+ Reply to Thread
Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 1 2 3 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 22

Thread: 416 IC candidate could not pass minimum reliability standards?

  1. #11
    Gets the Shakes if No HK Contact in 24 Hour Period
    sweersa's Avatar
    Join Date : Jan 2012
    Location : Michigan
    Posts : 741

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ITD1944 View Post
    To G3's point, the XM8 could have been fielded and paid for with the money wasted on these trials. Our government is a bad joke.
    This. Sort of like the body armor fiasco with dragon skin.
    ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ

  2. #12
    HKPRO Professional
    gmthecoolguy's Avatar
    Join Date : May 2008
    Location : Ft. Bragg, NC
    Posts : 2,124

    Default

    This was written by Military.com, which is not an official military website, and some one was quoted as saying the Army will not release official results, take the info with a grain of salt...
    Certified HK Roller Delayed Blowback Armorer
    Certified HK P7 Armorer
    Certified HK USP Armorer
    Certified HK 416 Armorer

  3. #13
    Really liking this HK Stuff Member

    Join Date : Apr 2011
    Posts : 467

    Default

    The M855A1 EPR ammo is crap. Each manufacturer was only given 8000 rounds or so to test with, and the only place to get it from is the Army. Makes you wonder how much the M4 would fail with this crap ammo.

    -W

  4. #14
    HKPRO Professional
    LCSO264's Avatar
    Join Date : Feb 2005
    Location : Eugene, Or
    Age : 39
    Posts : 3,033

    Default

    somewhere, G3 and other ran a post about this.... I think they said the Army decided (paraphrasing) since none of the rifles offered significant downrange improvements (uhhh duh, shooting the same round as M4) they all failed and they decided to stay with the M4. I was talking to a friend of mine who is semi recently out of the Army (went to Iraq, etc...), we were talking about the huge disconnect in the Army between users and the people who play politics and decide what to buy/equip soldiers with... the IC trials (three attempts in past decade), the Joint Pistol project, and the BILLION (billion with a B) spent on the camo/uniform debacle... He just laughed, and said that is the typical army way of doing things.... Then we talked about the marine corps, they wanted an IAR, they tested, selected, and got what they wanted in a very reasonable amount of time. the corps wanted a new uniform pattern, they tested, selected, and fielded their camo pattern, again in a reasonable amount of time and a reasonable budget.... I'm sure there are many more examples, those are just the two that came instantly to mind... Meanwhile the army continues to espouse the virtures of the M4, and how wonderful it is, even though I've not heard many trigger pressers saying how wonderful the M4 is. a good rifle sure, but is there room for improvement, absolutely.... likewise, the army, it seems, allowed someone to simply choose the ACU pattern rather than test it (at least according to the article i read on soldier systems), and now they are stuck with a camo pattern that really doesn't seem to work well anywhere, and here they are still trying to fix it.... Billion, with a "B".. no wonder the government is out of money?
    HK91
    HK94
    USC/UMP
    SL8/G36
    P7M8
    P9s .45acp
    VP70Z
    USP Tactical .45acp
    V51/HK51 clone
    HK45
    HK45c
    HK 416 10.5" upper
    GSG5PK
    P30LS
    HK45T (OD Green)
    VP9

  5. #15
    Junior Member
    die_dunkelheit's Avatar
    Join Date : Apr 2013
    Location : The People's Republic of California
    Posts : 13

