Subscribe via RSS

Archives by Date
August 2008
July 2008
June 2008

See all Archives
Archives by Category
'Canes
Afghan Update
Ammo and Munitions
Armor
Around the Globe
Av Week Extra
Axe in Iraq (and Elsewhere)
Bizarro
Blimps
Blog Bidness
Body Armor Blues
Bomb Squad
Brownshoes in Action
Bubbleheads, etc.
Cammo Green
Catch the "Buzz"
Chem-Bio
Civilian Apps
Cloak and Dagger
Commandos
Comms
Contingency Ops
Cops and Robbers
Cyber-warfare
Data Diving
Defense Tech Poll
Dissent Tech
Door Kickers
Drones
DT Administrivia
Eat DT's Dust
Extra! Extra!
Eye on China
Fast Movers
FCS Watch
Fire for Effect
FOS Files
Friday Funnies
Gadgets and Gear
Going Green
Grand 'Ol Osprey
Grand Ole Osprey
Ground Vehicles
Guns
Homeland Security
In the Weeds with Eric
Info War
Iraq Diary
Jarhead Jazz
JSF Watch
Just War Theories
Lasers and Ray Guns
Less-lethal
Logistics
Los Alamos and Labs
M4 Monopoly
Medic!
Mercs
Missiles
Money Money Money
Most Wanted
MRAP Edge
Net-Centric
Nukes
Old Skool
Our Shrinking Planet
Planes, Copters, Blimps
Politricks
Polmar's Perspective
Popular Mechanics
Rapid Fire
Raptor Watch
Red Team
Retro-Futuro
Robots
Roll Your Own
Sabra Tech
Ships and Subs
Snipertech
Space
Special Ops
Star Wars
Strategery
Stray Trons
Tactical Development
Terror Tech
The Deadlies
The Defense Biz
The Peoples' Site
The Sunday Paper
The Tanker Tango
The View from Av Week
Those Nutty Norks
Training and Sims
Trimble on the Case
Video Lounge
War Update
Ward'z Wonderz
You can run...

See all Archives
Newsletters

Edited by Christian Lowe | Contact

One Good Case for Earmarks: HK416

HK416.jpg

[EDITOR: From a DT friend (who prefers to remain anonymous) on his chop of the AWG's fight for their HK-416s]

The AWG folks are a special US Army task force to deal with IED threats that has turned into a semi-covert group of trigger pulling "trouble shooters." They got the HK416 because of their semi-official/semi-covert status and then got them taken away when Sen. Coburn both noticed this and embarrassed the Army small arms procurement brass by pointing it out.

To be fair to the Brass, they are in a no-win situation because small arms are a religious faith where true believers will not be swayed by real data.

In the realm of hard "non-religious data," there seem to be two major knocks against the M4: fouling after lots of firing, and excessive jamming in sandy conditions. Controlled tests in sandstorm-of-the-century conditions indicate the M4 is worse than the HK416 and FN SCAR, but all are in the 99-percentile reliability range.

To quote something a friend of mine sent on the issue:

"Excessive fouling depends on how many major firefights you get into before you can pull maintenance. All three systems use some sort of cylinder-and-piston arrangement to manage the gases. In the M16-type system, it's in the bolt carrier itself, while the other two restrict it to a small area near the gas port. They all have to be cleaned, eventually. The competition community has developed some M16 gas system tweaks that might interest serious trigger-pullers.

As a professional, your weapon's health comes first, just like your horse would if you were cavalry. If someone gave me one of each of these weapons, and several thousand rounds of ammo, I might develop a clear favorite. I doubt highly that I would find one totally unfit for my uses."

I have also been told that a number of M-16 jam problems would disappear if the H&K M16 magazine were adopted as standard issue. It is "...the absolute best out there. Built, and priced, like a BMW.

In the particular case of the HK416 and the AWG, Sen. Coburn would have done better by the troops by earmarking money for HK416.

Since Coburn is a Republican "Small Federal Government"/anti-earmark true believer, this was the result.

From the military procurement point of view, earmarks actually play a very important role in defense readiness in non-glamorous things like transport ships, trucks, and planes.

Rep Les Aspin’s 1980’s earmarks of extra 10-ton HEMET trucks gave the US Army the truck transport to pull off the famous left hook in the 1991 Gulf War.

