Zarvan
Elite Member
G3 vs World: Trials of Modern Battle Rifles in Pakistan
by Vladimir OnokoyPublished: August 27th, 2026
When I was a kid, I kept asking my father the same stupid question: ‘Daddy, what is the best gun ever?’ He kept patiently explaining that it depends on the mission and circumstances. I understood that, but deep down, the question always remained with me.
Many years later, answering this question became a part of my job description. For a little while, I was testing weapons for a living, and in 2016 I participated in perhaps the biggest weapon trials in the last couple of decades.
Pakistan was looking for a new service rifle that would replace the locally made G3 and imported Chinese AKs (primarily Type-56-2). The potential deal was worth over a billion dollars and included the transfer of technology.
FN from Belgium, Beretta from Italy, CZ from Czechia, Zastava from Serbia, and MKEK from Turkey brought their modern battle rifles to compete against the G3, which has been around since 1959. There are many interesting aspects to those trials, but today I want to concentrate on one unexpected detail - the performance of the good old G3 compared to modern battle rifles.
Production of the G3 in Pakistan started in 1965, when the factory received a transfer of technology from Heckler & Koch. Along with blueprints, the German company provided machinery and know-how.
While H&K stopped production of the G3, Pakistan Ordnance Factories (POF) continued making those rifles using the original technology. The original G3 with a wooden stock and handguard was made by the POF from 1965 to 1983, and from 1983, POF has been producing the G3A3.
When I saw the G3A3 at the trials, it was completely overshadowed by modern battle rifles. It was never brought for displays, presentations, and briefings, and nobody said something along the lines of: ‘Maybe we don’t need a new rifle; G3 is good enough’.
Initially, the military did not want to use the G3 at the trials, but later they agreed that G3 should be brought to establish the baseline performance. It made sense to compare modern rifles with what they already had, and nobody had any intention of proving that a 60-year-old design can compete with modern FN SCAR or CZ Bren 2.
But the results of the accuracy tests were shocking. At the trials, two methods were used to determine accuracy: group size and deviation from the point of aim. But regardless of the method, at 100, 400, and 600 meters, G3 consistently ranked among the top 2 most accurate rifles. At 600 meters, shooters were allowed to use magnified optics, and G3 managed to win - with a Nightforce NXS 8-32x56mm scope.
Naturally, a big part of it was ammunition. During the trials, everyone used the same Pakistani-made 7.62x51mm ball ammo. Maybe match ammo would’ve changed the results of accuracy tests, but those results would be largely irrelevant - an ordinary soldier uses standard ball ammo and won’t be issued anything else.
In private, I asked one factory engineer whether those G3s were somehow accurised and specially prepared for the trials. He laughed: ‘Just look at those rifles with dented grips and handguards. If we could produce or pick a special batch of G3s for the trials, we would never let those rifles pass. Our rifles would’ve been perfect. All those G3s at the trials are not even from the factory; this is army stock, nothing special.'
It wasn’t all smooth sailing for the G3A3. I still remember the cook-off test, when the weapon is tested to see whether the round will ignite by itself in the hot chamber. Most people have never seen that happen.
In this case, the shooter fired 6 magazines in full auto without stopping, left a round in the chamber, and put the rifle on the table, propping it up with sandbags. Nobody expected the rifle to fire, but it did. Everyone was shocked. The shooter removed the magazine, leaving one more round in the chamber. It fired again, and I even managed to film it.
All battle rifles were tested for reliability: water immersion, mud, barrel elevation and depression, high and low temperatures. Many rifles had issues; G3A3 had only one stoppage during the cold weather test. The round did not chamber properly when the rifle was frozen to -40 degrees Celsius with a magazine inserted and an empty chamber. Other G3 reliability tests went without a hitch.
G3A3 also had a better result penetrating steel armor. It was the only rifle that managed to defeat 3.5 mm steel at 600 meters. Other rifles managed to do it at 550 meters. The results should not be surprising - after all, the G3 has an 18-inch barrel, giving it a small velocity advantage, while other battle rifles have a 16-inch barrel length.
What can we learn from this experience? Nobody is claiming that the G3 is better than any modern battle rifle, but if we look at the core of the firearm, what matters is the cartridge, barrel length, and action. You cannot expect a drastic difference between two rifles chambered for the same cartridge with similar barrel length.
If a rifle is reliable and can be used with modern sighting systems, it doesn't matter whether it was invented in 1959 or two years ago. When it comes to the G3, there is a lot of room for improvement, but with proper modernisation, the G3 certainly fits the formula of ‘old, but not obsolete’.
