Andrew Wyatt
Member
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.
New H&K M4 at SHOT!!!
- Thread starter Greg Bell
- Start date
- Status
George Hill
Member
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.
In fact, I've never seen a jam in an M96 that wasn't caused by the M-16 magazine.
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
Member
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.
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
Member
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.
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
Member
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.
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.
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.
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 ?
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 ?
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 ?
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
Member
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
Member
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.
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?
Kinda makes one wonder about the vaunted engineering prowess at HK these days....
Jeff
Kinda makes one wonder about the vaunted engineering prowess at HK these days....
Jeff
El Rojo
Member
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.
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.
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
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
Last edited:
Andrew Wyatt
Member
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.
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
Member
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'.
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
Member
Where does it say that it will be 2 pounds heavier?
Denny Hansen
Member
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
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
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
Member
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
Member
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
Member
If I am able to, as in if they're sold I shall own one.
- Status