Sen Trent Lott’s earmarks of amphibious ships have given the USMC 20% of its current amphibious fleet.

Former Speaker Newt Gingrich’s earmarks of extra C-130’s and Rep Dana Rohrabacher’s earmarks of extra C-17’s are the wings resupplying troops in Afghanistan.

Outside of those non-glamorous areas, DoD earmarks are rightly seen as pernicious.

-- [Anonymous]

Comments

When is the U.S. Army going to get smart and finally replace 5.56mm caliber rifles as basic standard for infantry weapons? Any varmint-caliber rifle is not sufficient to protect and defend our own military forces. The 5.56x45 NATO has served us for 40 years; it is long overdue to be replaced. I love all of the H&K weapons, but even the best 5.56mm caliber weapon is insufficient. Go to at least .257 (6.35mm) caliber or larger for some respectable power.

Posted by: P.J. Busche at August 6, 2008 08:29 AM


WR, you make no sense dude, this article is just that, commentary. Get a life, or get your balls back from your wife.

breechblock,dude, calm down, there are plenty of 7.62's for the marines to be shooting with if they can't hit with their issue rifles or would rather shoot the AK. Understand this

Marines are not forced to do anything,

Marines do what must be done.

Posted by: 1Scrappy1 at June 6, 2008 12:00 AM


It still boils down to the 5.56 fd vs. the 7.62. Marines are forced to put at least 4-5 rds. in every jihadi terr. to put his ass down for good! We need the shock & knockdown of at least the 7.62 area. This is Bullshit!!!

Posted by: breechblock at May 22, 2008 11:38 PM


I cannot say I'm as experienced as those here or know a particular "expert" in this area. My experiences with the M-16A2 was mediocre at best. For one, my rifle was not new, but I cared for it like I loved it, So no cleaning issues and the like, It was far from warn out. So it would be the typical weapon most of our men and women are using now. When the first and only opportunity came up to really give it a work-out I was very disappointed. One big issue is that it heats up way to fast, fine if you want to pink away slow fire but try to crank out some serious fire and you can cook a steak on it. As for jamming and the like, it did it way to often. "Way to Often" would be every second or third magazine. (Ya, no hard data here, but I could not see clearing jams in a fire fight this often) Which is unacceptable for any modern weapon and or highly industrialized nation's military machine should or could produce. The design is old and firing the standard brass casing is old too.
It's time to invest more into a weapon that uses caseless ammo (pick any caliber, that will crew through concrete and wood), with increased magazine capacity (somewhere around 50-100 rounds per mag or drum) match the weapons with some decent optics that meets and or exceeds the effective range the M-16 series has now.
I find it odd and sad that our military still depends on such an old design. Who the hell is running this outfit and can we fire them?

Posted by: Punisher1 at May 22, 2008 04:41 PM


There's too many politicians involved with the procurement process. Colt has a death grip on small arms, and its not gonna change for regular Army. Spec. Ops use the 416 or the SCAR, and that is telling. When you get into a running gunbattle, theres no time to properly clean/lube ur weapon. It may take time, eventually the Army and Marines will get thier 416's, or maybe change the round to 6.8 and go with the 468. The 6.8 is a good compromise between 5.56 and 7.62. Why don't they let the military have more of a say in wat weapons they use. Vickers had me convinced about the 416. I guess Spec. Ops is convinced too.

Posted by: Rhyno327/lrsd at May 22, 2008 08:13 AM


"The AR-type system is inherently flawed as a combat weapon...it requires regular (and meticulous) cleaning to remain truly combat effective..."

This is demonstrably false, as anyone who has used the AR-platform to any degree knows. Lubrication is very important, that cannot seriously be questioned. But "regular and meticulous" cleaning isn't. The AR can go thousands of rounds between cleanings. My personal weapon hasn't been cleaned in over 1500 rounds, yet works flawlessly. Regular use of the right lubricants is key. Keep it wet and the AR-platform works fine.

