I know there are some strong opinions around here regarding HK weapons. Personally, I like the HK 9 series of weapons, and I am intrigued by the 416. Obviously, HK's marketing policy sucks, but if HK were to offer the 416 upper or complete weapon for sale to us lowly civilians, how many of you would buy one?

I've already read the other threads regarding the 416 and the SAR article. Really just trying to get a feel for how many people would actually purchase one should HK change their tune.

If HK offered the 416 to "civilians" I'd be interested but probably couldn't afford it.

Even if I had one it wouldn't be used as my primary weapon. Too hard to get parts.

I would be Interested but wont pay more than 12-1500 TOPS

Id rather have a LW piston pper and keep the stadard reciever and rail heights.  I like my optics low.  Plus I dont like the weight penalty of the HK upper.

Quoted: I know there are some strong opinions around here regarding HK weapons. Personally, I like the HK 9 series of weapons, and I am intrigued by the 416. Obviously, HK's marketing policy sucks, but if HK were to offer the 416 upper or complete weapon for sale to us lowly civilians, how many of you would buy one? I've already read the other threads regarding the 416 and the SAR article. Really just trying to get a feel for how many people would actually purchase one should HK change their tune.

Issues with HK basically point to:

They either lied thru their teeth WRT the M8, or they are so full of themselves that they believe their own hype... Trying to sell the Army a weapon with zero advantage (other than a proprietary combined red-dot/laser sight)  over the current weapon, by claiming that it can do things the existing product can't (when everyone knows the M16 & M4 could do such things) was bad... Oh, and then they tried to sell the Army a 'RPK concept' version to replace the M249 SAW (let's see -> belt fed LMG vs a C-mag on a long barreled  assault rifle. If the RPK & L2A2 worked so well, how come they've been replaced with belt-fed systems?)....

HK has, with the 416, produced a solution in search of a problem. Capitalizing on common misconceptions, they came up with a way to re-package the G36 AGAIN... And how do we sell it? Hmm, we can either say 'HK' and hope everyone bows down in reverance, or re-gurgitate the old myths about the M4... Funny how this product 'appeared' just as the AR makers were starting to make headway against the HK MP series in LE markets...

Further, there are a group of folks here (myself included) who have a genuine distaste for gas-piston AR modifications, on the ground that it hurts accuracy and produces no real-world benefit...

And finally, HK is the worst offender in the 'Civillian Hating Gun Manufacturer' category (with FN & Colt tied at #2) category...


The USP is a good pistol, probably the only poly-pistol I'd ever be interested in (finally a foreign gun maker that can understand 'Safe' and 'Decock' are NOT supposed to be combined).... But HK's rifle products aren't worth the time of day (there is a 'Better' AR-system product for every HK rifle on the market today. The only exception is the HK21, but for that we have the MAG-58)...

Quoted: Quoted: I know there are some strong opinions around here regarding HK weapons. Personally, I like the HK 9 series of weapons, and I am intrigued by the 416. Obviously, HK's marketing policy sucks, but if HK were to offer the 416 upper or complete weapon for sale to us lowly civilians, how many of you would buy one? I've already read the other threads regarding the 416 and the SAR article. Really just trying to get a feel for how many people would actually purchase one should HK change their tune. Issues with HK basically point to: They either lied thru their teeth WRT the M8, or they are so full of themselves that they believe their own hype... Trying to sell the Army a weapon with zero advantage (other than a proprietary combined red-dot/laser sight)  over the current weapon, by claiming that it can do things the existing product can't (when everyone knows the M16 & M4 could do such things) was bad... Oh, and then they tried to sell the Army a 'RPK concept' version to replace the M249 SAW (let's see -> belt fed LMG vs a C-mag on a long barreled  assault rifle. If the RPK & L2A2 worked so well, how come they've been replaced with belt-fed systems?).... HK has, with the 416, produced a solution in search of a problem. Capitalizing on common misconceptions, they came up with a way to re-package the G36 AGAIN... And how do we sell it? Hmm, we can either say 'HK' and hope everyone bows down in reverance, or re-gurgitate the old myths about the M4... Funny how this product 'appeared' just as the AR makers were starting to make headway against the HK MP series in LE markets... Further, there are a group of folks here (myself included) who have a genuine distaste for gas-piston AR modifications, on the ground that it hurts accuracy and produces no real-world benefit... And finally, HK is the worst offender in the 'Civillian Hating Gun Manufacturer' category (with FN & Colt tied at #2) category... The USP is a good pistol, probably the only poly-pistol I'd ever be interested in (finally a foreign gun maker that can understand 'Safe' and 'Decock' are NOT supposed to be combined).... But HK's rifle products aren't worth the time of day (there is a 'Better' AR-system product for every HK rifle on the market today. The only exception is the HK21, but for that we have the MAG-58)...

