Question on the HK 416

[Schone23666]

I know this weapon (H&K 416) generated some press when it came out several years ago, quite a bit was made about the short-stroke piston system as opposed to the traditional gas-impingement system the M4's and M16's traditionally used. Now, I've been told that supposedly it's a more reliable system that doesn't require as much painstaking cleaning as the M4/M16 family (or so I'm told or have read) but I read a post from HorseSoldier about supposed issues with the accuracy of the weapon being a bit subpar, somewhere around 5 to 6 MOA on average? Is this true?? If so, what is the reason, would it have anything to do with the way the piston rod was designed alongside the barrel system on the weapon? And has there been any effort to improve or fix the issue by HK? Should any game stats for this weapon reflect it if it is indeed an issue?

Don't know what the word is on this particular matter, but any input would help. Just keep it FRIENDLY please. ;)

[ArmySGT.]

Direct impingement and pistons both use pressure from the fired cartridges expanding gases to affect the bolt carrier group.

The M4 Shits where it eats and the 416 shit in the door. Either way your going to be cleaning and scraping carbon residue.

Since I have never cleaned a 416 I can't tell you how much trouble it is to clean the carbon form up front and how quickly it may block the gas ports.

The piston helps in one regard. The bolt carrier group is not subjected to hot gases being dumped through it so it is cooler and lowers the chance of cook offs. If one can't help themselves trying to use and M4 or M4A1 as a light MG.

[LAW0306]

I have cleaned both. you want a 416 if you want a weapon you dont have to clean...also the bolt stays warm to the touch not hot when in operation making the rounds not want to cook in chamber. the weapon gets 2 moa to standard. that was the threashold for the contract most are 1 moa guns. our M27 with a heavy barrel are free float is sub moa.

[Legbreaker]

Any chance we can get one of our gunsmiths to chime in on this. It's all well and good to hear what the user has to say about it, but often the user is really only able to relate the technical details they were taught rather than give a good, solid opinon of the mechanism based on actually working on them and dealing with the problems.

Personally I've used both the M16 and L1A1 SLR which is a gas piston type weapon. Based purely on being able to adequately clean the gas system, the L1A1 is head and shoulders above the M16. Never had any heat issues with either weapon, but then I haven't had to fire either on a sustained high rate of fire for any length of time.

[headquarters]

I have cleaned both. you want a 416 if you want a weapon you dont have to clean...also the bolt stays warm to the touch not hot when in operation making the rounds not want to cook in chamber. the weapon gets 2 moa to standard. that was the threashold for the contract most are 1 moa guns. our M27 with a heavy barrel are free float is sub moa.

Our unit is currently issued these as our standard service weapon.

I agree with Law. Doesnt muck up to much , easy to operate and good accuracy.

I will grade it at an A ( in my book)

all in my humble opinion of course.

[LAW0306]

I just do not use... I procure for my service and test. I work with units at The force level to find out what they need and why. Then we test. MY last 3 years I was a user at the Regimental level. Now I work for Operations and training for the base (IE RANGE CONTROL) and we test things or help people test there stuff. I agree with Leg on the L1A1.. Great weapon designed for combat from the get go. was my Favorate at foreign weapons instructor course. FN-FAL and G3 were also very fine weapons. The 416 is just the next level. from what the UK Cav guy said he hit the mark with a torch and a laser on each gun....

[95th Rifleman]

The sweet sixteen supplement for Twilight 2013 has some good info for the M16 series.

[Cpl. Kalkwarf]

I have been checking out the LWRC M6a3 and M6a4. Those are some sweet rifles. The Gas system they uses ideas from the AK to make it avoid the carrier tilt issue better. Part of the gas op rod is permanently attached like it is in the AK so the initial shock of the impact is just at the front of the piston and not transferred onto the gas key in a violent way as it is in most gas systems for the AR.

Thinking of getting one of the M6a3s. in the DMR configuration with the 18" barrel.

[ArmySGT.]

Any chance we can get one of our gunsmiths to chime in on this. It's all well and good to hear what the user has to say about it, but often the user is really only able to relate the technical details they were taught rather than give a good, solid opinon of the mechanism based on actually working on them and dealing with the problems.

Actually I am a Gunsmith. Graduated from Trinidad State. I just don't work as one.

Do you know what the difference is between a cheese pizza and a Gunsmith?

A cheese pizza can feed a family of four.

I have never worked on a piston driven AR. But the carbon has to go someplace. That is on the head of the piston and the gas block were gases are tapped from the barrel.

