The 416 by all all reputable accounts is a good robust system that's been field tested in punishing conditions. Competitors will always want to point out any deficiency and illustrate how their system is different.
I will agree with 45C's comments about SIG USA. I hope they make a good rifle, because their 556 system hasnt exactly been met with rave reviews. As someone who was really looking forward to them, I was very disappointed by all the negative comments. I'm not worried about my Swiss made SIGs losing value because of them.
I do agree that self regulation has its limits, for example it does not do well with suppressors and I don't think it will do well with belt fed machine guns. I said that personally I like the self regulating gas system because they allow for a wide variety of ammo and do not need any adjustment. I do agree with you that the Hk416 should have had a adjustable gas system because USSOCOM is running suppressors on them (mostly SBRs) and use special purpose ammo. For a standard issue rifle, I don't see the need for suppressors for most cases and that was why I personally prefer the self regulating gas system. I do like the Sig 516 and think it would be a great rifle, I just like the Hk416 better for general purpose. On SBRs and in the SPR role, I think the Sig 516 would shine and would be better than the Hk416 once it's fully developed and tested.
I just realized that I made an error on my previous comment. Sig 516 has a 3 position gas system (suppressed, normal, adverse), the OFF setting is just an additional option that could be added by a customer's request, so the Sig 516 gas system is not a liability. I stand corrected on that.
I guess comparing the self regulating gas system to adjustable gas system is sort of like comparing apples to oranges. The 2 gas system are better suited for different roles in my opinion. Self regulating: general purpose, adjustable: suppressed work and firing special purpose ammo.
Last edited by M995; 12-18-2010 at 11:49 PM.
The only piston system out there that has some level of similarity to an HK416 is an LWRC, and even that is a stretch.
Any attempt at drawing parallels between the two is a farce. Take 10 seconds to field strip both, and it becomes clear they have nothing in common.
Also, at this point SIG USA can barely be trusted to make a slingshot, while HK continues to be perhaps the most consistent firearms maker, period.
Last edited by variablebinary; 12-19-2010 at 01:49 AM.
Interesting info. Thanks guys.
I am a DI fan boty, but I am interested in piston designs as I find them interesting.
I would love to get a MR556, its a very sexy rifle. However, the 516s are out now, and I could get a 10.5" factory upper right now for~ $900. I'm not saving money for either right now however, so this was more from a technical interest standpoint.
It'll be interesting to see how they stack up against each other in the Army tests. I'm curious how the remingtom RGP will do as well.
The HK seems to have more total-rifle development as the bolt carrier has changes as well. Seems HK would have kept gas settings for SBRs and cans in mind seeing as who they developed the rifle for.
As for the self-regulating vs adjustable, if only someone was able to come out with something that self adjusted for ammo types, but still had a selector setting for suppressed so there was no over gassing.
Last edited by M995; 04-07-2012 at 08:20 PM.
The man you are speaking of is Robert Hirt. You have seen him in the HK416 over the beach testing video, HK P30 video, SIG 516 torture test video, and the SIG MPX Video.
G3Kurtz, what type of tests do they put the weapons through to determine the best weapon? I read the stoppages from the Extreme Dust Test way back when, and I would figure by now they should have replaced the M4 with 416s. So are they still looking for a replacement?The US Army will test all avalable 5.56mm carbines beginning next year. I am sure the SIG and HK guns will be included.
One thing is for certain, the HK416 is still with the units that were fielding it originally, which says something about how it ranks against it's competitors.
What has to happen is the 800 lb brains then have to answer the big question. Does the technical performance of the "winning" IC candidate(s) combined with the unit cost and life cycle costs justify the additional costs to switch to a new carbine? Those costs include costs for new accessories, mounts, special tool, gages and parts, training aids, weapon racks, etc. We know that because all candidates submitted were 5.56mm NATO weapons there will be no additional performance improvement from the muzzle forward so the best anyone can expect is a more reliable and accurate system that may cost less but it will still be limited to the performance of the 5.56mm NATO round.