HKPRO Forums banner

hk416 barrel life question

3.9K views 18 replies 9 participants last post by  InshallahTech  
MR223 bores are still tapered.

This is the reason why they are currently not proofed by the Ulm proofhouse (branch in Oberndorf, that is), but in Birmingham. The Birmingham proof house even marks the lesser diameter:

Image


There is an ongoing legal battle between HKO and the Ulm Proofhouse (it seems that it quieted down recently, though) about the allegedly non-CIP-compliant bore profile that is "slightly tapered at the muzzle":



Not sure if this is where the HK416 story is coming from and I've never measured a HK416 barrel (but do own a few of those BNP-proofed MR223s), but at least HK did and still does manufacture tapered barrels for the HK416/MR223 platform in general.

The MR223s are - the name is kind of foretelling - marketed and sold as "Match Rifles" and the tapered bore is said to increase precision. If that feature is really necessary for a HK416 military rifle, I'm not so sure.
 
Interesting. Seems to be yet another difference between US available 416 series guns and euro available 416 series guns.
Beware, the MR223 is - by design, to get BAFA and BKA clearance that the gun is developed "for sporting and hunting purposes" and thus not a "weapon of war" - not a "416 series gun"!

Insofar as a taper increasing accuracy, the taper at the throat does so "in theory" as it allows the bullet a longer time to align correctly with the bore from the chamber/case mouth, hence providing more consistency as the bullet passes through the bore.
The taper actually does increase the MR223 accuracy (I don't know if the MR308 has a similar taper, but both the MR223 and MR308 were taken off the marked once the proofhouse denied the proofmark for the MR223, so I would assume so (although you shouldn't assume, I know...).

And this is IMHO also the reason HK is reluctant to change the hammer forging mandrel to a straight one, because their product would be worse for sporting purposes after doing so.
Thus they accept the current workaround shipping the guns to Birmingham.

From what i understand, the concept of taper at the muzzle was used more for increasing velocity in large bore anti-aircraft guns before it was ever applied to small arms where its effectiveness is debatable at best.
The conical barrel guns I am aware of were anti tank guns (Panzerabwehrkanonen, Pak) were designed to achieve higher muzzle velocities to get better armor penetration, while using special bullet designs to be able to do so. But THAT taper was much more aggressive than the one we're talking about. The some had a taper of 42 mm down to 29 mm, others had a taper from 75 mm down to 55 mm for example. That's 31% and 27% respectively.

The MR223 tapers from the 5.56 mm of the CIP definition down to the 5.53 mm you see stamped by Birmingham above. That's 0.5%.

So that's quite a difference.

An anecdotal note: when i purchased an MR556 back around the 2008/2009 time frame, it produced groups around an inch and a quarter in size (3cm-ish). After i had the barrel cut from 16" to 14.5", the groups dropped to under 1/2" (13mm-ish).
There are people cutting and turning down MR223 barrels in Germany, trying to get the MR223 lighter.
But these guys are few apart and they usually don't shoot any precision results, so I am not aware of any useful comparison of before and after as of now...
 
I'm not sensitive, I just prefer to not waste my time. Besides that it's 4:37 am here and the old man should go to bed.

So I'll just respond to a few points from above for now:

I cannot find a single example of a modern sniper rifle/precision rifle that has a tapered bore at the muzzle
Early MG1 barrels made by Rheinmetall had conical barrels for example. H&K and Steyr produced conical barrels for hunting rifles in the past, others did too.
That said, the hunting aspect should be in the past now, because with the lead-free spree in Europe this is going to create issues with solid bullets.

Regarding the large guns, i did say the "concept"came from large caliber weapons, and the source i read several years ago specifically mentioned anti-aircraft guns. It does not surprise me that it was applied to other weapons systems. That being said, it seems the main article that comes uo in a quick search is wikipedia and it specifically mentions anti-tank guns. So please tell me you're not getting your information from wikipedia.
The higher velocity achieved by the "squeeze bore" guns was originally designed for anti tank use to allow for higher muzzle velocities for better armor penetration performance while keeping the gun small and mobile enough so it could still be manhandled in combat.

While there might be some AA guns with tapered bores, AA guns quickly surpassed the manhandle-size and were used in fixed AA defensive positions around factories etc. and thus didn't have that focus on weight. And they shot a lot. Like really a lot. And those squeeze-bore guns have an durability issue due to the friction during squeezing that specially designed projectile. So there is a lot less to be gained from a squeeze-bore AA gun than a squeeze-bore AT gun.


The fact that it doesn't exist on weapons sold to the US market is telling.
Yes. But it may tell other things than you assume, mainly being production capabilities.