New H&K M4 at SHOT!!!


PDA






Greg Bell
February 12, 2004, 02:32 AM
Go see at HKPRO.COM!!!!


Why?:uhoh:

If you enjoyed reading about "New H&K M4 at SHOT!!!" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
Andrew Wyatt
February 12, 2004, 02:51 AM
HK needs business badly!

Greg Bell
February 12, 2004, 02:56 AM
I guess so...sheesh. I guess they finally worked out all of the kinks on the XM8:D :D :D

squibload
February 12, 2004, 08:15 AM
Get ready for a massive influx of "HK pre-ban uppers" on eBay.

444
February 12, 2004, 08:21 AM
SWEET

artherd
February 12, 2004, 08:27 AM
WANT... MORE... INFO!!!

Daddy likes.

Frank in MT
February 12, 2004, 09:07 AM
Spoke with an HK Rep recently and he told me that they are also thinking of bringing the M4 out in ........ .45 acp as well !!!! Now THAT would be fun.

FN in MT

squibload
February 12, 2004, 09:18 AM
M4 out in ........ .45 acp as well !!!!

OK, now that's interesting...not just another M4 built on the same forgings with a different company's engraving on the side...

whm1974
February 12, 2004, 09:33 AM
Why?

To sell?

Spoke with an HK Rep recently and he told me that they are also thinking of bringing the M4 out in ........ .45 acp as well !!!! Now THAT would be fun.

This is diffenfet

Bill Meadows

Kharn
February 12, 2004, 09:50 AM
Gas Piston?
ZM Weapons-style moving gas tube(s)?
Normal gas tube?

Kharn

MLC
February 12, 2004, 11:37 AM
Gas piston
As per HKPRO

Kharn
February 12, 2004, 11:42 AM
Should I just direct-deposit my next few paychecks to their account and get it over with?

Kharn

Nightcrawler
February 12, 2004, 11:48 AM
Yes, apparently it has a gas piston, though you wouldn't know from looking at it.

Wonder who'd buy it?

Greg Bell
February 12, 2004, 12:15 PM
Go to HKUSA's website for details. Looks like a stop-gap for the XM8.

Skunkabilly
February 12, 2004, 12:16 PM
10-Ring
Me
Schuey2002

to name a few :D

(after I become a citizen of course)

SCarruth
February 12, 2004, 12:16 PM
Oh great, another m4. Coming from HK its going to probably cost an arm a leg and perhaps portions of genitalia as well.
They make good products but way overpriced

MLC
February 12, 2004, 12:28 PM
How long will the construction of their US plant take?
That should have an impact on prices.

QuarterBoreGunner
February 12, 2004, 12:30 PM
Now this is interesting; the Heckler & Koch USA page (http://www.hk-usa.com/pages/Military-LE/rifles-carbines/m4.html) says that is uses a direct gas piston system... and it can be retrofit to existing rifles via altering the handguards or rail system.

Not to start another 'the AR SUCKS!' flame thread ( I personally LIKE the AR quite a bit) I've always disliked the gas system. How does George Hill put it on his page? (which is down for some reason right now) Oh yes...' the AR defecates where it eats...'

If they sell just the upper, I might be interested.

Nightcrawler
February 12, 2004, 12:35 PM
Okay, but all you guys that have passionately argued on the internet about how great direct-gas-impingement is, and how it's fine and reliable and isn't that hard to keep clean, you can't buy this.

Well, you can, but I'll tease you. :neener:

Seriously, I'd like to examine one to see how it's set up. Curious that they'd fit a gas piston setup into what appear to be regular handguards.

But, coming from HK, it probably will be very expensive. There's already an expensive Gas Piston AR upper (http://www.zmweapons.com/index.htm), and that isn't a big seller...

But then, having "HK" stamped on the side of something almost guarantees somebody will buy it.

Skunkabilly
February 12, 2004, 12:57 PM
But, coming from HK, it probably will be very expensive. There's already an expensive Gas Piston AR upper, and that isn't a big seller...


I wonder if Daewoo will make AR uppers? Would that be legal?

Nightcrawler
February 12, 2004, 01:02 PM
Would that be legal?

Hmm...as long as it didn't have "pre-ban" features, and the assembled rifle had enough US parts to make it legal (I can never remember if it's five or seven....in any case it shouldn't be difficult with a complete US-made lower receiver, unless the receiver counts as only one piece for some reason) then I don't see why not.

Skunkabilly
February 12, 2004, 01:12 PM
http://www.hk-usa.com/pages/military-le/mil-leimages/m4yumaburst.jpg

Tee hee hee :evil:

Roadkill Coyote
February 12, 2004, 01:13 PM
When was the last time that so many companies were making the same, or close variations on, the same basic design?

Nightcrawler
February 12, 2004, 01:18 PM
When was the last time that so many companies were making the same, or close variations on, the same basic design?

Domestically? World War II, probably, when you had fifteen different companies churning out each type of weapon.

Internationally, the FAL rifle was produced, in one variation or another, in Belgium, Argentina, Brazil, England, Australia, Canada (I think) New Zealand, (I think, briefly) Germany, and Austria.

Then, of course, you have the widespread production of the Kalashnikov, but most of this was done by state industries and not by "companies" per say.

Commercially, it's a pretty recent thing. It's because the patents have all expired on the M16 design. Anybody can make one, and sell it for profit without paying royalties. Furthermore, given that the US military uses this design, there's a very wide production base. Many companies don't actually MAKE their AR-15 clones, they just finish them and stamp their logos on them. The actual parts are made by various forging companies, and so forth.

DMK
February 12, 2004, 01:48 PM
When was the last time that so many companies were making the same, or close variations on, the same basic design? Well, there's the 1911.

I wonder which design has more clones? The 1911 or AR-15?

Kodiak AK
February 12, 2004, 03:15 PM
1911 hands down.

buzz_knox
February 12, 2004, 03:45 PM
I wonder if Daewoo will make AR uppers? Would that be legal?

100% legal, assuming all AWB considerations are accounted for (no pre-ban features on post-ban rifle).

Obiwan
February 12, 2004, 04:43 PM
Look at how much the Robinson Arms rifles cost......and their biggest improvement over the AR series is the gas system.

Not even H&K would charge more than that!

Nightcrawler
February 12, 2004, 04:56 PM
The Robinson rifle has a lot going for it. It's very modular, even more so than many ARs, allowing its configuration to be swapped around quickly and easily.

It's biggest downfall is that being made by one small company, the price is and will probably remain high, much higher than the rifle it's competing with, which is produced in large quantity by subcontractors and is assembled and sold by a myriad of companies.

Kharn
February 12, 2004, 06:04 PM
ZM Weapons does not use a gas piston, IIRC. They use two gas tubes (one riding inside the other), where one is fixed to the carrier and the other is fixed in the upper, crap isnt blow all over the inside of the reciever, but it still gets inside the carrier.

Kharn

444
February 13, 2004, 12:58 AM
The problem with HK making an M4 clone in .45 ACP would be that there are no pre-ban magazines available unless they had the foresight and business sense to use an existing magazine like the Grease Gun or something along that line.
Of course I don't think HK cares a whole lot about American consumers buying it. However, I can't really see law enforcement or the military having any use for it.

WonderNine
February 13, 2004, 04:09 AM
Hell yea!

A *new* AR-15 style .223/5.56X45mm that doesn't crap where it eats.

Sign me up for a few 20" models.

I'd like to know how accurate they expect it to be.

Gabe
February 13, 2004, 04:16 AM
From HKPRO.com

http://www.hkpro.com/m4pistonclose.jpg

Somesort of short stroke piston. If they can retrofit all M-16s this way forget the XM8.

Buzzsaw
February 13, 2004, 05:14 AM
http://www.hunt101.com/img/101491.jpg (http://www.hunt101.com/?p=101491&c=548&z=1)
http://www.hunt101.com/img/101484.jpg (http://www.hunt101.com/?p=101484&c=548&z=1)
http://www.hunt101.com/img/101485.jpg (http://www.hunt101.com/?p=101485&c=548&z=1)
http://www.hunt101.com/img/101486.jpg (http://www.hunt101.com/?p=101486&c=548&z=1)

http://www.hk-usa.com/pages/Military-LE/rifles-carbines/m4.html

THE HKM4 SYSTEM

Inspired by the resounding success of the midlife improvement program of the British SA80 (L85/L86) Weapons System, Heckler & Koch began a detailed assessment of the technical deficiencies of the standard US-issue M4 Carbine in early 2002.

Combining the lessons learned from this program to the already world renowned design, testing and manufacturing capabilities of HK an
internally funded project was launched to improve the reliability, safety and durability as well as the salient features of the baseline weapon system.
Working with current users from around the globe HK set out to produce an M4-type Carbine that would outperform the baseline weapon and provide the high degree of performance required by the user community, particularly those within the special operations arena who demand more and expect no compromise when lives are at stake.

High-speed video assessment and extensive live-fire testing in extreme operational environments such as the U.S. Army Desert Proving Ground in Yuma, Arizona revealed multiple areas for immediate improvement. Improvements have been made to the internal operating system and miscellaneous component parts to improve reliability in best and worse case scenarios, with all types of ammunition, with all barrel lengths and with and without sound suppressors attached.

A unique user removable gas system can be factory retrofitted to existing weapons and fits within modified hand guards or a modified Rail Interface System (RIS) allowing all current standard accessories and sights to be fitted to the HKM4 as normal.

The HK-proprietary gas system does not introduce propellant gases and the associated carbon fouling back into the weapons’ interior. This radically reduces operator cleaning time, increases the reliability of the weapon and
extends the interval between stoppages.

