Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Site Notices
9/22/2017 12:11:25 AM
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 5
Posted: 9/13/2005 7:09:40 PM EDT
Is it just me, or was the HK416 article in Small Arms Review really critical of the M16/M4 weapons system. For those who didn't read it, it made several comments to the effect that operators in Iraq all despised it, etc. I know it's got some issues, but I didn't think it was as bad as they made it out to be.
Link Posted: 9/14/2005 4:39:34 PM EDT
Look at who wrote the article. It's HK.

Dont' get my wrong. HK makes some bomb ass stuff. But the anual "Combat Tactics" that Surefire puts out does nothing but pat themselves on the back while kicking everyone else in the funbags.

Link Posted: 9/15/2005 11:37:58 AM EDT
that makes more sense now. i thought they used objective journalism when reviewing weapons. i didn't realize it was written by hk.
Link Posted: 9/15/2005 12:48:58 PM EDT
Yes.

That was the most overt marketing campaign by H&K I have ever seen.

I had to sift through so much bullshit just to see some gun porn.
Link Posted: 9/15/2005 12:50:17 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 9/15/2005 12:50:36 PM EDT by CitySlicker]

Originally Posted By newbe:
Look at who wrote the article. It's HK.

Dont' get my wrong. HK makes some bomb ass stuff. But the anual "Combat Tactics" that Surefire puts out does nothing but pat themselves on the back while kicking everyone else in the funbags.




What do you mean?
Link Posted: 9/15/2005 1:06:08 PM EDT
Yea the "Combat Tactics" mag had some decent information, however, it got repetative hearing them plug every other paragraph with how everyone's rifles need a Surefire light in order to function effectively. I'm exaggerating, of course, but it was basically one big ad.
Link Posted: 9/15/2005 1:57:46 PM EDT
What a piece of crap shill job! Not one single critical word about the HK. Throughout the entire article the HK is referred to as the HK416. The one and only exception to this is to refer to it as “the Mercedes of M4’s”. Gosh, no promotion of an image there, right? And how is the M4 referred to by the critical pen of our oh so objective writer? “Stubbornly troubled m4 carbine”, “laundry list of ongoing problems”, “the M4’s woes”, “problems with reliability, durability, accuracy, and lethality”, “troubled m4's”, “craps where it eats”. Beginning to see a pattern here?

And if that’s not enough lets go ahead and mention the British SA80, the quintessential piece of crap in modern small arms design. H&K was able to fix that, they claim, so they must be the perfect candidate to “fix” that old piece of crap M4, right? It’s called guilt by association. They never actually compare the M4 to the SA80, they simply talk about them in the same vein and let the reader “form” his own opinion.

In promoting this thing they repeated tout its accuracy, lethality, controllability, durability, safety, versatility and service life. Great, but what does it do that the M4 doesn’t? The writer would have us believe everything, or at least do it all better then the M4. Since when was the M16/M4 not accurate enough? I guess I’m not getting all my memo’s but last I heard the M16 series met or exceeded every accuracy requirement put forth by the military. There was no comparison done on the range, so I guess we’re supposed to take H&K’s word for this? Lethality? The H&K fires the same cartridge from the same length barrel. What, prey tell, makes it so much more lethal? Controllability? Who the heck complains about the M16 not being controllable? Durability? Time will tell if the finely crafted HK does better in the harsh climate of desert warfare, but the M16 has been durable enough for the last 40 + years, so you can hardly make the claim the M16 isn’t durable. Safety? I haven’t heard about this as an issue with the M16 either and frankly nothing I saw written about the HK leads me to believe it brings with it a quantum leap in this area either. Versatility? Well, since they’re building and selling this thing as a bolt on kit to the M16 I’d say versatility is a big plus for the design of M16, not the HK 416. Last but not least we have service life. Since they are essentially building what they claim is a product improved M16, service life is another of those issues we’ll just have to wait and see about. Oh yeah, let’s not forget its “noteworthy” rail system. Here’s a news flash, H&K didn’t invent it and we all already understand the value of being able to bolt stuff to it.

Is this thing an improvement over the M4? Time will tell. Was this article in any way, shape or form a critical comparison of the M4 vs. the H&K 416? Not hardly. I expected better from from SAR.

Link Posted: 9/15/2005 1:58:24 PM EDT
Yeah, there were a couple worthwhile articles in the SF CT mag though, like the SPR build article that my sergeant major had never given back. What bugs me here it's in an independent mag, and not a "Whatever Company Presents" glossy. SAR also did a puff piece on how great the HK-designed upgrade to the dismal British L85 5.56mm bullpup. My battalion commander is just back from an exchange tour with 2 Para, and he says the new version sucks as bad as the old.

I take any company's PR with a fat grain of salt. Look at HK's XM-8 puffery in Army Times and the Knob Creek demo shoots with Larry Vickers, etc. Then Vickers supposedly becomes the design brain behind the HK-416 which is of course the biggest (internal) threat to the XM-8 as HK's bid to replace Colt as the US military's riflemaker. Remember HK has that big new plant outside Fort Benning they need to get into play somehow....
Link Posted: 9/15/2005 2:01:35 PM EDT

Originally Posted By shogun187:
Is it just me, or was the HK416 article in Small Arms Review really critical of the M16/M4 weapons system. For those who didn't read it, it made several comments to the effect that operators in Iraq all despised it, etc. I know it's got some issues, but I didn't think it was as bad as they made it out to be.




what am I missing?

you mention they were critical, and operators despised it

then it was a shill job written by HK....