I am going to disagree with you on a couple points...

First, there is real world benefit to the piston uppers - they require less cleaning after shooting.  From the LW ones I've seen they are also very reliable with even the lower end ammunition available - more so than with DI systems.  It really remains to be seen but I think they will prove to be at least as reliable and I think the same could be said in the accuracy department.

Second, I would argue that FN is not a "Civilian Gun Hating Manufacturer" - I think your opinion comes from the fact that they aren't selling their M16s to the public.  From all reports this is due to contractual obligations, not their company policy.  Besides, the PS90 and FS2000 are right around the corner and they promise a civilian SCAR.  I think they can't be civilian haters...

Spooky

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: I know there are some strong opinions around here regarding HK weapons. Personally, I like the HK 9 series of weapons, and I am intrigued by the 416. Obviously, HK's marketing policy sucks, but if HK were to offer the 416 upper or complete weapon for sale to us lowly civilians, how many of you would buy one? I've already read the other threads regarding the 416 and the SAR article. Really just trying to get a feel for how many people would actually purchase one should HK change their tune. Issues with HK basically point to: They either lied thru their teeth WRT the M8, or they are so full of themselves that they believe their own hype... Trying to sell the Army a weapon with zero advantage (other than a proprietary combined red-dot/laser sight)  over the current weapon, by claiming that it can do things the existing product can't (when everyone knows the M16 & M4 could do such things) was bad... Oh, and then they tried to sell the Army a 'RPK concept' version to replace the M249 SAW (let's see -> belt fed LMG vs a C-mag on a long barreled  assault rifle. If the RPK & L2A2 worked so well, how come they've been replaced with belt-fed systems?).... HK has, with the 416, produced a solution in search of a problem. Capitalizing on common misconceptions, they came up with a way to re-package the G36 AGAIN... And how do we sell it? Hmm, we can either say 'HK' and hope everyone bows down in reverance, or re-gurgitate the old myths about the M4... Funny how this product 'appeared' just as the AR makers were starting to make headway against the HK MP series in LE markets... Further, there are a group of folks here (myself included) who have a genuine distaste for gas-piston AR modifications, on the ground that it hurts accuracy and produces no real-world benefit... And finally, HK is the worst offender in the 'Civillian Hating Gun Manufacturer' category (with FN & Colt tied at #2) category... The USP is a good pistol, probably the only poly-pistol I'd ever be interested in (finally a foreign gun maker that can understand 'Safe' and 'Decock' are NOT supposed to be combined).... But HK's rifle products aren't worth the time of day (there is a 'Better' AR-system product for every HK rifle on the market today. The only exception is the HK21, but for that we have the MAG-58)... I am going to disagree with you on a couple points... First, there is real world benefit to the piston uppers - they require less cleaning after shooting.  From the LW ones I've seen they are also very reliable with even the lower end ammunition available - more so than with DI systems.  It really remains to be seen but I think they will prove to be at least as reliable and I think the same could be said in the accuracy department. I would contend, having (a) observed the results of constant low-end ammunition (Wolf) use in a low-end (Olympic) AR-15, and (b) observed the results of firing M855 through some of the most beat-to-shit M16s you can immagine, that the 'reliability' claim is a red herring... Situation (a) is my personal AR. I do not shoot 855, and with the exception of about 1500rds of SA M193, have fired nothing but Wolf, Barnaul, and Brown Bear thru said rifle. I have never experienced a malfunction, EXCEPT 2 cases of Orlite mag feed-lip failure (not a rifle issue).  Situation (b) is 3 different Army training units (E 1/61 at Ft Jackson, and B & D 3/11 at Ft Benning), once again there were 2 notable, common, reoccurring weapons malfunctions -> magazine failures (double feeds) and short-stroking BLANKS due to improperly tightened blank adapters. These were trainee weapons, generally TERRIBLY maintained, and they were all quite reliable given good mags & in the case of blanks, a properly tightened-down BFA... The fact is that the M16 is reliable enough, properly maintained, to fire all the ammo you'll ever have on you without a failure due to defect. As for cleaning time, the M16 is hardly a 'chore' to clean - try the M249 (gas op, open bolt) on for size... Second, I would argue that FN is not a "Civilian Gun Hating Manufacturer" - I think your opinion comes from the fact that they aren't selling their M16s to the public.  From all reports this is due to contractual obligations, not their company policy.  Besides, the PS90 and FS2000 are right around the corner and they promise a civilian SCAR.  I think they can't be civilian haters... Given how much of their product line comes out LEO/MIL ONLY, and is then grudgingly released to the civvie market, that puts them in the CHGM category for me... However, FN does produce some excellent weapons (MAG-58!!!) for the military, and they DO eventually release their products, as a rule... They're IMHO about on par with Colt for dealing with civvies, and much better than HK... Spooky

