HKPRO Forums banner
1 - 16 of 16 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
121 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
hey guys I have a few questions about the IC entry from HK. Let me know if these have been asked I couldnt find anything with searching.

first off I found this pic and was wondering if this was indeed the IC entry, I must say its pretty nice


Ok, now if it gets chosen by the Army will it be made in the USA? I have heard from a few friends that parts can be difficult to get from HK at times and it seems like making them in the USA would make that a bit easier, plus I would prefer our Army rifle be made in the USA even if it is a german design.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
411 Posts
I have heard from a few friends that parts can be difficult to get from HK at times
Like I told you on M4C, that is not our experience. I have never had an issue getting spare parts for our guns. Do your friends have anything concrete to back this so-called parts difficulty up with?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
411 Posts
Ok.

As far as I know, we don't swap barrels. If a gun is broken beyond the acceptable reapir cost, it is stripped of workable parts, and condemned. The soldier just draws a new weapon from the armory.
 

·
Requiescat In Pace
Joined
·
3,807 Posts
hey guys I have a few questions about the IC entry from HK. Let me know if these have been asked I couldnt find anything with searching.

first off I found this pic and was wondering if this was indeed the IC entry, I must say its pretty nice


Ok, now if it gets chosen by the Army will it be made in the USA? I have heard from a few friends that parts can be difficult to get from HK at times and it seems like making them in the USA would make that a bit easier, plus I would prefer our Army rifle be made in the USA even if it is a german design.
This photo is close but not the HK IC candidate. It does not have the fluted barrel.

There is a requirement for the winning vendors (there may/could be two) to assemble/build the carbine in a US plant after a gradual transition time. At some point the Army will likely recompete the winning vendors TDP to try and get the gun cheaper. It can be assumed that if HK wins they will assemble the guns in the NH facility with parts imported from Germany with some key parts made in the US. One of the major reasons HK started selling the MR556A1's in the US is so they could assemble them in NH so they could rightfully claim in thier IC proposal that the gun can be "Made in America". That takes away at least that argument from the US-based competition, especially those in the three company Congressionally mandated "Small Arms Industrial Base".

As for getting HK parts in a timely manner that has been a nagging problem for HK in the US and Canada for decades. Various customers dropped HK products because they could not get parts when needed from HK. The USMC dropping the MP5 is just one example. This is not totally HK's fault as the time it takes for the necessary export and import approval and permits even after the part is available from the German factory can take 6 months or more.

Remember HK makes over 100 models or variants of HK guns and one cannot stock an unlimited qty of each part for every gun, especially the high dollar slow moving parts like now EUC controlled barrels and bolts. What makes it worse for the Govermental end users is sometimes these parts get sold off the shelf to commercial of FMS buyers even though they were originally ordered and stocked to support the military or LE end user. You can tie up millions of dollars in parts to support the needs of the user base and still not have the part or enough parts to meet every requirement all the time. This is part of the problem with making so many different types of weapons as HK does - keeping the parts up to date and available around the globe is an insurmountable problem especially if you don't want to have 100's of millions of dollars of excess or outdated parts sitting in warehouses "just in case". This has to be a priority to manage this effort and not all of the management at HK over the decades saw it as such.

US production of such parts would help because you would not have the paperwork delays but still there are a lot of different parts that would have to be made and that takes machines, tooling and raw materials, and folks with the expertise to make them.

Larger military users normally purchase and maintain a pretty sizeable inventory of spares so they are less effected by temporary shortages at HK. The larger high profile users have move pull with HK to get parts when they need them.

G3Kurz
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,264 Posts
I think in 2006, HK USA's CEO said that they would match the unit cost of the M4 if they were asked to bid on a new carbine. I heard that since then, the exchange rate between Germany and the US has gone up and the price is different now. Does anyone know if HK would still bid the HK416 IC similar to the M4's unit cost (around $1300)? Thanks.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
3,698 Posts
I think in 2006, HK USA's CEO said that they would match the unit cost of the M4 if they were asked to bid on a new carbine. I heard that since then, the exchange rate between Germany and the US has gone up and the price is different now. Does anyone know if HK would still bid the HK416 IC similar to the M4's unit cost (around $1300)? Thanks.
Colts unit cost for a M4 is $1300? Holey Shet!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
121 Posts
Discussion Starter · #10 ·
Thanks for all the replys. I actually forgot I made this topic lol, the main reason I was wanting it made in the USA is to make parts easier to get.

Hopefully this IC does bring us something, the 416IC sure does seem like a nice unit. It will be interesting to see what happens in the civilian market if a new rifle is chosen. I can see it now, every company drops the stoner system to make their own variant of the IC.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
121 Posts
Discussion Starter · #11 ·
Since this is my topic and it pertains to the IC i have a question.

Everyone feel free to comment but I would prefer SME's.

Apparently I walked into a **** storm on a certain website. The issue here is I have no military experience, and I admit that. Apparently I stepped out of my lane when I mentioned how our soldiers do not have the best rifle available, i was talking about how every rifle in the IC is an improvement to the M4.

My reasonings were, double to triple parts life, more resistance to fouling and elements, requires less lube and maintenance.

i feel our soldiers deserve the best, even the non SOF guys, anyone who leaves the wire and may face contact deserves the best small arms possible. Well needless to say I now have a dog pile about how I do not know what im talking about.

