Army unit told to turn in their HK 416's


PDA






Slater
March 11, 2008, 09:54 AM
http://www.airforcetimes.com/news/2008/03/army_no416s_031008w/

Somebody's not very happy.

If you enjoyed reading about "Army unit told to turn in their HK 416's" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
sprithitler
March 11, 2008, 10:10 AM
Somebody in army command must be on the payroll of more entities than the armed forces.
Frankly, get real guns. I shot several thousand rounds of 5.56 in "my" AK5 (FN FNC) in the army without a single failure to cycle, even when not cleaned for more than 1000 rounds. I shot several thousand shots with "my" AK4 (HK G3) while in the Swedish home defense without it ever failing to cycle, even when not cleaned for several hundred rounds. How difficult can it be to realise that your soldiers deserve reliable accurate hard hitting weapons?

Onmilo
March 11, 2008, 10:38 AM
Something tells me somebody needed those weapons more than the advanced warfare group trainers,,,,,,,,,,,,

NG VI
March 11, 2008, 10:52 AM
That sucks, my M16 never malfunctioned on me but I also took rigourous care of it. I would clean it allways just to pass time, so I maybe put a little more time into my weapon than most. still would like something not in service for 40 straight years, could use an update that doesn't involve batteries.

Thin Black Line
March 11, 2008, 03:28 PM
LOL, we should be using the Army Times link in reference to this:

http://www.armytimes.com/news/2008/03/army_no416s_031008w/

Yes, it's the same story.

Maybe the Army will give the Bushmaster/Magpul ACR a try??? I hope it
works better than the pmags did.

TEDDY
March 11, 2008, 03:52 PM
study what the gov gave the soldiers from civil war to present.
the only guns that were right were 45/1911-bmg1919A1-BAR-GARAND.
THE OLD, muskets-trapdoor-krag-springfield.think of what there actualy were at those times.
now we are getting foreign designs.

Darthbauer
March 11, 2008, 04:02 PM
I hope it
works better than the pmags did.


And what are you talking about?

Double Naught Spy
March 11, 2008, 04:24 PM
study what the gov gave the soldiers from civil war to present.
the only guns that were right were 45/1911-bmg1919A1-BAR-GARAND.
THE OLD, muskets-trapdoor-krag-springfield.think of what there actualy were at those times.
now we are getting foreign designs.

We have gotten foreign guns for a long time, don't kid yourself.

In the Civil War, you had British made Enfields, and French Lefaucheux "pin-fire" pistols and the KRAGs were Norwegian.

For the Spanish-American War, there was the Model 1896 Krag-Jorgensen Rifle

Need I go on?

DPris
March 11, 2008, 04:28 PM
Wasn't there somebody named Garand who was originally Canadian? :D
Denis

Ash
March 11, 2008, 04:32 PM
And our earliest muskets were based on the French design.

R127
March 11, 2008, 04:43 PM
I agree Sprithitler. Unfortunately most people don't have any real experience with other rifles to compare it to. A hatchback economy car seems like a real hot ticket for hauling cargo if you've never experienced a van or pickup truck. It's kind of like the British with their SA-80. America will always have some form of M-16.

As far as somebody being on the payroll that has been a huge problem in our country for a very very long time. One could make a good case that the current aggressive foreign policy is little more than the product of a desire to generate money and political power for certain special interests. You have to wonder, especially after I bought I don't know how many milled Bulgarian AK-47's plus a billion rounds of ammo for the Iraqis and now I have to buy them M-16's and who knows how much ammo?

... and do you think any of those AK's which are little used and basically SA M7 Carbines will end up getting milsurped so I can at least have a chance to pay for what I bought? Nope. They won't even be sent in as parts kits. The ammo? If it isn't blown up it will almost certainly be dumped into the ocean along with all those AK's I had to buy. The same thing will happen with the new M-16's I'm buying for the Iraqis if/when they get replaced. I'm not holding my breath for CMP M-14. As I recall most of those were sent to Haiti to fuel civil disorder and general slaughter rather than sent to the gun shop around the corner to fuel some good old fashioned fun on the local shooting range.

Next time I have to buy guns for foreigners I'm buying some scuba gear too.

Ash
March 11, 2008, 04:48 PM
R127, there could never have been CMP M14's because once a machine gun always a machine gun. That bit has always been nothing more than wishful thinking - regardless of the Clinton administration's destruction of M14's.