Quoted: Id rather have a LW piston upper and keep the standard reciever and rail heights.  I like my optics low.  Plus I dont like the weight penalty of the HK upper.

+1 on the rail height, weight savings and low optics w/LW vs HK.

Quoted: Id rather have a LW piston pper and keep the stadard reciever and rail heights.  I like my optics low.  Plus I dont like the weight penalty of the HK upper.

Have you ever been within a hundred miles of a HK416 or LW upper?

None of the issues you have listed seem to bother our nations most elite Operators.


I would buy one in a heart beat.

I've already got my piston uppers.  Maybe by the time HK releases the 416 for civilian sales I'll have enough money saved up again.



And I'm convinced, the LW piston has no detrimental effect on accuracy.
100 yds, 4.5x scope, carboard box for a rest, first group out of the rifle. (1.5")
Not a super group, but considering the conditions, I sure it's capable of much better.




I'd really be interested in the HK if it was lighter, I wouldn't want to go any heavier than what I have now. I've hear rumors that if the civilian sales happen, that the retail price will be fairly reasonable, we'll see.


Back to the fam., Merry Christmas everyone.

Saw some FEDS at Blackwater recently equipped with the 10" 416. The guys, (and gals) loved em' and went on and on about em'. Seemed to clean up really quickly too as they were done cleaning their 416's as we were still cleaning our standard M4's. If the money's right, I just might.

whats all the hype about cleaning.  i have many ar's that never get cleaned.

Quoted: The HK 416 is a superb piece of kit and like it or not it IS more accurate and MORE reliable than the M4 - that's not me speaking, that's the 7,000 military users who've been running them in the field for over a year now.   Disadvantages; weight mainly, lack of standard components, different rail height and NO commercial sales.

I agree with Mr. Leitner-Wise.

The HK haters have perpetuated the "HK hates civilian gun owners" myth to the point it is being accepted as fact.

What business - any business - would actively prohibit a huge segment of buyers from obtaining their products?   Just ain't so.

And if the technology (piston powered guns) were such a farce (solution to a 'non-problem') then why are Leitner-Wise, HK, POF, Rob-Arms, Colt and others so enthusiastic about developing products?


But you are certainly not alone, Dave_A.

Fuck HK, period.

Id like to see oficialy what the military thinks on piston uppers and how they are functioning since I keep hearing they are being used but with no ofiicial results posted.Results came quicker on what worked when OICW and XM8 were being tested but nothing so far on gas piston uppers

When I see the militarys results of how things went with whatever companies design Ill beleive in it.As it is now seems the 40 year old direct gas system maintained is working fine

Quoted: The HK 416 is a superb piece of kit and like it or not it IS more accurate and MORE reliable than the M4 - that's not me speaking, that's the 7,000 military users who've been running them in the field for over a year now.   Disadvantages; weight mainly, lack of standard components, different rail height and NO commercial sales.

I think it speaks volumes when a "competitor" speaks well of another product.  I think that takes a lot of integrity.