In this case I think you may see the problems a Garand or M-14 would have.

Good ammo and cleaning your not going to have any trouble.

Some copper solvent as you may find copper obstructing the gas ports (takes thousands or rounds) but, you need a bore scope to see it to to remove the gas block.

Copper on the piston head creating greater OD and drag.

One advantage is the weight of the piston rod operating in conjunction with the force of the propellant gasses versus just the propellant gases working on the BCG.

Two ends to the same means, you still have to clean them.

Actually I have seen more M4s and M16s when I was in from the methods meant to clean them.

Cleaning from the muzzle with the steel cleaning rods being one of the worst methods. Second being polishing off all the parkerizing off the internals.

[Brother in Arms]

I do work as a gunsmith and I am a graduate of the Colorado School of Trades. It pays my bills pretty well,perhaps my standard of living is lower than some. But then again I don't know how much one gets paid to suck the governments cock.

I have only worked on one 416 and it didn't seem to have any major problem with carbon buildup. But civillians rarely shoot there firearms as much as soldiers do can't say for sure if it would be an issue.

What I do know is that the most reliable firearms decade after decade are those that have pistons.

BIA

[Schone23666]

Thanks for the all comments guys, much appreciated. However, I was still wondering about the accuracy of the HK 416. How does it compare to the M4A1 and M16A4? Is the accuracy effected in any way by the design and placement of the piston rod system on the HK 416?

[ArmySGT.]

The Standard for most any Military is 4 MOA for a stock Standard issue Rifle.

[Legbreaker]

That's unacceptably inaccurate in my book. 2 MOA should be the absolute limit - at least then you have a chance of hitting a target at 250-300 metres reliably.

[ArmySGT.]

That's unacceptably inaccurate in my book. 2 MOA should be the absolute limit - at least then you have a chance of hitting a target at 250-300 metres reliably.

It is the Machinegun and Artillery that is supposed to cause the casualties, the Infantryman with a rifle is supposed to protect them.

4 MOA is good enough for suppressive fires.

[Targan]

It is the Machinegun and Artillery that is supposed to cause the casualties, the Infantryman with a rifle is supposed to protect them.

4 MOA is good enough for suppressive fires.

It's a clear cultural difference between the US Army and Commonwealth militaries. The Australian Army places great emphasis on the individual marksmanship of its soldiers. We're probably more like the USMC in that regard.

[LAW0306]

your weapons have the same MOA targan. thats why I said we were going to get more bang for the buck and put heavy free floated barrels on our service weapons and make them 1 moa guns. it would be a trend setter in my mind. already have the aussie and brit exchange guys talking about how they could improve there stuff. we have a very robust exchange program with thoose countrys. Army sgt is right about his statements that is doctrine for most armys in a convential fight. read Paddy griffiths forward into battle. it talks very well on this point . I beleave its a UK book.

[Legbreaker]

It is the Machinegun and Artillery that is supposed to cause the casualties, the Infantryman with a rifle is supposed to protect them.

4 MOA is good enough for suppressive fires.

Which would in my book mean the machinegun is good enough with 4 MOA. Over in this part of the world, it's the machinegun and artillery that's used for supressing and the riflemen who close with the enemy and kill them in any way possible.
We have a saying here: "One round, one kill".

[Targan]

Over in this part of the world, it's the machinegun and artillery that's used for supressing and the riflemen who close with the enemy and kill them in any way possible.
We have a saying here: "One round, one kill".

Well that's what I was taught when I did the infantry course, that the job of the Australian infantryman is to locate, engage and destroy the enemy. The instructors would also talk about how armoured vehicles can kill the enemy and take ground but it takes infantry to hold that ground.

I guess it also has to do with the Australian military having to do more with less. Australian infantrymen often don't have the luxury of being able to call for artillery or air support. Hell, in Afghanistan Australian forces can't even call in their own helicopters for insertion, extraction or medivac - we have to rely on our allies for that.

[Webstral]

The 20th Century generally bears out the ideas that machine guns and artillery do the bulk of the dirty work. There are, of course, exceptions. We did no work to speak of in Baghdad with MG. All rifle work, all close range. Things I didn't care to put in Adagio for Strings because my wife and family also read that stuff. If I fired six rounds in a single day, I don't remember when that day was. The Triangle, on the other hand, was pure MG territory. Very few confirmed kills in the whole battalion on the truck patrols in the Triangle, though. Lots of 7.62 sent downrange, but when the enemy disappears into the irrigation canals in a cloud of dirt, it's hard to say whether he's KIA, WIA, changing positions, or calling it quits. No one in the whole battalion got out to check, and you can be certain that when the Apaches arrived to provide supporting fire they claimed credit for everything. No arty, either. Shades of Vietnam.

