HKPRO Forums banner

The Sig 516 and the HK 416

81K views 27 replies 15 participants last post by  starsnuffer 
#1 ·
Now, I read this somewhere, but I was talking to some of the guys at the Sig Academy this week. One of the guys, one of their senior instructors, I was talking to told me the guy who designed the 416 designed the 516. He also told me that the units who were initially issued the 416 had a lot of issues with them.

My question is what is the relationship between the 2 systems. What makes one better than the other, if anyones gotten to handle both and knows the technical differences.

It seems the Sig has a more traditional carrier group, but what's different about the pistons?
 
#2 ·
Your account above is only partially accurate.

There is no one single designer of the HK416 first off. ANYONE who takes credit for that is either smoking dope or rewriting history. An entire team was involved in its development to include user reps, developers, sales staff, actual designers - a lead and his assistants, prototype makers and testers etc. One of the key folks involved now works at SIG Sauer in NH and is the lead on the development of the SIG516. For that reason it will likely be a VERY GOOD rifle and SIG has some surprises for it that I think give it an important leg up on the current known HK416 designs IF SIG can make it work as intended - All I can say on that.

As with ANY new weapon there will be issues, especially with those run hard like the HK416 has been since it was first fielded in 2004. The units that use them show them no mercy. A few isolated problems have occured but those are in guns with over 60,000 rounds thru them, most of it suppressed and using special ammo. HK has provided fixes to address these rare (< 2) issues out of 1000's fielded. Mostly you are hearing about rehashed internet rumor and comments from the competition wishing their rifle was serving where the HK416 is. They are not. The SIG516 is not. Even the M4 is mostly gone from these units having been replaced by HK416's.

The SIG516 will have a hard time replacing the HK416 but that will depend on many factors. Its AGR is well designed and SIG empoys a good CHF barrel, but it takes more than that. It takes a total package well executed and VERY WELL tested.

The US Army will test all avalable 5.56mm carbines beginning next year. I am sure the SIG and HK guns will be included. It will put up or shut up time and HK416 will be the gun all others are competing against because the very best are using it and they can choose what they want and have chosen the HK416. That makes it the high water mark.

G3Kurz
 
#3 · (Edited)
I think the difference between the Sig 516 piston and HK416 piston is that HK's piston is self regulating and the Sig's piston is adjustable. I like the 416's piston better because the sig's adjustable piston has too many settings. You don't need an off setting (to cut off all the gases) in an assault rifle and I see that as a liability.

Now in response to the HK416 problems. I remember someone posted on this forum that HK's President said that contrary to rumors, the HK416s has not run into major problems in USSOCOM use. Most of the problems with the HK416 was on very high round counts with suppressors (which is harmful to any gun). I think most of the problems you hear about the 416 are exaggerated by die hard Direct Impingement AR fan boys on the internet.

Any new system will have some issues that will eventually be worked out later. For example, the IWI Tavor had problems with sand getting into the ejection port but IWI has fixed the problem and the Tavor is doing very well in Israeli service and is the standard future infantry weapon of the IDF. There were some people who used this incident to bash the Tavor and say that it is a horrible weapon, which is not true. I guess those kinds of people also bash the HK416 when they hear of some issues and try to exaggerate them. AS G3kurz said, HK has fixed the rare problems which the 416s suffered on high round counts with suppressed fire.
 
#12 ·
"Self-regulation" has its limits. In hind sight HK should have had an AGR on the HK416 from day one for special purpose ammo and suppressor use, and one that works well unlike the crap they sent to Norway (all of which is being replaced). The SIG516when it is done in all variants will be exceptional IMO opinion.
G3Kurz
 
#6 ·
What valid contribution does this comment provide to the OP's questions / statements ??? making a bold short statement like that provides nothing to this forum but make it look more like Ar15.com

please enlighten us, what in your experience with SIGUSA's products has led you to believe that they will screw up the SIG 516??? is it how they changed the 550 into the 556 ??? is there some quality issues you've run into?? customer service problems???

did a 556 blow up in your face??

or maby its the fact that they're products are ACTUALLY avail. for people to purchase, unlike HK or that they actually listen to civi customer input. what about their part availability??

dont get me wrong, im a HK man through and through but you have to admit that SigUSA has done things about 95% more correctly then HK usa.

sorry to be a **** but if your going to contribute an opinion to this forum, please by all means put an opinion in your posts here.
 