Ash

Mainsail
March 11, 2008, 04:48 PM
:rolleyes:
Army takes HK416s from special unit

By Matthew Cox - Staff writer
Posted : Tuesday Mar 11, 2008 14:37:32 EDT

The Army has stripped the Asymmetric Warfare Group of its weapon of choice — the Heckler & Koch 416 — saying that its mission requires the unique outfit to carry the standard issue M4 carbine.

The decision reverses a policy that allowed the AWG to buy 416s instead of carrying M4s when it was established three years ago to help senior Army leaders find new tactics and technologies to make soldiers more lethal in combat.

Members of the AWG have declined to comment on the issue, but sources in the community told Army Times that the unit fought to keep its several hundred 416s, arguing that they outperform the Army’s M4 and require far less maintenance.

In a response to a March 6 Army Times query, the Army acknowledged initial approval of the AWG’s move to the 416.

“The AWG is empowered to procure, on a limited basis, select non-standard equipment to assist in identifying capability gaps and advise on the development of future requirements. To this end, the Asymmetric Warfare Group did purchase H&K 416 rifles,” said Army spokesman Lt. Col. Martin Downie.

“The AWG also advises units on training, tactics and procedures. In this capacity, the use of the standard issue M4 is required. In support of this mission set, the decision was made to transition to the M4 and the AWG is now turning in its H&K rifles.”

This is the latest round of controversy surrounding the M4 since late November, when the weapon finished last in an Army reliability test against several other carbines.

The M4 suffered more stoppages than the combined number of jams by the three other competitors — the Heckler & Koch XM8, FNH USA’s Special Operations Forces Combat Assault Rifle (SCAR) and the H&K 416.

Army weapons officials agreed to perform the dust test at the request of Sen. Tom Coburn, R-Okla., in July. Coburn took up the issue following a Feb. 26 Army Times report on moves by elite Army Special Forces units to ditch the M4 in favor of carbines they consider more reliable. Since then, Coburn has questioned the Army’s plans to spend more than $300 million to purchase M4s through fiscal 2009 rather than considering newer and possibly better weapons available on the commercial market.

Army officials have downplayed the test results, maintaining that soldiers using the M4 in combat praised the weapon in a recent study by the Center for Naval Analysis.

But this isn’t the first time the M4’s performance has come under fire.

U.S. Special Operations Command decided nearly four years ago that it wanted a better weapon than the M4. After a competition, it awarded a developmental contract to FN Herstal to develop its new SCAR to replace all of the command’s M4s.

But even prior to USSOCOM’s decision, the Army’s Delta Force replaced its M4s with the H&K 416 in 2004 after tests revealed that its piston operating system reduces malfunctions while increasing the life of parts.

The M4, like its predecessor, the M16, uses a gas tube system, which relies on the gas created when a bullet is fired to cycle the weapon. Weapon experts say the M4’s system of blowing gas directly into the receiver of the weapon spews carbon residue that can lead to fouling and heat that dries up lubrication and causes excessive wear on parts.

The AWG followed Delta’s example when it stood up in March 2005 to advise the Army’s senior leadership on how to identify and counter emerging threats on the battlefield. With Army approval, the unit bought several hundred 416s for its members to carry when they deployed to Iraq, Afghanistan and other hot spots.

Many senior sergeants in the AWG were angered that soldiers in the unit had to turn in their 416s, a process that began last fall, said a U.S. Military officer with knowledge the special operations and AWG communities.

“They were outraged,” he told Army Times. “It’s a reduction in capability. It’s a waste of money that was already spent, and it makes the job more difficult since [the M4] is much more maintenance-intensive.”

SMLE
March 11, 2008, 05:05 PM
THE OLD, muskets-trapdoor-krag-springfield.think of what there actually were at those times.
now we are getting foreign designs. The US has used foreign designs since the founding of the Republic. The muskets procured for the various Colonial Militias were based almost exclusively on the English Brown Bess. The first muskets produced by Springfield were just monkey copies of the French 1763, later the pattern was the French 1777. In fact, the French '77 and the US 1842 have interchangeable bayonets. The U 1855 Rifle Musket was closely copied from the Enfield to include caliber, rate of twist and progressive depth of the rifling that ammo was interchangeable. The Krag Jorgenson was from Norway and it used a bayonet of Swiss design. The 1903 was just a 1898 Mauser in a different dress. We even paid Mauser royalties for certain features. The M60 was a kludge of the BREN, Lewis and MG42. The M14 was inspired by the FG42.

