

Great rifle. Why not? Accurate, reliable. Full-sized .308 cartridge. Suitable for a range of battle conditions. You manufacture it and your army is set up logistically to receive and train rifle marksmanship with it.

Is anything there incorrect?

Little call to change unless you begin making something else. Why'd you do so would be an equally perplexing question. What's to gain at what cost?

i was watching"we are soldiers"and i came to know that its only good when firing it semi automatically.when you switch it to full auto.it jst gets out of control.you need some strong arms to actually fire that thing automatically....im jst saying cz i watched the programm.i never fired that thing actually..and i would recommend the ak47.so much reliable and eazy to handle.the only down point for ak47 is its low accuracy..otherwise,,it jst kicks ***.!!!

 

[manzar]

The G-3 is a great rifle but the cartridge can be a problem, it is impossible to aim on fully automatic, the recoil's a problem at first and you need a lot of room to carry the ammunition around as compared to a 5.56 mm. On the bright side it can blow holes into brink walls, it can blow through most body armor (helpful against Indian forces) and if it hits its unlikely the bad guy will get up again unlike the 5.56. And the new glass-fiber versions is considerably lighter (some soldiers complain they heat up quicker but in my experience that happens with the wooden ones as well, so I suggest just wearing gloves if you have a lot of ammo to waste).

i totally agree with you sir..!apart from its handling problem at full automatic,its an awsome rifle.but i prefer the use of ak 47.dont you agree.i mean it clearly fulfill all standerds apart from low accuracy.and its accuracy isnt THAT low.!

 

[agent_ali]

great gun, i love that

 

[Ray_of_Hope]

i was watching"we are soldiers"and i came to know that its only good when firing it semi automaticallyally.when you switch it to full auto.it jst gets out of control.you need some strong arms to actually fire that thing automatic....im jst saying cz i watched the programm.i never fired that thing actually..and i would recommend the ak47.so much reliable and eazy to handle.the only down point for ak47 is its low accuracy..otherwise,,it jst kicks ***.!!!

There is nothing wrong with g3 being fired in auto.The G3 is used by army,not some school children and soldiers have got strong arms.Plus they r trained to handle it

 

[Syed Hussain]

One thing I know about G3 is that its not just an assault rifle but a more powerful battle rifle which can penetrate level III body armor without any AP bullets.

As here are a lot of experts so can you ppl tell me that aren't rifles using 5.45 or 7.62 x 39 mm rounds like Famas, M4,AK74 or Ak103 respectively, are somewhat better than g3.

Many NATO nations use Hk416 and modern guns so why dosent PAkistan. On tv I mostly see that our soldiers have either G3 or type81 chinese Ak47's. M4's and Ak74 and 103 are only used by Special forces.

If you do a straight & honest analysis without adding unwanted patriotism then by the time when Pakistan selected G3 as it's general issue service rifle, it was considered to be a good choice & compatible to it's era. Now however it has become "obsolete" but We can't replace it because it will take money which We don't have...so our forces came up with a million dollar idea(which should be given nobel prize) to modify it by adding folding stock & rails & then call it an updated G3.
It's a rifle with only one advantage & a dozen of disadvantages.
Advantage being the ability to penetrate body armors. While disadvantages are, being a rifle with large dimensions & heavy weight, less range, less accuracy, greater recoil which is totally uncontrollable in full auto, low magazine capacity, low ammo carrying capacity, etc.
Wherever there is a will there is a way. If you want to replace it then there are options tens of times better than G3, but it all depends on if you want...!

 

[Sinnerman108]

"Because the opposing forces are using full scale battle rifles, packing a brutal punch with the 7.62mm cartridge."

Do you consider the AK-47 to be a full scale battle rifle? If so, we know the 7.62mmx39 doesn't equate ballistically to the NATO full-cartridge 7.62mm?

Being hit by a 5.56mm from an M-4 might be more catastrophic than you imagine. That round tumbles considerably on impact. The internal damage caused and the exit wounds can be unbelievably nasty.

A wounded soldier is much precious than a dead soldier to the side who shot him.
( the wounded guy consumes resources, dents morale, and slows his team / platoon ).