I haven't gotten my copy yet but look forward to it

Link Posted: 9/15/2005 10:15:11 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Beowulf:
Great, but what does it do that the M4 doesn’t? The writer would have us believe everything, or at least do it all better then the M4.



When a guy like Larry Vickers tells me that, if having to choose a sub-14.5"
carbine, he would only carry the HK416 into battle, I listen....
Link Posted: 9/16/2005 1:10:44 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 9/16/2005 1:11:42 AM EDT by Va_Dinger]

Originally Posted By CitySlicker:
Yes.

That was the most overt marketing campaign by H&K I have ever seen.

I had to sift through so much bullshit just to see some gun porn.




LOL, This has to be a sign of the apocalypse.
Link Posted: 9/16/2005 4:31:43 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Cato:

Originally Posted By Beowulf:
Great, but what does it do that the M4 doesn’t? The writer would have us believe everything, or at least do it all better then the M4.



When a guy like Larry Vickers tells me that, if having to choose a sub-14.5"
carbine, he would only carry the HK416 into battle, I listen....



I take it from this statement that you think the writer is some sort of expert in the field. I hope so, if he’s writing for SAR. With that said, one’s man’s opinion is just that, one mans opinion. Experts, like opinions, are everywhere and freely available to espouse their thoughts on anything, subject to who ever is paying their way. This article was an ad for the H&K 416, plain and simple. There was zero objectivity and the claims made for the 416 were backed up by absolutely nothing. To imply that the M4 is a dismal failure comparable to the SA80 is borderline slanderous. It’s my opinion that if it weren’t for the MP5 most Americans wouldn’t know how to pronounce Heckler & Koch, much less hold them in such high regard. The FAL is a better battle rifle then the G3 ever was and nothing H&K has ever produced in 5.56 is better then the M16, or the FNC for that matter. You can take that for whatever you think its worth, it’s my opinion, based on my experience and I’m sticking to it. Having said that, for all I know the 416 is everything he says it is. I just can’t tell that from reading this piece of tripe.

Link Posted: 9/16/2005 5:06:57 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Cato:

Originally Posted By Beowulf:
Great, but what does it do that the M4 doesn’t? The writer would have us believe everything, or at least do it all better then the M4.



When a guy like Larry Vickers tells me that, if having to choose a sub-14.5"
carbine, he would only carry the HK416 into battle, I listen....



I believe Vickers is a paid employee of H&K. Maybe his paycheck gets bigger as the number of HK416s sold increases. Did you ever think of that? I'm not saying the dude doesn't know what he is talking about, but at the same time he is still human and subject to be influenced by money. It's not like he's going to give a Colt or FN made M-16A4/M-4 a glowing review when he is working for a company that is trying to replace those very weapons. I think you should question people's motives a little more.
Link Posted: 9/16/2005 5:31:47 AM EDT
Larry Vickers is no longer with HK.

I have not read the 416 article but from what you all are saying, it seems that they are comparing the upper to the normal M4 upper. If the 416 upper is not superior, why are all these gas piston upper companies being hugely patronized by alot of AR15 people? When the 416 upper broke on the scene, alot of people said "for that money I'll buy Brand X upper for less money and it will work just as well if not better".

Now, when this article comes out (which may just be an HK ad), people are quick to dismiss it as if the whole design is not an upgrade.

The basic question is, is the 416 design and system superior to that of the stock M16/M4? I would think the answer is yes. If we're talking economics and price, I'm sure there is plenty of room for debate about it.

Some people seem to be indignant that HK (or anyone else) would say the HK416 is superior to the stock issued M4. I would ask the same people, if you havent handled one, how do you know it's not?

I'm not saying the Hk416 is the be all and end all of M4 platforms, but to be so quick as to say it's not an improvement seems a bit myopic.

JMO.

Link Posted: 9/16/2005 6:35:10 AM EDT

Originally Posted By MichaelVain:
Larry Vickers is no longer with HK.

I have not read the 416 article but from what you all are saying, it seems that they are comparing the upper to the normal M4 upper. If the 416 upper is not superior, why are all these gas piston upper companies being hugely patronized by alot of AR15 people? When the 416 upper broke on the scene, alot of people said "for that money I'll buy Brand X upper for less money and it will work just as well if not better".

Now, when this article comes out (which may just be an HK ad), people are quick to dismiss it as if the whole design is not an upgrade.

The basic question is, is the 416 design and system superior to that of the stock M16/M4? I would think the answer is yes. If we're talking economics and price, I'm sure there is plenty of room for debate about it.

Some people seem to be indignant that HK (or anyone else) would say the HK416 is superior to the stock issued M4. I would ask the same people, if you havent handled one, how do you know it's not?

I'm not saying the Hk416 is the be all and end all of M4 platforms, but to be so quick as to say it's not an improvement seems a bit myopic.

JMO.




I can't speak for the others, but i don't agree. This thread is about the article and how it was presented, not the upper itself. As I said in my other posts, the upper may well be great, I just can't tell from this article. I haven't handled the upper and considering that H&K is doing everything possible to keep it out of the hands of civilian shooters, I may never know.
Link Posted: 9/16/2005 8:15:38 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 9/19/2005 10:00:30 AM EDT by KevinB]
Personal attacks
Link Posted: 9/16/2005 8:33:39 AM EDT
Mike Vain...you've shot them both. Your opinion, please? better still throw in some porn.