So did I honestly mis-speak? I mean im being told that the avg soldier is fine with the M4 because they wont fully utilize anything new anyways. They wont know how to properly clean it and will still over clean and more parts means more they wont be able to assemble correctly.

To me though a rifle that has 80% less fouling wont need to be scraped.

So please tell me if I honestly mis-spoke, I feel yall sill be straight forward with me here.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
133 Posts
As an Army Infantry officer, the issues I is are:
-You NEVER tell a soldier a weapon needs no/less maintenance. This is what happened in vietnam which lead to deaths

-Conversely, small arms in general are overcleaned by most units. Even if they require less maintenance most units/schools will still require cleaning a weapon past whats good for it JUST TO KILL TIME and because many don't know what clean is. Example: At IBOLC (Infantry Basic Officer Leaders Course) we spent a WEEK cleaning weapons that were clean on hour 1 of day 1. Because the civilians collecting the weapons didn't see "shiny" (ie: no protective coating, causing rust) and because the cadre had so much admin stuff to do they needed us to do stuff. You'll just spend more time cleaning off the "80% less fowling" In addition, many commands push whats easy over whats right. A local engineer company never lubes their rifles so they can turn them in faster, then complain about how their M16s wont cycle reliably on the range.

Soldiers DO deserve the best weapon possible. However, there does need to be a dollar tradeoff. A 100% solution that costs 200% more than the 95% solution isnt much of a gain, especially in lean times. The M4 isn't as prone to environmental issues as much as may would think. The dust test have been repeatedly proven to have been skewed. Parts life is a great improvement, but that's where the PIP is really going. Stuff like the SCAR has had durability issues, the 416 10" has a rep for breaking bolts, etc... nothing is perfect.

Also, the individual soldier rifle is very little of the armys power. For example, in a standard line platoon, an M240 makes up 30% of the platoons overall firepower. Think about that. 40% of the entire firepower is made up of SAWs, M203s/M320s, and M4s. Put that into a larger perspective when including armor, artillery, CAS, etc... You can never replace the individual rifleman, which you need to win wars, but the fact is the individual rifle is not the winner of wars.

That said, there are improvements that can be made, and at a more reasonable cost than a whole new system. When you're talking about a 14.5" semi-auto rifle shooting 5.56 NATO and not using suppressors, there's only so much that can be improved. Is that extra 5% worth the added cost of logistics, training, and acquisition? What about the soldiers contribution sometimes including their lives due to unfamiliar weaponry and lack of organizational knowledge? (See once again soldiers in vietnam).

While systems like the 416 or SCAR fascinate me and are great weapons, in their 14.5" 5.56 versions they offer little enough to the large army user to justify the cost. While I have no doubts some improvements will be made (in the vein of the SPOMOD Block II) I don't see a whole new platform coming about until the military makes the move to telescoping or caseless ammo. At this point, the Army has finally realized the effect of weight, and that's the next big push for those carrying loads.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
411 Posts
If you are jberry on LF, and that is the thread you are talking about, then you got some things wrong, yes.

Regarding lube, for instance, all guns need lube. The HK416 for example does not run very well bone dry. After maybe 80-100 rounds you might have cycling issues. I don't care what HK says about it not needing lube.

And no one in that thread is saying that the M4 is superior to the IC candidates, they are saying that the M4 is a good weapon. Many will probably agree that there are better guns out there. The point however is that new hardware will not fix a problem that is most likely institutional in nature.

On another website you frequent, you adamantly state that piston/oprod guns offer no real benefit over a DI system, I just don't get it....

I am Arctic1 over on LF and M4C, if you were wondering.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
133 Posts
One more quick thought. Modular rifles (SCAR, MRP, C901, etc...) DO absolutely have a place, but it's not in the end users "ability to battle field pickup 7.62x39. It's in the commanders ability to add more 7.62x51 DMR rifles (think SCAR-H to SCAR-L conversions or the colt CM901) to his platoons without a MAL (master authorization list) change, or the ability of armorers to fix stuff at a lower level which would otherwise sit in que until a wrench turner can go at it.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
121 Posts
Discussion Starter · #15 · (Edited)
the main thing I think is, if the PiP had actually worked that would be the way to go, but the PiP is honestly turning up nothing, at this point for the same price a HK416IC or any IC rifle makes the most sense, if for nothing else the increase in parts life that will in the long run save us alot of money

TCBA I am still trying to find proof that the dust tests were skewed, I have read that the M4's were old and worn out from off a rack in some armory but no one ever seems to have proof of this.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
133 Posts
The problem with bringing up proof, is that no one wants to officially admit the test was screwed up. So we're left with official rumors filtering down to the rest of us. It's basically regarded as fact that the M4s and 416s were pulled off racks while the other entrants were sent directly from the manufacturers handpicked (built?) for the tests.

The other (often overlooked) issue with the test is that the stoppages were statistically irrelevant. While the M4 had the most, the number was still statistically insignificant.

Here's the best I can pull up right now. I'm about to fall asleep.
Defense Review - Colt M4 Carbine Finishes Last in Latest U.S. Army Small Arms Reliability Test
 
1 - 16 of 16 Posts
Top