That was a while ago.

[Legbreaker]

I'm guessing that in the last decade, the machinegun has only been predominate simply due to the doctrine of the force who have the vast bulk of the manpower on the ground - ie the US.
If you look at it on a case by case basis, and put aside the HUGE number of US troops, I think you'll find that marksmanship is the key to sucess and the truckloads of bullets sent down range by automatic weapons really only serve to suppress the enemy until that one "lucky" round strikes home.

[LAW0306]

Mission of the Marine rifle squad is to locate,close with and destroy the enemy with fire and manuver and to repell the enemys assault with fire and close combat. Targan get forward into battle. If you cant find one or cant afford it. PM me and I will send you mine to read ....Just send it back. one of my fav's for back in the day.

[LAW0306]

http://www.marines.mil/unit/mcbjapan/Pages/2011/110826-matches.aspx



Targan is this near you? if so you should go and watch....PUCKAPUNYAL, Australia

[StainlessSteelCynic]

A few things here, my experience in the Australian Army Reserve was mostly in Infantry. I was in from the 1980s to the 1990s, my instructors where mostly combat veterans from Vietnam. Most of those instructors stressed that while individual marksmanship was something to strive for, the killing power of the Section/Squad was the machinegun - rifleman pin the target and the machinegun destroys it.

I guess what this goes to show is that doctrine changes over time like everything else. I know from my experience we never got enough live ammo time to be as good at individual marksmanship as we should have been but I did get plenty of time on the M60 and with grenades of various sorts.

As for people saying the Minimi/M249 SAW is too heavy... how do they think their fathers felt when they were lugging around MG3, M60 or MAG58 MGs? Or their grandfathers when it was Browning M1919, Vickers or Bren Guns? I carried the M60 for about half a decade, I don't have a lot of sympathy for people who complain that a 5.56mm weapon is too heavy to carry around - can you tell!

As for Puckapunyal, unfortunately it's over the other side of the country from Targan, a trip by air of about 2700km (1700 miles)!

[Targan]

Targan get forward into battle. If you cant find one or cant afford it. PM me and I will send you mine to read ....Just send it back. one of my fav's for back in the day.

$15 on Amazon. I think I can afford that :D From the review it looks like a really interesting read.

[Adm.Lee]

$15 on Amazon. I think I can afford that :D From the review it looks like a really interesting read.

'Twas a fascinating book-- changed my gaming style.

[waiting4something]

A few things here, my experience in the Australian Army Reserve was mostly in Infantry. I was in from the 1980s to the 1990s, my instructors where mostly combat veterans from Vietnam. Most of those instructors stressed that while individual marksmanship was something to strive for, the killing power of the Section/Squad was the machinegun - rifleman pin the target and the machinegun destroys it.

I guess what this goes to show is that doctrine changes over time like everything else. I know from my experience we never got enough live ammo time to be as good at individual marksmanship as we should have been but I did get plenty of time on the M60 and with grenades of various sorts.

As for people saying the Minimi/M249 SAW is too heavy... how do they think their fathers felt when they were lugging around MG3, M60 or MAG58 MGs? Or their grandfathers when it was Browning M1919, Vickers or Bren Guns? I carried the M60 for about half a decade, I don't have a lot of sympathy for people who complain that a 5.56mm weapon is too heavy to carry around - can you tell!

As for Puckapunyal, unfortunately it's over the other side of the country from Targan, a trip by air of about 2700km (1700 miles)!

In weapon weight sure they had it hard, but they carried less rounds and equipment back then too. Body armour didn't really come into play until Korea. Look at the guys of today compared to the guys of yesterday. Today the guys can't even run! They trot and jog. The guys of yester year ran, because they didn't have to carry much compared to what they force on troops of today. So bitch about a M249 being to heavy? God damn right I will. It's not like you just through on some duece gear with water, a chow, and your ammo, and grap your weapon. They load you down with a bunch of shit. When your foot mobile weight is your enemy.

[ArmySGT.]

Which would in my book mean the machinegun is good enough with 4 MOA. Over in this part of the world, it's the machinegun and artillery that's used for supressing and the riflemen who close with the enemy and kill them in any way possible.
We have a saying here: "One round, one kill".

Machineguns do provide suppressive fires for the Infantry Squad. This is for the Infantry to move forward and secure a new location for the MG.

