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.

[ArmySGT.]

Originally Posted by 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.

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

[headquarters]

Originally Posted by 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.

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.

[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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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.