The last I heard, HK is going to release the 416 for sale to civlians, but HK is also known to change stances at the drop of a hat.

I find it odd that only guys who have a bad thing to say about the HK416 have never been within a hundred miles of one. The actual users seem to love them. Why would a military unit care about “Non Standard” parts? Their armorers have already been through the HK schools and have plenty of spare parts on hand when they deploy. They have already stated the “Different rail height” is a complete non-issue also. LaRue already makes HK416 specific Aimpoint mounts, and the LaRue SPR mount & Troy sights are already proven in combat. The Eotech 551/552 also seems to work very well. The one I had the privilege to handle/shoot used HK fixed sights & Aimpoint/LaRue mount combo and it was a dream to shoot. I have also never heard a single peep about the minuscule additional weight. These issues are only brought up by people digging deep for something to complain about. It’s certainly not coming from the actual guys in the field. Read complaints like this with a grain of salt. There is a reason pretty much every Tier I military unit in the U.S. military that can buy the HK416 is doing so.

As for “No Commercial Sales” I think we all know that the Colt M4 lawsuit had a lot to do with the delay in state/local LEO & civilian sales. HK has made a lot of mistakes on this issue, but Colt’s lawyers have also screwed us.

Quoted: Quoted: The HK 416 is a superb piece of kit and like it or not it IS more accurate and MORE reliable than the M4 - that's not me speaking, that's the 7,000 military users who've been running them in the field for over a year now.   Disadvantages; weight mainly, lack of standard components, different rail height and NO commercial sales.   I think it speaks volumes when a "competitor" speaks well of another product.  I think that takes a lot of integrity. The last I heard, HK is going to release the 416 for sale to civlians, but HK is also known to change stances at the drop of a hat.

Welcome Stony, it's always nice to have an expert like you stop by.

Keep safe.

Most optic mounts and BUIS will carry over onto the 416. Remember the top rail is slightly raised, but the complete rail is raised so the sight plane remains the same only higher in relation to the bore centerline. Some shooters might have a problem with obtaining a good cheekweld, but with the difference being somewhere between 1/4-3/8" I do not see how this would be a problem. The main problem arises when trying to mix & match HK BUIS and mil-spec height BUIS as the distance between the bore centerline and sight centers (center of peep or top of post) are shorter on the HK units.

Quoted: Most optic mounts and BUIS will carry over onto the 416. Remember the top rail is slightly raised, but the complete rail is raised so the sight plane remains the same only higher in relation to the bore centerline. Some shooters might have a problem with obtaining a good cheekweld, but with the difference being somewhere between 1/4-3/8" I do not see how this would be a problem. The main problem arises when trying to mix & match HK BUIS and mil-spec height BUIS as the distance between the bore centerline and sight centers (center of peep or top of post) are shorter on the HK units.

Misterjg as always is 100% correct. The only problem that would arise from the tiny change in rail height is IF you tried to mix and match the HK supplied sights with an aftermarket unit. You have to use one or the other. I have personally seen HK416's that used either the supplied HK fixed sights or Troys. The choice it is up to the end user.

I will stick with POF and LW- I chose POF for my piston upper.

Quoted: I I have also never heard a single peep about the minuscule additional weight. These issues are only brought up by people digging deep for something to complain about.

The 10.5 inch 416 upper only is  5.0lbs.
The LW KP upper with ARM-R is 3lbs 15 oz.

Quoted: Quoted: I I have also never heard a single peep about the minuscule additional weight. These issues are only brought up by people digging deep for something to complain about. The 10.5 inch 416 upper only is  5.0lbs. The LW KP upper with ARM-R is 3lbs 15 oz.

Like I said, the Tier 1 Operators don't seem to be complaining. But who would listen to them? Of course these are the same guys who hump HK416's, S&B Short Dots, Surefire lights, Redi-mags, and AN/PEQ2 lasers up over mountains.


Depending on the optics and other accessories used it's a minuscule change.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: I I have also never heard a single peep about the minuscule additional weight. These issues are only brought up by people digging deep for something to complain about. The 10.5 inch 416 upper only is  5.0lbs. The LW KP upper with ARM-R is 3lbs 15 oz. Like I said, the Tier 1 Operators don't seem to be complaining. But who would listen to them? Of course these are the same guys who hump HK416's, S&B Short Dots, Surefire lights, Redi-mags, and AN/PEQ2 lasers up over mountains. Depending on the optics and other accessories used it's a minuscule change.