The elimination of the gas tube typical of the Stoner AR15/M16/M4 direct gas operating system means that the HKM4 will function normally even
if the weapon is fired full of water without first being drained.

To improve reliability, service life and operator safety during obstructed bore occurrences or after extreme extended firing sessions (>300 rounds) HK has produced its famous cold hammer forged barrel for the HKM4 in various lengths to include 10, 14.5, 16.5, and 20 inches.

The highest quality European steel is used in this unique manufacturing process producing a barrel that provides superior accuracy for greater
than 20,000 rounds with minimal degradation. The goal of the program to offer an M4-style carbine that will fire 20,000 rounds without cleaning, lubrication, stoppages, or parts replacement has been realized in the development of the HKM4 Enhanced Carbine.

In addition to the improvements in the baseline weapon HK has produced a high reliability magazine and a proprietary buffer to improve functional reliability as well as an add-on single shot 40 x 46mm AG-C grenade launcher for quick attachment to the RIS without tools.

HK has applied its proven and fielded Safety Blank Firing Attachment and Live Round Excluder Magazine technology to the HKM4 Carbine to eliminate the possibility of live rounds being loaded into and fired through a standard issue weapon outfitted for blank firing only.

While development and validation testing of the HKM4 is still ongoing, it is anticipated that HK will offer retrofit services for existing M4-style
weapons to the HKM4 standard for U.S. and foreign military and law enforcement users. A “ drop in” HKM4 upper receiver module and a complete carbine are also nearing completion.

The HKM4 has been developed by HK for use by military and law enforcement personnel as an interim performance upgrade to existing US M4 carbines to improve solider survivability in combat until the XM8 design is completed, fully tested and available for fielding. The HKM4 is not expected to be available for military or law enforcement deliveries until late 2004. No definitive decision has been as yet made to offer the HKM4 or its components for commercial or retail purchase.

The full potential of the M4 carbine has now been realized with the introduction of the HKM4.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Unique Features:

• Short-stroke piston gas system--
--Improved reliability
--100% function
--No fouling directed into weapon
--Less cleaning
--User removable/exchangeable components
--Insensitive to barrel length or ammunition changes

• Improved buffer system

• Improved steel magazine:
--Improved feeding reliability, durability, service life

• Refined barrel/bolt locking recesses/lugs:
--Improved function

• Improved extractor and spring, buffer:
--Improved function

• Enhanced AG-C add-on 40mm grenade launcher
• HK cold-hammer forged barrel
--Extended service life
--Improved accuracy and user safety

Additional ongoing work:

• Monolithic upper receiver with integral Rail Adapter System
• Improved surface finish, ambidextrous controls
• Safety Blank Firing Adapter and live round excluder magazine
• HK free-floating modular rail system
• Integrated reflex sight with nested IR laser aimer and illuminator


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
HKM4 Specifications
Caliber 5.56mm x 45
Barrel Overall Weight Stock
10 26 & 29.5 7.21 Vltor Collapsible
14.5 30 & 33 3/8 7.09 Vltor Collapsible
16.5 35 7/8 7.47 A2
20 38 8.22 A2

WonderNine
February 13, 2004, 05:36 AM
Somesort of short stroke piston. If they can retrofit all M-16s this way forget the XM8.

Absolutely.

And the same company has been developing the XM8? I think there's something at work behind the scenes here.

Alot of wasted tax dollars, but if somebody comes out with a brilliant idea like a gas piston M-16, then I guess it was all worth it. :rolleyes:

See, I'm used to working for the government so I know how this works...... :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

Kharn
February 13, 2004, 06:11 AM
From the HK website Buzzsaw copied:
The HKM4 is not expected to be available for military or law enforcement deliveries until late 2004. No definitive decision has been as yet made to offer the HKM4 or its components for commercial or retail purchase.

I think that means "Make thier postman go on disability due to the sheer volume of mail he has to carry in every day regarding a civie HKM4."

Also, notice the HK-style add-on sights in the pic Gabe posted. Where's the drooling smiley?

Good thing I havent started my shorty carbine project yet, forget the Bushmaster superlight and everything, this is what I gotta have, if it costs less than I make in a year. But, the exclusion of the ejection port cover sits a little oddly with me.

Kharn

DougCxx
February 13, 2004, 08:00 AM
Wow........ an overpriced copy of a Colt Sporter...... where do I sign?
:|
---------
I am willing to bet several favorite body parts that it certainly won't be cheaper than a Colt.
If it works better for the same price, that would be great....
-but somehow I think it's going to cost twice as much or more, with only marginal improvements.
And apparently they are still deciding if it's t0O r4D1C4L !!!! for ordinary people.
If you are one who already has one of each "M16" from every manufacturer ever then it is one more for the pile. Otherwise I don't see much reason for buying one.
~

444
February 13, 2004, 08:50 AM
"Inspired by the resounding success of the midlife improvement program of the British SA80 (L85/L86) Weapons System"
That is confidence inspiring.

"I am willing to bet several favorite body parts that it certainly won't be cheaper than a Colt."
It is also WAY heavier than a Colt.

If there was ever a non-issue, it is the direct-gas-impingement system of the M16 family of rifles; unless of course someone is just looking for something to complain about.

ny32182
February 13, 2004, 10:52 AM
I think what they mean by "still deciding" is that there is no chance in hell of ever selling it on the commercial market.

I bet the upper alone is over $2000. And its not even hitting the LE market until the end of this year... that means any possible commercial production won't occur for a long time afterward.

Forget that. Looks like I'm going ahead with my Bushy preban upper build at the end of this year.

Beav
February 13, 2004, 11:58 AM
Of course we won't know for some time but I'm thinking...

Will this be better and if so how much better?
If it is significantly better why now after all this time? I realize that the idea isn't new but it seems that none of the big AR companies have bothered with it. So is it a fix for a non-existant or minor problem or are "our" AR companies just not progressive enough?

QuarterBoreGunner
February 13, 2004, 12:07 PM
What am I seeing here?
http://www.swedcom.com/test_images/m4pistonclose.jpg

It also looks like H&K has adapted their diopter sight system for the AR.

I wonder how much modification the handguards take? Also it looks like the gas exhaust port is right under the top handguard- wonder if it gets as hot as my FAL with the steel hanguards does.

edited to resize picture

Schuey2002
February 13, 2004, 03:55 PM
(As I wipe the drool off my keyboard..)

Who do I make this here money order out to??

:D :evil: :D

Wanderer
February 13, 2004, 04:26 PM
This is hilarious! When you're making a prototype weapon for a major military, why not make a new version of their old weapon?:banghead: :rolleyes:

TCD
February 13, 2004, 04:48 PM
This is hilarious! When you're making a prototype weapon for a major military, why not make a new version of their old weapon?

If it trickels down to the rest of us, I'll be happy
:D

I mean, if there is a great way to improve or better the AR15 design, why not? Especially with being able to retrofit existing weapons, I think this is a great idea. Will make the XM8 a harder to sell concept though.

MagKnightX
February 13, 2004, 04:49 PM
I actually think the lines look cleaner and better than any AR I've ever seen.

Still, I won't be holding off on the AR purchase I'm planning, because the worst could happen, and we may never be able to get ARs/AKs/FALs/etc. again. But if there is no new AWB passed, then I will get one of these if possible.

TCD
February 13, 2004, 05:30 PM
Still, I won't be holding off on the AR purchase I'm planning, because the worst could happen, and we may never be able to get ARs/AKs/FALs/etc. again. But if there is no new AWB passed, then I will get one of these if possible.

agreed, I think I'll be snagging an AR or another AK this summer anyways

George Hill
February 13, 2004, 06:09 PM
This is an interesting development.
The M96 was mentioned as using an oprod, and of course it does... but the M96 also has one other major improvement over this HKM4, and that is a fixed ejector.
I'd rather have the SOPMOD version of the M96, which Robinson calls the "RAV02".
http://www.robarm.com/images/RAV02%20FA%20RS20Aug02.jpg
Another advantage is that the Rave uses 7.62MMX39. The question I have is that if 5.56MM Nato was so smokin, why is SOCOM going to a rifle in 7.63X39?
http://www.nationaldefensemagazine.org/article.cfm?id=1345
Sure, commercial and surplus loadings for it are pretty average - but this round could be loaded a lot hotter and I am thinking that is what the SOCOM group is looking at.

This HKM4 is only a partial solution... but it does tackle the biggest issue I have with it. Now if they would have just gotten rid of that star chamber and the "Sproing" then I'd be a lot happier with it.

Unfortunately we cake eating civilians will probably never get an HKM4 or a Robinson RAVE...
But you can get a Robinson M96 Recon... or for 600 bucks less, one of these from Krebs:
http://www.krebscustom.com/RawPhotos/Nov%2003/AK103S-650.jpg
You guys can play around with trying to fix the AR-15... I don't have that kinda time.

artherd
February 13, 2004, 06:12 PM
One M4gery profile 16" bbl for me NOW PLEASE!

atek3
February 13, 2004, 06:50 PM
Now if they would only put a 7.62x39 boltface on the HKM4, chamber it in .26 grendel and sell uppers to civies, I'd be all over that stuff. As soon as I leave the PRK. A battle rifle for the 21st century I'd call it.

atek3

Skunkabilly
February 13, 2004, 08:46 PM
Dude, anyone got a closeup of that frontsight?

Chindo18Z
February 13, 2004, 09:14 PM
Another advantage is that the Rave uses 7.62MMX39. The question I have is that if 5.56MM Nato was so smokin, why is SOCOM going to a rifle in 7.63X39?

George: There is only ONE reason for USSOCOM units generating a Statement of Requirements for 7.62 x 39mm weapons. It is the same reason that the Government uses (primarily) Microsoft Windows...Dominant Market Share.