 

[Irfan Baloch]

A wounded soldier is much precious than a dead soldier to the side who shot him.
( the wounded guy consumes resources, dents morale, and slows his team / platoon ).

this is the Western doctrine and one of the reasons behind keeping and adopting 5.56 bullet

It's a rifle with only one advantage & a dozen of disadvantages.
Advantage being the ability to penetrate body armors. While disadvantages are, being a rifle with large dimensions & heavy weight, less range, less accuracy, greater recoil which is totally uncontrollable in full auto, low magazine capacity, low ammo carrying capacity, etc.!

take any video footage of our soldiers firing it and you can bet that the intended target is the safest place . their muzzle skews right and left violently.
that said. do check out how the Norwegian soldier fires it. look at the stance and control

there is nothing wrong with the rifle as long as the soldier is able to hit with it otherwise its big round is of no use if the soldier is tired carrying it and is unable to get a hit.

 

[madmusti]

.......If they can have this :

 

[Zarvan]

The only reason I can see is that we are shot off funds

 

[niaz]

The only reason I can see is that we are shot off funds

This assumption appears to be correct. Even if manufactured in Pakistan under licence a state of the art assault rifle would cost at least $1,000/- per unit. Pakistan would need a minimum of 500,000 new rifles. This means an outlay of $500-million. That is if you are going to keep 7.62 mm round. If you change the ammunition as well, cost could easily double.

In a cash starved Pakistan, question for the army planners must be; would these funds be more beneficial to the Army’s fighting ability if spent on some other defence hardware?

 

[Xeric]

This assumption appears to be correct. Even if manufactured in Pakistan under licence a state of the art assault rifle would cost at least $1,000/- per unit. Pakistan would need a minimum of 500,000 new rifles. This means an outlay of $500-million. That is if you are not going to keep 7.62 mm round. If you change the ammunition as well, cost could easily double.

In a cash starved Pakistan, question for the army planners must be; would these funds be more beneficial to the Army’s fighting ability if spent on some other defence hardware?

500K may be the minimum number required. An Army of 500K men would require more rifles than its strength, not to mention that FC/Rangers and some Police also would use use this new weapon that we are talking about.

 

[Thorough Pro]

Cartridge is the strength, its potent, lethal, has longer effective range, and sure to put the enemy out of commission regardless of where on the body he gets hit

Full auto fire is not intended to be aimed, its normally done to overwhelm the enemy, suppress their fire, or provide cover to your comrades

It operates on a delayed roller lock mechanism, one of the smoothest out their to control recoil

Remaining part, I totally agree with

The G-3 is a great rifle but the cartridge can be a problem, it is impossible to aim on fully automatic, the recoil's a problem at first and you need a lot of room to carry the ammunition around as compared to a 5.56 mm. On the bright side it can blow holes into brink walls, it can blow through most body armor (helpful against Indian forces) and if it hits its unlikely the bad guy will get up again unlike the 5.56. And the new glass-fiber versions is considerably lighter (some soldiers complain they heat up quicker but in my experience that happens with the wooden ones as well, so I suggest just wearing gloves if you have a lot of ammo to waste).

 

[Thorough Pro]

with the body armour, equation changes significantly. A dead comrade is a bigger burden on morale than an injured one.

i guss, its more of the late 60s, 70s, militry mind frame!
g-3 was a powerfull weapon , & in those days , it brought a feeling of power!

still, its the best , but surly we need more light wieght assult gun?
lets, wait & see PK-8, hope fully it will bound to fullfill the modern day requirments.

 

[Reichmarshal]

this is the Western doctrine and one of the reasons behind keeping and adopting 5.56 bullet


take any video footage of our soldiers firing it and you can bet that the intended target is the safest place . their muzzle skews right and left violently.
that said. do check out how the Norwegian soldier fires it. look at the stance and control

there is nothing wrong with the rifle as long as the soldier is able to hit with it otherwise its big round is of no use if the soldier is tired carrying it and is unable to get a hit.

5.56 as round has more or less failed, due to the simple fact that it lacks the stopping power.
The nerative that was given for the intro of this caliber was that they were looking to cause maximum injuries so as to put max strain on the opposing armies resources. That was the theory.
But in practice it failed miserably partly as in both instances they were not facing a regular conventional army but a insurgency.
So the result as that the U.S is moving awY from from the 5.56 caliber n the latest reports indicate that they want to 38 special round. As it is small n resolves the size prob Plus it has the stopping power as well

 

[Armstrong]

500K may be the minimum number required. An Army of 500K men would require more rifles than its strength, not to mention that FC/Rangers and some Police also would use use this new weapon that we are talking about.

Say its 2000K rifles costing a sum total of maybe $2 billion...heck lets add another billion to it to make it $3 billion !

Are you telling me that we're so cash starved that we can't even spend $3 billion spread over say a 5 year acquisition plan ?

That'll be $600 million p.a - Thats a lot of money but surely not an impossible amount to spend for a country ?