Posted by: justbill at May 21, 2008 05:19 AM


AFAIK the HK416 would have cost no more than the M4 or any other piston-driven assault rifle once HK were fully tooled up for it.
Vickers even states that for GI troops the M4 is actually ok but its flaws become painfully obvious when the AR-platform is put to the test by the guys who have to kick doors down in the middle of the night and put lots of rounds downrange.
Things like extremely poor triggers and tempermental mags only add to the average footsoldiers frustration.
"Ok" is not acceptable when you are the tip of the spear in a place like Iraq or Afghanistan. Loose tolerances are one thing, but if that were the only reason an AK keeps going after years of abuse, then older M4s should be more reliable than newer ones due to wear, which isnt the case.
The AK is fundamentally a better design, hence its use by the SIG550, Galil, etc. The HK tappet system is even better.
It is possible to design mechanisms that are tolerant to abuse but still remain accurate, but this has to be considered at the development stage.
The AR-type system is inherently flawed as a combat weapon...it requires regular (and meticulous) cleaning to remain truly combat effective, something that cannot be guaranteed in ANY conflict, especially the urban warfare that occurs in Iraq or dusty ambushes in Afghanistan. Cleanliness probably isnt the first thing a recruit thinks of after nearly being killed in a Baghdad ambush.
If you built a racing car that dispenses with exhausts in order to save weight, then sure you save a bunch of money and might even perform well for the first few laps but sooner rather than later all that hot gas and dirty crap is going to cause you all sorts of problems.

Posted by: Mark at May 19, 2008 08:21 PM


"It is the DoD's responsibility to tell the President/Congress what they need"

What they need may not be the same thing as what they should have.

Posted by: Total at May 19, 2008 08:17 AM


"Rep Les Aspin’s 1980’s earmarks of extra 10-ton HEMET trucks gave the US Army the truck transport to pull off the famous left hook in the 1991 Gulf War."

Not that it matters, but they are actually HEMTTs not HEMETs. http://www.oshkoshdefense.com/defense/products~hemtt~home.cfm

Posted by: Wanker at May 19, 2008 08:08 AM


Senator Coburn is an idiot and needs to be run out of Congress. A few more liars like him that claim they support the troops and we will be really f#cked over.

Posted by: GW at May 18, 2008 09:29 PM


If the HK416 requires less lub, the barrel last longer,etc. It will be more economical in the long run. And since its considerable more reliable,the soldier doesnt need to be anal about its cleaning like the M4. Its a win/win situation.

Posted by: Vitor at May 18, 2008 12:00 PM


The H&K magazine is vastly overrated. Users have very little good to say about them at enthusiast sites like ar15.com. A friend of mine got three while serving in Iraq. He quickly unloaded them for a ridiculous price and never looked back.

Magpul PMAG's retail for $14 a piece. They will function after being intentionally abused and shot. Literally. Check out the following link to see it yourself.

http://www.weaponevolution.com/forum/showthread.php?t=312

Why look anywhere else?

Posted by: justbill at May 18, 2008 10:17 AM


Sometimes earmarks work well. Some Congressmen and Senators are actually more concerned with getting the job done instead of being someone important.

The M4 works well. It is the most copied rifle design in history and since the patents expired, people tinkering with the system and produce hundreds of improvements. I lost count at 85 different designs that started with the M16. Let's keep it and improve it slowly, e.g. replacing the M16A1 with the M16A2.

Keep the bolt carrier lubricated (axle grease works well) and check your magazines. The M16/M4 will run dirty if lubed. Run it dry and it will jam.

The HK416 is also a good system, but will also require new tools and training, an added cost.

I like the idea of a gas piston upper for the M4. The gas blowback from the current direct inpingement setup burns my eyes and fouls the chamber. My AR15/M16A2 clone has the original Stoner design for accuracy.

The steel HK mags look good and run good at the range, but they are heavy, reportedly rust, even in the desert, and there are durability issues as mentioned by several other contributors. Keep new magazines in the supply change. Like DopplerDave said, they are expendable. As part of your pre-combat inspections, make sure they fit the magazine well. If there is ANY doubt that the mag won't work, destroy it.

Regards, Skred

Posted by: Skred at May 17, 2008 10:46 PM


Sometimes earmarks work well. Some Congressmen and Senators are actually more concerned with getting the job done instead of being someone important.

The M4 works well. It is the most copied rifle design in history and since the patents expired, people tinkering with the system and produce hundreds of improvements. I lost count at 85 different designs that started with the M16. Let's keep it and improve it slowly, e.g. replacing the M16A1 with the M16A2.