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by LCSO264 View Post
    somewhere, G3 and other ran a post about this.... I think they said the Army decided (paraphrasing) since none of the rifles offered significant downrange improvements (uhhh duh, shooting the same round as M4) they all failed and they decided to stay with the M4. I was talking to a friend of mine who is semi recently out of the Army (went to Iraq, etc...), we were talking about the huge disconnect in the Army between users and the people who play politics and decide what to buy/equip soldiers with... the IC trials (three attempts in past decade), the Joint Pistol project, and the BILLION (billion with a B) spent on the camo/uniform debacle... He just laughed, and said that is the typical army way of doing things.... Then we talked about the marine corps, they wanted an IAR, they tested, selected, and got what they wanted in a very reasonable amount of time. the corps wanted a new uniform pattern, they tested, selected, and fielded their camo pattern, again in a reasonable amount of time and a reasonable budget.... I'm sure there are many more examples, those are just the two that came instantly to mind... Meanwhile the army continues to espouse the virtures of the M4, and how wonderful it is, even though I've not heard many trigger pressers saying how wonderful the M4 is. a good rifle sure, but is there room for improvement, absolutely.... likewise, the army, it seems, allowed someone to simply choose the ACU pattern rather than test it (at least according to the article i read on soldier systems), and now they are stuck with a camo pattern that really doesn't seem to work well anywhere, and here they are still trying to fix it.... Billion, with a "B".. no wonder the government is out of money?
    ^^This, mostly. In my professional life I have a responsibility to follow the camo improvement effort, there are a few reasons why they've taken longer at this than the Marines did. The Marines certainly made huge improvements with other things like the IAR, FILBE, Scalable PC, etc, but the MARPAT patterns leave a lot to be desired. The Marines simply recolored CADPAT, just like the Army did after them with UCP, but the fact is that the pattern still sucks under NIR. All the colors blob together under NIR just like UCP does to the naked eye. Israeli IDF were surprised by Lebanese forces with NIR NODs in 2006, meaning that such technology is getting easier for the other side to acquire, which means we've got to be as squared away as possible in NIR effective camouflage going forward.
    So there are four patterns in the down-select, but not really, Kryptek lost because they released commercially before the competition was over, leaving Crye, ADS/Guy Cramer, and Brookwood. Kryptek may have lost the overall competition but US SOCOM still bought a contract with them, meaning that all of our SOF will have it available to them. So basically they need to pull their heads out of their a**es and announce a winner, but to give you an idea, later next month when my new plate carrier prototype hits the shelf it will be available in MultiCam, Kryptek Highlander/Nomad/Mandrake, then later in US4CES OCIE/PPE when that material becomes available to me. I'm ranting now, but hey I'm tired...

    (sources: "Why US4CES?" parts 1 through 4, soldiersystems.net, and others)
    The sea will grant each man new hope,
    The sleep bring dreams of home.
    -Christopher Columbus

  6. #16
    Very Senior Member

    Join Date : Dec 2005
    Location : Arlington, VA
    Posts : 280

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by die_dunkelheit View Post
    Kryptek lost because they released commercially before the competition was over
    Wait, how does this apply to kryptek but not crye? Crye has had multicam stuff for sale on the commercial market for a very long time.

    Where are you getting this from? There was an exclusivity clause in the procurement?

  7. #17
    Junior Member
    die_dunkelheit's Avatar
    Join Date : Apr 2013
    Location : The People's Republic of California
    Posts : 13

    Default

    Wait, how does this apply to kryptek but not crye? Crye has had multicam stuff for sale on the commercial market for a very long time.
    Crye didn't submit MultiCam as their entry into the competition. It is speculated that they submitted a variant on MultiCam but no one has seen it because the information on their submission hasn't been publicly released. From the point of view that MC is already widely fielded in OEF it makes sense for them to have submitted a variant rather than a whole new pattern, because the existing inventory of OCIE/PPE would be compatible with it. Remember guys wearing UCP ACU's and woodland OTV's? Not an issue if they pick the Crye submission. Also, like I mentioned before, they are looking for something that performs better in the NIR. MC does lack a little here compared to most all of the submissions. The only one I don't have info on in the NIR is the Brookwood patterns, but those patterns look like a** anyways...

    There was an exclusivity clause in the procurement?
    Only that the patterns not be released commercially until after the winner was announced.

    Where are you getting this from?
    Partially from the text from the actual solicitation from Natick...

    Solicitation Number:W911QY-11-R-0008Notice Type:Award NoticeContract Award Date:January 9, 2012Contract Award Number:W911QY-12-C-0036Contract Award Dollar Amount:$6,453,000.00Contract Line Item Number:0001-1004Contractor Awarded DUNS:961885691Contractor Awardee:KRYPTEK L.E.A.F., LLC (961885691) 1285 LINZ DRFAIRBANKS, AK 99712-2732Synopsis:Added: Jan 10, 2012 5:20 pm Modified: Jan 10, 2012 5:42 pmTrack ChangesMaterial, Finishings and Findings in new camouflage pattern family, and Options for purchase of non-exclusive license for camouflage pattern family data.Additional Info:Army Contracting Command, Aberdeen Proving Ground - Natick Contracting DivisionContracting Office Address:ACC-APG SCRT - Natick (SPS), ATTN: AMSRD-ACC-N, Natick Contracting Division (R and BaseOPS), Building 1, Kansas Street, Natick, MA 01760-5011Point of Contact(s):Huy D Le, 5082336121
    Partially from the sources mentioned in my first post, and partially from conversations with reps from the various companies in the competition.

  8. #18
    PC7
    PC7 is offline
    HKPRO PREMIUM PARTNER
    PC7's Avatar
    Join Date : Dec 2008
    Location : Tennessee
    Age : 40
    Posts : 609

    Default

    The issue was the over pressure “Enhanced Performance Round” M855A1.
    The bigger concern is what this round is going to do to the M4, and the fact that the Army still plans to field the M855A1.