Every past, current, or potential US SOF battlefield in the world is hip deep in AK-47/AKM variants in that caliber.

During the Cold War years, an AKM was my primary issue weapon. We carried, zeroed, qualified, jumped it, and trained with it...'cause there ain't no 5.56 resupply EVER coming when you are 600-1000km deep into a WWIII landscape. (BTW: Happy Birthday Mr Reagan...and thank you for deficit spending the Soviets into the dirt and out of the arms race).

Most of the guys don't actually like the AK design (reliability yes...accuracy, ballistics, terminal effects, ergonomics no). However, it's nice for the visitors to be able to use the home team's bullets and magazines.

The Robinson (in 7.62 x 39) is looked upon fondly by many in the ranks. Getting someone to cut a check for it is a different question...time will tell.

Feanaro
February 13, 2004, 10:35 PM
This is hilarious! When you're making a prototype weapon for a major military, why not make a new version of their old weapon?

God forbid anyone try to go into business to, gasp, make money. Or even, Lord help us, improve on an old design. :rolleyes:

elkhunter
February 13, 2004, 11:34 PM
Did anybody else notice this?


The goal of the program to offer an M4-style carbine that will fire 20,000 rounds without cleaning, lubrication, stoppages, or parts replacement has been realized in the development of the HKM4 Enhanced Carbine.



ummm.......:uhoh:

It's a damn fine idea, but 20,000 rounds?!?!?!

WITHOUT CLEANING?!?!?:rolleyes:

You never know, it just might be possible, but I will never believe till somebody proves it.

Oh, and by the way I will be first in line to offer my services of shooting off those 20,000 rounds. Or even some of them as long as the ammo is provided for me. hehehe.

modifiedbrowning
February 14, 2004, 01:50 AM
Long live the AR-18!:D

Dorian
February 14, 2004, 12:37 PM
Wonder who'd buy it?


:D

I'm actually quite suprised to see peoples reactions. Both here and on ar15.com.

HK took one of the most popular, but most unreliable weapons, and made it reliable. So of course.. shame on them! *** were they thinking? The freaking newbs! :confused:

I don't understand why everyone is so standoffish regarding this.

And it's heavier? God forbid 2 pounds of RELIABILITY!

Sorry for the blatant sarcasim... Well.. not really ;)

Jeff White
February 14, 2004, 12:44 PM
Dorian said;
I don't understand why everyone is so standoffish regarding this.

And it's heavier? God forbid 2 pounds of RELIABILITY!

Spoken like a man who's never been an Infantryman....2 is nothing when you only carry your rifle from the trunk of your car to the firing line. Two pounds is the weight of the world when you add it to the 70-130 pounds you're already carrying day in and day out.....

And how much reliablity do you need? Nobody is going to get into such a heavy duty firefight that they are going to need to be able to fire 20K rounds before they clean their weapon. And good NCOs won't allow their soldiers to neglect their weapons ....this is a solution lokking for a problem.

Jeff

Greg Bell
February 14, 2004, 01:08 PM
I would gladly trade 2 pounds for reliability. It is too bad we can't ask the rest of Private Lynch's outfit if they would.:scrutiny:

George Hill
February 14, 2004, 03:29 PM
I was an Infantryman. I'd happily take an extra 2 pounds of reliability, but I'd rather that be in the form on the M-14.
:D

If the military is having a problem with over burdening the troops over two pounds of weapon - then the Military needs to be dropping these people for more pushups.
The whole military has become very wussyfied. When I was in, bitching about your gun being heavy was just plain NOT DONE. Bitching about anything other than the Officers and the Food was also just plain NOT DONE. Any such complaning might get one labled as a Wussy and that was not acceptable.
Heavy Pack? Rain? And your on the M-60? Bring it on! That's all you got!? HOOWWAAAAHH!

Today's Army?
:banghead:

Adam
February 14, 2004, 03:35 PM
Spoken like a man who's never been an Infantryman....2 is nothing when you only carry your rifle from the trunk of your car to the firing line. Two pounds is the weight of the world when you add it to the 70-130 pounds you're already carrying day in and day out.....

I was in Polish infantry. And infantryman have only one friend - his rifle. My issue weapon was AK. I don't like this rifle for many reasons, but I love it for one and very important - reliabilty. If someone can give me a more reliable rifle than M16 with the same accuracy and ergonomics I will take it every day instead of AK. AK is much more heavier than M16, so 2 pounds more is not a problem for me. I think the most important thing for combat rifle is reliabilty, than reliabilty and after all reliabilty. Just my 0.02.

Jeff White
February 14, 2004, 04:25 PM
George Hill said;
I was an Infantryman. I'd happily take an extra 2 pounds of reliability, but I'd rather that be in the form on the M-14.

How much field time do you have with an M14? Enough to make a real comparison for reliability?

If the military is having a problem with over burdening the troops over two pounds of weapon - then the Military needs to be dropping these people for more pushups.
The whole military has become very wussyfied. When I was in, bitching about your gun being heavy was just plain NOT DONE. Bitching about anything other than the Officers and the Food was also just plain NOT DONE. Any such complaning might get one labled as a Wussy and that was not acceptable.
Heavy Pack? Rain? And your on the M-60? Bring it on! That's all you got!? HOOWWAAAAHH!

Today's Army?

Hey George, I'll be happy to loan you my copy of A soldier's Load and the Mobility of a Nation by SLA Marshall. More pushups is a pretty flip answer to the very real problem of managing the soldier's load. Two pounds is a lot when you figure in all the other kewl toys we give our grunts to carry. No one ever complained about the load they had to carry in any unit I was in, but its a leaders responsibilty to make sure the soldier arrives in the assault postion in condition to fight. I will bet you a case of your favorite soft drink that this HK upper is not adopted because the tradeoff in weight for a miniscule increase in reliability is not worth it. Any takers?

Jeff

Greg Bell
February 14, 2004, 04:39 PM
I take that bet. Some military units will adopt it, surely. I'll take Diet Coke:D

George Hill
February 14, 2004, 07:12 PM
Only about 4 weeks with one in the field.

Flip or not, it's the truth. The Army is not nearly as tough, salty, or gritty as it used to be and I don't see that as a good thing.
I don't need that book about field loads... I spent 8 years getting very familiar with them personally.
Yes, I know a grunt has a lot to pack around. But 2 pounds isn't a thing if it means solving the rifle's main source of unreliability. Most grunts I know would agree. I dont think the HKM4's adoption will have anythign to do with Field Loads. It's about politics and if HK can grease the right palms or not. It's about the choice of a handful of idiots and if they get the right handful. Pretty much the same why it's always been. The effect on the individual soldier has little to do with it.

This whole thing about a weapon's weight... Gimme a stinking break. Such a conern is not registered when they issue out the MGs and SAWs. When I was given a hog to carry, no one helped carry my ruck. I woulnt expect them to. Another guy did help by packing 2 more belts of ammo but that was it. How much wieght does the M203 give you? No one's gear was altered when we went from LAWs to AT-4s either... My point is that If the weapon is more effective, the military has no problem giving you some extra weight to carry. And an M4 that is less prone to jamming would indeed be more effective.

Feanaro
February 14, 2004, 08:11 PM
I have a math problem for you. You are carrying 78 pounds of various stuff on your back, chest, sides and so on(Just an example number). And you have an eight pound rifle. You are carrying 86 pounds. They take two pounds off the rifle. You are STILL carrying eighty pounds, aren't you?

roo_ster
February 14, 2004, 08:13 PM
I recall a particular fellow who tricked out his M4 with so much SOPMOD (M203, being the main culprit) doohickeys, his M4 weight 'bout as much as a SAW.

Lets face it, the M4 may look cool, but its reliability is weak in an environment where you can't keep it insanely clean. If they increased its reliability SIGNIFICANTLY, 2 lbs would be a fair price.

Jeff White
February 14, 2004, 08:45 PM
George Hill said;
This whole thing about a weapon's weight... Gimme a stinking break. Such a conern is not registered when they issue out the MGs and SAWs. When I was given a hog to carry, no one helped carry my ruck. I woulnt expect them to.

And how much more of the platoon's load did your PSG give you to carry? Probably not much.....

How much wieght does the M203 give you? No one's gear was altered when we went from LAWs to AT-4s either... My point is that If the weapon is more effective, the military has no problem giving you some extra weight to carry. And an M4 that is less prone to jamming would indeed be more effective.

The M203 replaced the M79 and a 1911A1 pistol. For about the same weight as the pistol and ammunition, you have two more rifles in the squad which means your grenadiers aren't sitting out the firefight in the dense foilage where they can't use their grenade launchers. The 84mm warhead of the AT4 gives you the capability to penetrate the heavier armor that the threat was using that we had lost with the 66mm warhead of the LAW....Both of these examples are actual increases in capability. The HK upper adds two pounds to the soldiers load, but gives a miniscule increase in capability. Do you really think that the army will stop cleaning rifles? I know you're in the direct impingment gas systems are the tool of the devil camp :neener: but this is an expensive solution to a non existant problem. M4s are not failing on the battlefield. Sodiers and Marines aren't dying because their M4s are jamming.

I dont think the HKM4's adoption will have anythign to do with Field Loads. It's about politics and if HK can grease the right palms or not. It's about the choice of a handful of idiots and if they get the right handful. Pretty much the same why it's always been. The effect on the individual soldier has little to do with it.