Keep the bolt carrier lubricated (axle grease works well) and check your magazines. The M16/M4 will run dirty if lubed. Run it dry and it will jam.

The HK416 is also a good system, but will also require new tools and training, an added cost.

I like the idea of a gas piston upper for the M4. The gas blowback from the current direct inpingement setup burns my eyes and fouls the chamber. My AR15/M16A2 clone has the original Stoner design for accuracy.

The steel HK mags look good and run good at the range, but they are heavy, reportedly rust, even in the desert, and there are durability issues as mentioned by several other contributors. Keep new magazines in the supply change. Like DopplerDave said, they are expendable. As part of your pre-combat inspections, make sure they fit the magazine well. If there is ANY doubt that the mag won't work, destroy it.

Regards, Slred

Posted by: Skred at May 17, 2008 10:44 PM


This article uses several examples of "good earmarks" as examples of how earmarks could be beneficial. However, I have two keys question. Why was it necessary to earmark these items? Why weren't these items in the defense budget?

Is this just a hint of how incompetent the House and Senate defense oversight committies are?

Posted by: CTR1(SW) at May 16, 2008 07:50 PM


Hey Spider that "British 5.56mm rifle" you are refering to is the L85 and yes the A2 variant was a major improvement. But I'm not sure it outperforms HK weapons being that the L85 A2 IS A HK WEAPON.

From wikipedia:
"In 2000, Heckler & Koch were contracted to upgrade the SA80 family of weapons. Two hundred thousand SA80s were re-manufactured at a cost of £400 each, producing the L85A2 variant. Changes focused primarily on improving reliability and include: a redesigned cocking handle, modified bolt, extractor and a redesigned hammer assembly that produces a slight delay in the hammer’s operation in continuous fire mode, improving reliability and stability."

Posted by: WiseGuy1020 at May 16, 2008 02:54 PM


OK so it's 2008 and we are still using the M-16 and the same basic 5.56mm FMJ round.

WOW.

After spending billions of dollars we can't come up with something better for our troops. Yet some local shooter can put together a weapon which will out perform what our troops have from easy to get parts from many aftermarket manufactures and have a good gunsmith put it together. That's sad.....

The 6.8mm and 6.5mm and similar type rounds will out perform the 5.56mm as proven since the 1950's. The direct gas impingement system is flawed enough to seriously consider replacement.

So why can't our troops have the best battle rifle in the world? What is the best battle rifle in the world? Our pilots have the best fighter plane in the F-22. One of those will buy every combat troop a shinny new rifle that out performs anything anybody else has. Yet our poor little grunts aren't worth it I guess. It looks like to me the people that run this country don't think much about our ground troops fighting the real war.

Even if we kept the M-4/M-16, there are so many improvements made to them by private companies yet even that is deemed too expensive for the heart and soul of our fighting forces. Those are the guys who risk their lives every day walking directly into harm's way.

I say give them something that will always work and kill what they hit. Make it light and ergonomically friendly and make it NOW. Get it to them NOW.

They deserve the best period. Not second best, not something that's just OK or good enough for them. They deserve the best!!!!!!

I'm sure if you ask any American they will say the same thing. Why don't our soldiers have the best rifle in the world? We must get it to them NOW, without question and without excuses.

Posted by: Big Daddy at May 16, 2008 12:00 PM


Humm...imagine this bullet on a Tavor with a 18" barrel. A boy can dream, right?

Compact,ergonomic and plenty of terminal effectiveness.A boy can dream, right?

Posted by: Vitor at May 16, 2008 09:48 AM


M4 carbine performance depends greatly on the bullet it is firing.

See below from strategypage.com:

http://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htweap/articles/20080516.aspx

Brown Tip 5.56mm for Short Barrels

May 16, 2008: U.S. SOCOM (Special Operations Command) has used its own, bureaucracy free, budget to design and manufacture special ammunition for the short barrel (10-15 inch) weapons (like the M-4 and SCAR Light). The new ammo, referred to as "5.56 Optimized", or "brown tip" (because the tips of the bullets are brown for easy identification) uses a bullet that is solid copper and 70 grains in weight (compared to 62 grains for the NATO standard 5.56 bullet). The solid copper design is believed to be based on a commercial design (the Barnes Triple-Shock X) that was introduced five years ago. The new round was designed to achieve better accuracy and hitting power at the ranges (under 300 meters) the short barrel weapons are most effective at. The brown tip ammo costs more, because of its unique design and small production runs, but SOCOM doesn't worry about that when it's for something that will make its operators more effective, and help keep them alive.