Number 6
March 11, 2008, 05:06 PM
The Army Times is not known for its unbiased reporting style. It has consistently glorified HK designs over the M4, and has been consistently a detractor of the M4. A couple things the article does not mention.

The AWG is tasked to develop tactics and to test gear for the Army. Having a different rifle does not meet that requirement.

Other groups that use the 416 still have theirs, because their mission favors that design.

The dust test while interesting does not really prove much. What the data does say is that if you are in a dust storm for 2.5 hours, don't clean your weapon, and then expend 6000 rounds, your M4 will only work 98.6% of the time. The dust test was interesting, but it does not prove that the M4 is a bad system.

Ash
March 11, 2008, 05:09 PM
I would think the M14 was inspired by the M1 Garand...

Ash

SMLE
March 11, 2008, 05:13 PM
I would think the M14 was inspired by the M1 Garand...I guess I should clarify; The concept of a selective fire infantry rifle was inspired by the FG42

BattleChimp Potemkin
March 11, 2008, 05:15 PM
Maybe someone in accounting got wind of how much the 416 costs. That can nix alot of decent programs that any military can field. What is the difference between the 416 and the M4 really? Its an expensive M4 with more gadgets and parts. I had no problems with my issue rifle, so whats the big deal? Maybe HK wanted more for the rifles than what we are willing to pay (they give generous discounts, so Ive heard, to govts, but maybe they took advvantage of it). I would like to know more about this. Maybe someone upper in the AWG got the data they needed about the HK weapons, making the soldiers turn them in to issue them another test weapon, using the M4 until the newest weapon is issued? Is this what the AWG's mission is to field test under actual situations various weapon systems?

R127
March 11, 2008, 05:26 PM
R127, there could never have been CMP M14's because once a machine gun always a machine gun. That bit has always been nothing more than wishful thinking - regardless of the Clinton administration's destruction of M14's.

Yeah I know but it isn't the gun's fault. They could at the very least be parted out same as all those AK's we had to buy that are going to be thrown away or who knows what, sent to help fuel strife in Rawanda or something based on the M-14 experience. I may be the only one who is but I'm awfully sick of supporting this monkeybusiness.

strangelittleman
March 11, 2008, 05:27 PM
One of the AWG's main missions is to train the Army's light infantry units in the formation and employment of SKTs ( Small Kill Teams). This similar to the Marine Corps H/K (Hunter/Killer) team concept from the 80's.

Ash
March 11, 2008, 05:36 PM
Well, the M14's were parted out. For the longest time you could get genuine M14 parts through the CMP for much less than commercial prices.
SMLE, my statement about the M14 and Garand were tongue-in-cheek. The AVT-40 is another select-fire infantry rifle with the same layout as the M14.

Ash

R127
March 11, 2008, 05:49 PM
I knew some were parted out but I thought that was a long, long time ago. From what I heard from the pro-CMP M-14 community was there were still something like up to maybe 60,000 M-14's in storage in the US. The last big movement of them I was aware of, other than the ones that were scrapped, were the ones sent to Haiti.

I don't think we'll ever see hide nor hair of those 416's but it does make me wonder if all the old A2's are going to hit the market in parts form? AFAIK all the M-16's going to Iraq and Georgia are all brand new. I think but I'm not sure that Israel gets new stuff too.

Ash
March 11, 2008, 06:38 PM
I think the M14's are now virtually gone - a result of the Clinton administration's selling or destroying them.

Ash

TexasRifleman
March 11, 2008, 06:42 PM
there could never have been CMP M14's because once a machine gun always a machine gun.

And there could never be a Congressionally mandated company that sells rifles to people without going through an FFL either.

Oh wait, there is......Congress said "do it".

You mean maybe Congress could say "that whole once a machinegun thing? stop doing that....."

But it's a moot point now since Clinton had them all melted down.

evilelvis
March 11, 2008, 06:43 PM
I'm a civilian with a non gas piston AR15 and one with the gas piston design...and with my puny limited arm chair knowledge, I like my gas piston one a lot better. Far cleaner 10x more rounds shot through it. Oh and it was Wolf ammo too.

So what could possibly be the real reason to pull the 416s?

strangelittleman
March 11, 2008, 06:44 PM
Didn't some of the M14s go to the Baltic republics of Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania? I wonder if we could get them back?

