 Join our Discord!
|
| If you have been locked out of your account you can request a password reset here. |
Talk:Heckler & Koch G11
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Additional Images
Discussion
Site introduction
The information stated in the introduction is wrong there were only 265 G11s ever made, so the mentioned 1000 units were never produced. Unless you have a better source than first hand information I would think the mentioned 1000 are misleading. In addition to that it was not only developed in the 80s it was developed from 1968 to 1990 and only the last K2 and K2/3 had 45 round magazines every other had 50 rounds --DAN11 (talk) 07:50, 1 December 2012 (EST)
- And you have first hand knowledge...How, exactly? I'm not saying you don't, but I'm not going to accept you saying that without explanation. Evil Tim (talk) 08:33, 1 December 2012 (EST)
- I have indeed, lets say there were some very rare occasions in the past where one was able to get his hands on these information and I was lucky :) --DAN11 (talk) 19:31, 1 December 2012 (EST)
I do know that there is at least one person who tried out a G11 on HKPro. I'll have to drop them a line and see if they have any interesting information.Rockwolf66 (talk) 19:33, 1 December 2012 (EST)
- You should ask for G3k he knows it for sure --DAN11 (talk) 19:39, 1 December 2012 (EST)
- Where do you guys even got this number 1000? This number never even was considered as an initial purchase number. The only time I read something like that was somewhere where someone wrote some crap about a contianer with 1000 G11s stolen by some Nazis in England or so. And if ask someone on HKPro ask some one who not just tried it out, only trying somethink doesn't qualify in development history. In other words you can't ask the guys and girls who tested the ACR model during the ACR-Tests for production numbers, because they were not part of deleopment or production but testing for the US Army so they could answer you questions like how it shoots and how you get recruited for testing ( some of the testers even had only shot the M16 before the ACR). Or ask me for production numbers of the Gebirgsjäger, I have tired it out ( and can say that is a brutal little thing) but I have no idea who produced it, how many were ever produced or wich units in detail got these in wich number ( of course I can look some of this up in books but thats not the piont here). --DAN11 (talk) 06:38, 2 December 2012 (EST)
- Can both sides cite their sources? --Funkychinaman (talk) 08:47, 2 December 2012 (EST)
- Heckler und Koch Oberndorf --DAN11 (talk) 10:40, 2 December 2012 (EST)
- You can't really just say "Heckler & Koch" and expect to be taken on faith. The number that you can find widely stated online is that there were about a thousand made (for example Wikipedia) although this number may be total bollocks and based on the same lie that everyone is copying. If you have actual information, which I would assume you do as you came up with the bizarrely specific number of 265, then that would make you seemingly the only person on the internet that knows so could you provide some more information as to how you know this or perhaps a corroborating source. For my own part, I would say that only 265 sounds like too few a number considering where the G11 got to in its development. I'm lumping together the K1s K2s and K3s together on this one, is the 265 you state for a specific variant or all together? Numbers that I know of for sure, are that there were at least 15 or so prototype iterations before the K1 (that may have had more than one example of each iteration), 20 that were sold to the US (K3 variant I believe, the one with the narrower rubber but pad) and there is also one in the UK Defence Academy in Shrivenham which is a K1 (along with examples of the other 3 ACR candidates, despite the fact that this weapons was not the type that was tested. A K1 is also seen in "promotional" material for the ACR tests before the tests began, so could be the same gun). I have also seen a photo of a K1 with a serial number in the 80s implying that there were at least this many K1s made, and everything I have seen implied that the K2 was the more common variant, so 265 total sounds too low to me. --commando552 (talk) 11:03, 2 December 2012 (EST)
- I said HKO wich means I'm referring to the source in Oberndorf as you know there is where the magic happens, what should I say more? if you don't believe me ok go ahead. Besides that the prototypes were numbered from 0 to 265, therefore ok I was wrong the number has to be 266 or 267 when you want to take into account that prototype number 64 was built two times and want to count prototype number 0 as a full prototype weapon wich in fact it wasn't. EDIT: I have to say Wikipedia tends to lie a lot when it comes to stuff where not that much people have knowledge about try it out with Zuse's Z1 all you will find is crap ( except there now was one who corrected the wrong stuff). The K2 was the most rare prototype version besides the first testfixtures and the tankversion.--DAN11 (talk) 11:20, 2 December 2012 (EST)
- "if you don't believe me ok go ahead." Ok, we won't. You expect us to take info made in anonymous comments on faith?Temp89 (talk) 12:10, 2 December 2012 (EST)
- I have mentioned my source so I guess faith doesn't apply here that much, anonymity applies very well but I guess most here are more or less anonymous. --DAN11 (talk) 13:03, 2 December 2012 (EST)
- So your source is an HK employee at Oberndorf? --Funkychinaman (talk) 15:41, 2 December 2012 (EST)
- More or less it is the archive itself --DAN11 (talk) 15:58, 2 December 2012 (EST)
- Can you find anything online or in a book to corroborate that? --Funkychinaman (talk) 16:03, 2 December 2012 (EST)
