HKPRO Forums banner

1 - 20 of 20 Posts

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
1,704 Posts
I saw it and it preformed incredible!!! If this goverment can get back on track to bidding for the finest money can buy for our combat soldier then they will win. Untill the evil twins are still greasing their buddies hands with fat contracts you can forget about it... TJ
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
43 Posts
Thought I would definitely love a different basic infantry weapon than the M16/M4 variants, I do believe the Army made the right choice on holding out until there have been significant testing on the 6.8 round. Yes, it sucks ass for the soldiers, and I wish more of them could have 416/M8's and other, more reliable 5.56 weapon system variants. But why spend so much money arming our soldiers with another weapon system when there quite possibly could be a much better one coming out in the next few years?
 

·
HKPro Professional
Joined
·
733 Posts
Thought I would definitely love a different basic infantry weapon than the M16/M4 variants, I do believe the Army made the right choice on holding out until there have been significant testing on the 6.8 round. Yes, it sucks ass for the soldiers, and I wish more of them could have 416/M8's and other, more reliable 5.56 weapon system variants. But why spend so much money arming our soldiers with another weapon system when there quite possibly could be a much better one coming out in the next few years?

I just want to touch on a few things.


1 - Define "much better" in terms of a new weapon system. Are we talking about caseless weapons perhaps? If so, I'm pretty sure they're still a ways out on that.

2 - The Army has not decided to hold out on anything. They plan on buying another 500,000 M4's. The big issue here is why not use that money to purchase something BETTER in the meantime, especially since Colt has raised the unit price to almost $2000 each on the M4's.

3 - Last time I checked, HK has some 416's out there in 6.8mm SPC. If that's what they Army wants, then let HK give it to them. :D


There's no good reason, in my opinion, that our troops should not have something better, RIGHT NOW, than what they have.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
302 Posts
The price for a colt weapon is not 2k a piece. Look closely at the contract and don't just divide the 2 numbers.

AFA the show I thought it was a big propaganda stunt. He put the gun in water then says that is will blow up because there is barrel in the water- UMM all guns will do this- the piston doesn't provide any protection from water- and BTW when you drain the barrel correctly (same as a piston gun) in a DI gun it will also drain the gas tube.

I also like the sand argument, how does a piston keep a gun running when its full of sand? A piston will not make a gun maintenance free, They will stop like any other.

Pistons have their place but guys treating them like unicorn horns, thinking that it's the end all if ****ing ridiculous. Watch a piston get run hard and fail will make you consider the applicability.

YMMV
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
43 Posts
I just want to touch on a few things.
1 - Define "much better" in terms of a new weapon system. Are we talking about caseless weapons perhaps? If so, I'm pretty sure they're still a ways out on that.
Not having the reliability issues that the Colt models are so infamous for.
2 - The Army has not decided to hold out on anything. They plan on buying another 500,000 M4's. The big issue here is why not use that money to purchase something BETTER in the meantime, especially since Colt has raised the unit price to almost $2000 each on the M4's.

3 - Last time I checked, HK has some 416's out there in 6.8mm SPC. If that's what they Army wants, then let HK give it to them. :D
You have to justify things. I hate to make this comparison, but look at the Army's decision from a business point of view. They went with their basic M16/M4 model because that is what they know. A business is not going to just change products on something just like that. They want more testing done, they want more down-range experience with new rifles, and until that is done, they refuse to make any bulk purchases. I hate to say it, but it is smart to some degree, even though I fully believe the 416/417 is completely up to the challenge.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
1,704 Posts
Thought I would definitely love a different basic infantry weapon than the M16/M4 variants, I do believe the Army made the right choice on holding out until there have been significant testing on the 6.8 round. Yes, it sucks ass for the soldiers, and I wish more of them could have 416/M8's and other, more reliable 5.56 weapon system variants. But why spend so much money arming our soldiers with another weapon system when there quite possibly could be a much better one coming out in the next few years?