Simon
Link Posted: 9/16/2005 9:54:06 AM EDT
Here is my opinion based on limited experience with the AR15 platform. As I mentioned when I posted pictures of it, I'm new to the AR15 thing.

Stock AR15: My first impression is that it smells like crap, and makes my eyes water when I shoot it. The mag catch isnt so bad as I can index with my finger, if you have short fingers, this might be an issue. USGI mags are ugly and feel thin. I was using a Carbon fiber handguard and it was kinda cool. Rapid firing of 30 rounds seemed to make the gun bounce a bit. Overall impression was "ho-hum". The gas smell sucks and my glasses needed to be cleaned.

10" 416: My first impression is, wow this is heavy. With all the dino-rails on it, it's heavy. I put a forgip on it. The mag catch is the same as it was the same lower. 416 mags are very robust and you cant make the follower stick like you can the USGI mag. Shooting 30 rounds rapid fire, the gun didnt bounce much at all. The diopter sights I like better because I'm used to them on the HK guns.
Overall impression was "Pretty cool". The thing is heavy because of the rails. The inside isnt as dirty (havent cleaned it yet though), and there is no smell at all or debris flying into my face.

Is it VASTLY superior? No, it's still an AR15. The 416 is heavy, I don't really care for the quad rail as I'm not putting anything on it except a vertical grip and the diopter sights. I swap the sights for the Zeiss Z-point and it looks very cool. I don't need the side rails at the moment so for me, it's dead weight. I think the collapsible stock is still too short for me if I'm not wearing my padded tac vest. With the Tactical vest, it's probably spot on.

I'm wary of putting pictures up because of of what happened last time, you'll have to forgive me. If any of you are in the Lehigh Valley area, on Oct. 22nd Defcon-1 is having Blackhawk Day. I will be bringing my upper there in case anyone wants to see it/shoot it.

M

Link Posted: 9/16/2005 10:07:22 AM EDT
Thanks Mike! Consider the Doctersight or a Jpoint as well. A Magpul m93B stock should fix your reach issues.

Simon
Link Posted: 9/16/2005 11:59:50 AM EDT
You think that's heavy from the shoulder, try a SAW.
Link Posted: 9/16/2005 5:03:29 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 9/16/2005 5:06:41 PM EDT by Va_Dinger]

Originally Posted By twistedcomrade:

Originally Posted By Cato:

Originally Posted By Beowulf:
Great, but what does it do that the M4 doesn’t? The writer would have us believe everything, or at least do it all better then the M4.



When a guy like Larry Vickers tells me that, if having to choose a sub-14.5"
carbine, he would only carry the HK416 into battle, I listen....



I believe Vickers is a paid employee of H&K. Maybe his paycheck gets bigger as the number of HK416s sold increases. Did you ever think of that? I'm not saying the dude doesn't know what he is talking about, but at the same time he is still human and subject to be influenced by money. It's not like he's going to give a Colt or FN made M-16A4/M-4 a glowing review when he is working for a company that is trying to replace those very weapons. I think you should question people's motives a little more.



Sounds like you have never meet Mr. Vickers. Trust me he does not pull punches or sugar coat anything. He also more real world experience than this entire board put together. When he recommends a product, it would be damn smart to listen. Maybe you should just hold off on making accusations about the man. Trust me, you do not have a clue and statements like this only make you look like a fool.

Having handled and fired the HK416 myself, I found it to be flawless. Fit & finish was second to none. I have never seen AR parts machined and finished this perfectly. It took about a minute to field strip and shot like a dream. I did not consider it heavy at all. It felt like any other 10.5". The basement engineered knockoff's only wish they were half as nice. Not to mention the HK416 is already seeing service with the U.S. military's tip of the spear units.
Link Posted: 9/16/2005 8:46:09 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Beowulf:
What a piece of crap shill job! Not one single critical word about the HK. Throughout the entire article the HK is referred to as the HK416. The one and only exception to this is to refer to it as “the Mercedes of M4’s”. Gosh, no promotion of an image there, right? And how is the M4 referred to by the critical pen of our oh so objective writer? “Stubbornly troubled m4 carbine”, “laundry list of ongoing problems”, “the M4’s woes”, “problems with reliability, durability, accuracy, and lethality”, “troubled m4's”, “craps where it eats”. Beginning to see a pattern here?

And if that’s not enough lets go ahead and mention the British SA80, the quintessential piece of crap in modern small arms design. H&K was able to fix that, they claim, so they must be the perfect candidate to “fix” that old piece of crap M4, right? It’s called guilt by association. They never actually compare the M4 to the SA80, they simply talk about them in the same vein and let the reader “form” his own opinion.