R127
March 11, 2008, 06:49 PM
Not likely. Right now several of those countries are destroying their own C&R eligible surplus firearms because of a mix of political and foreign aid agreements. I think most of it is coming from UN initiatives, like everything else.

RockyMtnTactical
March 11, 2008, 06:49 PM
I hope it works better than the pmags did.

Interesting statement. Do you care to elaborate???

Ash
March 11, 2008, 07:06 PM
Texas, the DCM existed long before FFL's. LONG BEFORE. As in, a generation before. I would have thought you knew that. Could it be creased today? No. But like many government entities, it survived. Though now, it is spun-off and, as a result, will go out of business when suitable parts and non-machine guns are no longer available.

Ash

Number 6
March 11, 2008, 07:56 PM
I'm a civilian with a non gas piston AR15 and one with the gas piston design...and with my puny limited arm chair knowledge, I like my gas piston one a lot better. Far cleaner 10x more rounds shot through it. Oh and it was Wolf ammo too.

So what could possibly be the real reason to pull the 416s?

No one really knows outside of those who made the decision. I would imagine that the decision has nothing to do with politics or with either the M4's or the 416's capabilities, but instead has to do with the task that the AWG is designed for, but I admit that is just speculation on my part.

As to your piston AR running cleaner than your DI AR, that really does not tell us anything about either rifle's ability to perform a given task. One gets dirtier than the other, that is fine, but does that mean that the DI system is unreliable? The 416 has a use, and that is with short barrels and with suppressors. Other than those applications it offers no real improvement over the standard M4.

george29
March 11, 2008, 08:53 PM
Big Business + Politicians = A Big F You To Our Troops.

Thin Black Line
March 11, 2008, 09:35 PM
Interesting statement. Do you care to elaborate???

No problem:

http://thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=264210&highlight=magpul+pmag

Don't get me wrong --I'd love to see a reliable AMERICAN made system
and if it's the Bushmaster/Magpul ACR, that would be great.

I just don't want to see a situation where the first shipment of ACRs go
out and have the end-user work out the bugs.

Wouldn't you agree?

SG Merc
March 11, 2008, 09:41 PM
Well we all know exactly where a couple hundred 416's just went to get turned into ground meat.

Now THAT'S the real waste in money.

The Scout
March 11, 2008, 09:56 PM
Didn't something like this happen when the SEAL's were formed? The gov't tried issuing M14s to them that they didn't want, so an officer finally went out and bought CAR-15s (not sure, it could have been another carbine) out of his own pocket because they fit the job description.

Andrewsky
March 11, 2008, 10:09 PM
Actually the SEALs didn't have M14s early on.

They replaced their .30 cal Carbines with AR-15s in the early sixties.

The SEALs initially considered the M14 to be too heavy for their uses (going under water, firing on full automatic).

The Scout
March 11, 2008, 10:11 PM
Yes, thanks for clarifying that, I guess it didn't come out as clearly as I wanted.

TexasRifleman
March 11, 2008, 10:22 PM
Texas, the DCM existed long before FFL's. LONG BEFORE. As in, a generation before. I would have thought you knew that.

Certainly I know that, but it's not really the point is it. When FFLs came out the CMP was not forbidden from continuing to do business because it was enacted with an act of Congress. Congress could easily tell the ATF to drop the "once a machinegun" rule, or to leave law abiding gun dealers alone, or any number of other things.....

But they haven't, and won't.

PeteRR
March 11, 2008, 10:30 PM
You know how you can tell when you're winning a war? When the REMF's start enforcing the rules.

SlamFire1
March 11, 2008, 10:41 PM
Coburn took up the issue following a Feb. 26 Army Times report on moves by elite Army Special Forces units to ditch the M4 in favor of carbines they consider more reliable. Since then, Coburn has questioned the Army’s plans to spend more than $300 million to purchase M4s through fiscal 2009 rather than considering newer and possibly better weapons available on the commercial market.

In my opinion this is the link. I have no doubt that Colt lobbyists have done what they can to get alternative rifles out of the hands of US troops. Colt knows that a successful alternative puts the M4 monopoly in jeopardy.

All it takes is a few questions from a Congressional staffer, and Government officials will take the path of least resistance and eliminate the problem. HK out, Colt back in.

