Military Times article on the HK416, which according to the article (which appears to be heavily sourced from HK itself) is superior to the M4 in wide use among U.S. forces in Iraq & Afghanistan.
Comments?
Printable View
Military Times article on the HK416, which according to the article (which appears to be heavily sourced from HK itself) is superior to the M4 in wide use among U.S. forces in Iraq & Afghanistan.
Comments?
Well, it's not in as wide use as the Times would have us believe. Employment is relegated to only certain tier 1 units and personnel.
As one of those operators has commented on another board, the Times also proclaimed that the Army was making a wholesale cutover to the XM-8
From what Ive seen and read the thing certainly is superior to the M-4. They had it on that show "FutureWeapons" on the discovery channel a couple nights ago. Very cool. Id give anything to get one. Hopefully they'll produce a civilian version eventually.
Reading the incident with CPT Self reminds me of similar stories from the Vietnam war of soldiers found dead with cleaning rods in their hands as they tried to clear jammed M16s. It sounds like the HK 416 is close in price and far superior to the M16/M4 family. Anyone know if disadvantages to the HK 416 other than the fact we would need to start replacing the M4 family of weapons?
Seems like an interesting rifle.
There are a number of gas piston rifles out there, Sig 556, Magpul Masada, the defunct XM-8.
I don't think any of the qualities of a gas piston rifle would prevent the problems that Capt Self or Sgt Miller had, nor the slew of problem that were supposedly marched out by the soldiers in Afghanistan.
The gas piston rifles do one thing particularly well, and that is they release gas and carbon fouling outside the weapon somewhere near the front sight. Just before the gas and carbon is ported out, the gas impinges on, and activates, the piston, driving it into the modern version of the bolt carrier's gas key. All this does is reduce the amount of crap getting into the receiver. It has nothing to do with keeping foreign matter out of the weapon, so if a weapon is dirty with sand/dust, the gas piston rifles are only going to have a longer time before carbon fouling becomes a problem at the chamber (compared to an M4).
If the weapon isn't lubricated, the gas piston isn't a silver bullet. If a cartridge case ruptures in the chamber, a gas piston rifle still isn't the silver bullet. If you find yourself in a running gun battle and putting a lot of rounds downrange, and don't have time to perform a fieldstrip cleaning, then a gas piston rifle definitely has its advantages.
As for the cleaning rod secured to the rifle forearm, I do not know of any unit that has an SOP like that, Ranger or otherwise. It seems totally impractical.
This whole thing is screamingly similar to the problems the M-16 experienced in Vietnam, although at that time it was due to DoD's insistence on a type of propellant that was not within the original design specifications as well as misinformation to the troops that the M-16 didn't need to be cleaned. If memory serves it took them almost three years to correct that problem, and I don't see the wheels moving any faster in this case.
The interesting thing about the Vietnam case is that it was two-tiered problem: improper propellant AND improper training. One of the difficulties with anecdotal evidence such as the article presents is that it's very compelling reading, but it often doesn't address what happened prior to the engagement (was Self's weapon damaged during the initial action? did Miller do routine cleaning and maintenance on his weapon? and so on). I'm not saying "competitions" are the way to go (since they are often stacked in favor of a particular weapon), but that you need a broad spectrum of input, including some that could be considered unbiased and fully tested. Anecdotes are often neither, and the same can be said for "trials."
When Delta units visited us in Zaire in 93, their sidearms were modified (Wilson combat) 1911s and two versions of the H&K MP5 in either 5.56 or 9X19. Another version was a 7.62, but never saw one.
Personally, my Colt Commander's model in .45ACP is still my favorite and I don't have to carry a cleaning rod around with me, nor perform double taps. One will do just fine :D
I wanted the MP5, but can't buy one :mad:
MP5s have become, how shall we say?...passe. I was pleasantly surprised to see direct action forces transition to the M4, but wasn't surprised that a lot of PMCs were still slinging the MP5 in Iraq when things started cooking. Those guys learned eventually, the hard way, but I still catch a photo of a tm leader carrying one every now and then.
Hwne I did the MiTT thing I had an MP-5 for a brief period of time. It would have issues in the sand like the M-4 at times. The H&K systems appear to have some advantages, but the magic quetion is do the advantages outweigh the acquisition costs, and does the opportunity cost to purchase the H&K weapons offest the opportunity cost of other things (better vehicles, coms, NVG, etc.).
JC,
My days in M88s and XM1s (they weren't M1s yet) were coupled with M3 grease guns and later M4s.