Greasing palms may have everything to do with how we buy equipment for the military, but it's not going to have any bearing on getting the Army to decide that it needs a rifle that's two pounds heavier. The Army is finally recognizing that there needs to be something done about the load we ask our soldiers to carry. One of the ideas GEN Schoomaker is looking at as part of his campiagn to make the Army back into what it used to be is a load czar who will review every proposed new item of equipment and decide if the increase in capability it gives us is worth the additional weight we make our soldiers carry. I doubt that the miniscule increase in reliability that HK says this new upper gives us, will make the cut.

Feanaro said;
I have a math problem for you. You are carrying 78 pounds of various stuff on your back, chest, sides and so on(Just an example number). And you have an eight pound rifle. You are carrying 86 pounds. They take two pounds off the rifle. You are STILL carrying eighty pounds, aren't you?

I don't mean anything personal, but planning like that kills soldiers. A good leader looks at every pound he makes his men carry. Optimal fighting load shouldn't be more then 1/3 body weight. For most soldiers this means around 45 pounds of individual weapons, ammunition, water, protective gear and other mission essential equipment. You are cutting into the effectiveness of your soldiers with every pound more then that you add. I think it's rather cavalier to say it's not worth two pounds because the load is still over 80 pounds.

To the hobbyists here, the miniscule increase in reliability seems like a good trade off. You can look in your safe and say I've got the most reliable, perfect AR in the world. The soldier's needs are different. That two pounds is another magazine of ammo, another stripped MRE, another two hand grenades, another battery or two for his MBITR radio that he can't carry.

Jeff

Jeff White
February 14, 2004, 08:53 PM
jfruser said;
Lets face it, the M4 may look cool, but its reliability is weak in an environment where you can't keep it insanely clean. If they increased its reliability SIGNIFICANTLY, 2 lbs would be a fair price.

And how is it that you know this? Personal experience? Care to relate it?

Jeff

Feanaro
February 14, 2004, 09:01 PM
I don't mean anything personal, but planning like that kills soldiers. A good leader looks at every pound he makes his men carry... I think it's rather cavalier to say it's not worth two pounds because the load is still over 80 pounds.


I do not mean to say that you can simply put pound after pound of equipment on troops without regard for what you are doing or that simply because the load is already heavy, a little more won't matter. It does indeed matter. But what weight have we really saved for the soldier if we shave off two pounds? I am, again, not saying that it wouldn't help. But if we would shave of ten or twenty pounds, that would be a saving. That is what I am getting at. A single saving of two pounds isn't going to make out soldiers incredibly more effective. If we could cut off a pound here, two pounds there, a little more over here and take off ten pounds, that would be a help.

Greg Bell
February 14, 2004, 10:27 PM
Does anybody really believe all the complaints about the M-4's reliability (as reported in Military-week and Defense Weekly, etc) are really all exaggerations? There seems to be a real problem, and I would rather try to cut weight elsewhere if at all possible. My God, if there is one thing that has to work it is your rifle.

Jeff White
February 14, 2004, 11:07 PM
Greg Bell asked;
Does anybody really believe all the complaints about the M-4's reliability (as reported in Military-week and Defense Weekly, etc) are really all exaggerations? There seems to be a real problem, and I would rather try to cut weight elsewhere if at all possible. My God, if there is one thing that has to work it is your rifle.

Yes, they are all exaggerations. They don't match up with my own personal experience or that of most other career soldiers and Marines I know. Military Week and Defense Week are not official DOD publications. Articles like that are controversial and sell magazines. They also may be motivated by advertisers just like a lot of mainstream gunrags are.

The internet has also allowed the Army to rapidly disseminate After Action Reviews and other important information throughout the force. I have seen no official AARs or other reports from operations in Afghanistan, the Phillipines or Iraq that identify and point out any reliability problems with any of our current small arms except the M9 pistol and the M203 grenade launcher. Problems with the M9 seem to be limited to the magazines and problems with the M203 are related to the strength of the barrel latch and it's durability when firing a high number of 40mm illumination rounds. If there were serious reliability problems with the M4, they would have been identified in these official reports. The Army Center For Lessons Learned gets these reports posted as soon as they are available. The Infantry School at Ft. Benning also gets them posted quicky. You need an AKO account, (must be active duty, reserve or guard or retired) to access the reports on the CALL website, but the Infantry School posts some where everyone can read them on theirs:
http://www-benning.army.mil/infantry/index.asp

The only place I hear of unsatisfactory perfomance of the M4/M16 is on internet boards, in the commercial military press and and in the mainstream gun rags. There are plenty of members here who have a lot of experience with this weapon. Personally, I have used the M16 in every climate from the arctic to the desert. It doesn't require a sterile battlefield, in fact you'd be surprised how much dirt and filth it does take to make it stop. The magazines are a weak point, but the new HK mag seems to have fixed that. It's not that big a deal to the soldier or Marine who just DXs a bad magazine anyway.

Two pounds is a lot of weight to add to the system. We're not going to give up the AIMSS accessories, because those things we hang all over our M4s and M16A4s are the very things that allow us to own the night and engage the enemy with accurate fire in the dark, almost as if it was daylight.

The M4/M16 will always be hated by a segment of the shooting community. In their eyes it's not the right caliber, it's got a direct impingment gas system, it's made out of plastic and aluminum and everyone knows real guns are wood and steel etc. etc. But the soldiers and Marines who take it in harms way don't hate it. The complaints from the end users aren't there. echosixmike, Blackhawk6, OEF-Vet, Chindo18Z all have current verifiable experience and if you do a search on their posts on this subject you'll find the same answers I'm giving.

I think HKs new upper is just a pretty neat toy. If they sold them at a reasonable price, I'd buy one to play with. Probably be pretty happy with it too. But I don't think that the Army and Marines need it or want it.

Jeff

Greg Bell
February 14, 2004, 11:16 PM
What about the guys in Iraq like Private Lynch's unit. Apparantly they had quite a few problems with their M-16s. What happend?

George Hill
February 14, 2004, 11:31 PM
http://www.armytimes.com/story.php?f=0-ARMYPAPER-2349045.php

While months of testing lie ahead, Smith and his colleagues were pleased to find that one prototype has fired 15,000 rounds without a jam and without being cleaned.

While the XM8 was not exposed to battlefield conditions, it’s still a feat the current service rifle hasn’t come close to rivaling, said Rich Audette, deputy project manager for PM Soldier Weapons. “I was around for the M16A2 and M4 carbine [development], and I have never seen anything coming out of the box firing like this,” he said.


I'll take an XM-8. In 6.8MM.

This two pound issue is moot... the weapon remains an AR pattern rifle. No thank you.

Jeff White
February 14, 2004, 11:45 PM
Greg,
There are several threads here on that. The ill fated 407th Maintenance Company suffered from a leadership failure, not an equipment failure. No weapon, not the AK, not the M14, not any small arm you can name would have functioned for any time in that sandstorm after being totally exposed to the sand like their weapons were. All of their small arms failed, from the M2 .50 caliber machine gun down to their M16s. Why, because they didn't take even basic steps to keep them free of the talcum powwder like sand before the fight.

PVT Lynch's unit was a maintenance company that supported the Patriot missile system. The soldiers who were assigned to it were mechanics and electricians etc. by trade. They never expected they would ever use their weapons. They worked their tails off keeping the Patriots working (which was their primary mission) and neglected to care for their own weapons. Units like that didn't normally train to defend themselves. It was the kind of training that no one thought was important because they would normally operate so far in the rear that the chances of them having to defend themselves were pretty slim. If you read the AAR, and the other accounts you'll find many of the soldiers actually first loaded their weapons when they made contact. Which was probably SOP to keep accidents down. If you don't keep your weapons covered when not in use in that environment they will fill up with the fine sand and jam. This happened to all the 407th's small arms. not just the M16s with their too tight for combat (as some like to say) tolerances. Look up some things on operations in North Africa in WWII and you'll find plenty of similar complaints about the mighty (you can dive into the mud filled foxhole, plug the action with mud, pop up and shoot) M1. Look up Iwo Jima and see how our small arms did in the fine volcanic sand there.

The 407th Maintenance Company neglected their weapons and then they were unable to fight when they had to. It wouldn't have mattered what weapons they had. Nothing would have worked in the conditions they were subjected to. The Marines, whose column the 407th passed through and who rescued elements of the 407th after the contact, had no problems with their weapons, of course they expected to have to use them and took care to keep them ready for use.

The new Army Chief of Staff, GEN Peter Schoomaker has put a new emphisis on small arms training throughout the Army. Every soldier is a rifleman is his motto. It's unfortunate that the 407th had to go through what it did to wake people in the combat service support community up.....

Jeff

QuarterBoreGunner
February 14, 2004, 11:57 PM
Can't we ever have a discussion about the AR without it degrading into a shouting match?


pssssssst QuarterBore? Are you new here or what? This ALWAYS happens

Greg Bell
February 15, 2004, 12:00 AM
QuarterBore,

Wow, I thought this was actually a pretty civil discussion. Maybe I haven't been reading between the lines.

Jeff White
February 15, 2004, 12:03 AM
It seems pretty civl to me too....Nothing to read between the lines in my posts...

Jeff

Greg Bell
February 15, 2004, 12:11 AM
Thought so...

Well, I have to admit, I'm out of my depth here. It just seems strange that a respected company like H&K would waste time on the problem if it didn't exist (or was so marginal as to be insignificant). But, I guess I'm going to have to leave this to you M-16/M-4 gurus.

GHB

Jeff White
February 15, 2004, 12:26 AM
Greg,
HK is in business to make money, just like every other company out there. They make a good product. They want to sell it to Uncle Sam. I'm quite sure that their gas system does in fact have a higher mean rounds between failure then the M16/M4 system. The question is; Is that improvement great enough to justify the cost and additional weight?