R127
March 11, 2008, 10:43 PM
TexasRifleman, the president has the authority to tell the ATF to drop the "once a machinegun..." nonsense also. In fact he has the authority to tell the ATF to go sit on their hands. Just imagine if we stopped playing good cop/bad cop every election and actually got an honorable man or woman into office. Wouldn't that be something? Imagine how much money this country could make by first taking taxpayer money to buy a whole bunch of guns like Bulgarian AK-47's, M-14's or HK 416's and then sell those same taxpayer bought rifles back to the taxpayers when they are retired for whatever the reason of the moment is. And everybody would be happy.

TexasRifleman
March 11, 2008, 10:46 PM
TexasRifleman, the president has the authority to tell the ATF to drop the "once a machinegun..." nonsense also.

Oh yes, I know.

Bush I was anti, Clinton destroyed all the M14s, Bush 2 said he'd sign the AWB if it got to him.

Not filling me with hope here man........

Ash
March 11, 2008, 10:54 PM
Once a machine gun always a machine gun is not related to FFL transfers. A rifle sold by the CMP can be owned by anyone in America under normal circumstances. But, so can any rifle sold through an FFL. A CMP Garand, 1916 Mosin, 1903, or any other rifle is identical to a Garand, Mosin, 1903, etc. sold at a Pawn shop. Indeed, many CMP Garands are bought and sold by FFL's.

However, a machinegun cannot be owned by just anyone. All the tax requirements must be met. AND, machineguns are not at all related to the CMP/DCM mission, which is to create competent marksmen.

While a semi-auto only M14 would fit the marksmanship bill, it still is a machinegun by ATF standards. Selling a machinegun, then, is not within the purvue of the CMP/DCM nor has it ever been. Machineguns are not carried by average soldiers. The DCM/CMP was created to increase the marksmanship competency of conscripts prior to enlistment. The CMP never had BAR's or 1919 Brownings available for sale - nor did anyone try to make them available that I am aware of.

Besides, when it comes to marksmanship training, the M14 can do nothing better than the Garand. Not to start that whole mess over again, but in marksmanship training, one needs nothing more than a single shot. In training to shoot well, there is nothing at all that an m14 can do better than a Garand. Even if one wishes to argue that an M14 is more accurate, for the purposes of the CMP such accuracy is irrelevant. A man trained on a Garand will be just as competent a marksman as one trained on the M14. As training rifles go, they are the same. You use the sights the same. They have the same triggers. They are, as a general rule, equally accurate.

So, there was never a reason to make M14's special in the eyes of the law regarding machineguns for the CMP. The Garand accomplishes the same mission as established for the CMP. EXACTLY the same mission.

Ash

(By the way, I would have loved to have been able to buy an m14 through the CMP, so I am not happy it never happened. I just understand why.)

Number 6
March 11, 2008, 11:03 PM
Big Business + Politicians = A Big F You To Our Troops.

Why assume a conspiracy? Where in the article does this mention any politicians, or the influence of big business? What you propose is speculation with no evidence to back it up. If the decision were to deal with the stipulations and mission of the AWG, would that mean that the troops are being disserved?

Well we all know exactly where a couple hundred 416's just went to get turned into ground meat.

Now THAT'S the real waste in money.

I would imagine that the Army will find other uses for them, or give them to units that still use the 416. Why do you assume they will be destroyed?

R127
March 11, 2008, 11:07 PM
None of that bears up to scrutiny.

So the CMP was established to increase the marksmanship ability of the average recruit prior to his being joined to the military. Obviously then CMP should be teaching marksmanship on whatever the standard issue rifle is. Every issue M-4 or M-16 I've ever heard of is select fire, no semi auto present and that makes all of them machineguns according to the ATF. Therefore the CMP should be distributing machineguns for marksmanship training. In fact the idea that machineguns of any kind are no good for developing marksmanship is also wrong. You can learn to shoot anything well within its parameters. There is nothing wrong or invalid about learning to shoot any kind of machinegun well unless you really believe the Brady Bunch's "spray and pray" nonsense.

It didn't happen because some politicians are scared of losing their monopoly on force. The same reason they pushed through the NFA in the first place. There is no logical or legal reason M-14's, M-16's or any future standard issue rifle should not be available through the CMP.

Ash
March 11, 2008, 11:25 PM
You miss the point. It isn't about familiarizing citizens with current hardware. It is about having citizens who are competent marksmen. A Garand does that just fine. So would a single-shot 22. A machinegun, however, would not.