The MG is situated to take advantage of the most open terrain and the greatest distance one can gain depending on local. MGs properly sited, fed, and nurtured will dominate that terrain unless removed by Artillery.

The Artillery is the "King of Battle" and will remain so...

Artillery can do in one salvo what a squad can not in a year. Enemy own the hilltop? Remove the top ten meters and they do not.

What is combat ineffective now for a unit? 10% 25% KIA?

[Legbreaker]

I agree that firepower in the form of artillery, tanks, aircraft or whatever is of vital importance on the modern (or any) battlefield, but it still takes boots on the ground to get the job done.

[StainlessSteelCynic]

In weapon weight sure they had it hard, but they carried less rounds and equipment back then too. Body armour didn't really come into play until Korea. Look at the guys of today compared to the guys of yesterday. Today the guys can't even run! They trot and jog. The guys of yester year ran, because they didn't have to carry much compared to what they force on troops of today. So bitch about a M249 being to heavy? God damn right I will. It's not like you just through on some duece gear with water, a chow, and your ammo, and grap your weapon. They load you down with a bunch of shit. When your foot mobile weight is your enemy.

I understand what you're saying but I do have some level of disagreement. Back then they didn't always carry less gear or ammo and I fully understand that once the military makes one thing lighter they give you more crap to carry so the weight ends up being the same.

When my father went to Vietnam to the time that I was in the Reserves, we carried about the same weight of gear despite the decade or so of time difference. I carried a pack, sleeping bag, 2 x Claymores, entrenching tool, the M60, 300-rds of ammo for it, four litres of water, 3 days worth of rations, a couple of smoke grenades, a steel helmet and a bunch of other crap I can't remember at the moment.

That was my unit, other units had different ideas of what the gunner should carry but believe me, nobody was running like a sprinter, it was a slow, tedious jog - the Army wants packhorses not racehorses and we were all foot mobile.

I'm not trying to get into a "who's got the bigger dick competition" with you but it seems that the weight of gear you're carrying was pretty much the same amount that I was carrying when I was in during the 1980s - they used to joke that if you could carry all the required gear and still run then you had obviously left something out of your kit. I understand the bitching about the overall weight carried but I still have little sympathy for bitching about the weight of a 5.56mmN compared to a 7.62mmN MG

[ArmySGT.]

I understand the bitching about the overall weight carried but I still have little sympathy for bitching about the weight of a 5.56mmN compared to a 7.62mmN MG

The point of the 5.56 LMG was that the Soldier could carry twice or three times the ammunition.

Then they added other crap so your back to carrying the same round count but at one third the effectiveness.

[Legbreaker]

As an M60 gunner it wasn't uncommon for me (a tiny 65kgs/143lbs at the time) to carry around 40-45kgs/90-100lbs of gear. Most of that was combat load - my pack was usually fairly light.
And then one exercise they gave me the 77 set as well... (another dozen kgs)
All that and 40+ degree C heat to deal with too!

[StainlessSteelCynic]

The point of the 5.56 LMG was that the Soldier could carry twice or three times the ammunition.

Then they added other crap so your back to carrying the same round count but at one third the effectiveness.

Edit Note: My apologies, I misunderstood ArmySGT's post and I thought I was replying to something that was actually said by waiting4something (I'm having a 'dumb' day today...)

Certainly and I do understand your point, (they lessen the weight of one thing then add other crap so the weight loss is negated) e.g. 300 rounds of 7.62mmN weighs about the same as 600 rounds of 5.56mm (actually about a kilo more I think but near enough is good enough in this example).

But overall... the weight distribution is different, with the Minimi/M249 loaded you have about 7kg in your arms, with the M60 loaded you have about 14kg

[Legbreaker]

But overall... the weight distribution is different, with the Minimi/M249 loaded you have about 7kg in your arms, with the M60 loaded you have about 14kg

And unless you have the arms of a gorrilla, you won't be throwing the M60 around like a rifle as you can with the Minimi.

[Targan]

As an M60 gunner it wasn't uncommon for me (a tiny 65kgs/143lbs at the time) to carry around 40-45kgs/90-100lbs of gear. Most of that was combat load - my pack was usually fairly light.
And then one exercise they gave me the 77 set as well... (another dozen kgs)
All that and 40+ degree C heat to deal with too!

That's insane. Why would the MG gunner end up with the radio too? Were they trying to break you? Stuff that. I hated carrying the 77 set when I was just carrying a rifleman's load.