  9. #19
    HKPRO PREMIUM PARTNER
    navyman8903's Avatar
    Join Date : Feb 2009
    Location : World Police
    Age : 28
    Posts : 3,719

    Default

    HK failing a Test?!?!?!?!? LOL! HK created the torture test.


    But anyways, yes, the gov't doesn't want to pay to re-arm the troops. I would tell you the stuff they said here, but I don't want to get in trouble. I will say it is coming down to some things getting broke stay broke.......that we need for day to day operations.

    The guys on the hill are crashing us on purpose, while giving themselves pay raises. It is no wonder the contracts we need for improvements are not getting approved. We have FN Uppers on Gen1 Colt Lowers here. Some of these lowers are grey, from M16A1's. The very best I have seen, were all New FN Rifles (M16A3's).

    The other aspect is, they don't want to give nice HK rifles, to 18 year old kids that won't maintain them, some won't even use them. I understand why they are not doing it, but they could at least be honest about it. So....the SEALS, DELTA, the MARINES, and a few others Get HK's. We will be stuck with the peasant rifles.
    ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ

    Trying to catch up to TooSixy.

  10. #20
    HKPRO PREMIUM PARTNER
    G3Kurz's Avatar
    Join Date : Feb 2005
    Location : Where the rivers meet
    Age : 54
    Posts : 3,160

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by PSG1 Nut View Post
    According to the military the HK IC canidate along with all other entires could not pass the minimum requirements for the program.

    Min standards was to fire a mean average of 3,592 rounds with out a malfunction according to the article. Oddly enough the M4 when accepted was only required to fire a mean average of 600 rounds with out a malfunction.

    G3K or anyone else any idea why the 416 could not pass this test?

    Army: Gun Makers Didn't Meet Reliability Standard | Military.com
    While I don't know anyone yet that has seen the final results of the IC PH II testing, or where the M4 and other candidates fell short, this can all be boiled down to a few key points.

    1. The current version of the M855A1 EPR round is VERY HARD on guns - old and new designs. It's average chamber pressure is @ 5000 psi higher than M855 (55K) at normal temps. There have reports of @ 65K psi in hot climate and hot conditioned weapon testing. That WILL break guns designed and tested with M855/SS109. The fact that the Army let the IC contenders shoot a few K rounds under supervision (and counted all their empty brass) before the samples were due in is a joke. To properly design and produce a reliable, well tested weapon you need at least 100K rounds (G36 fired almost 2M) and numerous design/test/redesign phases, and time to do it properly. No one had that because they could not get the EPR ammo. I won't even mention the other isues with the round that add to this.

    2. The M4 will never handle and is not handling this ammo ong term. LOTS of issues ongoing with the Army trying to "fix" the issues after fielding it. The list is long. It is as though the Army developed the round in a vaaccum w/o considering fundamental issues like weapon compatability, life cycle, feeding dynamics, suppressor use, range SDZ's, and how it marries up (it doesnt) to the 100K's of sights we bought that were developed using M855 data.

    3. This is what happens when you do not develop such things as a system. They piecemealed the round. They are pircemealing the M4 PIP's. They peacemealed the sights and other accessories and then the wonder why in the end none of it works well together. Its like building a race car from what you can get at the local family hardware store. Say what you want about XM8 and BG Moran who pushed it but with that effort EVERYTHING was developed as an integrated system (weapons, sights, accessories) around a known cartridge (M855), and by industry professionals. That is why even as an inmature prototype XM8 performed very well.

    4. You can dress up a pig but in the end it's still a pig. You can stuff more powder into the case or a "better" projo but in the end the finite capacity of the case for either or both is still limited. 5.56mm is maxed out and pushed beyond its intended limit as EPR. The only answer is a larger case capacity which address all these ammo issues. Finally maybe based on some actively the full merit of an intermediate caliber cartridge between 5.56mm and 7.62mm NATO may at least get its day of review.

    This whole thing is not yet settled. The M4 and M4A1 are struggling with EPR. It will have to be addressd one way or another. This chapter is not over and the media will nevr explain it fully because they are writers and not weapon guys.

    My guess is that the HK416 held up better to the EPR and in these tests than the other candidates. This is based upon how it has fared in hard combat use since 2005 and in other comparative Govt tests conducted since, the USMC IAR test being just one.

    G3Kurz

+ Reply to Thread
Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 1 2 3 LastLast

Links

 

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts

Search tags for this page

army to issue us4ces
,
hk416 m855a1
,

kryptek

,
lebanese army hk416
,
m4 pip
,
m855a1
,

m855a1 hk416

,

m855a1 reliability

,
m855a1 reliability issues
,
mk318 m855a1
,
us4ces
,

who won? kryptek or us4ces

Click on a term to search for related topics.