The military has traditionally often trained with weapons that were not standard combat arms of the day. Krags or Mosins in WWI, Mossberg 22's in WWII, and others. In any case, the military will suitably train soldiers in how to use the current service arm. The goal of the CMP is to have them reasonably competent marksmen at that point.

And, the fact is, whether we like it or not, the CMP has failed in its mission as the number of 18 year olds who are CMP shooters is very, very low - no greater a number than those who are already predisposed to hunting/shooting sports. The CMP exists today to enhance the collections of collectors and provide a wholesale source for dishonest dealers (dishonest because they get the rifles not to train with, but to sell at a hefty profit).

Instead of moaning that we can't get Colt M-16A1's (or M14's) from the CMP, we should be glad it hasn't been cancelled.

Ash

george29
March 11, 2008, 11:35 PM
Why assume a conspiracy? Where in the article does this mention any politicians, or the influence of big business? What you propose is speculation with no evidence to back it up. If the decision were to deal with the stipulations and mission of the AWG, would that mean that the troops are being disserved?


And the answer is...


You know how you can tell when you're winning a war? When the REMF's start enforcing the rules.



I don't assume conspiracy out of ignorance of history, it's just the first possibility to assume when the REMF's get involved. A once upon a time best friend still works for the Deputy Chief of Staff of an Armed forces (not USA) and his job is to tell the Brigade Commanders / Divisional Commanders how many shells or bullets or god forbid mortars or rockets they may fire for practice. Everything in todays world is viewed as a commodity, including human life. Sorry, its just the way modern armies are run today so yes, IMO, it is all about money, and politics....

I have no doubt that Colt lobbyists have done what they can to get alternative rifles out of the hands of US troops. Colt knows that a successful alternative puts the M4 monopoly in jeopardy.



.....are the main reason behind what the troops have and how much of it they have. Uf you think I am being anti-patriotic, please feel free to visity your nearest VA and ask the wounded and the ill how they are being treated (Agent Orange, Gulf War syndromes, Walter Reed). I believe that Colt indeed put the pressure on some bigwig that does their bidding for them and these rifles were removed for the exact reason given by SlamFire1. In this case, yeah, I do believe conspiracy.

Eightball
March 11, 2008, 11:45 PM
Look, a quick research into the armytimes has shown that they'd rather the military's mainline rifle be the premier melt-o-matic HK XM8, or the "SOCCOM only uses it in short-barrel suppressed versions with very specific roles to fill" HK 416. They're HK fanboys, trying to make this seem more of a crisis than it happens to be--which, to my understanding of why the AWG exists, is no crisis at all.

I fail to see the hype, other than that the HK fanboys over at ArmyTimes are whining again.

EDIT: And oh, for you anti-PMAG guys--they IDed and fixed that problem. Not an issue anymore.

jrfoxx
March 11, 2008, 11:47 PM
Wasn't there somebody named Garand who was originally Canadian?
Denis
Why is it that EVERY time Americans start talking about the Garand, some Canadian has to spoil our chest thumping ego trip with the truth? Cant y'all just have a Molson, turn on a Leafs game and keep yer mouth shut? :D:neener:

More on topic, inst the biggest fator in the reliability of the M4 really the fact that most have barrels under 14.5" which tends to reduce reliability from the shortening the gas system below what the platform was really designed to work with? When they did the dust tests, was it a 10.5" M4? Wonder how a 16" or 20" m16 would have fared in the same test (maybe it was done and I just dont recall).My guess would be any M4/M16 with a barrel closer to the original design lenght would have done better than a 10.5" barrel.Just my opinion based on lots of reading and heresay, as I have noinfantry experiance, so I have no idea in real life.As to the HK issue.Who knows why they pulled them, and we likely never will know the truth.Could be a politcal/corporate conspiracy, could be money, could be that those in charge felt the group had done what they needed to do with them for now, so they took them back and gave them what everyone else has, etc.

AndyC
March 12, 2008, 12:28 AM
Give the guys at the sharp end the mission, but let them choose the tools to accomplish that mission.

RockyMtnTactical
March 12, 2008, 12:45 AM
No problem:

http://thehighroad.org/showthread.ph...ht=magpul+pmag

Don't get me wrong --I'd love to see a reliable AMERICAN made system
and if it's the Bushmaster/Magpul ACR, that would be great.