- The most complete book about the G11 is the book "Die G11-Story - Die Entwicklungsgeschichte einer High-Tech-Waffe"(by Wolfgang Seel in german) there you will find most of the things I have said, in addition to that you find some usefull information in th 50th anniversary book. In case you would like to have a guy more close to HK you could ask G3kurz on HKPro about the G11/ACR. HKPro is the only reliable online source in english if it comes to HK and especially G11, but I have to say you even mostly see crap written in german forums and websites. At the bottom of the page you can see a pic that I uploaded it shows the K1 as testen by the Bundeswehr, you wont find a pic of that online. --DAN11 (talk) 16:23, 2 December 2012 (EST)
- Here is an online source for the production numbers: http://www.whq-forum.de/invisionboard/lofiversion/index.php?t12226.html he just emailed HK --DAN11 (talk) 16:30, 3 December 2012 (EST)
- Can you find anything online or in a book to corroborate that? --Funkychinaman (talk) 16:03, 2 December 2012 (EST)
- More or less it is the archive itself --DAN11 (talk) 15:58, 2 December 2012 (EST)
- So your source is an HK employee at Oberndorf? --Funkychinaman (talk) 15:41, 2 December 2012 (EST)
- I have mentioned my source so I guess faith doesn't apply here that much, anonymity applies very well but I guess most here are more or less anonymous. --DAN11 (talk) 13:03, 2 December 2012 (EST)
- "if you don't believe me ok go ahead." Ok, we won't. You expect us to take info made in anonymous comments on faith?Temp89 (talk) 12:10, 2 December 2012 (EST)
- I said HKO wich means I'm referring to the source in Oberndorf as you know there is where the magic happens, what should I say more? if you don't believe me ok go ahead. Besides that the prototypes were numbered from 0 to 265, therefore ok I was wrong the number has to be 266 or 267 when you want to take into account that prototype number 64 was built two times and want to count prototype number 0 as a full prototype weapon wich in fact it wasn't. EDIT: I have to say Wikipedia tends to lie a lot when it comes to stuff where not that much people have knowledge about try it out with Zuse's Z1 all you will find is crap ( except there now was one who corrected the wrong stuff). The K2 was the most rare prototype version besides the first testfixtures and the tankversion.--DAN11 (talk) 11:20, 2 December 2012 (EST)
- You can't really just say "Heckler & Koch" and expect to be taken on faith. The number that you can find widely stated online is that there were about a thousand made (for example Wikipedia) although this number may be total bollocks and based on the same lie that everyone is copying. If you have actual information, which I would assume you do as you came up with the bizarrely specific number of 265, then that would make you seemingly the only person on the internet that knows so could you provide some more information as to how you know this or perhaps a corroborating source. For my own part, I would say that only 265 sounds like too few a number considering where the G11 got to in its development. I'm lumping together the K1s K2s and K3s together on this one, is the 265 you state for a specific variant or all together? Numbers that I know of for sure, are that there were at least 15 or so prototype iterations before the K1 (that may have had more than one example of each iteration), 20 that were sold to the US (K3 variant I believe, the one with the narrower rubber but pad) and there is also one in the UK Defence Academy in Shrivenham which is a K1 (along with examples of the other 3 ACR candidates, despite the fact that this weapons was not the type that was tested. A K1 is also seen in "promotional" material for the ACR tests before the tests began, so could be the same gun). I have also seen a photo of a K1 with a serial number in the 80s implying that there were at least this many K1s made, and everything I have seen implied that the K2 was the more common variant, so 265 total sounds too low to me. --commando552 (talk) 11:03, 2 December 2012 (EST)
- Heckler und Koch Oberndorf --DAN11 (talk) 10:40, 2 December 2012 (EST)
- Can both sides cite their sources? --Funkychinaman (talk) 08:47, 2 December 2012 (EST)
The G11 didn't just entered the Phase III of the ACR-Programm it entered at the beginning of the programm in 1982. You can find that info in the books I mentioned above and in the military documentation. --DAN11 (talk) 09:24, 10 December 2012 (EST)
The project was never cancelled it was comleted successfully in 1991 and in 1992 the G11 was adopted by the Bundewehr, therefore G11 (official designation Gewehr 11) EDIT: It was adopted but never ordered and issued.--DAN11 (talk) 09:24, 10 December 2012 (EST)
HKPRO thread
I am starting a Thread on HKPro to see if what changes if needed are to be made to this page. Basically my plan is to get feedback on the information we have and then edit as needed. Who knows maybe we can usser in an era of co-operation between the IMFDB and the greater internet firearms community.Rockwolf66 (talk) 18:37, 2 December 2012 (EST)
http://www.hkpro.com/forum/hk-nfa-talk/169921-g11-information-wanted.html
The link doesn't work when I click on it.Mr.Ice (talk) 20:07, 2 December 2012 (EST)
G11K1 (Konstruktionsstand 1)
The current picture used to show a G11K1 actually shows some kind of transition from K1 to K2. The forearm is from a K1, reciever and buttstock are from a K2, you can tell by the different trigger guard and the raised lines for for the extra magazines ports/wells. Does some one know where this picture is from? As far as I know the K1 and K2 bodies aren't compatible. --DAN11 (talk) 12:37, 30 November 2012 (EST)
- To me this looks like a photoshop of the back end of a K2 with the front end of a K1. What are the "raised lines" you are referring to, do you mean the magazine catch, as this was different between the two models I think. There is also that bizarre lump above the magazine in front of the carry handle that has no business being there on either a K1 or K2, making it a bad photo-shop. --commando552 (talk) 11:11, 2 December 2012 (EST)