Look at the cost to develop the plane you use in your signiture. We,( The USA & NATO,) already have the best fighting aircraft in the world. The F-16 and F14's F15's are some of the best planes money can buy. What do you think it cost to develope the M1-Abrahams Tank? I think I would feel fairly confident going up aginst a Chinese copy of a Soviet T38. I would possibally use an Israil version of the Bradley. So why should the goverment drop the M1-Grand, one of the best weapons in the world. I certainally believe that they are a much better weapon than a M16 or the M4, was it just the weight of the grand alone? I don't think so. Plus many of our NATO allies are ordering the 416's for their Army's Mabe not as many but just the same, it's still a big part of their defence buget. So I find the reasons for your dissagreement to not show the total light. TJ
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
43 Posts
Look at the cost to develop the plane you use in your signiture. We,( The USA & NATO,) already have the best fighting aircraft in the world. The F-16 and F14's F15's are some of the best planes money can buy. What do you think it cost to develope the M1-Abrahams Tank? I think I would feel fairly confident going up aginst a Chinese copy of a Soviet T38. I would possibally use an Israil version of the Bradley. So why should the goverment drop the M1-Grand, one of the best weapons in the world. I certainally believe that they are a much better weapon than a M16 or the M4, was it just the weight of the grand alone? I don't think so. Plus many of our NATO allies are ordering the 416's for their Army's Mabe not as many but just the same, it's still a big part of their defence buget. So I find the reasons for your dissagreement to not show the total light. TJ
Very valid point.

I can't argue that at all, and I do agree the M1 is probably better than our current Colt's but I doubt they would be that.. suitable for an urban environment.

Oh, and I'm still pissed they canned the Comanche project. That thing was going to be sweet.
 

·
HKPro Professional
Joined
·
733 Posts
The price for a colt weapon is not 2k a piece. Look closely at the contract and don't just divide the 2 numbers.

AFA the show I thought it was a big propaganda stunt. He put the gun in water then says that is will blow up because there is barrel in the water- UMM all guns will do this- the piston doesn't provide any protection from water- and BTW when you drain the barrel correctly (same as a piston gun) in a DI gun it will also drain the gas tube.

I also like the sand argument, how does a piston keep a gun running when its full of sand? A piston will not make a gun maintenance free, They will stop like any other.

Pistons have their place but guys treating them like unicorn horns, thinking that it's the end all if ****ing ridiculous. Watch a piston get run hard and fail will make you consider the applicability.

YMMV

There are a few reasons why the 416 can fire with water in the barrel, and it's not the piston system. The type of steel they use when making the barrel and how they make the barrel plays a big part in the strength of it during over the beach firing.

Your sand theory is a little off too. I'm not trying to pick at you or your post, but the 416 will go a LOT longer in a sandy environment than the M4 will. The M4 will run, but it needs to be heavily lubricated. Sand sticks to lube. That is where the 416 takes the cake.

Lastly, I don't recall anyone saying that piston weapons were maintenance free. They need to be maintained just like any other weapon. The only difference is you won't be scraping carbon out of your receiver and bolt carrier and the parts will last at least twice as long.

------------------------------------------------------------------

Not having the reliability issues that the Colt models are so infamous for.

Sorry for the confusion. I thought you were hinting that there may be a weapon system much better than the 416/SCAR/XM8 coming out in a few years. I didn't think you were comparing it to the M4. Since that's the case, I will agree with you there. However, I still believe that while they're conducting tests on the 6.8mm SPC cartridge that they should field something more reliable and better suited for sandy environments than what they are currently using.
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
4,379 Posts
The fact is that the Army is desirous of staying with a 5.56 AR-based weapon for the time being. Having said that, and knowing full-well that the Army is right now wanting to put down the coin for 500,000 M-4's, the only concern should be that the Army gets the best such rifle for its (our) money. The fact is that the HK416 will kick the Colt product's butt everyday and all day Sunday as well--and for far longer than the Army specifies (6,000 rounds). The HK barrel will go beyond 20,000 whereas the Colt M4 will not.