I just don't want to see a situation where the first shipment of ACRs go
out and have the end-user work out the bugs.

Wouldn't you agree?

As far as I know, most of the issues with the PMAG's were short lived and many people had no problems with their original PMAG's. Also, the PMAG's are an excellent product in my opinion. It's not unrealistic to think that the first batch of any particular product may be lagging behind in the quality arena for a short time.

I do not want to be the first person to buy an ACR... I want to know how it is working for people first.

I am not a fan of throwing brand new rifle designs into the hands of our entire military w/o extensive testing and in the middle of a war.

As much as I love the AR15, that was one of the problems with it from the beginning. It was thrown into the fray without extensive testing, problems needed to be diagnosed on the fly and people died because of it.

I have doubts that the first shipment of ACR's will go to the US military.

amprecon
March 12, 2008, 12:05 PM
I don't try to make sense of anything the government does anymore. There is so much pocket lining and corruption going on. When you follow the money trail it'll make sense then, but at the cost of efficiency, common sense and fiscal responsibility. When there's limitless finances to do whatever you want your regard for how and when it's spent goes out the window and they (politicians) all end up lining each others pockets.
These wanker politicians need to start being held accountable. This is getting outta hand.

Travis McGee
March 12, 2008, 10:53 PM
"The Brown Bess musket was good enough for my father, and by Gawd, it's good enough for you bloody troops!"

Same general, different century.

akodo
March 13, 2008, 01:04 PM
The decision reverses a policy that allowed the AWG to buy 416s instead of carrying M4s when it was established three years ago to help senior Army leaders find new tactics and technologies to make soldiers more lethal in combat.


“The AWG is empowered to procure, on a limited basis, select non-standard equipment to assist in identifying capability gaps and advise on the development of future requirements. To this end, the Asymmetric Warfare Group did purchase H&K 416 rifles,” said Army spokesman Lt. Col. Martin Downie.

Those two bits make it clear to me that this group is allowed go aquire non-standard gear in hopes that they will find some good stuff, test it, and the the army will start buying it in bulk and issuing it.

They "discovered" the 416 was better for reasons X, Y, and Z. The army said 'that's great, but we aren't going to buy any of them, too expensive, plus dumb to switch weapons in the middle of a war'

At this point there is nothing to be learned by that unit keeping it's 416s, and in fact, becauset hey have 416s they may not be looking as closely at other accessories aimed at working with the M4.

It is proper that they go back to using the M4

If the military should switch from M4 to something else is immateiral. Right now the military ISNT switching

Gifted
March 13, 2008, 06:04 PM
IIRC, the CMP found a way to convert the M14s that the bureau was happy with, and were getting ready to sell when Klinton shipped them off, to the Balkans as I recall.

TexasRifleman
March 13, 2008, 06:26 PM
IIRC, the CMP found a way to convert the M14s that the bureau was happy with

That was the Internet talk, but there was never anything actually done to make that happen.

And Clinton didn't ship that many off, most he just destroyed.

170,000 went to Balkans, the rest destroyed. That would be 480,000 rifles destroyed. Sickening.

HorseSoldier
March 13, 2008, 07:21 PM
Those two bits make it clear to me that this group is allowed go aquire non-standard gear in hopes that they will find some good stuff, test it, and the the army will start buying it in bulk and issuing it.

They "discovered" the 416 was better for reasons X, Y, and Z. The army said 'that's great, but we aren't going to buy any of them, too expensive, plus dumb to switch weapons in the middle of a war'

At this point there is nothing to be learned by that unit keeping it's 416s, and in fact, becauset hey have 416s they may not be looking as closely at other accessories aimed at working with the M4.

All the AWG does is buy exactly the same stuff CAG is carrying. They don't do this to test and evaluate, they do this because it's the ultimate wannabe faux-SOF unit, composed of a bunch of staff officers with a big budget to blow on the latest commando and secret squirrel fashions.

Why they were ever authorized to arm themselves with anything outside the Big Army inventory in the first place is a complete mystery to me.

BorisDaBastid
March 13, 2008, 07:31 PM
^ maybe the same reason it took almost 10 years to get Stoner's original design approved....
sheer pigheadedness in the pentagon.

Darthbauer
March 13, 2008, 08:04 PM
No problem:

http://thehighroad.org/showthread.ph...ht=magpul+pmag

Don't get me wrong --I'd love to see a reliable AMERICAN made system
and if it's the Bushmaster/Magpul ACR, that would be great.

