HK 416 on Future Weapons 22:00
- Thread starter Gunslinger
- Start date
canucklehead
CGN Ultra frequent flyer
- Location
- Calgary, AB
The brief segment on the 416 was pretty cool. The sand test was impressive, but the water test seemed kinda stupid. The barrel wasn't 'full of water' like they said - he shook it out before shooting!
Either way - I want one. Yeah, who doesn't?
Either way - I want one. Yeah, who doesn't?
That show is really running on empty if they are looking at the 416. Nice rifle, but future weapon? It's sort of like saying the engine from a Jetta in a Neon is the car of the future.
Also that sand test, what are the odds an FAL, G-36, Ak-47, or a number of other weapons would still do that?
Also that sand test, what are the odds an FAL, G-36, Ak-47, or a number of other weapons would still do that?
Prometheus
Member
- Location
- Alberta & British Columbia
just finished watching and i liked it alot(reminds me on how the ak was tested), i agree they should have a SCAR and a f2000 in the show maybe they will who knows????
- Location
- Keswick, Ontario
Cool link to a graphic comarison of the two:
http://www.armytimes.com/projects/flash/2007_02_20_carbine/
Adn a vid of the carbine details:
http://www.armytimes.com/projects/video/daily/0219carbine/
http://www.armytimes.com/projects/flash/2007_02_20_carbine/
Adn a vid of the carbine details:
http://www.armytimes.com/projects/video/daily/0219carbine/
Last edited:
Last edited:
From: Army Times Letters
M4 vs. H&K 416: Readers fire back
"To the editor:
Until the cancellation of the XM8 program in 2005, Army Times strongly promoted the Heckler & Koch XM8 for its adoption as the service weapon for the Army.
In the Feb. 26 cover story, “The Army’s best carbine: Better than the M4 — but you won’t get one,” staff writer Matthew Cox attributes cancellation of the XM8 program to “a sea of bureaucratic opposition.” The story fails to mention a Defense Department Inspector General report on the acquisition of the Objective Individual Combat Weapon, dated Oct. 7, 2005, which addresses the XM8 program and is found at www.dodig.mil/audit/reports.
This report clearly stated the rationale, which indicated the XM8 offered no potential efficiency over the present weapons systems, as well as including mismanagement by those persons responsible for the program, both of which clearly may have been a strong consideration in the cancellation of the program. Another related and informative DoD IG report is “Competition of the 5.56 Millimeter Carbine (D-2007-026),” which is dated Nov. 22, 2006, and is found at the same Web site.
The story about the H&K 416 references unnamed experts and misrepresents comparisons between the H&K 416 and M4. Additionally, it cites findings in an unpublished draft, a 2001 Special Operations Command report on the M4 and a Marine Corps test of the M4 in 2002, without informing the reader that the Army did not agree with the report findings nor does it take into consideration the measures taken immediately by the Army and Colt to eliminate those few problems with weapon improvements.
Instead, the story argues for adoption of the German-manufactured H&K 416 for the entire Army now in use by a minuscule group of elite operators within Special Operations Command who rightfully develop their own kit of weapons and modify them to their needs.
Additionally, the story wrongly alleges that Army leadership is not providing our men and women in uniform the best weapon available and, more disturbing, irresponsibly raises a concern to the soldiers, Marines and special operations forces in combat in Iraq and Afghanistan and their families that their service weapon is not reliable.
The M4 speaks for itself as to its combat credibility. Before its introduction into the Army inventory in 1994, it was subjected to the full range of required Army tests and evaluations. The H&K 416 has never been subjected to any of these official government tests.
From fall 2002 to today, government quality deficiency reports for the M4 have been nearly nonexistent. Additionally, from fall 2002, U.S. government inspectors at the Colt plant have overseen the firing of nearly 4 million endurance rounds with only three endurance gun failures.
The gas piston system in the H&K 416 is not a new system. Rifles were being designed with these systems in the 1920s. Colt proposed a piston-operated weapon to the Army in the early 1960s. Today, Colt Defense has the ability and expertise to manufacture in great numbers piston system carbines of exceptional quality should the U.S. military services initiate a combat requirement for this type of weapon.
Anecdotal examples of fouled weapons are not taken lightly, yet the information is not helpful if the type of fouling is not clearly defined. In a desert environment, for example, sand and dust have the same effects on a weapon, whether it has a gas piston system or a gas impingement system.
This issue is completely different from a debate over a gas piston system operating cleaner than a gas impingement system. Is a gas piston operated weapon less vulnerable to the effects of the desert than a gas impingement system? If so, where are the results of the controlled tests?
Additionally, there are a number of reasons for weapons fouling, including the reliability of the ammunition and reliability of magazines. The M16 and M4 have undergone major enhancements since introduction of the M16 into the U.S. military inventory in the 1960s, and they are clearly not the weapons of 40 years ago. These enhancements have improved functioning, reliability, maintenance and versatility for the soldiers and Marines throughout the years.
Currently, there is a government-funded operational evaluation being conducted for SOCom by Colt and UCT Defense for greaseless operating parts on the M4 to improve maintenance, functioning and the wear of select parts of the weapon.
at the 2006 NDIA conference and at the Infantry War Fighting Conference sponsored by the chief of infantry and commanding general of the Army Infantry Center and School, Fort Benning, Ga., the M4 carbine was listed by the commanding general and included in his brief as one of the highlighted success stories in combat operations in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Marine Corps Maj. Gen. James R. Battaglini (ret.)
Chief operating officer, Colt Defense LLC"
M4 vs. H&K 416: Readers fire back
"To the editor:
Until the cancellation of the XM8 program in 2005, Army Times strongly promoted the Heckler & Koch XM8 for its adoption as the service weapon for the Army.