That's fine, I just wanted to make sure all the other non tier 1 folks, knew the exact minuscule change.

Apparently "minuscule" has different interpretations. I like to see the numbers and I'm sure others do to.

Quoted: That said, a number of operational units who like the performance of the 416 will not use them because of the increase in weight.

With all due respect part of this is just semantics isn't it? Not every unit could just run out and buy HK416's even if they wanted to. At least not yet. Only a very small number of units have this type of freedom or funding. Most are forced to use whatever weapon their higher command authorizes. SOCOM units get the Colt M4/CRANE CQBR for example along with the rest of the U.S. arsenal. I know for a fact several units have tried to buy LaRue rails only to have the money shut down because the KAC RAS/RIS is what’s authorized. I'm not referring to small numbers of T&E weapons or privately purchased weapons & accessories either, that is a different matter. A handful of free test weapons is not the same thing as a large unit purchase.

The fact of the matter is almost every unit that CAN buy the HK416 is already doing so regardless of the slight weight increase. I have also never heard a single end user of HK416 even mention weight. These units have the power and funding to buy whatever they choose and they are purchasing the HK416. These are also not merely T&E weapons. This fact speaks volumes.

Quoted: And finally, HK is the worst offender in the 'Civillian Hating Gun Manufacturer' category (with FN & Colt tied at #2) category...

I stopped reading what you said right at that point. Sorry, but you have no idea what you're talking about.

FN a "Civillian Hating Gun Manufacturer" ???? Have you lost your mind? Go take a look at their latest offerings: FN 5.7 (well known to penetrate body armor and hated by LE agencies), PS90 (semi-auto P90), FS2000 (semi-auto F2000), and future planned release of the SCAR L and H rifles. These are the newest, most advanced, and major release of small arms to hit the market in years.

HK wants to or at least wanted to sell their more evil products to non-LEOs and non military, but they are fucked over by the US Government at every turn. They tried to sell neutered importable versions of the UMP and G36, but not many people wanted them, since they were neutered. If they can't sell their product because of government interference, don't blame them.

Colt, I will agree on.

I believe someone earlier and elsewhere posted that HK also has to deal with Germany's laws about selling assault rifles to civilians, especially overseas. (A warning to us all about letting liberals get in power. )

I really do have to assume that commericial enterprises will seek to make money any way they can, unless liability concerns, etc., outweigh projected profits.

John

tag

Weight, accuracy, cost, ability to produce, etc....and the most important determining factor is which gun manufacturer's whore gives the politicians and procurement folks the best BJ.

Quoted: Quoted: Id rather have a LW piston pper and keep the stadard reciever and rail heights.  I like my optics low.  Plus I dont like the weight penalty of the HK upper. Have you ever been within a hundred miles of a HK416 or LW upper? None of the issues you have listed seem to bother our nations most elite Operators. I would buy one in a heart beat.

Within a hundred miles? yes.  I have used numerous front heavy carbines and raised optics platforms and dont like them.  I cant stand an ACOG mounted  on a SIR for example.  It does not seem to bother others.  It does not change my personal preferences if someone else has different preferences.  I like a totally solid cheek weld for magnified optics.  A TA31 on a standard rail is just a hair too high still for me.  Why would I want something higher and heavier to get the same piston opertaion I could have with less weight penalty and better optic height?  It it was .1" higher it would be a negative to me.  You see this is MY rifle, I could care less what SF units think or use.  I want what is best for ME, not someone else.

If I could buy an HK upper today for $1000 cash I would pass.  It does not offer what I personally desire.  You seem to be very stuck on what "SF units" like or use.  I am not.

Quoted: Fuck HK, period.