#7 ·
Back in the 90's I had a Sig 220 and 228, German built, quality fit, finish, and function just as good as HK. Shortly after the election, I got a 556 pistol and a 556 Classic off of Gunbroker. They both came with the hooded front sight, "popsicle" stick rear sight and "Sig red dot" sight, oh and "Sig plastic AR mags". I also purchased a "Sig rotary diopter rear sight" seperately. Front sight on the pistol was loose, dove tail was milled out of spec. The fit between the upper and lower was kinda of loose. The rail was way under spec no matter how hard you tightened the diopter or red dot, they would loosen up after a few rounds. On the rifle the fit and finish was much better, the rail was still a little under spec but not as bad as the one on the pistol. The Chinese made "Sig red dot" ate a couple of batteries and then gave out completely. The Chinese made "Sig" rotary diopter rear sight had a loose fit to it and felt cheap {except for the price} pretty sure the front sights are Chinese also. Furniture is Chinese. The rails probably are too and no telling what else. On the good side I put several hundered rounds through each and they functioned fine, accuracy was about average. I initialy had hi hopes of eventually sbr-ing the pistol but the old Sig quality was just not there and I wonder how they would have held up in the long run. I sold-traded them off for a SCAR 16 and havent looked back.
 
#10 ·
Sir i stand corrected,

i apologize for flying off the handle but all to often on this forum as well as others, it gets filled with about 10% usefull posts and 90% extremely unhelpfull ones. i like HK pro and do not want to see it turn into some of those other ones.
 
#11 ·
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.
 
#14 · (Edited)
They have absolutely nothing in common.

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.
 
#15 ·
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.
 
#16 · (Edited)
There is nothing wrong with being a DI fanboy and I don't see DI guns as obsolete for LE use (given the fact that they are not SBRs and that you are not running suppressors on them). A 16" barrel DI gun is fine for LE use and military use. I just think their time is up for military assault rifles as the M4 was based on old mil specs and well designed op rod guns have advantages over them. DI guns like the C7 and C8 are reliable but modern op rod guns have longer service life. I just don't like it when certain DI fan boys bash Hk416s and well designed op rod designs with rumors that are often exaggerated or not true. There are DI guns that are more reliable than some op rod designs. For example, I would not be surprised if a M16 outperformed a Ak-5/FN FNC. But the fact is that well designed modern op rod guns like the HK416 have proven to be more reliable than DI guns.
 
#18 ·
The US Army will test all avalable 5.56mm carbines beginning next year. I am sure the SIG and HK guns will be included.
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?
 
#20 ·
For the US Army Individual Carbine testing ongoing now it will be a full range of DT (Developmental Testing). That includes but is not limited to physical dimensions, fit, and features, Targeting and Precision (Accuracy), function, rate of fire, drop and rough handling testing, interchangeability of parts, suppressor function, various (@ 9) types of ammo to include blanks and the M855A1 EPR round, firing on angles, function without lubrication, sustained rate of fire, durability, precision and reliability (to 10,000 rounds and greater), environmental testing (cold, hot, ice, sand/dust, salt/surf), obstructed bore, corrision, etc. Test to destruction should also be conducted. There are others I am surely forgetting. There will be some form of Operational Testing as well involving a selection of potential users though that comes later in the next phase as I recall, if the process lives that long, which is still in dispute. All these tests are conducted to established test protocol.

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.

G3Kurz
 
#21 ·
True.
Nothing new has come along since 2004 when the first HK416's were fielded that has knocked it out of those units. In fact the HK416 has found new homes in the US based on superior performance in Govt tests. The USMC IAR win and one or two others that cannot be mentioned here are examples.

One factor that may override this is HK customer/product support. Even the best weapon will not survive in such units if the maker cannot reliably and in a timely manner support the needs of the units for parts, tooling and technical support. The very best weapon is useless without parts. HK has hurt itself in the past 5 years in getting key parts like barrels and bolts to the US without EUC's even for the most elite units. This same issue hurt the MP5 and could be a factor with the M27 IAR down stream. Time will tell. Finally you must treat the customer with the appropriate respect they deserve.

G3Kurz
 
#25 ·
Steyr looks interesting, but do you plan to have different barrels for this one? Also monolithic upper is great for military, but for civilian user it means that you can not help anything about it (or potentially it is money saver).
 
#26 ·
Hmm, i don´t know. Maybe a 18" and a 13" barrel. I have no problem with a monolithic upper, i´m not that interested in trying different hand guards and the like. My MR308 remains in factory config. The long picatinny rail of the Steyr is my favorite feature, much real estate to mount optics and a buis without the danger of running out of space.

Anyway, the gun is a (promising) prototype right now, i will wait for feedback from other shooters and decide later what gun to buy.
 
#27 · (Edited)
According to former Army Times reporter Matthew Cox, the Army may be planning on cancelling the IC program: Army Set to Kill Improved Carbine Competition | Military.com

In hindsight, the Army should have competed for an entire upper (CHF barrel, improved bolt and operating system like the HK pusher rod system) for the M4 PIP as G3 kurz suggested in the above post or at least allowed for a new barrel extension so that improved bolts could be used in an improved M4 since from what G3 kurz posted (and from what I read) it was difficult to have an improved bolt in the current M4 barrel extension.
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top