In promoting this thing they repeated tout its accuracy, lethality, controllability, durability, safety, versatility and service life. Great, but what does it do that the M4 doesn’t? The writer would have us believe everything, or at least do it all better then the M4. Since when was the M16/M4 not accurate enough? I guess I’m not getting all my memo’s but last I heard the M16 series met or exceeded every accuracy requirement put forth by the military. There was no comparison done on the range, so I guess we’re supposed to take H&K’s word for this? Lethality? The H&K fires the same cartridge from the same length barrel. What, prey tell, makes it so much more lethal? Controllability? Who the heck complains about the M16 not being controllable? Durability? Time will tell if the finely crafted HK does better in the harsh climate of desert warfare, but the M16 has been durable enough for the last 40 + years, so you can hardly make the claim the M16 isn’t durable. Safety? I haven’t heard about this as an issue with the M16 either and frankly nothing I saw written about the HK leads me to believe it brings with it a quantum leap in this area either. Versatility? Well, since they’re building and selling this thing as a bolt on kit to the M16 I’d say versatility is a big plus for the design of M16, not the HK 416. Last but not least we have service life. Since they are essentially building what they claim is a product improved M16, service life is another of those issues we’ll just have to wait and see about. Oh yeah, let’s not forget its “noteworthy” rail system. Here’s a news flash, H&K didn’t invent it and we all already understand the value of being able to bolt stuff to it.

Is this thing an improvement over the M4? Time will tell. Was this article in any way, shape or form a critical comparison of the M4 vs. the H&K 416? Not hardly. I expected better from from SAR.

+1 bigtime!

Don't forget that you can supposedly submerse a 416 in water and fire it without fear of exploding like the dainty, wimpy M4 bbls.

Their shoulders must be sore from patting themselves on the back so much.


Link Posted: 9/17/2005 5:54:48 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Va_Dinger:

Originally Posted By twistedcomrade:

Originally Posted By Cato:

Originally Posted By Beowulf:
Great, but what does it do that the M4 doesn’t? The writer would have us believe everything, or at least do it all better then the M4.



When a guy like Larry Vickers tells me that, if having to choose a sub-14.5"
carbine, he would only carry the HK416 into battle, I listen....



I believe Vickers is a paid employee of H&K. Maybe his paycheck gets bigger as the number of HK416s sold increases. Did you ever think of that? I'm not saying the dude doesn't know what he is talking about, but at the same time he is still human and subject to be influenced by money. It's not like he's going to give a Colt or FN made M-16A4/M-4 a glowing review when he is working for a company that is trying to replace those very weapons. I think you should question people's motives a little more.



Sounds like you have never meet Mr. Vickers. Trust me he does not pull punches or sugar coat anything. He also more real world experience than this entire board put together. When he recommends a product, it would be damn smart to listen. Maybe you should just hold off on making accusations about the man. Trust me, you do not have a clue and statements like this only make you look like a fool.

Having handled and fired the HK416 myself, I found it to be flawless. Fit & finish was second to none. I have never seen AR parts machined and finished this perfectly. It took about a minute to field strip and shot like a dream. I did not consider it heavy at all. It felt like any other 10.5". The basement engineered knockoff's only wish they were half as nice. Not to mention the HK416 is already seeing service with the U.S. military's tip of the spear units.



And it sounds to me like you never read the article. This guy may be Genghis Khan, George Patton and Rambo all rolled into one, but that article was a literary blowjob for H&K, pure and simple. The upper may be great, but crap like this sure doesn’t give it any credibility.
Link Posted: 9/17/2005 6:17:21 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Beowulf:

Originally Posted By Va_Dinger:

Originally Posted By twistedcomrade:

Originally Posted By Cato:

Originally Posted By Beowulf:
Great, but what does it do that the M4 doesn’t? The writer would have us believe everything, or at least do it all better then the M4.



When a guy like Larry Vickers tells me that, if having to choose a sub-14.5"
carbine, he would only carry the HK416 into battle, I listen....



I believe Vickers is a paid employee of H&K. Maybe his paycheck gets bigger as the number of HK416s sold increases. Did you ever think of that? I'm not saying the dude doesn't know what he is talking about, but at the same time he is still human and subject to be influenced by money. It's not like he's going to give a Colt or FN made M-16A4/M-4 a glowing review when he is working for a company that is trying to replace those very weapons. I think you should question people's motives a little more.



Sounds like you have never meet Mr. Vickers. Trust me he does not pull punches or sugar coat anything. He also more real world experience than this entire board put together. When he recommends a product, it would be damn smart to listen. Maybe you should just hold off on making accusations about the man. Trust me, you do not have a clue and statements like this only make you look like a fool.

Having handled and fired the HK416 myself, I found it to be flawless. Fit & finish was second to none. I have never seen AR parts machined and finished this perfectly. It took about a minute to field strip and shot like a dream. I did not consider it heavy at all. It felt like any other 10.5". The basement engineered knockoff's only wish they were half as nice. Not to mention the HK416 is already seeing service with the U.S. military's tip of the spear units.



And it sounds to me like you never read the article. This guy may be Genghis Khan, George Patton and Rambo all rolled into one, but that article was a literary blowjob for H&K, pure and simple. The upper may be great, but crap like this sure doesn’t give it any credibility.



No question the article was very pro HK, but that does not change the facts. The HK416 has already proven itself to America's tip of the spear military units and that says just about everything that can be said. That’s all the credibility they will ever need. When Mr. Vickers speaks about a product smart people listen.
Link Posted: 9/17/2005 6:48:16 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Va_Dinger:

Originally Posted By Beowulf:

Originally Posted By Va_Dinger:

Originally Posted By twistedcomrade:

Originally Posted By Cato:

Originally Posted By Beowulf:
Great, but what does it do that the M4 doesn’t? The writer would have us believe everything, or at least do it all better then the M4.



