I don't believe the 416 to be really very good. It does jam less. Definitely more reliable. But very few test models shot below 4, yes 4, MOA at 100 yards. It is definitely not an accurate system. But HK counters by saying since it's for room clearing it doesn't matter?

From what I've gotten from Former SAS members is that the reason they chose the MP-5 was that because of the closed bolt the first round fired was dead on target. in the type of work where they used the MP-5, HK-53 or G-3KA4 they could not afford to have bullets everywhere.

In Oman and Yemen they prefered anything that could reach out the sometimes Vast distances that you can clearly see someone. heck one member once commented to me that for distance work in the Middle East he prefered a WW2 era Mauser.

Actually, if you watch the news nowadays, you won't see too many SWAT teams using the MP5 anymore. Most SWAT teams have been going back to .223-caliber rifles in the past 5 years, and phasing out subguns as their primary weapons. The reason being that a number of studies have found that in CQB, .223 doesn't really tend to over-penetrate any more than 9mm against soft targets. But it does perform vastly better against body armor. So nowadays, most SWAT teams carry the M4, or other derivatives. The G36 series is probably the 2nd most popular .223 carbine amongst SWAT teams after the M4, but if so, then it's a pretty distant second.

"Durability" and "reliability" are two different things.

Anyway, I don't think there's much dispute that the 416 is an improvement over the M4. It's just a question of whether it's enough of an improvement to justify the cost. And H&K has never shown a willingness to be flexible, even when it means losing DoD contracts. That's why nearly every weapon H&K has ever submitted to the DoD for testing winds up losing out to someone else...usually FN, nowadays.

Larry Correia mentions this, but the truth is that almost all of the SF units that were issued Mark 23s never actually carry them. The Mark 23 was designed specifically for SOCOM, but SF guys hate it. Most of our SF operators carry either 1911 derivatives or SIG-Sauers.

As I've said, very few American SF units use H&Ks anymore. The MP5 used to be popular in the days where 9mm was considered the only acceptable cartridge for CQB, but those days are long past.

Also, if you check out the inventories of SFs of almost any country in the world that is friendly to the U.S., you will find that nearly all of them use M16s and M4s as their primary long guns. H&K's .223s, including the G36 series and 416, are not nearly as popular as the American M16 family of weapons.

One reason being, I think, is because HKs are horrendously expensive. Last I heard, retail on a 416 was something like $4,000 USD, compared to an MRP, for example, which ranges in the $1,400 area.

That was my error, I meant so say reliability. Sorry bout that.


Heh, that's funny because I remember another article about the M4, where it mentions that Special Forces teams around the world LOVE the M4.

When I am talking about the M14, G3, and FAL, I am talking about the original configuration. There is of course a lot of different variations, so it is pointless to discuss it other then the original between each design.

The HK416 is really a bad rifle. It's a jam-o-matic. The entire article was a stab at HK marketing department. It was an attack on HK hype machine and their ability to get away with anything including but not limited to complete ultra lies.

Here is a HK416 video without the HK marketing department behind it. Keep in mind the people were testing suppressors and not the HK416.

http://rpginn.com/index.php?option=c...=443&Itemid=39

The M16 DI family are use by the majority of Western SF. The Norwegian military adopted the HK416 yet their SF use Canadian's build M4 DI.

http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2...-with-hk416-2/

The civilian version of the HK416 cost around $4,000 and does not use the standard pivotal pins layout. In other words you can't switch HK upper and lower with standard AR15 upper and lower.

Why are companies even trying to update the AR-15 platform instead of just making a newer better platform? I think FN got the idea someone else should too.

Because it's more expensive to make a completely new weapon system than to take an existing design and just giving it a makeover. I mean, the Army spent how much on the XM8 project and it went down the drain. It is much more practical to stick to what soldiers are already used to than to retrain them in something completely new and less expensive than to replace the exisiting weapons the military is already using. Magazine types, ammo type. That's all important.

The m16 has seen it's time and is being surpassed by more modern weapons. But there is the pointy stick syndrome:


Train a guy to use a pointy stick, he likes it. That pointy stck may save hs life, and he loves it. Over time he believes it to be the ultimate combat weapon. Up to the day he is butchered by iron spears.



The militiary has this syndrome with m4s.

What I think is pathetic is that the XM8 is a G36 in a new plastic shell, so basically they where "improving" on a current design. But it failed. The almighty HK failed, what a shocker. But to all the piss ant gamers who think the XM8 or the HK416 pwns all other guns, it is shocking.