There is no test that you can run that the Colt M4 will outperform the HK416. None. Zero. Zip. Zilch. Nada. Apologists will say that the Colt product is "good" or "good enough". Both of these are what I call "damning with faint praise". The time for the DI system is past--especially given that a far superior, yet compatible and familiar system is available OFF THE SHELF for very nearly the same cost.

Lastly, don't blame the troops for failings of an outdated operating system.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
302 Posts
There are a few reasons why the 416 can fire with water in the barrel, and it's not the piston system. The type of steel they use when making the barrel and how they make the barrel plays a big part in the strength of it during over the beach firing.

Your sand theory is a little off too. I'm not trying to pick at you or your post, but the 416 will go a LOT longer in a sandy environment than the M4 will. The M4 will run, but it needs to be heavily lubricated. Sand sticks to lube. That is where the 416 takes the cake.

Lastly, I don't recall anyone saying that piston weapons were maintenance free. They need to be maintained just like any other weapon. The only difference is you won't be scraping carbon out of your receiver and bolt carrier and the parts will last at least twice as long.

------------------------------------------------------------------
I don't give a **** if a barrel is made of kryptonite, if you block it, it will kaboom. But I like how much faith you have in a HK weapon, I do love HF barrels.

The sand/lube test is a bunch of bull**** also. The navy specwar guys did a test with rifle lubed/no lube and all in between. Guess what, the gun Lube GENOURSLY with clp did not fail. The guns without it did fail. Sand sticking to lube doesn't stop a gun, not having any does. Having a piston does not mean you don't have to lube a gun. http://www.militec1.com/lubetest3.html

I have a piston upper, I ran it dry, guess what it stopped running. You get enough crap from blowback in the chamber to make it dirty. Unless HK is now defying physics, their gun will do no better.

There was not one thing in that whole episode the M16 can not do right now. As I said before-all propaganda.
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
4,379 Posts
There are a few reasons why the 416 can fire with water in the barrel, and it's not the piston system. The type of steel they use when making the barrel and how they make the barrel plays a big part in the strength of it during over the beach firing.

Your sand theory is a little off too. I'm not trying to pick at you or your post, but the 416 will go a LOT longer in a sandy environment than the M4 will. The M4 will run, but it needs to be heavily lubricated. Sand sticks to lube. That is where the 416 takes the cake.

Lastly, I don't recall anyone saying that piston weapons were maintenance free. They need to be maintained just like any other weapon. The only difference is you won't be scraping carbon out of your receiver and bolt carrier and the parts will last at least twice as long.

------------------------------------------------------------------
I don't give a **** if a barrel is made of kryptonite, if you block it, it will kaboom. But I like how much faith you have in a HK weapon, I do love HF barrels.

The sand/lube test is a bunch of bull**** also. The navy specwar guys did a test with rifle lubed/no lube and all in between. Guess what, the gun Lube GENOURSLY with clp did not fail. The guns without it did fail. Sand sticking to lube doesn't stop a gun, not having any does. Having a piston does not mean you don't have to lube a gun. http://www.militec1.com/lubetest3.html

I have a piston upper, I ran it dry, guess what it stopped running. You get enough crap from blowback in the chamber to make it dirty. Unless HK is now defying physics, their gun will do no better.

There was not one thing in that whole episode the M16 can not do right now. As I said before-all propaganda.
There is sand and then there is sand. The stuff in the Middle East is more like a powder that gets EVERYWHERE. I agree that if you pour sand/dirt/powder/bull excrement/whatever into a weapon, you've got a problem with function. Taylor, you say you've got a piston upper, but I notice you don't specify whether it's the HK or one of the others (POF, LWRC, etc.). Not all piston uppers are created equal. ;)

The fact is that the Stoner system has problems when you move to the shorter weapon. The M-4 has these problems--unless you're willing to accept artificially short barrel lives and bolts coked up with carbon fouling. I maintain that you should NOT have to deal with this. Technology has advanced and the HK416 weapon presents a solution. At every turn, folks in positions of power seek to blame the individual soldier for failure to clean; however, I maintain that is an unfair redirection of the blame, which properly lies squarely with an outdated operating system.