When a guy like Larry Vickers tells me that, if having to choose a sub-14.5"
carbine, he would only carry the HK416 into battle, I listen....



I believe Vickers is a paid employee of H&K. Maybe his paycheck gets bigger as the number of HK416s sold increases. Did you ever think of that? I'm not saying the dude doesn't know what he is talking about, but at the same time he is still human and subject to be influenced by money. It's not like he's going to give a Colt or FN made M-16A4/M-4 a glowing review when he is working for a company that is trying to replace those very weapons. I think you should question people's motives a little more.



Sounds like you have never meet Mr. Vickers. Trust me he does not pull punches or sugar coat anything. He also more real world experience than this entire board put together. When he recommends a product, it would be damn smart to listen. Maybe you should just hold off on making accusations about the man. Trust me, you do not have a clue and statements like this only make you look like a fool.

Having handled and fired the HK416 myself, I found it to be flawless. Fit & finish was second to none. I have never seen AR parts machined and finished this perfectly. It took about a minute to field strip and shot like a dream. I did not consider it heavy at all. It felt like any other 10.5". The basement engineered knockoff's only wish they were half as nice. Not to mention the HK416 is already seeing service with the U.S. military's tip of the spear units.



And it sounds to me like you never read the article. This guy may be Genghis Khan, George Patton and Rambo all rolled into one, but that article was a literary blowjob for H&K, pure and simple. The upper may be great, but crap like this sure doesn’t give it any credibility.



No question the article was very pro HK, but that does not change the facts. The HK416 has already proven itself to America's tip of the spear military units and that says just about everything that can be said. That’s all the credibility they will ever need. When Mr. Vickers speaks about a product smart people listen.



The only fact that hasn’t changed is that this thread is about the article, not the upper. The H&K 416 upper hasn’t proven itself to any “tip of the spear military unit”, it’s being tested by them, so I expect there’s still a thing or two to be said about it. Always considered myself to be a pretty smart guy, smart enough not to take a single, obviously biased article as the final word on any new product.
Link Posted: 9/17/2005 6:51:06 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 9/17/2005 6:56:22 AM EDT by Va_Dinger]

Originally Posted By Beowulf:
The H&K 416 upper hasn’t proven itself to any “tip of the spear military unit”, it’s being tested by them, so I expect there’s still a thing or two to be said about it.



Your just plain wrong. They are already in service. I don't know what else can be said.
Link Posted: 9/17/2005 7:19:59 AM EDT
Since I'm not in the infantry anymore, I read SAR from the perspective of a consumer, not a .gov user, and I'm going to read any article about the 416 with the same kind of detached semi-interest that I would read about any other thing that I will probably never even touch. To top it all off, the Heckler Koch sucking made it look like just another Guns and Ammo article extolling the virtues of the latest R*mington deer rifle that just so happens to be advertised on the same page. I leafed through this issue and put it back on the shelf.
Link Posted: 9/17/2005 7:26:36 AM EDT
Link Posted: 9/17/2005 7:38:52 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 9/17/2005 7:39:42 AM EDT by Beowulf]

Originally Posted By Va_Dinger:

Originally Posted By Beowulf:
The H&K 416 upper hasn’t proven itself to any “tip of the spear military unit”, it’s being tested by them, so I expect there’s still a thing or two to be said about it.



Your just plain wrong. They are already in service. I don't know what else can be said.



I stand corrected, according to the article production models are being delivered to some USSOCOM units.
Link Posted: 9/17/2005 7:50:33 AM EDT
Link Posted: 9/17/2005 7:58:18 AM EDT

Originally Posted By HUNTER223:
Ok newie alert, i'm not familiar AT ALL with that new "HK" weapon but i have a simple question.
All gizmos aside, why would the HK416 be better than just another AR? don't they share internals? don't they share the same direct gas system? i'm just not following.

Thanks



The 416 is H&K's version of a gas psiton upper, so no they don't share the direct gas system.
Link Posted: 9/17/2005 8:00:40 AM EDT

Originally Posted By LeitnerWise:

Originally Posted By Va_Dinger:

Originally Posted By Beowulf:
The H&K 416 upper hasn’t proven itself to any “tip of the spear military unit”, it’s being tested by them, so I expect there’s still a thing or two to be said about it.



Your just plain wrong. They are already in service. I don't know what else can be said.



Beowulf is correct. They are deployed and under evaluation, no purchase contract has been issued and they don't have an NSN.



Leitner,
I'll concede the the point because while I don't think an NSN has been issued they are claiming "production" units are being delivered.
Link Posted: 9/17/2005 8:16:52 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Beowulf:
Leitner,
I'll concede the the point because while I don't think an NSN has been issued they are claiming "production" units are being delivered.



Exactly.

The point is they ARE in service and any unit that can buy them IS buying them.
Link Posted: 9/17/2005 8:25:41 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 9/17/2005 8:31:56 AM EDT by dewatters]
FWIW: TACOM has awarded two contracts for the HK416 (complete weapons and uppers) for delivery to the new Asymmetric Warfare Group.
Link Posted: 9/17/2005 8:27:42 AM EDT
Link Posted: 9/17/2005 8:51:17 AM EDT
THe fact that some of these units are using them says alot. I would love to have one, especially if I could just go to the arms room and get one.