Posted by: Trent Telenko at May 16, 2008 09:39 AM


Earmarks are earmarks. I don't care what is being done with those earmarks right now.

It is the DoD's responsibility to tell the President/Congress what they need, not for an individual politician to decide for himself what the military needs.

Let's point out the earmarks that were wasted money, instead of a few good soundbites that meet the goal of the writer.

Posted by: soonerfan75 at May 16, 2008 09:06 AM


My Saiga (AK-47 variant) just keeps on shooting. No problems, no jambs, no failures. no problem.

Posted by: AFRet91 at May 16, 2008 08:56 AM


Well darn, someone beat me too it. Metal magazines of any type have a major flaw. The magazine body isn't springy enough to handle the same kind of abuse modern polymers can. Even with the first production run flaws that the P-mag had, now that the bugs are worked out, and it has been acceptably tested to destruction, I say we should be replacing every magazine as it fails with P-mags.
Speaking of working flaws out, the military procurement system is backwards. They should be issuing all new "toys" to the Marines first. If anyone embodies the "test to destruction" mentality, its the Marines. You test it and work the bugs out untill it reaches an acceptable level of breakage with the Marines, and then the chances that the Army or the other services will break it are greatly reduced. Thats why I am looking forward to seeing how the production Masada/ACR turns out. It was developed under the direction of an inactive Marine.

Posted by: coolhand77 at May 16, 2008 08:15 AM


The British 5.56mm Rifle had similar desert condition problems, however the A2 variant has eradicated this. It will know outperform HK & US weapons.

Posted by: Spider Kelly at May 16, 2008 08:04 AM


I don't know why it was necessary to try and pump up the case for "earmarking", when pork barrel spending is such a curse and a blight on the public image of Congress. So what if there are a few cases where pork spending has done some real good? You could probably make the case that some bank robberies have done someone some real good, but does that justify robbing banks? Of course not. If we are going to analyze pork barrel spending, we should look at the vast majority of cases where untold millions/billions of dollars have gone for such Rube Goldbergs as the "Bridge to Nowhere" in Alaska, and so on.

The list of these incredibly useless projects is extremely long and well known; I will not waste time trying to reproduce them here. Senators Coburn and McCain are absolutely right to denounce these wastes of public money and are right to oppose them.

Having said that, the main problem with the worst cases of pork is that their sponsors will try and slip them in at the last minute without anyone taking a vote on whether the money is well spent or not. If a project goes through the appropriation process like everything else, and a majority agrees that the money is well spent, then that's fine; at least it has had some public review.

Posted by: Old Sailor at May 16, 2008 04:39 AM


WR, I fail to see how the comment about firearms fans being unswayed by real data is offensive. Perhaps you should break the Xanax in half first.

Posted by: steve at May 15, 2008 11:23 PM


Hey "WR" Nobody particularly cares. Only the overly religious zealots would think that comment had anything to do with commentary on the fallibility of religion. I do believe you fall into that category. If you wanted others to find God so bad, maybe you should stop being so annoying and judgmental? You see, most people like God and the concept. It's the fan club they despise.

As far as the article goes, the M4 is "good enough" and "gets the job done" but since when is that acceptable for the best-funded military? Considering there is zero re-training involved with the 416 other than 5 minutes on explaining the cleaning difference, you can't objectively say that it's not worth it. It is. It's just good ol Brass clinging to their bedmate's contracts.

HK Steel mags are overpriced. I have one, and paying 2.5 times as much for a slightly better mag is not even close to economically sound. Paying for a PMAG which is a lot better than either works for me. SF guys know their gear, and if they are refusing to use the M4 and actually are spending their cut of funding to buy a replacement, then you know something is wrong.

The sooner this contract is put up for bid the better.

Posted by: SW1911 at May 15, 2008 11:20 PM


頑張って下さい。

Posted by: 名古屋 風俗 at May 15, 2008 09:34 PM


Mr. Anonymous,

"...are a religious faith where true believers will not be swayed by real data.