[LAW0306]

read soliders load and mobility of a nation. We do carry more today in USMC I dont know about the rest we are up to 92 pounds in OEF and that is no pack just indvidual gear.

[Legbreaker]

4 man sections that time around instead of the usual 9.
The terrain wasn't very nice either - hills so steep that when the scout lost his footing he tumbled about a hundred feet down the slope swearing his head off all the way before being stopped by a mass of lantana (nettles).

[StainlessSteelCynic]

read soliders load and mobility of a nation. We do carry more today in USMC I dont know about the rest we are up to 92 pounds in OEF and that is no pack just indvidual gear.

That book is indeed an excellent reference and it's a damned pity that most politicians aren't forced to read these sorts of books and officers should probably be tested on their practical knowledge of such things.

Interesting to see some practical info on the load increase over the years regards USMC too. 90 pounds is about 40kg I think. This is exactly the sort of area where the Aussie Army was (still is to a point) let down, we never had enough transport for anything and they always lumbered us PBI with "everything we'll ever need" (exactly why I carried 2 Claymores with the M60, my No2 was meant to carry them for defence of the gunpit but he couldn't pack his gear properly to save his life - just lucky I was 181cm tall with broad shoulders and big feet!)

From memory (and this was the 1980s mind you so my memory ain't so good anymore!) we would patrol with about 35-40kg of gear without the pack and yeah I see that that is a bit of an increase in the carried load over what my WW2 & Korean War predecessors carried but it isn't really too much of an increase.

They had less gear but it was heavier in general where as we've got lighter gear but have to carry more and more. From the following website it looks as though the average US Army rifleman in Europe during 1944-45 carried close to those sorts of loads, about 37kg (approx 82lbs) while a US Army BAR gunner had about 45kg (approx 98lbs). That's a nasty weight to carry for just 240 rounds on an automatic weapon!
http://www.45thdivision.org/Pictures/General_Knowlege/combatload.htm
Just goes to show, PBI really are the packhorses of the military!

[headquarters]

Just talked about this with a colleague.

When he served in Afghanistand he was a squad leader - fully equipped for a footmobile op ( max 72 hrs) they started out with a total of 51 kg kit. Including plates, comms,some of the water needed and I think around 420 pc. 5.56 , 64 pc. 9x19mm, flares etc etc. If the skip it pack/ small pack was left in the vehicle it was " only" around 30 kgs.

In comparisson the 7,62N weighs around 35 kgs for a crate of 1000 rnds. If equipped with or former AG-3 rifles the ammo would have weighed around 16 kgs - bringing the total kit up to around 60 kgs.

I understand what you're saying but I do have some level of disagreement. Back then they didn't always carry less gear or ammo and I fully understand that once the military makes one thing lighter they give you more crap to carry so the weight ends up being the same.

When my father went to Vietnam to the time that I was in the Reserves, we carried about the same weight of gear despite the decade or so of time difference. I carried a pack, sleeping bag, 2 x Claymores, entrenching tool, the M60, 300-rds of ammo for it, four litres of water, 3 days worth of rations, a couple of smoke grenades, a steel helmet and a bunch of other crap I can't remember at the moment.

That was my unit, other units had different ideas of what the gunner should carry but believe me, nobody was running like a sprinter, it was a slow, tedious jog - the Army wants packhorses not racehorses and we were all foot mobile.

I'm not trying to get into a "who's got the bigger dick competition" with you but it seems that the weight of gear you're carrying was pretty much the same amount that I was carrying when I was in during the 1980s - they used to joke that if you could carry all the required gear and still run then you had obviously left something out of your kit. I understand the bitching about the overall weight carried but I still have little sympathy for bitching about the weight of a 5.56mmN compared to a 7.62mmN MG

[Legbreaker]

This is exactly the sort of area where the Aussie Army was (still is to a point) let down, we never had enough transport for anything and they always lumbered us PBI with "everything we'll ever need" (exactly why I carried 2 Claymores with the M60, my No2 was meant to carry them for defence of the gunpit but he couldn't pack his gear properly to save his life - just lucky I was 181cm tall with broad shoulders and big feet!)

Yes, this is the difference between Australian infantry and pretty much everyone else in the world. We have to carry EVERYTHING on our backs most of the time while most other nations get vehicles intergral to their organisation down to section/squad level. Now I could be wrong here, but I rather doubt those vehicle mounted/mobile troops will be throwing on their packs each and every time they get out to stretch their legs....