This is so very reminiscent of the original issuance of the M16 in Vietnam. If you'll recall, shortly after the weapons went into service, there were massive problems with the weapon. The powers-that-be blamed the individual soldier then too; however, what the problem wound up being was a change in the propellant used in the ammunition from what which had been originally specified. The mantra of "soldiers need to clean the weapon better/more often" was wrong then and it's wrong now. Of course they need to clean their issued firearm; however, don't place a substandard weapon's failings upon the shoulder of the man or woman being asked to use it on the field of battle.
 

·
HKPro Professional
Joined
·
733 Posts
I don't give a **** if a barrel is made of kryptonite, if you block it, it will kaboom. But I like how much faith you have in a HK weapon, I do love HF barrels.

The sand/lube test is a bunch of bull**** also. The navy specwar guys did a test with rifle lubed/no lube and all in between. Guess what, the gun Lube GENOURSLY with clp did not fail. The guns without it did fail. Sand sticking to lube doesn't stop a gun, not having any does. Having a piston does not mean you don't have to lube a gun. http://www.militec1.com/lubetest3.html

I have a piston upper, I ran it dry, guess what it stopped running. You get enough crap from blowback in the chamber to make it dirty. Unless HK is now defying physics, their gun will do no better.

There was not one thing in that whole episode the M16 can not do right now. As I said before-all propaganda.

I never said anything about blocking the barrel. I was talking about firing with water in the barrel. The M4 will most certainly NOT operate reliably with water in the barrel. The 416 will. The 416 was designed to be capable of operating reliably after obstructed bore occurances and over the beach firing.

Also, I never said the 416 or any other gas piston weapon didn't need lubrication, however, they will run a lot longer without lube than a DI AR.

Last, I too would like to know what kind of piston upper you have. Also, if you don't mind my asking, how many rounds did you run it dry for?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
43 Posts
Sorry for the confusion. I thought you were hinting that there may be a weapon system much better than the 416/SCAR/XM8 coming out in a few years. I didn't think you were comparing it to the M4. Since that's the case, I will agree with you there. However, I still believe that while they're conducting tests on the 6.8mm SPC cartridge that they should field something more reliable and better suited for sandy environments than what they are currently using.
Nope, just mean comparing with the M4/M16. No worries!

The fact is that the Army is desirous of staying with a 5.56 AR-based weapon for the time being. Having said that, and knowing full-well that the Army is right now wanting to put down the coin for 500,000 M-4's, the only concern should be that the Army gets the best such rifle for its (our) money. The fact is that the HK416 will kick the Colt product's butt everyday and all day Sunday as well--and for far longer than the Army specifies (6,000 rounds). The HK barrel will go beyond 20,000 whereas the Colt M4 will not.

There is no test that you can run that the Colt M4 will outperform the HK416. None. Zero. Zip. Zilch. Nada. Apologists will say that the Colt product is "good" or "good enough". Both of these are what I call "damning with faint praise". The time for the DI system is past--especially given that a far superior, yet compatible and familiar system is available OFF THE SHELF for very nearly the same cost.

Lastly, don't blame the troops for failings of an outdated operating system.
First, I hope to God nobody blames the troops for this. Not that I was around during the time, but I have read multiple places (including here, in one of these previous posts) that the troops were blamed for the shortcomings of the early M16 in Vietnam. That's utter crap and anybody who says that should be ashamed of themselves. Okay, emotional part out of the way. ;)

Second, I agree with you, the M4 has absolutely nothing on the 416, and I think I said it in a previous post of mine, but if not, I apologize, and I know that is the case.

