AR Sponsor
Posted: 5/2/2007 6:45:08 PM EDT
| I recently got a copy of Weapons for Military and Police. And in this issue they were highlighting H&K. After several paragraphs of stroking H&K and saying how great and brilliant they were, then they started the M4 bashing. And they brought up how the 416 was a new and exclusive design with the piston upper. They stated that the 416 was probably the best carbine in the world. I had to laugh though when the author stated how reliabale the 416 was. He said the H&K rep shot four 30 round mags on full auto without a malfunction. WOW! FOUR MAGS without a malfunction! Then he said they submerged it in water and then covered it in sand and picked it up and shot 30 rounds without a hitch. I guess I wouldn't mind H&K so much if they weren't so pompus. It's not that new of an idea I guess I don't get the hype. |
| From what I know of the 416, I would take one to war if given the chance. I love the M4, but I also know that the gas piston runs cleaner and longer than gas impingement. Is HK pompous? Yes. But, they also make incredible products. There is a lot of hate talk on this site for the 416. But, when someone shows up with one, everyone drools. I think most people don't like it because they know they can't have one. I would give almost anything for a 416. |
|
I like all guns in general, but have made ARs my primary rifle for the remainder of my days. I'd carried a M16 while serving in the army, to me, it has been 100% reliable, so has my 1911s, Browning HPs and Glocks. Never had any issues with gas tubes, even after firing thousands of rounds of dirty wolf ammo. That being said, take less than three minutes to changed out a gas tube, if ever needed to. H&K, are nice firearms, have owned a few, to me, their more complicated and have more working parts that could wear out or break. Parts & mags for ARs are more abundant. TG |
I guess that is my point. What is the difference, nothing. Even in the article it stated that the 416 was the same except for the piston, and there are several companies that make piston uppers, so what. I guess I just get aggrivated that H&K comes on the scene and makes this out like they just invented this revolutionary new gun that is going to solve all our problems. I have no doubt that it is a good weapon, and if the price was right I might by one, but come on. I read an article in the Army times, that was a link to another thread on here, and it was telling of this Ranger who was in a helicopter that crashed. When he got out of the chopper, enemy fire was coming in hard. He tried to fire his M4 but it would not fire. When he tried to clear it, there was a round stuck in the chamber. The article stated that if he would have had this "new" 416 than the gun would have fired. Now come on, the round stuck in the chamber was probably not even the gun's fault and probably would have happened if he had the 416 also. That is what makes me shake my head. That piston would have had nothing to do with that round in the chamber. And that rifle would have had to have been awful dirty for fouling to have been a factor. |
|
It seems like whatever it is, it isn't quite right yet. We need a full and open competition with clear and pertinent requirements. The requirements cannot focus solely on mechanical function and longetivity, but on ergonomics and shootability as well. It looks like we are going to get a new weapon in the .mil soon. With the Mk-16 adoption by SOCOM, everybody has SCAR fever. With the aggressive marketing campaign and SOCOM purchases, everybody else has 416 fever. But what are we gaining with the systems? Initial exposure seems to indicate that these are "better", but usually are compared with recent-memory shoots of M4's or Mk18's with 40-50K rounds through them, after a few barrel changes and repacled bolts, and never (or rare) replacement of the parts in a dedicated round-count associated schedule. There are flaws with every system, and no-one seems to start understanding them until many many rounds are pushed down-range, and higher will not accept problems with their chosen platforms until many years later. Examples: the SCAR has a ridiculous LOS over bore and the ejection port is way too small; the 416 is incompatible with suppressors due to the gas bleed-off port. Problems that must be solved before anyone can possibly claim that these weapons shoulde be mass-issued. That being said, I would take the 416 over the SCAR. |
AR Sponsor