+1

Be American
Shoot American
Buy American

Fuck HK and the worn out EU whore they rode in

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Id rather have a LW piston pper and keep the stadard reciever and rail heights.  I like my optics low.  Plus I dont like the weight penalty of the HK upper. Have you ever been within a hundred miles of a HK416 or LW upper? None of the issues you have listed seem to bother our nations most elite Operators. I would buy one in a heart beat. Within a hundred miles? yes.  I have used numerous front heavy carbines and raised optics platforms and dont like them.  I cant stand an ACOG mounted  on a SIR for example.  It does not seem to bother others.  It does not change my personal preferences if someone else has different preferences.  I like a totally solid cheek weld for magnified optics.  A TA31 on a standard rail is just a hair too high still for me.  Why would I want something higher and heavier to get the same piston opertaion I could have with less weight penalty and better optic height?  It it was .1" higher it would be a negative to me.  You see this is MY rifle, I could care less what SF units think or use.  I want what is best for ME, not someone else.

Are you saying you have handled and shot an HK416?

That’s what I thought, your just blowing hot air.

I have never heard even ONE end user complain about the HK416 being "Front Heavy", heavy in general, or even hint at a problem with the slightly raised rail. Just a hint, but some of the best combat shooters in the U.S. Military have publicly posted that it's NOT an issue. I find it odd that this is only brought up by a few with an agenda or just like to pretend they know what they are talking about. Some of your comments make me wonder just how much experience you have at all.

Quoted: It it was .1" higher it would be a negative to me..

This comment speaks for itself. For a guy who does not even own an AR at the moment, I'm suppose to believe you are such a highly skilled shooter that you can tell this tiny amount of difference? It's a joke, pure and simple. Hell, I will pay half your fee in my next class if you would come over and show me skills like that. Please consider that a standing offer.

The HK416 that I handled and shot certainly did not feel heavy in any way, shape, or form. As for your not listening to the opinion of the Pro’s, well that’s your prerogative but it’s not very bright. I guess you’re just that skilled.

I would love to see such skills in action. Please contact me. I'm setting up two seperate pistol/carbine classes as we speak.

The "Pro's" experience based perspectives are obviously valuable as a result of their likely used of other comparable firearms.  Of course, it all depends on what we're getting from the TIER 1 operators' perspective.  Is it simply the 416 is awesome compared to the M4? I guess the question is:  Mr. Tier One Operator, how would you like a gun with many of the benies of the 416 ornly 25% lighter?  Who knows what they might say then.

Now, the weight issue, well that may just be personal preference.  In this case I'm not talking about humping through the desert or up mountains weight issues, just the shooting and handling.  Personally, I shot two 10.5 inch LW FA uppers, one with the Noveske and the other with a "standard" barrel config..  Hands down the standard config was significantly more handy than the Noveske barreled gun.  I'm not sure what the scale weight difference was, but the Noveske gun felt SIGNIFICANTLY more front end heavy.  Load up that same gun with flashlights, lasers, etc and it would have been truly a clumsy piece.

I guess it comes down to the feel one prefers.  In terms of "scale" weight, the difference could become a bit less noticable with daily excercise, proper nutrition and some weight lifting.

Quoted: This says it all:   Sir,            Over the past year my unit and I have shown an interest in a gas piston upper, but more importantly a 10 inch barrel. As you may already know, the Pxxxxxxxxxx and Cxxxxxx Rxxxxx Officers often operate in austere conditions as well as in the confines of many airframes. Weight, size as well as reliability are three major concerns with the operators of my unit. I have had demonstrations from H and K and I was fortunate to test fire the HK416, although I was impressed, I felt the weight of the weapon was a major concern. I have edited out where necessary; I have many more although this was the most recent.  I guess what I'm really pointing out here is that the weight of the 416 IS an issue for SOME units but that doesn't take away from the fact that it is a tremendous improvement over the M4 and M4 Commando in terms of reliability and durability.

What exactly does one anonymous email prove?

With all due respect, can you personally name one single unit that has the freedom & funding to buy HK416 uppers but turned them down to to any of your listed concerns?

Quoted: This says it all:   Sir,            Over the past year my unit and I have shown an interest in a gas piston upper, but more importantly a 10 inch barrel. As you may already know, the Pxxxxxxxxxx and Cxxxxxx Rxxxxx Officers often operate in austere conditions as well as in the confines of many airframes. Weight, size as well as reliability are three major concerns with the operators of my unit. I have had demonstrations from H and K and I was fortunate to test fire the HK416, although I was impressed, I felt the weight of the weapon was a major concern. I have edited out where necessary; I have many more although this was the most recent.  I guess what I'm really pointing out here is that the weight of the 416 IS an issue for SOME units but that doesn't take away from the fact that it is a tremendous improvement over the M4 and M4 Commando in terms of reliability and durability.