The only thing I can imagine the 416 adding to the M4 mix is reliability and thats a great advantage. It's doubtfully more lethal, it's doubtfully more accurate, and it's doubtfully safer. THats where the article veer's off into gun rag land. I wish they would just print tech data and testing results so we could drool over that instead of so much bs. It's not like we'll ever be buying them anyway.

Apparently the 416's that were sold to civi's were sold without HK's permission and they are recalling them all. I believe there is an investigation going on. dont know the details though. Just repeating what I read.
Link Posted: 9/17/2005 10:40:04 AM EDT

Sounds like you have never meet Mr. Vickers. Trust me he does not pull punches or sugar coat anything. He also more real world experience than this entire board put together. When he recommends a product, it would be damn smart to listen. Maybe you should just hold off on making accusations about the man. Trust me, you do not have a clue and statements like this only make you look like a fool.


+1

I've met Vickers, shot on the same squad as him at IPSC matches (years ago) & can verify what VA_Dinger says.
Link Posted: 9/17/2005 11:05:38 AM EDT

Originally Posted By MichaelVain:
Here is my opinion based on limited experience with the AR15 platform. As I mentioned when I posted pictures of it, I'm new to the AR15 thing.

Stock AR15: My first impression is that it smells like crap, and makes my eyes water when I shoot it. The mag catch isnt so bad as I can index with my finger, if you have short fingers, this might be an issue. USGI mags are ugly and feel thin. I was using a Carbon fiber handguard and it was kinda cool. Rapid firing of 30 rounds seemed to make the gun bounce a bit. Overall impression was "ho-hum". The gas smell sucks and my glasses needed to be cleaned.

10" 416: My first impression is, wow this is heavy. With all the dino-rails on it, it's heavy. I put a forgip on it. The mag catch is the same as it was the same lower. 416 mags are very robust and you cant make the follower stick like you can the USGI mag. Shooting 30 rounds rapid fire, the gun didnt bounce much at all. The diopter sights I like better because I'm used to them on the HK guns.
Overall impression was "Pretty cool". The thing is heavy because of the rails. The inside isnt as dirty (havent cleaned it yet though), and there is no smell at all or debris flying into my face.

Is it VASTLY superior? No, it's still an AR15. The 416 is heavy, I don't really care for the quad rail as I'm not putting anything on it except a vertical grip and the diopter sights. I swap the sights for the Zeiss Z-point and it looks very cool. I don't need the side rails at the moment so for me, it's dead weight. I think the collapsible stock is still too short for me if I'm not wearing my padded tac vest. With the Tactical vest, it's probably spot on.

I'm wary of putting pictures up because of of what happened last time, you'll have to forgive me. If any of you are in the Lehigh Valley area, on Oct. 22nd Defcon-1 is having Blackhawk Day. I will be bringing my upper there in case anyone wants to see it/shoot it.

M





To sum your article up: "I got gas in my eye wah" That is about the worst review I have ever read, for anything. Smells bad??????? Mags are ugly???? Whats wrong with you?!!! I have no idea how you had a gas problem, I am left handed and it ejects everything right into my face and I have never been blinded by this aparent blizzard of carbon that comes out of ARs.


As for the article about how awful the M4 is in iraq, well I wouldnt know, but I will tell you my M16 functioned just fine the entire time, even covered in dust from convoys, and I only once put lube in it, I ran it dry most all of the time without a single malfunction, nor did my ugly flimsy magazines snap in half. HK can try to sell its gun all they want, but they really need to stop spouting this trash about problems that exist only in peoples minds
Link Posted: 9/17/2005 11:11:16 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 9/19/2005 7:46:22 AM EDT by KevinB]

Originally Posted By Va_Dinger:
Originally Posted By Beowulf:
Leitner,
I'll concede the the point because while I don't think an NSN has been issued they are claiming "production" units are being delivered.

Exactly.

The point is they ARE in service and any unit that can buy them IS buying them.





Who? who are these people. I have done missions with Force Recon and they dont use them so they can be counted out. Some seal snipers were sitting around with us getting ready for a mission that they were doing at the same time as us not with us and they didnt have it, seen delta guys at the chow hall they didnt have them, and ran into green barrets when we were patrolling near where their convoy hit a mine and we came to see if we could help and they didnt have them. So who has them? And finally in the Marine infantry we most certianly do not have them. So who does?

-edit to fix quote
Link Posted: 9/17/2005 11:51:14 AM EDT
Varry Vickers does have quite a reputation. That doesn't offset the fact that there are pictures of him extolling the virtues of the HK416 while wearing a blue "HK" polo at an HK416 seminar while under the employ of HK. Any article penned by him regarding this product must be viewed through that lens. In this context he is nothing more than a sales rep peddling wares--like any ex-cheerleader drug rep in my office, stopping short of getting down on their knees, begging for a brief moment of my time.
Link Posted: 9/17/2005 1:43:10 PM EDT

Originally Posted By RustedAce:

Originally Posted By MichaelVain:
Here is my opinion based on limited experience with the AR15 platform. As I mentioned when I posted pictures of it, I'm new to the AR15 thing.