Those who desire can keep the M4 with the M16s and mess with jams. The M3 worked better, just a bitch to reload, but never jammed. I have now dated myself.
The lowest bidder to a USG contract (ahem)
Although it was basic pressings, I would think a M3 would be the schizznit. Same for the British Sten, at least from a suppressive, make a lotta noise perspective.:D
JC,
You'd be correct there ! Stamped steel. The AK (I have never had the pleasure of using a real Russian AK, just the Chinese versions) was also built on a tight budget. Those weapons worked because there was no "lowest bid" then, just needed a realiable weapon and fast.
Funny you mentioning the Sten, which was made of stamped and welded metal with a paint-like coating (known today as anodized), scored higher than the Thompson when such things as simplicity, accuracy, weight and reliability were measured.
Thanks, American Rifleman, for that info ! Yepper, Life Member I be :cool:
On with your history lesson:
The M3/M3A1s were far easier to manufacture than the Thompson, and had a number of excellent design features. The low cyclical rate of fire makes the M3/M3A1 easier to control than most submachine guns. The weapon's straight line of recoil thrust also adds substantially in controlling the gun in automatic fire. Her loose tolerances allow for reliable operation even if very dirty and, with its bolt and guide rod design make it more reliable than the AK under adverse conditions.
I know my weapons :eek:
Frankly, I like the FN SCAR. There are limited number of civilian HK 416s out there in semiauto, and the reviews are not very high on them. They seem a little cheap in construction and regress in the areas of sighting options (unique rail system) The FN SCAR promises to be modular, like the XM8, but without the long-term polymer heat degradation which the Bundeswehr is dealing with in their rifles, which are functionally identical. The FN SCAR is also modular in calibers. The base carbine/rifle combo can be chambered in a variety of 45mm length casings, while the heavy carbine/rifle can be chambered in 7.62 x 51mm. (We dodged THAT bullet, when we cancelled the M8) Plus, FN is producing M16s, M4s, M249s and M240s for us right now, and doing a bang-up job of it. (FN is also fully supported on the civilian side in the US. Try getting customer support from H&K.)
Reading about weapons in the MSM is like nails on a chalkboard, to me. They just are NOT capable of getting details, or even overviews of the subject correct.
The bolt riding forward on the M3/M3A1 always kept me from getting good accuracy out of it. Just too much mass, firing from the open bolt for my tastes.
I was pumped about the SCAR system too, until I saw how it disassembles. It's no a simple matter of pulling a pin and levering the upper receiver up. It got a thumbs down after I saw that, which may be my own M16 parochialism.
120,
That's a matter of practice (me thinks). She was never designed around ranges beyond 100 meters. But then, the M4 is considered to be effective to 150 due mostly to its short barrel. The tanker must exit the vehicle and commence firing. You can do that with an M2HB (my preference) nor M60.Quote:
The bolt riding forward on the M3/M3A1 always kept me from getting good accuracy out of it.
JC, Yes, the M4 is easy to use and maintain. But if you started out like I did when the M16A1 was a total failure, it was hard to beleive the M4 would far better. Granted, it was rarely slung over one's shoulder for any length of time, so barrel warp would be insignificant.
The H&K is a nice and expensive toy and I doubt we will get these anytime soon.
Across 4 months of carrying an MP5 is Somalia, I ran into the same finicky issues with dust/sand. It needs almost meticulous care and cleaning, and a drive down the "by-pass road" didn't lend itself to any sterile environment.:o
JC,
Well said and I agree !
So, we've canned the idea of an H&K in today's USA and USMC :wry:
I liked the discussion and await a new one !
Good Evening.....
Well, have any of you older hands ever shot an Ingram M10?
The M10 and the M11 if you mean this little beastie.
http://world.guns.ru/smg/mac_m10_45.jpg
I shot the M11 fully suppressed.
Never while in harms way, but while doing Hogan's alley a few times.
Impressions? Or is it safe to say that the hands are still sore?
What can you say. Fully supressed it sounded like a hundred rat traps slamming closed. It got HOT fast.. If I remember right the Mac 11 is only like .380 or 9mm. Not much whack but fun as heck to shoot. I never had any issues with it jamming but I wasn't in what you would call an operational environment. We were supposedly looking at them for entry weapons. That went away as the were considered to "aggressive".
