Hi
I have been playing around with HK G3 a bit.
It is a potent gun and there is loads of armies that are still using it in various extent.
I am asking to get imputs of what I have done on it so far.
So here is what I have come up with:
The main problem with the G3 is the "hump" or the cheek bone crusher that hits the face espesially in prone.
Due to the stupid hump the stock is 2-3" longer than it should be, and it's 2" longer than an M16 A2 stock........
The hump is the result of the low iron sights and the hump was needed to the the comb low enough.
The "hump" is clearly visiable here
I made a solution to hang on a Magpul CTR instead and that rised the comb by over an inch and shortens the butt with up to 3" depending on how it's perfomed.
Here is shown the difference betwen the original stock and the CTR.
The advantage is obvious the gun feels lighter, gets shorter, handles easyer and gets the muzzle rise almost to dissapear......
Please look at this video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9wiKpE_KnZI
I have been playing around with HK G3 a bit.
It is a potent gun and there is loads of armies that are still using it in various extent.
I am asking to get imputs of what I have done on it so far.
So here is what I have come up with:
The main problem with the G3 is the "hump" or the cheek bone crusher that hits the face espesially in prone.
Due to the stupid hump the stock is 2-3" longer than it should be, and it's 2" longer than an M16 A2 stock........
The hump is the result of the low iron sights and the hump was needed to the the comb low enough.
The "hump" is clearly visiable here
I made a solution to hang on a Magpul CTR instead and that rised the comb by over an inch and shortens the butt with up to 3" depending on how it's perfomed.
Here is shown the difference betwen the original stock and the CTR.
The advantage is obvious the gun feels lighter, gets shorter, handles easyer and gets the muzzle rise almost to dissapear......
Please look at this video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9wiKpE_KnZI