Stock AR15: My first impression is that it smells like crap, and makes my eyes water when I shoot it. The mag catch isnt so bad as I can index with my finger, if you have short fingers, this might be an issue. USGI mags are ugly and feel thin. I was using a Carbon fiber handguard and it was kinda cool. Rapid firing of 30 rounds seemed to make the gun bounce a bit. Overall impression was "ho-hum". The gas smell sucks and my glasses needed to be cleaned.

10" 416: My first impression is, wow this is heavy. With all the dino-rails on it, it's heavy. I put a forgip on it. The mag catch is the same as it was the same lower. 416 mags are very robust and you cant make the follower stick like you can the USGI mag. Shooting 30 rounds rapid fire, the gun didnt bounce much at all. The diopter sights I like better because I'm used to them on the HK guns.
Overall impression was "Pretty cool". The thing is heavy because of the rails. The inside isnt as dirty (havent cleaned it yet though), and there is no smell at all or debris flying into my face.

Is it VASTLY superior? No, it's still an AR15. The 416 is heavy, I don't really care for the quad rail as I'm not putting anything on it except a vertical grip and the diopter sights. I swap the sights for the Zeiss Z-point and it looks very cool. I don't need the side rails at the moment so for me, it's dead weight. I think the collapsible stock is still too short for me if I'm not wearing my padded tac vest. With the Tactical vest, it's probably spot on.

I'm wary of putting pictures up because of of what happened last time, you'll have to forgive me. If any of you are in the Lehigh Valley area, on Oct. 22nd Defcon-1 is having Blackhawk Day. I will be bringing my upper there in case anyone wants to see it/shoot it.

M





To sum your article up: "I got gas in my eye wah" That is about the worst review I have ever read, for anything. Smells bad??????? Mags are ugly???? Whats wrong with you?!!! I have no idea how you had a gas problem, I am left handed and it ejects everything right into my face and I have never been blinded by this aparent blizzard of carbon that comes out of ARs.


As for the article about how awful the M4 is in iraq, well I wouldnt know, but I will tell you my M16 functioned just fine the entire time, even covered in dust from convoys, and I only once put lube in it, I ran it dry most all of the time without a single malfunction, nor did my ugly flimsy magazines snap in half. HK can try to sell its gun all they want, but they really need to stop spouting this trash about problems that exist only in peoples minds



Thank you for introducing FACTS into this thread.

Stay safe.

Regards,

Justin
Link Posted: 9/17/2005 5:53:09 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 9/17/2005 6:01:01 PM EDT by Va_Dinger]
It's simply amazing how far some people will go to troll an HK416 thread. Oddly enough they always seem to come from one little group.

What "Facts" were posted in RustedAce's post? This is just his opinion. Personally, I'm glad he has never seen a problem. Apparently SOCOM and the rest of the Army have seen a problem. Why else would they spend millions on the XM8 and SCAR program? It seems some of America's best soldiers wanted something better.

I just read the article. It seems pretty straightforward to me. What exactly is wrong with it and can any of you prove one piece of it is false?

One big detail was released in the article. Like many have guesses, it was a lawsuit by Colt that kept the HK416 out of SCAR program. Luckily a few units are high enough up the food chain to buy anything they want. It's truly sad that company will resort to lawsuits instead of just inventing a better mousetrap than their competition. I would guess this is why the HK uppers that got released to the public caused such an uproar. Colt probably threatened to sue again. Lawyers and courtrooms should not decide what weapons are armed forces can buy.
Link Posted: 9/17/2005 6:09:22 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Va_Dinger:
It's simply amazing how far some people will go to troll an HK416 thread. Oddly enough they always seem to come from one little group.

What "Facts" were posted in RustedAce's post? This is just his opinion. Personally, I'm glad he has never seen a problem. Apparently SOCOM and the rest of the Army have seen a problem. Why else would they spend millions on the XM8 and SCAR program? It seems some of America's best soldiers wanted something better.

I just read the article. It seems pretty straightforward to me. What exactly is wrong with it and can any of you prove one piece of it is false?

One big detail was released in the article. Like many have guesses, it was a lawsuit by Colt that kept the HK416 out of SCAR program. It's truly sad that company will resort to lawsuits instead of just inventing a better mousetrap than their competition. I would guess this is why the HK uppers that got released to the public caused such an uproar. Colt probably threatened to sue again. Lawyers and courtrooms should not decide what weapons are armed forces can buy.




What facts you ask? How about this:


I have done missions with Force Recon and they dont use them so they can be counted out. Some seal snipers were sitting around with us getting ready for a mission that they were doing at the same time as us not with us and they didnt have it, seen delta guys at the chow hall they didnt have them, and ran into green barrets when we were patrolling near where their convoy hit a mine and we came to see if we could help and they didnt have them.



Trolling? Look who's talking. You're memory is short lived.


Originally Posted By Va_Dinger:

Originally Posted By CitySlicker:
Yes.

That was the most overt marketing campaign by H&K I have ever seen.

I had to sift through so much bullshit just to see some gun porn.




LOL, This has to be a sign of the apocalypse.




That is the definition of trolling. An inflamatory comment made with the illicit intent of provoking or inciting a similar response. Agree or not?

No bullshit Paul, answer the fucking question. RustedAce has interacted with all Special Operations Forces in theatre and none of them were armed with H&K 416's, especially CAG. So which other unnamed "tip of the spear unit" are you referring to? As far as we're concerned, there's only one unit that fits that description (CAG) and RustedAce has already stated that they do not carry them.