I haven't had too many problems with my M4 over the years and a significant number of those were caused by the magazine. That said I have a friend who has carried the HK version in harms way and he absolutely raves about it. The reason we can't have it though is because of contracting issues. For good or ill Colt has the inside track on contracts. The military seems to never have done well with weapons contracts or at least the Army hasn't but they usually fix or get rid of the ones that do not work eventually (The M9 pistol is a notable exception. For the life of me I don't know why we still have that *&%$*%# thing). The M16 was a piece of crap. The M16A1 was a hell of a lot better and the M16A2 was/is a pretty good gun, not perfect but pretty good and I really like the M4 (except for the fact that it is 5.56 but that is a different discussion). It should be noted that a number of tier 1 units in other countries use the M4. The maintenance on it is not that difficult and the accuracy is pretty good for a mass produced rifle.
As for the MP5s, they have a place but if you are in full kit or you are carrying openly then that is not the place for a 9MM primary. If I had a choice I wouldn't even carry 9MM for a secondary.
SFC W
Interesting points about the M9 Uboat. In my case, I've fired thousands of rounds throuhg various issued pieces, and outside of a cracked locking block one time, have found it not that troublesome.
I guess like most weapons, the primary cause of problems stem from the magazines, and without proper maintenance and cleaning, and weapon with close tolerances for accuracy will be susceptible.
I don't know what the CPU for the 6.5 Grendel would be but I bet it would be well under the 1400$ H&K ceiling of their piece. It looks like their basic unit goes for about a grand. It's on an AR platform, a real flat shooter with more reach and alot more punch than the 5.56. I doubt its originator, Alexander arms, is tooled for any serious production numbers though and besides, Colt is so deeply entrenched with DOD they could hawk slingshots if they wanted to.
Hey Goesh !
Great post, we read about these rounds all the time here...Could put a bear down ! But you're right, a lot of competition from Colt.
http://www.65grendel.com/
This part me likes !Quote:
Alexander Arms offers SBR users an upgrade in lethality and accuracy and penetration by chambering a mil-spec M4-style 10.5" carbine, first introduced at SHOT Show 2007, in its highly effective 6.5 Grendel cartridge. Alexander Arms has four factory 6.5 Grendel loadings of its own, but of special interest to military and security contractors is the new Black Hills Ammunition 6.5 Grendel loading for Les Baer Custom using a 6.5mm 123-grain Sierra MatchKing. This gives operators a “Big Brother” loading to the 5.56mm 77-grain SMK in the popular Mk262.
Quote:
When your 5.56 10.5" SBR needs the added punch of a “Big Brother,” get yourself a 6.5 Grendel 10.5" SBR upper and give the enemy some nasty surprises.
I have actually laid hands & eyes on the H&K M4. An operative who rolled with us on a trailblazer mission had one. Very clean weapon, less jamming, all around better made weapon. H&K's use of the gas piston def. keeps things cleaner. my M4 (after cleaning) was much dirtier than his, with fewer rounds through it. I would LOVE it if the military ACTUALLY switched to these. No one would care that it's 1 lb heavier (hello, landwarrior @ 13 lbs, IBA @ 32 lbs, mitch @ 8lbs...i could go on)
Speaking of weight, does anyone know exactly WHY the military didn't pass dragonskins body armor?
SGTMILLS
GOOD POINTS!!! ALL OF THEM.. I absolutely do not understand why we don't switch to 7.62 X 39 on all of our primary's. I do disagree, however, on one point. I LOVE my beretta. It has never given me a problem (knock on wood.) I would like to have the side arms that a certain COL. (made famous by movies, but is actually a pretty good guy) gave his PSD. They ALL carried glock .40's. Very good side, just not much support from standard army supply.
SGTMILLS
Reasons why Army didn't pass DragonSkin:
1. The spec was written for X weight and Y coverage. DragonSkin is Z weight and Q coverage. But the testers at least admitted it to the test, misfit or not. Technically, DragonSkin "might" be lighter per inch covered, but it's heavier, overall (with an advertised 20% more coverage.)
2. DragonSkin failed the initial test because, while it works marvelously under "their" testing conditions, once you put it through the "torture test" of high temps and soldier abuse, the discs it's made of come loose, and if one disc is out of place, the entire thing loses its structural integrity. (The owner of the company claims it was a glue problem, since fixed)
3. The DragonSkin people have become uncooperative and have started accusing the testing people of dishonesty. This initially led to a rare public overreaction by one of the testing people, but since then, the Army has offered to reopen the testing, but the DragonSkin people will only test if "they" control the testing conditions.
4. DragonSkin, for some reason, keeps hawking Level III when the Army is interested in Level IV. I get confused at this point, and do not follow either side of the argument.