Third, please don't take this the wrong way, I am not a 'conspiracy theorist' or one of the people that has a pure anti-business mentality, but I am currently questioning our military leadership not only on the M4/M16 issue we are discussing, but also on the issue of the DragonSkin armor. Unless I've completely missed something, or it is purely based on the price tag, there is absolutely no reason we should not have adopted the DragonSkin. Many of us, I'm sure, saw the clip dealing with it on FutureWeapons, when it fully took a basic frag grenade and not one piece of shrapnel broke through. So, unless that was an unfair test of some sort, or it has problems with 7.62's - which I have heard it doesn't at all - there is no reason we should not have adopted it. Please, if you do know something that I don't, speak up!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
229 Posts
My personal opinion is to not get too wrapped around the axle about the weapon. Most of the issues stemming from the M4 systems are due to ballistic performance of ball ammunition against human beings.

There can be many features to a weapon system to make it more user friendly and ergonomic, but if it shoots mouse farts against bad guys, I don't care about the operating specs, but rather on end use performance.

Also, from my perspective and time in the sand, rate of fire and failure rates didn't mean much. One always cleaned and lubed whatever weapon(s) were fielded. There are some situations where overwhelming rates of fire and extended contact with bad guys will preclude basic maintenance, and then weapon system reliabilty can be a factor, but it just wasn't that much of an issue.

I'd like to see more $$ spent on research for better perfomance ammunition, and legal justifications around the continued use of ball ammunition. As pointed out so many times, in so many venues, this is a new kind of war. We should not be constrained to the use of outdated ammuntion designs. If I can't stop the bad guy with several well placed, efficient bullets, what's the logic against using AT-4's, artillery or tactical air strikes against him.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
116 Posts
Liberator : Long thread on DragonSkin on LF.net - suffice to say that the armour packaging does not hold up well long term (shifting of plates etc.) within specified temperature range/longevity issues etc. DragonSkin is a good concept, but as far as its immediate potential it is dead in the water. Perhaps one day things will change and materials will improve, but for now it isn't going anywhere.

As far as the HK416 is concerned and the .223/5.56mm round - time to move on to the 6.8SPC I think. Some progression would be nice to see, along with a better weapons/operating system.

Lets see what happens with the dust trials and how that affects the piston system, although HK has done testing in this area before, I think both the HK416 and the FN SCAR will hold up pretty well. Time will tell.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5 Posts
but I am currently questioning our military leadership not only on the M4/M16 issue we are discussing, but also on the issue of the DragonSkin armor.
Considering all the contracting scandals the Army is going through right now, I feel the same way too. Is Colt paying officers under the table to stay hush on the 416? The general consensus is that the 416 compared to the M4/16 series of riles is overall better in terms of maintenance and reliability. I wouldn't mind seeing troops not have to clean their rifles so often or WORRY so much on cleaning considering the conditions of their middle east environment i.e. sand, ambushes, etc. If its true that the 416 would cost just the same or cheaper, why the hell not!?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
131 Posts
I love the HK 416, but it isn't the end all be all of rifles.

Fact is, for a typical loadout, or even an extended firefight, the HK416 isn't going to do much of anything that the Colt can't. Biggest benefit I can see is that the HK's guts stay cooler, and won't burn off lube as quick. Other than that, whats the difference? The testing they did on futureweapons didn't prove anything. If you think a Colt or an LMT couldn't pass those "tests", then you need to get away from your keyboard, and go to the range and start shooting.

For those of you spouting that it can slaughter the current system, have you taken a look at ANY of the sand/dust testing the military has performed with the M4/M16?

I love the 416. I like the ease of maintenence that it supposedly has. I like the fact that I could lube it up, and 1000 rounds later, it will still be there. I like the benefit of a piston system in general, and I think of the major ones out there, the HK is the most well thought out piston system. But lets face it, for the typical Soldier or Marine, the only benefit the 416 would have would be less time spent cleaning. Direct gas impingement is a great system. Just like any other system, it has its advantages and disadvantages, but its disadvantages certainly aren't going to get any of our boys killed due to lack of reliability.
 
1 - 20 of 20 Posts
Top