They haven't had a lot of commercial success lately. The M4 and other 5.56mm carbines are replacing the MP5 in many military and police units. The G36 is not a big seller. The XM8 will probably not be adopted. The USP is a commercial success, but HKs bread and butter is government sales. That's where the big money is. They are just trying to come up with a product they can sell. They seem uninterested in the US civilian market, but I think they will have to eventually break into it to stay in business. Their police and military sales aren't going anywhere...not in comparison to their competitors.

Jeff

rock jock
February 15, 2004, 01:07 AM
They haven't had a lot of commercial success lately. The M4 and other 5.56mm carbines are replacing the MP5 in many military and police units. The G36 is not a big seller. The XM8 will probably not be adopted. The USP is a commercial success, but HKs bread and butter is government sales. That's where the big money is. They are just trying to come up with a product they can sell. They seem uninterested in the US civilian market, but I think they will have to eventually break into it to stay in business. Their police and military sales aren't going anywhere...not in comparison to their competitors.
Not a better analysis have I yet read.

roo_ster
February 15, 2004, 02:09 AM
Lets face it, the M4 may look cool, but its reliability is weak in an environment where you can't keep it insanely clean. If they increased its reliability SIGNIFICANTLY, 2 lbs would be a fair price.

And how is it that you know this? Personal experience? Care to relate it?

Trained up at Benning with a M16A2. I did not like its lack of reliability, then. It did, however, keep me motivated to keep it scrupulously clean to get all the reliability it had to offer. I didn't think that a Basic/AIT weapon was really a fair test, though, considering all the non-rilfe types who probably (ab)used it.

Three years playing Ranger games at Benning & such. Got to see/use the M4A1 & SOPMOD kit deployed. Also got to see/use M16A2s in better condition than Basic/AIT. Still none too impressive. The M4 lost any handiness it might have had, after draping it with M203s, Trijicon ACOGS or CQB sights or Aimpoints, in addition to PEQ-2s. Those doodads did add functionality, however, and THIER weight wasn't resented. A spankin' new M4A1, kept clean as Mother Teresa's conscience, could be reliable.

I developed a definite set of opinions relative to all issued equipment and learned just because the boys at the Infantry School declared it std issue did not mean it was worth squat.

M60 vs M240
The M240 outweighs the M60 by 'round 5 lbs, depending on how it is outfitted, not just 2 lbs. Having used them both, the M240, while being even more of a PITA to lug or move tactically with (esp since the M240G had only that silly carrying handle & no front handgaurds), the M240 was the hands-down superior weapon. Why? Several reasons, chief among them being RELIABILITY.

SAW
When I first used the SAW I despised it. A mess to clean up. It grew on me, though.

Plastic (PLASTIC!!!!) AN/PVS-7B/D Helmet Mount
Arrrgh! I won't say much about this, except that the guys who approved this POS hunk of equipment ought to be BEATEN with a 2x4 until they are within an inch of their lives, tarred, feathered, and put in stocks for public display & ridicule. Thank YOU, Infantry School. Thank YOU, Army Aquisitions system. Thank YOU ITT. Disgusting.

Then I got broke & got to play armorer till discharge, cutting my 20 year career 17 years short due to the violent application of Newton's 3rd Law on a lower extremity during a training jump (plus post-op infections & all sorts of pus-laden joy). I was able to apply my high level of motivation (bordering on insanely compulsive) to running the best arms room on the planet. This is where it got interesting, 'cause a whole lot of USASOC, SOCOM, & foreign types would come to Benning & train. Guess who hosted them? I got to see, use, & fix a lot of equipment not issued to my unit. (Hey, they NEEDED a broke 11B/armorer to go to the shoot house with 'em. Who else would fix their weapons when they broke? Who else would get them 'round base without getting lost? Who else could tell them the where the good strip-cl--AHEM--book stores were located? Books are important; stay in school, kids.)

Anyway, long story less-long, there are folks out there issued weapons a whole lot more reliable & forgiving of filthy conditions than our old M16s & M4s. It was an eye-opener, to say the least. We may have the best fighters & tanks. We don't have the best rifles.

I entered the Army thinking "WOW! I'm gonna be issued a M4!" I left the Army thinking, "wow. I was issued a M4. I hope they didn't pay too much for it" Sorta underwhelmed.

Kestrel
February 15, 2004, 02:21 AM
jfruser,

Anyway, long story less-long, there are folks out there issued weapons a whole lot more reliable & forgiving of filthy conditions than our old M16s & M4s. It was an eye-opener, to say the least. We may have the best fighters & tanks. We don't have the best rifles.

Would you care to elaborate on your observations on the various weapons you encountered? Any comments on the more reliable items out there would be interesting.

Thanks,
Steve

Jeff White
February 15, 2004, 03:49 AM
jfruser,

They actually have a metal helmet mount for NODs now.

I was issued my first M16A1 in December of 74. Turned in my last M16A2 on 31 Oct 03. I think I've seen almost every possible thing that could go wrong with them, go wrong.

I'm curious as to the kinds of malfunctions you had that left you feeling they were unreliable. Most of what I dealt with were magazine or abuse related. I've seen them choke in the sand, but everything else in the unit was choking too. I can't remember seeing one too dirty to function as long as you kept it wet with LSA (yeah I'm old) or CLP. The ones that stopped usually stopped because some kid cleaned his carrier key with cheap Q-Tips and plugged things up with carbon and lint from the Q-Tip. It's not been my experience that they have to be scrupuliously clean to run. Last NTC rotation I did, they gave us some kind of silicon spray to use on our weapons because of some EPA thing with CLP (at least that's what they told us). They still functioned even with blanks.

The worst malfunctions were always caused by bad magazines. Now that they have a decent magazine (made by HK BTW) in the system, I'll stack it up against any other rifle out there. IMHO it's just as good with good aluminum mags.

I've seen beat to death old A1s that were literally held togther with 100 mph tape belonging to the Honduran Army run fine.

Here is a little missive about small arms reliability taken from An Army at Dawn by Rick Atkisson relating the experiences of soldier of the 1st ID in the battle of Djebel el Ahmera:

One SGT stated "the mud would foul your rifle after a few clips, and you'd throw it down and crawl around hollering for another rifle." Later at Sened Station near Maknassy it reported that "men lay on their backs kicking at jammed rifle bolts with their boots." An LT stated "We learned in that battle that sand and oil don't mix."

Pretty damning, isn't it. Now before everybody goes and gets all worked up, the battle at Djebel el Ahmera took place on 23 Dec 42. Sened Station was on 01 Feb 43. The rifles were M1s. Not M16s in OIF.

I don't know of any weapon that is 100% reliable in field conditions. If you don't do basic things to take care of it, it won't work, M1, M4 AK it doesn't matter...they all require some basic care to run.

Jeff

macman37
February 15, 2004, 11:18 AM
I would like to know what "scrupulously clean" is when relating to the M16/M4. Is it once per day...? Several times a day? After how many rounds? I don't mean to drag this out but as Jeff posted, other guns besides the M4s fail. I have seen many pictures from other conflicts where, once the activity stopped (or at least the soldiers were relieved), first thing they did was break the weapon down and clean it... Also what is "scrupulously clean" as related to other types of rifles in the same environment...?

As to the H&K gas piston system, I think it's neat. I could see myself buying one of their uppers if they become available to us civvies.

jim

DMK
February 15, 2004, 12:01 PM
I can't remember seeing one too dirty to function as long as you kept it wet with LSA (yeah I'm old) or CLP. Isn't keeping a weapon well oiled a bad thing to do in dusty or sandy conditions?

Maybe you're talking about different conditions here and I'm just confused because of your quote from WWII N. Africa. Good book BTW!

Quack
February 15, 2004, 12:16 PM
http://www.hkpro.com/SL8gas.jpg
http://www.webshooters.org/photogallery/Shot_Show_04/HKM4D/HkM4D_carbine_gas_system_1.jpg
http://www.webshooters.org/photogallery/Shot_Show_04/HKM4D/HkM4D_carbine_gas_system.jpg

Andrew Wyatt
February 15, 2004, 05:47 PM
Now if they would have just gotten rid of that star chamber and the "Sproing" then I'd be a lot happier with it.


1. the chamber is not a star. those are the locking lug recesses.

2. the gun only spoings if you don't lube the buffer tube area.

3. when you can come up with a better gun than i can build an ar-15 into, i'll concede that the ar-15 needs to be replaced.
http://www.thehighroad.org/attachment.php?s=&postid=799784

Dorian
February 15, 2004, 06:12 PM
Spoken like a man who's never been an Infantryman....2 is nothing when you only carry your rifle from the trunk of your car to the firing line. Two pounds is the weight of the world when you add it to the 70-130 pounds you're already carrying day in and day out.....


You got me there huh? I was only a Radio Operator attached to a Combat Engineer unit. I'm sorry but you hit me where it hurt :(

All of the M-16 I was issued while I was in the service were unreliable. And I can tell you that it was not operator error. While it may have been at the beginning, through 4 different rifles being issued and 2 years in the service... I don't see how it could have been my fault towards the end. And I certianly wasn't the only one.

I would gladly have carried a rifle that was 2 pounds heavier(i didn't mean to say lighter... lol) in exchance for not malfunctioning once every 50-200 rounds.

edit: I accidentally said lighter instead of heavier.

Dorian
February 15, 2004, 06:14 PM
Also... from the images I've seen recently, there is a lot of stuff being added to the M-16s and M-4s in service. rails and lights and combat sights and front handles.... I'd gladly go with the stock version to keep the same weight.

Harry Tuttle
February 15, 2004, 06:34 PM
1) does anyone else see the exposed op rod as an "issue"?