Back in my day the entire Australian Army had one, JUST one mechanised battalion - virtually everyone else walked unless they were lucky enough to hitch a ride with one of the APC squadrons, which was a very rare occurance. Integral battalion transport was barely enough to shift a company at a time by truck, and then only really possible by stripping the single truck assigned to each of the other companies for logistical support.

[HorseSoldier]

If so, what is the reason, would it have anything to do with the way the piston rod was designed alongside the barrel system on the weapon? And has there been any effort to improve or fix the issue by HK? Should any game stats for this weapon reflect it if it is indeed an issue?


Honestly, the theory from the 18B who took several of the 416s and a couple M4A1s out to the range and put them through their paces from a rest with green tip and 262 was that HK used substandard barrels on the weapons, rather than anything inherently inaccurate with the design.

Now, I recognize some HK fanboys will have just had their eyes scalded like a vampire with a face full of holy water, so apologies for that.

This was what was observed with the weapons we had circa 2006-7, and I do not know if the 416 has been improved since then. This was in the same time frame that SOCOM issued us HK's "improved" M16/m4 mags that were made with cheap steel (and feed lips that started bending and failing the very first day we got them out on the range) and "anti-tilt" followers that, well, tilted and bound occasionally.

Issues with both the 416 and HK mags actually appeared to be very similar in the big picture sense -- both were overweight for what they did, and not only offered no improvement over what they replaced but were actually less effective*/**.

(* -- The HK416, if you need a rifle caliber submachinegun that can be fired extensively with a suppressor and replicates the control layout of the M4/M16 is a valid solution, and is what CAG and the other JSOC kids adopted it to be in the first place. As a carbine or rifle it is significantly less desirable, and its track record with US SOF reflects this, having been kind of down-selected by anyone who doesn't need the specific and narrow strengths it possesses. It may be notable that this broadly replicates the career trajectory of the Mk 23 pistol in SOF service as well.

** -- HK mags are still just crap, and were pulled from SOCOM service around the time I came of active duty.)

Thanks for the all comments guys, much appreciated. However, I was still wondering about the accuracy of the HK 416. How does it compare to the M4A1 and M16A4? Is the accuracy effected in any way by the design and placement of the piston rod system on the HK 416?

At 100 meters from a rest, the 416s we had shot approximately double the group sizes as the M4A1s they were fired alongside -- that's same lots of green tip and Mk 262, same day/temp/humidity/etc. With that lot of green tip (which is poor for accuracy in the first place and very, very inconsistent), the 416s were 5+ MOA guns and M4s were running about 2.5 MOA. With Mk262, the both weapon systems were getting groups about half the size of green tip, with the same 416 double M4 size issue, just much tighter groups owing to the much better ammo involved.

Performance can vary hugely and horribly across lots with green tip, which can be accepted for service use (with current wartime waiver) at an accuracy standard that works out to 6 MOA. Not every lot shoots anywhere near that sloppy, but some lots have been accepted at that standard. Worst case 416 accuracy plus worst case M855 accuracy, you would probably have a weapon mechanically incapable of reliably hitting a head sized target (7-9" circle, or so) at 100 meters, even if the shooter does everything right. For a specialized weapon for use on assault, with anticipated ranges more in the realm of < 100 feet or so, this is not a show stopper, but for a generalist weapon system that can go, say, 0-600 meters with suitable optics and good ammo (i.e. the M4A1) it's a no go***.

(*** -- Weapon/ammo pairing mechanically able to make hits at 600 meters. Actual observed mileage under combat conditions may not reach this when said weapon/ammo combination is put in the hands of a physically exhausted, sleep deprived primate dealing with adrenaline dump relating to being suddenly put in a life/death situation.)

[Legbreaker]

That's some fairly solid evidence there HS for the 416's being inherently inferior. I could buy one barrel being substandard compared to the thousands of other 416s, but all of them in the sample? That right there says to me there's an issue which needs to be corrected asap.
I've shot some pretty crappy rifles, and all of them M16s to be honest, but there was usually at least a few on the range at any one time that could actually hit the target with some reliability.

[Targan]

That's some fairly solid evidence there HS for the 416's being inherently inferior. I could buy one barrel being substandard compared to the thousands of other 416s, but all of them in the sample? That right there says to me there's an issue which needs to be corrected asap.

What Horsesoldier is saying and what Law is saying about the 416 need not necessarily be mutually exclusive. Horsesoldier is describing his experiences with the H&K 416 in 2006-2007; Law is describing his experiences pretty much right now. Four years is well enough time for H&K to have put remedial action in place. I am willing to take both at face value and see no reason to question the veracity of either account.