- These "lumps" were present on most of the ACR and K1 models and even returned scaled down to a minimum on K2s, I wont call it bad photoshop because why should one shop an image like this when he already had a pic of an ACR/K1? --DAN11 (talk) 11:26, 2 December 2012 (EST)
- If that lump was on the K1s (not sure we are talking about the same thing as I have never seen it on another image of any variant) then maybe it isn't bad photoshop, but it is definitely photoshop. The source is from Small Arms Illustrated, specifically this image from a previous edition (the current edition on the site is lower res, but this is the previous larger size image that both the current K1 and K2 images were taken from). As usefull as this site is for ID'ing guns it very commonly uses photoshop to build up images of guns from other variants, which appears to be the case here. You can tell by the same pattern of wear on the gun, errant pixels in the same place, and the fact that there is a colour hue difference between the front and back half of the gun. --commando552 (talk) 18:11, 2 December 2012 (EST)
- I had identified the lump as the thing above the mag well that most people would think it is the magrelease (I hope this is the one you talked about). There are also color differences between the parts of the shown K2, I think it would be also possible that a) there was a version where the middle housing and the buttstock were already K2 spec but lacking a finished K2 handguard or b) it was a ergonomic test mockup or somethink in between with a bit of both. In case it is one of the latter it would be interesting to know where they got this pic from. --DAN11 (talk) 04:45, 3 December 2012 (EST)
- The lump I was talking about was the square part on the front of the sight. Is this what you are saying is the overpressure valve? Also where is the magazine catch? I think you are over thinking the origin of the K1 image on that site I linked to, photoshop is commonly used on there and if you compare the K1 and K2 images you can see that they appear to use the exact same photo of the receiver with different handguards. --commando552 (talk) 05:15, 3 December 2012 (EST)
- That lump is the lump I thought you are talking about. The overpressure valve is the thing coming out of the bottom of the buttstock and the magazine release is the button below the eyepiece on top of the buttstock. The magazine catch is a part of the system inside the housing, you wont be able to release it as long as the system is moving because it wont be in place. Regarding the site, possibly I do but it doesn't make much sense to me that they obviously had a clear orthographic shot of a K1 handguard without having one of a complete gun or having one and shopping stuff like this. In case that the ones they show there are mock ups or ergonomic test models, you should notice that they even added wear to these and as long as the wear would be produced by some kind of protocol the wear could seem the same. Possibly I am really wrong here and just smell some exciting new info 8) --DAN11 (talk) 19:49, 8 December 2012 (EST)
- The lump I was talking about was the square part on the front of the sight. Is this what you are saying is the overpressure valve? Also where is the magazine catch? I think you are over thinking the origin of the K1 image on that site I linked to, photoshop is commonly used on there and if you compare the K1 and K2 images you can see that they appear to use the exact same photo of the receiver with different handguards. --commando552 (talk) 05:15, 3 December 2012 (EST)
- I had identified the lump as the thing above the mag well that most people would think it is the magrelease (I hope this is the one you talked about). There are also color differences between the parts of the shown K2, I think it would be also possible that a) there was a version where the middle housing and the buttstock were already K2 spec but lacking a finished K2 handguard or b) it was a ergonomic test mockup or somethink in between with a bit of both. In case it is one of the latter it would be interesting to know where they got this pic from. --DAN11 (talk) 04:45, 3 December 2012 (EST)
- If that lump was on the K1s (not sure we are talking about the same thing as I have never seen it on another image of any variant) then maybe it isn't bad photoshop, but it is definitely photoshop. The source is from Small Arms Illustrated, specifically this image from a previous edition (the current edition on the site is lower res, but this is the previous larger size image that both the current K1 and K2 images were taken from). As usefull as this site is for ID'ing guns it very commonly uses photoshop to build up images of guns from other variants, which appears to be the case here. You can tell by the same pattern of wear on the gun, errant pixels in the same place, and the fact that there is a colour hue difference between the front and back half of the gun. --commando552 (talk) 18:11, 2 December 2012 (EST)
- I have uploaded a pic showing a G11K1 as tested by the Bundeswehr, you can see it still has the first version overpressure valve, later K1s had the newer version like the ACRs and K2s and a few had a removable carrying handle like the K2.
- Nice pic, will make this the standard one for the K1. Do you have any pics of similar quality of the K2 variant? --commando552 (talk) 18:11, 2 December 2012 (EST)
- These "lumps" were present on most of the ACR and K1 models and even returned scaled down to a minimum on K2s, I wont call it bad photoshop because why should one shop an image like this when he already had a pic of an ACR/K1? --DAN11 (talk) 11:26, 2 December 2012 (EST)