2) i thought Colt had the "production license" for M4s

3) why is the HK barrel such the pig of an HBAR profile under the handguards?
do they need the rigidity for barrel upper tolerance control?

rust collector
February 15, 2004, 09:29 PM
I've got zero experience w/ AR or M16, but it seems to me

a) There aren't many tools out there that couldn't stand improvement,

b) Once you've got improved function you can work on weight and production issues,

c) It's not gonna hurt any of us if the state of the art is advanced, and

d) Product improvement is more likely to be adopted than a new weapon system.

I have read some horror stories about proving, accepting and the games people play when it comes to huge government contracts. I'd like to see the breed improved and if it's worthwhile improvement, the marketplace should make it worth the developer's time. The M-16 decision was made long ago. Making these rifles and carbines demonstrably better should be a continuing objective. They're better than they were 30 years ago, and the next version may be the home run.

Let's hope someone will always have a better idea. Keep em coming.

roo_ster
February 15, 2004, 10:06 PM
Would you care to elaborate on your observations on the various weapons you encountered? Any comments on the more reliable items out there would be interesting.

CAR15
Boy, these weapons were O-L-D. These boys were gettin' no lovin' from their service, to still be toting these relics. On their last legs, so no fair comparison could be made. What was nice is that they were light & really handy.

AKs, mostly 74
They're a rock. Handle & shoot like one, too. More reliable than the AR15 platform (no news, there). I still was not enamored of them, like so many are. I guess I'm a equally grumpy on ARs & AKs, but for different reasons. Ideally suited to poorly trained cannon fodder. Well-trained men deserve better.

G3
I see a lot of guys at the range with CETMEs & G3's with crappy US-made receivers having all sorts of drama. The real deal is drama-free, all good. I am not a plastic assault rifle kinda guy, but I would make an exception for a nice G3. What can I say? It worked well, did the job, & caused no drama.

G36
If you gotta get it in 5.56mm, this is the one to get. What the M4 should be. D@mn HK for producing best in class...again! [I feel a rant coming on...] If our armed services are gonna slap down the shekels for B2s, NMD, & new attack subs, every infantryman ought to get a G36, the best Danner boots made, and load-bearing equipment that has some semblance of comfort (in addition to being able to jump it without some abominable mess of nylon webbing to rig). [OK, I fell better, now...]

FN FAL
Little drama. I didn't get to put many rounds downrange with one of these. I'd like to, though.

M14
Nice. Not as nice as the G3, but surely an impressive weapon. I liked it a lot. Got to spend a week getting intimate with it and was impressed. I really like the way it kept right eating up 7.62 without a hiccup. BTW, this particular example was not pristine, rather, it had had a hard, long slog before it got to me.

I was issued my first M16A1 in December of 74. Turned in my last M16A2 on 31 Oct 03. I think I've seen almost every possible thing that could go wrong with them, go wrong.

I believe it. 20 year's experience is nothin' to sneeze at or dismiss out of hand. Luckily, you can't say, "You were still in diapers when I wuz puttin' rounds down range!" 'cause I was older than your average recriut.

I'm curious as to the kinds of malfunctions you had that left you feeling they were unreliable.

All of 'em. Some I couldn't figure out, some I could. A new mag would cure a goodly number of them.

My favorite was when the extractor would slip off the rim of a fired cartridge, the bolt & carriage moves to the rear, moves forward to scrape another cartridge of the mag, & try to chamber it along with the spent case. What a mess. One time, the poor Ranger who was qualifying was accused of manually feeding a round into the chamber, then mashing the mag release on a loaded magazine. In other words, he was accused of some unsafe weapon handling.

While he was off being gently counselled as to the error of his ways, I used his M4 & tried to induce it to do so again. Yup, it did it again. The chamber just had to get enough carbon in it, the extractor enough carbon under its claw, & the chamber hot enough to keep the case from shrinking as fast as it should. I advised his NCO that he probably wasn't an oxygen thief, safety hazard POS.

After he turned his weapon in, I replaced his extractor spring & a few others for good measure, a policy I instituted whenever a weapon was acting up. I ended up ordering a lot more parts, but I think it prevented a lot of problems.

I can't remember seeing one too dirty to function as long as you kept it wet with LSA (yeah I'm old) or CLP.

LSA has its place. If its whatcha got on hand, it'll do the trick. Esp if you don't have any CLP & end up using the old "GP Cleaner & piping hot water" trick to clean up the weapon(s). LSA will lube 'em right up. And it sticks. I still have some around here some where...

The forward assist is there for a pretty good reason: after putting enough rounds downrange to deposit a goodly amount of carbon in the upper receiver & heat it up, sometimes even the liberal use of CLP won't get the beast to cycle. Had that happen with both M16A2 & M4A1. "SPORTS" for the first few. After a few failures I knew it wasn't the mag not being seated, I just used "TTTTTS" instead of "SPORTS" to get it to go into battery.



The worst malfunctions were always caused by bad magazines.

Bad mags are a really common culprit, just as for any self-feeding rifle/pistol. Once I learned how to order mags, weapon/NOD parts, cleaning supplies & the like (funny, they don't teach 11B that at AIT, jump, RIP) I would pack a bunch on any range we were having. After a soldier had a weapon malfunction, I'd swap their old mag for a new one if it could have in any way been the culprit. Solved a lot of problems.

I would like to know what "scrupulously clean" is when relating to the M16/M4. Is it once per day...? Several times a day? After how many rounds?

Frequency
Depends on how many rounds you're sending down range, the environment, what you're doing in that environment, & if you have any down time for weapons maint. In some conditions, you'll never be able to keep up with the mud, rust, carbon & vegetation.

That being said, the quick & dirty cleaning to keep 'er functioning would include pulling the bolt & carriage, wiping/brushing it off (make sure to get under the extractor), adding some CLP & stuffing it back into the upper after wiping the upper out. If more time is available, disassmble bolt carriage, bolt, etc; wipe/brush worst of the hunks of carbon & brush the chamber. DON'T FREAKIN' LOSE ANY OF THEM MINISCULE PARTS, FTLOG!

As for scrupulously clean, you might as well pull up a chair, 'cause that's gonna take a while...

Unless you disassemble it down to every last roll pin, you can find carbon on a M16/4. Gotta know when to say "when," or you'll end up doing damage. A good NCO is a help, here, in keeping the weapons maint on the sane side of "clean."

*****************

I'm not a RAM-T engineer (Reliability, Availability, Maintainability-Teasting), but I work with them quite a bit in my current occupation. These guys test the bejeezus outta electronics & mechanicals: heat, vibe, shock, EMP, you name it plus simulation of same. Their stuff has to make some really high MTBF (Mean Time Between Failure) numbers. When I think of how simple an AR15 pattern rilfe is in comparison, and the sloppier tolerances & MTBF it gets away with, I shake my head in wonderment at how the AR15 pattern rifle has become our standard arm.

*****************

To be fair to the M16/M4/CAR15, they do have a lot of functionality, esp in M4A1 form. They are better than a pointy stick or a sharp retort. The M4 is a compromise weapon & compromises end up being...a bit lacking in ALL repsects, rather than shining in one. I just wish it was more forgiving in its toleration for lotsa shooting & nasty environments & spotty maint.

I love the 7.62 round & the M14/M1A but would not counsel issuing them to every joe. There are reasons beyond functionality that the AR15 pattern rifles were adopted. For instance, it costs a lot less to transport a round of 5.56 to SWA than a round of 7.62. This may sound trivial, but multiply that by how many rounds expended? Also, most of the Army's marksmanship training is not outstanding. Being able to pack more rounds is nice when you're trained to miss a lot.

Don't EVEN get me started on the M9 Italian Gelding...

George Hill
February 15, 2004, 10:55 PM
1. the chamber is not a star. those are the locking lug recesses.
No ****? I never knew that.... Wow... Learn something every day. I had no idea in all this time since March of 1987 when I was first issued an M-16 that those were locking lug recesses made to fit the matching locking lugs on the bolt...
Thank you very much Captain Obvious.

Just be patient... the XM-8 is on the way.

Now, on to the main point: he is adamant that 5.56 out of an M-4 is not an adequate man-stopping round for their purposes. He says that he cannot count the times a bad guy has been stitched 3-4-5 times across the chest, has crumpled down, been bypassed, and then recovered and fired again at the SFs! They DO NOT TRUST the 5.56 to kill a man or put him down definitively in a fast-paced keep-moving CQB environment. N.W. says "308 kills 'em, 556 wounds 'em." He says the current 556 out of an M-4 makes "icepick wounds."
http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?s=&threadid=65408
Now if we can get this XM-8 in 6.8... then we will have a winner. Not to bash the HKM4, I'm sure it's a dandy... but it seems the people who use them for things other than punching paper or plates or driving them around in a rack are really not all that impressed with M4s at all.
Icepick wounds? I thought these rounds fragmented like grenades and would fell an enemy like thor's hammer... Interesting.
BTW, Wyatt - that was sarcasm... Just letting you know so you are not compelled to try to correct me.

Andrew Wyatt
February 15, 2004, 11:22 PM
Now if we can get this XM-8 in 6.8... then we will have a winner.


no we won't. the XM-8 is simultaneously 1. less modular, 2. more expensive, and 3 more failure prone in the sighting system than any AR weapon i've seen.

I could build an AR that outperforms the XM8 without leaving a 10 row radius around the HK booth.


I suppose we could get rid of the locking lug recesses, but then we'd end up with a semi-auto ross rifle.


.223 is a decent performer with appropriate ammunition, and the AR platform is better than anything currently available.