Thank you Paul.  It looked like there was no end in sight.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Id rather have a LW piston pper and keep the stadard reciever and rail heights.  I like my optics low.  Plus I dont like the weight penalty of the HK upper. Have you ever been within a hundred miles of a HK416 or LW upper? None of the issues you have listed seem to bother our nations most elite Operators. I would buy one in a heart beat. Within a hundred miles? yes.  I have used numerous front heavy carbines and raised optics platforms and dont like them.  I cant stand an ACOG mounted  on a SIR for example.  It does not seem to bother others.  It does not change my personal preferences if someone else has different preferences.  I like a totally solid cheek weld for magnified optics.  A TA31 on a standard rail is just a hair too high still for me.  Why would I want something higher and heavier to get the same piston opertaion I could have with less weight penalty and better optic height?  It it was .1" higher it would be a negative to me.  You see this is MY rifle, I could care less what SF units think or use.  I want what is best for ME, not someone else. Are you saying you have handled and shot an HK416? That’s what I thought, your just blowing hot air. I have never heard even ONE end user complain about the HK416 being "Front Heavy", heavy in general, or even hint at a problem with the slightly raised rail. Just a hint, but some of the best combat shooters in the U.S. Military have publicly posted that it's NOT an issue. I find it odd that this is only brought up by a few with an agenda or just like to pretend they know what they are talking about. Some of your comments make me wonder just how much experience you have at all. Quoted: It it was .1" higher it would be a negative to me.. This comment speaks for itself. For a guy who does not even own an AR at the moment, I'm suppose to believe you are such a highly skilled shooter that you can tell this tiny amount of difference? It's a joke, pure and simple. Hell, I will pay half your fee in my next class if you would come over and show me skills like that. Please consider that a standing offer. The HK416 that I handled and shot certainly did not feel heavy in any way, shape, or form. As for your not listening to the opinion of the Pro’s, well that’s your prerogative but it’s not very bright. I guess you’re just that skilled. I would love to see such skills in action. Please contact me. I'm setting up two seperate pistol/carbine classes as we speak.

Like I said its personal preference.  I did not like that I had to lift my cheek up ever so slightly with a reciever mounted TA11 and prefered the TA31 because it was lower to the bore.  Does that mean I could not shoot the TA11 accurately?  No.  I simply prefer lower mounted optics. Does it matter that I have not shot an HK upper?  No, of course not.  I dont like front heavy carbines and I dont like raised optic platforms.  It has ZERO to do with useability and everything to do with WHAT I LIKE.  You see I am the one spending my money on what I perfer, not what someone else prefers.  I dont need to drive an automatic to know I prefer stick.  If a car only offers a traditional automatic or has too little head room I dont need to drive it to know I prefer the equivalent with plenty of headroom and a 6 speed.

But it seems from your posts I dont need to be the one spending the money.  I will await delivery of my free HK upper so I can show you my skill with it at your shoot Dinger... consider it a standing offer.

Edit- Not worth my time.

Quoted: Substantially more than one unit, but that is not for publication over an open forum - you know this as well as I do.   I would once again point out that this is not a flame but information relevant to the thread, there is no need to be defensive because what you are posting is correct also, it's just that not everybody is singing from the same page with regard to the HK 416.

Paul, with all due respect if your going to use this information to prove your point it would help if you had facts to back up your claim. Posting this and then claiming OPSEC isn't really helping. Any unit you mention would have to be a Tier 1 military or Federal LEO unit. They are the only units with the freedom & funding to buy the uppers. This is a relatively small group of units and I know for a fact that many have already purchased the HK416.

Quoted: But it seems from your posts I dont need to be the one spending the money.  I will await delivery of my free HK upper so I can show you my skill with it at your shoot Dinger... consider it a standing offer.

You lost me.

Seriously, I will pay 1/2 your fee this spring just for the opportunity to see such skills in action. Just contact me and we will get the ball rolling.