In the Feb. 26 cover story, “The Army’s best carbine: Better than the M4 — but you won’t get one,” staff writer Matthew Cox attributes cancellation of the XM8 program to “a sea of bureaucratic opposition.” The story fails to mention a Defense Department Inspector General report on the acquisition of the Objective Individual Combat Weapon, dated Oct. 7, 2005, which addresses the XM8 program and is found at www.dodig.mil/audit/reports.
This report clearly stated the rationale, which indicated the XM8 offered no potential efficiency over the present weapons systems, as well as including mismanagement by those persons responsible for the program, both of which clearly may have been a strong consideration in the cancellation of the program. Another related and informative DoD IG report is “Competition of the 5.56 Millimeter Carbine (D-2007-026),” which is dated Nov. 22, 2006, and is found at the same Web site.
The story about the H&K 416 references unnamed experts and misrepresents comparisons between the H&K 416 and M4. Additionally, it cites findings in an unpublished draft, a 2001 Special Operations Command report on the M4 and a Marine Corps test of the M4 in 2002, without informing the reader that the Army did not agree with the report findings nor does it take into consideration the measures taken immediately by the Army and Colt to eliminate those few problems with weapon improvements.
Instead, the story argues for adoption of the German-manufactured H&K 416 for the entire Army now in use by a minuscule group of elite operators within Special Operations Command who rightfully develop their own kit of weapons and modify them to their needs.
Additionally, the story wrongly alleges that Army leadership is not providing our men and women in uniform the best weapon available and, more disturbing, irresponsibly raises a concern to the soldiers, Marines and special operations forces in combat in Iraq and Afghanistan and their families that their service weapon is not reliable.
The M4 speaks for itself as to its combat credibility. Before its introduction into the Army inventory in 1994, it was subjected to the full range of required Army tests and evaluations. The H&K 416 has never been subjected to any of these official government tests.
From fall 2002 to today, government quality deficiency reports for the M4 have been nearly nonexistent. Additionally, from fall 2002, U.S. government inspectors at the Colt plant have overseen the firing of nearly 4 million endurance rounds with only three endurance gun failures.
The gas piston system in the H&K 416 is not a new system. Rifles were being designed with these systems in the 1920s. Colt proposed a piston-operated weapon to the Army in the early 1960s. Today, Colt Defense has the ability and expertise to manufacture in great numbers piston system carbines of exceptional quality should the U.S. military services initiate a combat requirement for this type of weapon.
Anecdotal examples of fouled weapons are not taken lightly, yet the information is not helpful if the type of fouling is not clearly defined. In a desert environment, for example, sand and dust have the same effects on a weapon, whether it has a gas piston system or a gas impingement system.
This issue is completely different from a debate over a gas piston system operating cleaner than a gas impingement system. Is a gas piston operated weapon less vulnerable to the effects of the desert than a gas impingement system? If so, where are the results of the controlled tests?
Additionally, there are a number of reasons for weapons fouling, including the reliability of the ammunition and reliability of magazines. The M16 and M4 have undergone major enhancements since introduction of the M16 into the U.S. military inventory in the 1960s, and they are clearly not the weapons of 40 years ago. These enhancements have improved functioning, reliability, maintenance and versatility for the soldiers and Marines throughout the years.
Currently, there is a government-funded operational evaluation being conducted for SOCom by Colt and UCT Defense for greaseless operating parts on the M4 to improve maintenance, functioning and the wear of select parts of the weapon.
at the 2006 NDIA conference and at the Infantry War Fighting Conference sponsored by the chief of infantry and commanding general of the Army Infantry Center and School, Fort Benning, Ga., the M4 carbine was listed by the commanding general and included in his brief as one of the highlighted success stories in combat operations in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Marine Corps Maj. Gen. James R. Battaglini (ret.)
Chief operating officer, Colt Defense LLC"
Biggest issue I have seen with the M16FOW is weapon techs's and US "armorers" that are incompetant - and troops who dont know better to tag weapons for worn parts.
Piston = solution for non existant problem IMHO
Would I take a Hk416 -- sure cuz then Chicks would dig me
Piston = solution for non existant problem IMHO
Would I take a Hk416 -- sure cuz then Chicks would dig me
So there's no reason to use piston in a combat situation? Then, why are people going gaga over piston, then? Is it purely marketing? Cause in terms of economic, I don't see any advantage of getting more expensive rifle that has no clear advantage over existing platform which are less money to acquire. I'm just trying to understand the current trend of piston vs. direct impingement. There are some smart people out there, why aren't they advocating to stay with the current system?
Bitterman -- a NIB Colt M4A1 and NIB Mk18Mod0 will typically outshoot a Hk416 (14.5 and 10.5) respective.
Most of the accuracy comparisons have been a NIB Hk416 to used (and somewhat shotout) issue M4A1 or Mk18.
Several independant testors have verified that they Hk series has some noticeable vertical stringing.
Not to say its a bad gun -- but a lot of the claims being made are being eggsagurated.
Most of the accuracy comparisons have been a NIB Hk416 to used (and somewhat shotout) issue M4A1 or Mk18.
Several independant testors have verified that they Hk series has some noticeable vertical stringing.
Not to say its a bad gun -- but a lot of the claims being made are being eggsagurated.
As far as accuracy goes, a gas impingement system is more accurate due to the fact that a gas tube has no affect on the upper. A piston, on the other hand, moves, and that movement will affect the barrel while the round is still in it. Not knocking pistons, they are a tried and true design that can't be beat in terms of reliability, however, I have fired thousands of rounds out of a C7 without cleaning it and had no reliability issues. The only way I can see the gas impingement system failing its operator is out of gross neglect in regards to the most basic type of maintenance.