Greg Bell
February 16, 2004, 12:56 AM
:rolleyes:

Dorian
February 16, 2004, 02:06 AM
no we won't. the XM-8 is simultaneously 1. less modular, 2. more expensive, and 3 more failure prone in the sighting system than any AR weapon i've seen.


http://hk-usa.com/corporate/media/pdf/XM8M4Comparison1.pdf

This is a head to head comparison of the XM8 to the M-4.

It's written by HK, so take it for what it's worth.

But it disproves your first two points if it is telling the truth.

Dorian
February 16, 2004, 02:11 AM
Also... And I can't stress this enough... The most important thing to ME, the ARMY Soldier, about the XM8.... is RELIABILITY! Modularity, price, sites, etc all go right out the window when I'm in a firefight and I try and pull the trigger and nothing happens.

I pull the trigger, I want *BANG!*

The M-16 didn't always do that for me, and I have a great distrust for it. It seems to me that the XM8 is capable of providing just that, and I like that.

And according to LARRYG36 from HKPRO.com, the XM8 internals are extremly similar to the G-36.

George Hill
February 16, 2004, 02:23 AM
From what I understand the XM8 is pretty much just a G36 with different body cladding. Like a Ford T-Bird and a Mercury Cougar.
That being the case, the reliability and the modular accessories that are so important to range puppies are all there. And if the AWB goes away and civilians can get them... then JP Enterprises and the other Game Gear Guys will start tweaking them too. If not - at least our Sons and Brothers will be armed with something that is unquestionably superior to the M16 platform. Might not be as fun as a set of AR-15 Legos, but at least it's a solid weapon.

Andrew Wyatt
February 16, 2004, 04:32 AM
at least our Sons and Brothers will be armed with something that is unquestionably superior to the M16 platform.

having a sight that requires batteries and no backup irons is not unquestionably superior. not a single one of the XM8's had a functioning sight at the show.

the stocks were wobbly, even when in the fully collapsed position, as well.

the safeties were in the standard HK position (out of reach)

I'd pick the old post ban bushmaster i used to have over the XM8 any day of the week, as it was just as left hand friendly.

artherd
February 16, 2004, 04:54 AM
ys that he cannot count the times a bad guy has been stitched 3-4-5 times across the chest, has crumpled down, been bypassed, and then recovered and fired again at the SFs! They DO NOT TRUST the 5.56 to kill a man or put him down definitively in a fast-paced keep-moving CQB environment. N.W. says "308 kills 'em, 556 wounds 'em." He says the current 556 out of an M-4 makes "icepick wounds."


What-ever.


Could the M4/M-16 use improvement? Of course! Any increase in reliability is great! I am ALL FOR the HK M4 (infact, I want one as a civvie, bad...)


I would pose this question:

Have any of you our there using M-16s and M-4s in combat had them fail, when the M1/M14/AK/whatever you were also carrying, and treating the same, didn't fail?

Same question with regards to so-called 'stoping-power'.

Or, to re-phrase, "Other than purely anecdoctal 'evidence', is there any proof that .223 under-performs vs .308, and that the M-16 or M-4 is a sub-standard in reliability?"

I will listen for the sound of crickets chirping.

George Hill
February 16, 2004, 11:39 AM
So what has HK done to improve this? :
http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?s=&threadid=65348

This is the AR's other big drawback by not having a fixed ejector. This plunger type ejector makes this sort of jam far too common.

Jeff White
February 16, 2004, 12:23 PM
George,
How would a fixed ejector solve Werewolf's problem in the other thread. It's not an ejector problem. The problem is most likely short recoil which could have a couple different causes.

Jeff

Andrew Wyatt
February 16, 2004, 01:05 PM
the other problem with a fixed ejector is it relies on bolt velocity to kick the round out. a spring loaded ejector will, as long as the spring is still functioning, kick the round out of the port, irrespective of bolt velocity.

George Hill
February 16, 2004, 01:11 PM
Sorry, I just skimmed through it and read Bartholomew Roberts' post. Something that two other Moderators here have had some experience with. Maybe this isn't the cause of this jam in question... but the result is one of the worst kinds of jams you can get. And HK hasn't fixed it. The only rifle that really has that I am specifically aware of is the M96. Alex beefed up two lugs and then milled out the ejector for use with a fixed ejector. I've never seen a FTE with an M96.
In fact, I've never seen a jam in an M96 that wasn't caused by the M-16 magazine.

Correia
February 17, 2004, 03:47 PM
I hate spring loaded ejectors. I know from personal experience that brass shavings that you can barely see can get in there and jam it. Andrew, if the bolt is coming back too slow to kick out the spent casing against a fixed ejector, then it isn't going to have the power to strip a new round out of the magazine and chamber it anyway, so your argument is pretty much moot. :)

Badger Arms
February 17, 2004, 04:47 PM
the safeties were in the standard HK position (out of reach)What? If anything, the safety gets in the way. I'm not sure you have actually handled a gun if you make that contention. Looking at pictures it's obvious, when I handled the XM8's, it was obvious. The safety is not only reachable, but you could easilly reach and manipulate it with either the thumb or trigger finger of your right or left hand depending on which way you lean.the XM-8 is simultaneously 1. less modular, 2. more expensive, and 3 more failure prone in the sighting system than any AR weapon i've seen.How do you know these things? The first two are flat-out conjecture and the third is fantasy as I'm not aware that any HK sighting system has seen 40 years of experience. The ELCAN and SUSAT are the only two long-lived sights I'm aware of and the ACOG sights have a good deal of combat use behind them as well. Are you complaining about the use of glass vs. iron, or do you have a point here?

Bartholomew Roberts
February 17, 2004, 05:24 PM
Looking at the pictures of the HK M4, it appears a lot of the weight is in that thick barrel they use for the rifle. Just making a WAG, I'd say that they needed to stiffen the barrel in order to be competitve accuracy-wise with the simpler AR15 recoil system.

In any case, you could shave about a pound of weight off just by reprofiling the barrel, although if my WAG is right you might see accuracy suffer as a result.

As for reliability, 20,000 rounds without cleaning or maintenance is a tremendous goal to reach and surely something to be proud of; but where is the advantage in being able to fire 95 times the basic load of an infantryman before my rifle requires cleaning? Are infantrymen currently able to carry more ammo than the AR15 is capable of firing without maintenance? I'd be surprised to hear it.

Kilroy
February 17, 2004, 10:48 PM
Same HK rep that went on and on about how much better the HK up-grade was, did not have any idea on how to shotgun the thing open.

Spark
February 18, 2004, 01:18 AM
A couple things re: SHOT.

1. I talked with a couple active duty guys who'd shot the XM8. They were fairly impressed with it. They also mentioned that the production models will have backup iron sights (confirmed by a rep).

2. The current magwell is not interchangable but the production ones should be. IIRC, these are proof of concept models with display molded bodies - but we all know how "proof of concept" can turn into "good enough, rush it into service as is!!!!!"

3. Common issue was that the optics were too wide for the shooter to have both eyes open and still shoot. I didn't have any problems doing so, but I heard this from more than one person.

Overall, I liked it. A *bunch* of people were curious about the prototypes - so many that by the second day, HK no longer had them "just hanging" on the corner of the display - they were zip tied down because everyone and their brother wanted to play.

Gabe
February 18, 2004, 04:15 AM
Spark!

What's up with Bladeforums? I'm suffering from withdraw.

444
February 19, 2004, 08:21 AM
The question I have is what have they done to increase reliability besides the gas piston ? Surely they are not saying that this alone would allow them to go 20,000 rounds without cleaning ? Especially when their version of the M4 doesn't have a dust cover over the bolt.
If I was looking for a way to increase reliability in the M16 series of weapons, one of the last things I would be concerned with is the gas operation of the weapon. Think about this, especially for those of you that love to hate the M16: Are you worried about malfunctions in the first 100 rounds fired or are you worried about malfunctions after you have already fired 10k rounds without cleaning ?
Are you more worried about sand and dust causing malfunctions or the black soot from the gas system from the few rounds you might fire without cleaning ?

444
February 19, 2004, 08:42 AM
Put another way: There are numerous things that could cause a weapon to malfunction. Broken parts, bad magazines, bad ammo, the normal fouling caused by firing ammo present in all weapons, improper lubrication.................
In the M16 there are two that seem to cause the most internet conversation: the small additonal shot of fouling caused by the direct gas impingement which I consider to be of minimal importance since I have fired perhaps 600 rounds through these weapons at a time without a problem, and the dirt and dust introduced from the environment that enters the weapon through all the openings. This would be airborne dust and dirt kicked up by the soldier, vehicles, helos along with dirt directly entering the weapon from low crawling, dropping it, etc. This is the one that seems to be the biggest factor to me. What have they done about that ?

Badger Arms
February 19, 2004, 12:51 PM
The smug H&K rep that I asked the same question to said, "Ve don't need a port cover. At H&K, ve machine the parts to a much closer tolerance." A friend of mine related that the gun seemed to have more recoil when he fired it... akin to the Sig 551. He said that he suspects it just gives the bolt a more substantial 'kick' than the Armalite design does and therefore is more positive in working the action. This leads me to believe that it'll also be harder on the gun in the long run, but that's just me.

QuarterBoreGunner
February 19, 2004, 01:01 PM
"Ve don't need a port cover. At H&K, ve machine the parts to a much closer tolerance."
Wow.

So that implies that the tolerances are so close that there’s no way for dust and grit to work there way into the action?
Or are they so close that the dust and grit that does get in there just work that much more effectively as an abrasive element?

I don’t buy it. Why delete the port cover? It’s a no-brainer to keep it.

Jeff White
February 19, 2004, 01:31 PM
Closer tolerances make the design more prone to jamming . That's one of the big complaints that the AR bashers always make about the design. Now HK has improved the design by making the tolerances tighter and then removing the dust cover? :confused:

Kinda makes one wonder about the vaunted engineering prowess at HK these days....