In the realm of hard 'non-religious data,'"

Whether you intended it or not, that anti-American jab at religion offends and insults those of us who are spiritual/religious. By that comment of yours, you have lowered yourself to the level of the APOSTATE Elders of Zion, and the rest of your article is not worth reading by anybody with a decent mind! If you are not already saved, then may God save your soul.

Posted by: WR at May 15, 2008 09:12 PM


I think Patrick has an excellent point. As prized as the Luger was, why do you think there were more P-38s made and issued than Lugers? And while the Germans made some beautiful wooden-stocked submachine guns, they were subject to the same problem. Hence, the less-expensive and less-intolerant stamped guns that became so symbolic. The Russians found the same problem with their early submachine guns, but the more dirt-tolerant PPSh design became a classic.

Our troops deserve Lexus-class workmanship, but sometimes an old Ford truck is what you need to get where you're going.

Posted by: Paul at May 15, 2008 07:49 PM


A couple of months ago, Larry Vickers told a class he was teaching to skip the H&K mags as there were issues with them.(If you don't know he helped develop the H&K416 and is or was a consultant for H&K.) He said to steer clear until some QC issues were resolved. In fact, I have heard from serving Marines and Army types that went out of their way to buy the H&K mags out of their own pockets and/or their unit's OPTAR that the mag springs were weak (several loadings and unloadings and the mag springs start causing FTFs) and there may be an issue with the length of the feed lips. Seems the feed lips work great with the H&K upper, but no so much with the standard M4/M16.

What people forget is that the Al GI mag was designed to be disposable. If they get dented or otherwise damaged they need to be pitched.

Posted by: DopplerDave at May 15, 2008 07:49 PM


I think another problem with jamming in American firearms, more specifically in the Colt-type 5.56 M16 series, is the fine machine tooling. Everything is so precise that a bit of sand can foul up the whole gun. To make the obvious comparison, the AK-47 has none of the problems the M16 series has because of its loose machine work. You can actually throw sand in the breach and the gun will fire. Im not proposing adopting an AK variant, because the gun isnt really accurate past 100 yards. We've come a long way in making our guns more durable, but if theres one company I trust in making reliable firearms, its HK

Posted by: Patrick at May 15, 2008 06:59 PM


The problem is using 5.56 x 45mm in the first place. Sand and fouling generally was/has never been an issue with the 7.62 x 51mm FN-FAL, G3, M-14, etc. The answer lies there and why the FN-SCAR available as a 7.62 x 51mm carbine. Because over 50m, the 64gn 5.56mm round fired from a short barrel isn't worth a pinch of shit and was never meant to be because - The M4 (Vietnam era it was the Coly Commando) was meant as a sub-machine gun replacement not as the standard battle rifle QED.

Posted by: GI Zhou at May 15, 2008 03:39 PM


The problem is using 5.56 x 45mm in the first place. Sand and fouling generally was/has never been an issue with the 7.62 x 51mm FN-FAL, G3, M-14, etc. The answer lies there and why the FN-SCAR available as a 7.62 x 51mm carbine. Because over 50m, the 64gn 5.56mm round fired from a short barrel isn't worth a pinch of shit and was never meant to be because - The M4 (Vietnam era it was the Coly Commando) was meant as a sub-machine gun replacement not as the standard battle rifle QED.

Posted by: GI Zhou at May 15, 2008 03:30 PM


The issue isn't earmarks in general, it's earmarks that appear in legislative guidance rather than in the legislation itself. Which of these two types are the examples you mention?

Posted by: Mike at May 15, 2008 03:19 PM


In fact, that army dust test last year pointed out something like 20% of the M4's failures were magazine related.

Posted by: TB at May 15, 2008 02:53 PM


The magazines are a good point; quite a few failures happen from weak springs and bent openings, that sort of thing. I remember one of our Lance Corporals at a tactical range shoot and every other round, he had to clear and reshoot. It was hilarious to see him shout "Failure!" ten times in a row, but that's also a problem.

Private company mags, steel instead of aluminum, go a long way. They are just not sexy.67

Posted by: Brad at May 15, 2008 01:47 PM


Post a comment




Remember Me?


Please enter the code as seen in the image below to post your comment.