5. DragonSkin is 1000% the cost of their competition.
At this point, I will inject my own opinion. When I was in college, on a whim, I studied under a museum armorer by the name of Matthew Rutz. In the course of my studies, I learned that while some armor is made of rigid plates, and some armor is made of flexible plates, the end result was counterintuitive. Armor made of flexible plates, tended to be MORE restrictive then well-fitting armor made of rigid plates. Historically, Armor made of flexible plates was for the lower-class warriors for economy reasons. The folks I know who've owned and worn DragonSkin say that they felt well-protected, but they felt like The Michelin Man.
The new SAPI with the increased protection is probably the best armor for US troops. Once they can figure out how to get it out there.
I still carry my Wilson Combat 1911. Yes, a bit expensive, but no competition and less recoil that any 9mm.
http://www.wilsoncombat.com/p_tactical_supergrade.asp
Talking about handguns and calibers if somebody can find "The Hatcher Study" which was done by General Hatcher you will find that the reason for the .45 comes from US Army experience with the Moro tribe in the Phillipines Counter Insurgency. I read the study years ago and I might have a hard copy somewhere but maybe it is online now. Hatcher believed that any handgun caliber is to weak to stop somebody with any reliability but the .45 was the best choice (and still is in my opinion) and still maintain control of the weapon. It is a very good read if you can find it. Those old guys new about fighting up close and what it really takes.
Somebody correct me if I am wrong but I thought that the main reason that we switched to 9MM was because of commonality of ammunition with NATO. If that is the case then I think we can safely dispense with the 9MM, thank you.
SFC W
Here is a link about the .45 and the Philippines, it also has a remark the .45 being the round designed to stop Muslims .
http://www.gunweek.com/2006/feature1010.html
Why the 7.62x39 and not the 7.62x51? I could see as a soldier wanting the x39 round due to its proliferation throughout the world but here in CONUS I would think the x51 would be more plentiful due to the amount of M1As being used for marksmanship. I'm still debating about getting a whole new AR in 7.62 or just keeping my M4 L.E. and buying one of those SOCOM scout rifles....
My understanding is that we went to the .45 for the heavier bullet and bigger magazine capacity. The wheel guns being used at the time were not doing the job. I have read that the "G"s would get hopped up on some type of drugs prior to doing "kamakazi" style attacks on us. Much like these idiots we have to deal strung out on PCP. Calibre Press discussed an incident at one of their street survival seminars of a suspect having the strength to rip out a shotgun out of a patrol car still in it's bracket. He was able to chamber a round and kill the officer. They changed the design of the brackets from that point forward so that it couldn't be repeated. I would much prefer a .45 over my .40 that I carry.
Actually, we were using the Colt .38 ACP automatic to begin with in the Phillipines, which proved ineffective, so several commands went back to the Colt 1873 single actions in .45 Colt. The requirement for a .45 auto was then put forward to replace the venerable Peacemaker.
In reality, mag capacity isn't that important; (7+1 versus 5) but a mag reloads a lot quicker.
I have and treasure "Hatcher's Notebook".
And would said notebook happen to be in, say, .pdf format?:D
If it's free online, I'd be mightily pissed. I've purchased two of them because someone didn't return a copy I lent them. They are not cheap.
Edited to read: Here, buy your own copy, you cheapskate! ;^)
http://www.amazon.com/Hatchers-Noteb.../dp/0811707954
I had no idea it was an actual book with a darn ISBN...It's at the base library, fortunately.
JC, it's not just a book (you should get it anyway) he wrote several studies on wound ballistics. the one I am thinking about was probably done when he was a major during the process of adopting the .45 automatic. Chuck Taylor and Jeff Cooper used to talk about this study alot. Cooper is dead and I don't know what Chuck is doing now a days, but I am still looking. You might try Chuck Melson he knows alot about that stuff and time period, he found out that the famous Fairbarn Commando knife may have come from the Marines during the Boxer rebellion in China. Three as matter of fact all named Sam and they became known as the 3 Sams of combat knife deisgn or something like that. If I can find it I will post it pass on what I find out.
Here is a link to article the makes reference to the Hatcher relative stopping power index read how the .45 http://www.frfrogspad.com/colt1889.htm#Ballistics
While this is not an exact comparison it does help to put things in perspective.
Thanks Slapout !