Justin
Link Posted: 9/17/2005 8:03:47 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 9/17/2005 8:04:58 PM EDT by twistedcomrade]

Originally Posted By CitySlicker:

Originally Posted By Va_Dinger:
It's simply amazing how far some people will go to troll an HK416 thread. Oddly enough they always seem to come from one little group.

What "Facts" were posted in RustedAce's post? This is just his opinion. Personally, I'm glad he has never seen a problem. Apparently SOCOM and the rest of the Army have seen a problem. Why else would they spend millions on the XM8 and SCAR program? It seems some of America's best soldiers wanted something better.

I just read the article. It seems pretty straightforward to me. What exactly is wrong with it and can any of you prove one piece of it is false?

One big detail was released in the article. Like many have guesses, it was a lawsuit by Colt that kept the HK416 out of SCAR program. It's truly sad that company will resort to lawsuits instead of just inventing a better mousetrap than their competition. I would guess this is why the HK uppers that got released to the public caused such an uproar. Colt probably threatened to sue again. Lawyers and courtrooms should not decide what weapons are armed forces can buy.




What facts you ask? How about this:


I have done missions with Force Recon and they dont use them so they can be counted out. Some seal snipers were sitting around with us getting ready for a mission that they were doing at the same time as us not with us and they didnt have it, seen delta guys at the chow hall they didnt have them, and ran into green barrets when we were patrolling near where their convoy hit a mine and we came to see if we could help and they didnt have them.



Trolling? Look who's talking. You're memory is short lived.


Originally Posted By Va_Dinger:

Originally Posted By CitySlicker:
Yes.

That was the most overt marketing campaign by H&K I have ever seen.

I had to sift through so much bullshit just to see some gun porn.




LOL, This has to be a sign of the apocalypse.




That is the definition of trolling. An inflamatory comment made with the illicit intent of provoking or inciting a similar response. Agree or not?

No bullshit Paul, answer the fucking question. RustedAce has interacted with all Special Operations Forces in theatre and none of them were armed with H&K 416's, especially CAG. So which other unnamed "tip of the spear unit" are you referring to? As far as we're concerned, there's only one unit that fits that description (CAG) and RustedAce has already stated that they do not carry them.

Justin



Thank you CitySlicker. I said that Larry Vickers was employeed by HK and that it might skew his view on the 416 and Va_Dinger calls me a fool. I never said Vickers was an idiot, I just said he may be making a pitch for the company he was/is working for. I don't know him nor have I ever met Vickers and I don't feel like my life will be incomplete if I don't. To my knowledge, Congress is not investigating why the M-16 platform is such a POS and would need to be replaced by the 416. Lastly, I believe that people like Jeff Cooper, Clint Smith, Massad Ayoob, and maybe Vickers, have some very good insights to share, and should be treated with respect, but business is business. If someone calls into question their opinion because it may be slanted buy their business osocation, that person shouldn't be refered as a fool. I have a name for people who blindly follow, hero worshiping fools. If the shoe fits...
Link Posted: 9/17/2005 8:43:49 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Va_Dinger:
It's simply amazing how far some people will go to troll an HK416 thread. Oddly enough they always seem to come from one little group.

What "Facts" were posted in RustedAce's post? This is just his opinion. Personally, I'm glad he has never seen a problem. Apparently SOCOM and the rest of the Army have seen a problem. Why else would they spend millions on the XM8 and SCAR program? It seems some of America's best soldiers wanted something better.

roar. Colt probably threatened to sue again. Lawyers and courtrooms should not decide what weapons are armed forces can buy.



Why are they spending millions on XM8s?? Its called PORK.

Im sorry that I am only in the Marine infantry and thus Americas worst, but as I mentioned none of the tier 1 and tier 2 assets I just mentioned had them, so um who are these people that do???
Link Posted: 9/17/2005 9:08:21 PM EDT
Also if you want trolling I will by happy to oblige...... Here are some of Americas worst using thier most "hated" m4....





Link Posted: 9/17/2005 9:14:20 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 9/17/2005 9:15:54 PM EDT by Lumpy196]
Link Posted: 9/17/2005 9:20:14 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Va_Dinger:
What "Facts" were posted in RustedAce's post? This is just his opinion. Personally, I'm glad he has never seen a problem. Apparently SOCOM and the rest of the Army have seen a problem. Why else would they spend millions on the XM8 and SCAR program? It seems some of America's best soldiers wanted something better.




Dinger, come on. They got you too?


I guess only that "small group" will be left here when the HK crowd migrates to a board dedicated to them and their supremacy in firearms design
Link Posted: 9/17/2005 9:30:54 PM EDT
This is interesting.
Link Posted: 9/17/2005 11:18:09 PM EDT

Originally Posted By RustedAce:
Also if you want trolling I will by happy to oblige...... Here are some of Americas worst using thier most "hated" m4....

img78.imageshack.us/img78/7209/4163fp.jpg

img78.imageshack.us/img78/1829/41620od.jpg

img78.imageshack.us/img78/2596/stink0xz.jpg



Link Posted: 9/18/2005 12:21:16 AM EDT
Check out the DBALS they're running instead of PEQ-2. Now available in Larue KoolAid too!
I wish SAR had just been a little more objective and less gushing.

Simon
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 5
Top Top