Jeff

El Rojo
February 19, 2004, 01:39 PM
I made myself way late to work reading this thread.

With all of this back and forth about what is best and what is not, I think I have developed the most important theory of all.

Give our troops a reliable weapon that works! I don't care about fixed extractors, spring extractors, yada yada yada. Why should I? Just make a gun that works and shoots when you want it to as long as you keep it decently clean. Is that too much to ask?

Of course your discourse on these subjects is entertaining to you and no doubt enjoyable. So continue away. I just get a headache after so long of continual back and forth. For the common man it is too much. Just get a weapon that works already.

tire iron
February 19, 2004, 03:48 PM
Two pounds to a grunt is a TON of weight. Maybe not to mech troops, but for the soldier or Marine whose mode of transport is his own LPC's (leather personnel carriers - boots) - 2 pounds means two more fully loaded mags, or more water, or more chow, or more batteries, etc.

There is such a thing as a point of deminishing return. That is my problem with the new HK M4 upper.

Being able to go 20k rounds between cleanings is a GREAT *jee whiz* statement - but it has nothing to do with reality.

The current M4 is 'reliable enough'. What does 'reliable enough' mean?? It will shoot however many rounds it needs to shoot until you have time to clean it. Is that number 20k rounds??? NO. But it is more than 1,000 rounds. (Heck - my Bushmasters and Colts go through 1,000 rounds of WOLF ammo before I clean them - and I am sure everyone would agree that Wolf is the dirtiest ammo there is for 5.56 rifles.) But - understand that it takes over THIRTY THREE magazines to reach that 1,000 round mark. NO ONE carries 33 mags, so lets not even speculate about how someone needs a rifle that will go through 666 mags before they clean it - it aint gonna happen - that rifle will get cleaned LONG before it sees 666 mags. So having a rifle that will do that is a moot point.

And clean does NOT mean 'pristine'. It means 'clean'. You got out MOST of the gunk that you can get out of it WITHOUT being 'anal' about it. The rifle DOES NOT need to be 'inspection clean'. You keep it relatively clean, with a moderate amount of CLP in it - keep a mag in the mag well, keep the ejection port cover closed, a 'cap' on the flash suppressor to keep dirt, twigs, mud and water out of the bore, and it will function just fine when you need it to. This level of maintenance doesn't take but a few minutes a day. Anyone that feels that can't or shouldn't devote a few minutes a day to ensure thier main life support tool is in top shape shouldn't be allowed to carry a firearm. They should be issued rocks.

So - is it 'worth' the extra two pounds of the HK M4 upper to get me to a level of reliability that I (or anyone else) will never ever see??? To me it is not.

It is like getting handguards that will withstand 10,000 degree temperatures - but weigh 2 pounds more. Well - the current handguards don't melt under operational conditions - so to get the heavier ones seems stupid to me.

Or it is like a red-dot scope that will go 1,000,000 hours on a set of batteries but the scope weighs 2 pounds more. The current Aimpoint (and even the AA EOTech) goes 'long enough' on a set of batteries - so the new scope would have nothing REAL to offer but more wieght.

This HK M4 upper has nothing REAL to offer but - more wieght.

Now if they could add the enhanced reliability WITHOUT a weight increase - while keeping the cost in line with current uppers - then I would probably buy one - as it would add some reliability without sacrificing in another area (weight).

As it stands now - it is not worth the weight.


Regarding the G36 - it would be a disservice to our brothers and sisters in arms to issue them this rifle.

There are more things to consider besides reliability when choosing a rifle. Granted - reliability is first in line, but second in line is ERGONOMICS. This is where EVERY HK longarm is sorely lacking. You would think that the HK engineers would have figured out where to put the selector since Gene Stoner got it 'right' over 40 years ago. The HK engineers STILL DIDN'T get it right on the G36! People with average sized hands can NOT reach the selector when the rifle is in the shoulder.

The optics on the G36 SUCK!

The lock-up (that is being generous) on the stock SUCKS!

The buttstock is 'one size fits all' - which may have been in vogue back in WWII - but we have learned a thing or two since then.

The M4 is the BEST assualt rifle in the world right now.

Can it be improved?? YES - it is not perfect. But the HK M4 upper doesn't add *enough* to compensate for the extra two pounds.

That HK picture of the mud-coated M4 firing on full auto is COOL looking - but every M16A2/CAR-15/M4 that I have been issued/owned would do the same thing. So - big whoop.

cheers

tire iron

Spark
February 19, 2004, 04:00 PM
Wow, that was the worst excuse for detractions I've seen in a while. They don't even need rebuttal, they are so far off.

Andrew Wyatt
February 19, 2004, 05:52 PM
With the elcan, susat and acog, the only way to make them not have a reticle is to physically break the glass. the xm8 sight only has a reticle when the sight is on and the batteries are in it and functioning.


as for modularity, the there are fewer detachable pieces of gun there.

as for the safety being out of reach, it's the same extended safety they use on the mp5 and whatnot, with only the left hand side pad full length.

I'm not very impressed with it, as it's big and clubby and whatnot, and I'm not so sure that it's a cost effective improvement on the ar-15, since we've already got more than enough perfectly useable ar-15s (that effectively cost zero money, since they've already been paid for) that can have an HK m4 upper installed on them, be converted to 6.8mm, be belt fed, be .50 BMG, and what have you.

Badger Arms
February 19, 2004, 07:22 PM
I agree with Andrew (and how often does that happen). The sight needs to have an electronics-free reticle such as an etched glass, tritium, etc.

But a backup iron sight is not only mandatory, but can be a lifesaver. Up here, it gets cold outside. If you go into a warm house and try to use any optic, it will be fogged up nearly instantly in this weather. The backup iron sight becomes the primary in this case. When I asked my father-in-law why he switched from the iron sights on his Enfield 1917 to a scope, I was suprised by the answer. He said he'd been hunting with the Lyman peep one day in the snow and a snowflake had lodged in the peep making it impossible to see. When he figured it out and blew the flake out, the moose was gone. So I asked him if he had any problems with it fogging up on him. He said something to the effect of, "You don't hunt moose inside, do you?" Well, the grunts hunt the two-legged rats inside and they need a backup sight even if it isn't 'snow-proofed'.

natedog
February 19, 2004, 08:38 PM
Where does it say that it will be 2 pounds heavier?

Denny Hansen
February 19, 2004, 09:00 PM
I think it's a question in search of an answer.
20,000 without cleaning? Okay...

Here's a little scoop. The FBI just contracted for a new sniper rifle. The final three contenders were H-S Precision, FN and Accuracy International. (Despite FN's claims to have winning the contract at the SHOT Show, H-S acutally won the contract. FN is backup in case H-S can't produce.)

The number 3 contender, Accuracy International, lost because they wanted to prove their rifle could go the distance in the 5,000 round endurance trial without being cleaned after 1,000 rounds (sound familiar?) It crapped out at around 600 rounds, effectivley putting them out of the running. And this from a bolt-action rifle in a sterile environment.

20,000 rounds is a cool number to throw around, but as Jeff as pointed out it won't happen in real life. I'll take a well-maintained AR any day.

Also, if anyone really belives that HK will ever dream of selling this to the civilian market please email me. I have some great beach-front property for sale here in Arizona.

Just my .02
Denny

Beav
February 19, 2004, 11:44 PM
I always figured that the 20,000 round figure was more of an example of just how reliable this new systems is. Is H&K saying that these guns don't need to be cleaned but every 20000 rounds or are they saying that their guns have fired that many times without being cleaned?

archy
February 20, 2004, 06:04 PM
I've seen beat to death old A1s that were literally held togther with 100 mph tape belonging to the Honduran Army run fine.

And why not? They've used their rifles *for real* for several years, know their strengths and weaknesses, have kept some going by cannibilizing those with broken butstocks/stripped recoil tubes or bent barrels, and have had helpful Yankees visiting Oso Grande and elsewhere help out with donations of excess or leftover parts.

Back in '91 I was tasked with training and armorer support of a medical detatchment off to spend a few months at Camp Big Bear, both stateside and after I arrived in country at Sota Cano, shortly after the FMLN had shot down a US helocopter and then executed two of the survivors of the resulting crash.

First surprise for the medics, especially a lot of their female personnel: when we took away their M16A1s and took 'em to a local skeet range for a weekend with 20-gauge shotguns on moving clay pigeons. And in the meantime, I was doing inspections and repair on a lot of their rifles, mostly missing or chipped gas rings, with test firing afterward, resulting in replacement of most of their extractor and ejector springs.

I took quite a few parts along with me- two duffel bags and a couple of 81mm mortar round crates worth, including a 100% set of handguard replacements, and happily didn't need them all. Not wanting to be burdened with hauling them back to the USA, they got left behind with a very needy EH unit, which put them to good use...as well as the takeoff bits removed from the rifles put back in service. Those fellers don't waste much.

archy
February 20, 2004, 06:08 PM
Also, if anyone really belives that HK will ever dream of selling this to the civilian market please email me. I have some great beach-front property for sale here in Arizona.

Easy it makes happen: all it'll take is congress passing a law that the military can't make puyrchases of any small arm not available to the citizenry. Alternately, a similar congressional restriction on military contractors would certainly get the point across.

As for the possibility of getting such a restriction in place, that's a political goal perhaps more elusive than technical solutions to mechanical problems. But the laws of physics don't necessarily limit the application of more creative solutions to political problems than to physical ones.

-archy-/-

Snaps
February 21, 2004, 02:23 AM
If I am able to, as in if they're sold I shall own one.

If you enjoyed reading about "New H&K M4 at SHOT!!!" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!