Why the need to 'double tap' when one will do, center of mass :D
Here's what Jim Higginbotham, 30 years as a LEO had to say:
http://www.sightm1911.com/Care/45acp.htm
Quote:
While I have come across some lethal encounters that took a lot of rounds to settle they mostly were the result of either poor hits (or complete misses) or lack of penetration. Nearly all of the high round count cases I have reviewed involved 9mms, .38s, .357’s or smaller calibers. This is not to say they do not occur with major caliber rounds. It is to say I have been collecting data for 30 years and have not encountered many cases in which multiple hits (more than three as two or three shots are a fairly normal reflex action) from major caliber cartridges to the center of the chest have not been sufficient, - the single exception being a case involving the .41 Magnum loaded with JSP bullets which did not expand - they did penetrate - it took five hits center mass to stop the attacker - and I have not encountered any with the .45, even with Ball. I have encountered several with 5, 6 or even more hits to the center of the chest with .38, .357, 9mm and .223 rifle rounds failing to stop. Almost every one could be traced to lack of penetration with a couple of exceptions that hit the heart but just did not cause enough damage to be effective quickly. Note I am not talking about "torso" hits. There is a lot of area in the torso in which a hit will seldom produce rapid incapacitation even if hit by a 12 ga. slug or a 30-06 - we simply cannot count such data if we are going to learn anything.
My purpose here is not to argue Fackler versus Marshall and Sanow because that's a book in itself. What is important in all of this is that regardless of which philosophy you choose to accept as true, the .45 ACP comes out well--at or near the top of the effectiveness ratings for both schools of thought.
Stan, good article and where you hit is most important. I was shot in the left leg, just above the knee cap, was knocked to the ground and slid about 6 feet not knowing I had been shot till a couple of hours later (being scared ####less had a lot to do with it) even after a para-medic looked at my leg. It was only a flesh wound and when it hit the heat cauterized the wound so I had almost no blood loss, big hole in my pants and when it did start to hurt man did it ever. I also found 3 of my .40 caliber hollow points later and they all failed to expand. They did just the opposite - collapsed in on to all most a sharp point??
I was also at a calibre press street survival and met a Palm Beach County Florida deputy sheriff who shot a guy dead center mass with a .45. Of course he died but he was able to get back into his vehicle and put it into drive before he bled out and went unconscious. The deputy was so shocked he never thought to shoot him again. People act funny with handgun wounds, often because of drugs, booze or just crazy or in a rage adrenalin is something else.
Well guys I found the hatcher piece I was thinking of. It is not a study or a book - it is a textbook and long out of print. You can find it at rare book stores but it is not cheap. The link shows the complete title and the chapter on ammunition and ballistics. I think the guy that got 120mm's copy of the his notebook must have gotten mine as well because I cannot find it anywhere. Oh well, if you ever get the chance it is a good read and the man was a genius. He was a major when he wrote this book.
http://www.19thcenturyweapons.com/20...trevtexttp.jpg
Julian S. Hatcher is an example of what was right about the military personnel system, pre-central "Soviet-Style" Drunken Monkey control.
The guy was a ballistics/military firearms expert who stayed in basically the same job, from MAJ to MG. The idiots at HRC would've rotated him out of the job after 2 years as a MAJ, we would've had a long succession of politically-motivated hacks occupy the job in order to "check the box" (None of which would give a crap about ballistics or firearms) and we would be deprived of most of the knowledge/weapons systems that were actually worthwhile.
I knew there was a reason to bring "Hatcher's Notebook" up.
Welcome to Africa Folks !
Quote:
This supports the observations of those who wrote during WW2, that after a heavy battle, a number of bullets were found slight- ly embedded in tar rooftops, all pointed towards the sky.
Just an update on the M4 issue. One of the criticisms of the direct gas impingement system in the M4 is that the smaller dwell time and excessive heat of the shortened gas tube causes premature wear and an increase in stoppages.
The civilian AR guys have "broken the code" on this, and it doesn't involve a piston system. Extending the gas tube into a "mid-length" configuration appears to successfully address this issue. I cannot see why current M4s couldn't be retrofitted with a mid-length gas system. The conversion could be done with a total parts count of 2, and a cost per unit of around $30. You'd need a longer gas-block/front sight and/or a longer gas tube and something to protect it. The barrels need to be drilled; otherwise the conversion could be done at the unit level.
I'm having a friend build me one, just to see for myself.
I saw a show with that new rifle , it looks like the G3/hk and from what i could tell it was completely uncontrollable in bursts and the Picatinny rail was flopping around really bad ! I seriously was discouraged by the way it looked when shooting . I don't care for the AR that much , but that new hk looks like junk! just relaying my opinion of it,based on the footage i saw. if thew AR or the HK was in the price range of the AK ,I'd like to get a few of each! too bad. G:confused:
Gents, I ran across this diagram that pertains to part of this conversation. Just thought I'd share it as it's kind of cool:
http://i124.photobucket.com/albums/p...mmvs40vs45.gif