All I said is I like the assests of the LW psiton system over the others.  Its all I would have said till you tried to make my expression of my opinion seem like it had no merit in determining MY preferences.  Are you saying something like the HK has less recoil due to some inertial dampning system or something?  All I see is equivalent systems with optic height and weight differences.

I am buying a system so I researched them.  I shared that with whoever cared to listen because they asked.  I could have purchased an HK upper when they were for sale but did not because it was not what I wanted.  

So when I had decided to buy a Corvette over a BMW 3 series and was waiting for it to roll off the assembly line at Bowling Green I was just a groupie and not an educated buyer... wow I didnt know that, you are a true asset to our community Dinger.

HK has every reason to hate the DoD and American citizens. With the exception of the Mk23, MP5, MSG90, HK33 and maybe one that I am forgetting are the only HK weapons the US has ever used, and these weapons aren't procured in the volume that a standard issued weapon would be.
With the exception of the aformentioned small success stories, the majority of thier weapons have failed miserably when up for govt contracts. The HK 23 comes to mind during the SAW trials. T&E

conductors deemed it unsafe to continue, which may have been a flaw in thier particular examples but not a flaw in the design that couldn't have been easily changed. The HK 23 actually would have been a more economical choice because it was more of a "system" than the 249. I don't

think it would have been better than the M249, but I also don't think it was treated fairly, mainly due to the politics in the American weapons industry. The HK41 was HK's first attempt to "fix" the M16, which failed miserably....not because it sucked. I think its the best assault rifle they have ever made, but largely because of American influence. The MSG90, and amazing weapon, which

was blackballed for the KAC SR25. The USP was also unfairly treated, as was SiG in the trials to replace the 1911. The American military contract business is pretty tough to crack for foriegn companies. FN had to become FN manufacturing in SC, which is practically an American company now....There is so much old money, secret deals and politics associated with the award of

contracts that the best weapon doesn't always win out in America. Read Beretta M9 and Aviano AFB....The Beretta M9 is an excellent "wonder 9" but its not better than a 226, and I own a Beretta. Sig slides never broke apart during firing causing injury....If Aviano, a Stealth-capable and strategically significant base, wasn't on the block, the Sig wouldn't have been mysteriously underbid by EXACTLY one dollar.... With all this deciet and corruption, not to mention legislation which bans thier civilian products to keep them out of Military contracts, why would they want to

do us any favors?  HK, among others that fall into the CHGM category, are bitter...and they should be. If you need another example of crookery in govt contracts, call Alex Robinson and ask him about his XCR and the SCAR program. If gas piston uppers are ever adopted widely, its possible, it will be Colt's SCAR design....

Its amazing whow this subject gets everyone's panties in a wad.

I'm going to make yu'all an offer (& I am sure DevL will be glad to help out):

WEhen I get my POF & DevL gets his LW- if someone will send us an HK416 and some ammo- we would be quite happy to test them and write up a comparison- I'll give the red-neck lawyer's view- DevL can give the view from where he stands and then y'all can make your decisions!

How's that!

Quoted: I think that it's fair for anyone whao has experience of any gas piston uppers to post in these forums and those who have extensive experience of the HK such as myself can offer valuable insight into these still extremely rare weapons.   There are deficiencies with the HK system and no decision has been made yet as to which way the military are going as to a replacement for the M4.  Colt is still receiving orders from the US Army for tens of thousands of weapons and has an extensive and active refurbishment program that the 416 has not impacted in any way.  None of this really matters; what matters is experience and I'm sure a large number of people have picked up a 416 at a show and formed an opinion as to its feel etc.   Discussion is a good think as is sharing of information and respect of opinions when they are based upon experience; statements such as "f**k HK" bring nothing to the thread and equally, flaming individuals for their statements when they do add value should be discouraged.

With all due respect.

The problem with this is that several of these "Gas Piston Experts" post merely to gain points in your industry forum. Several do not even own a LW product. They think they are helping you by badmouthing a product they have never seen, handled, or shot. Just what does this add to any HK416 discussion? All it does is spread more BS about the HK416.

Let your product stand on it's own merits and not the perceived faults from a "Competitor" or a group of fans that have not been within a hundred miles of an HK416.

Hey VA Dinger- do you have an HK416?

Did you get one from Pritchard before HK came and tried to take them back?