I just don't want to see a situation where the first shipment of ACRs go
out and have the end-user work out the bugs.

Wouldn't you agree?


Ah, I see. Im glad they took care of that a while ago.


I have doubts that the first shipment of ACR's will go to the US military



Ive heard second quarter of 08 for cilivians and 3rd or 4th quarter for military.

Eightball
March 14, 2008, 12:22 AM
Ive heard second quarter of 08 for cilivians and 3rd or 4th quarter for military.Whose military, which branch, which variant, and what's your source?

And why would they pick the ACR when SOCOM is using the SCAR, I wonder?

Number 6
March 14, 2008, 03:59 AM
Whose military, which branch, which variant, and what's your source?

And why would they pick the ACR when SOCOM is using the SCAR, I wonder?


I think someone was positing the ACR as a possible replacement. The ACR was not even considered for the dust test, nor was the XCR. The dates given were for Bushmaster and Magpul offering the ACR for military sales, if the military were interested.

I don't assume conspiracy out of ignorance of history, it's just the first possibility to assume when the REMF's get involved. A once upon a time best friend still works for the Deputy Chief of Staff of an Armed forces (not USA) and his job is to tell the Brigade Commanders / Divisional Commanders how many shells or bullets or god forbid mortars or rockets they may fire for practice. Everything in todays world is viewed as a commodity, including human life. Sorry, its just the way modern armies are run today so yes, IMO, it is all about money, and politics....

But what bearing does that have on this particular decision? Do the events you describe show a pattern of behavior, or are you only citing one event to prove the rule? There are other reasons for the Army’s decision, given what we know about the AWG, that are more likely.

.....are the main reason behind what the troops have and how much of it they have. Uf you think I am being anti-patriotic, please feel free to visity your nearest VA and ask the wounded and the ill how they are being treated (Agent Orange, Gulf War syndromes, Walter Reed). I believe that Colt indeed put the pressure on some bigwig that does their bidding for them and these rifles were removed for the exact reason given by SlamFire1. In this case, yeah, I do believe conspiracy.

Did I accuse you of being unpatriotic? I have no doubt you are a patriotic American, my issue is with the logic of your argument. Appealing to injured veterans does not bolster your argument and is really only an appeal to emotion. Please, do not place words in my mouth.

As to Colt putting pressure on the Army, why hasn't the 416 been pulled from all units then?

plexreticle
March 14, 2008, 08:46 AM
Show me an irrational military supply decision and I'll show you someone taking kickbacks or hoarding equipment.

HorseSoldier
March 14, 2008, 09:38 AM
I think someone was positing the ACR as a possible replacement. The ACR was not even considered for the dust test, nor was the XCR. The dates given were for Bushmaster and Magpul offering the ACR for military sales, if the military were interested.

Rumor these days seems to be that there are going to be additional tests and evaluations of competing designs/possible replacements for the M4. The Masada/ACR could be falling in on some of those.

LongRangeInternational
March 14, 2008, 10:33 AM
I sincerely doubt anyone at that unit's level is taking kickbacks. They had some money to spend, they bought some shiny new toys, and now they're being told they aren't anymore special than anyone else.

trbon8r
March 14, 2008, 10:59 AM
Rumor these days seems to be that there are going to be additional tests and evaluations of competing designs/possible replacements for the M4. The Masada/ACR could be falling in on some of those.

I'd be surprised if the ACR isn't evaluated at some point by the military. With the financial and lobbying muscle of Cerebrus Capital behind Bushmaster, I guarantee they have their eyes on some government contracts. Cerebrus isn't going around buying up all these gun makers and manufacturing capacity just so they can sell guns to civilians.

Gaiudo
March 18, 2008, 03:52 AM
No problem:

http://thehighroad.org/showthread.ph...ht=magpul+pmag

Don't get me wrong --I'd love to see a reliable AMERICAN made system
and if it's the Bushmaster/Magpul ACR, that would be great.

I just don't want to see a situation where the first shipment of ACRs go
out and have the end-user work out the bugs.

Wouldn't you agree?

Thats what happens when you buy a pre-production mag - now, granted, you didn't know that when you bought it, but according to the dates of your mag purchases you did indeed get a pre-production test mag. To be honest, thats a bit different than a production model.

If you enjoyed reading about "Army unit told to turn in their HK 416's" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!