PDA

View Full Version : 1st BN, 1st SFG (A) go for HK416-Uppers



Macs.
04-12-2007, 08:28 AM
Army Won't Field Rifle Deemed Superior to M4

It's a debate that's gone on for years - and now it's finally coming to a head.

The compact M4 carbine (http://tech.military.com/equipment/view/89046/m4-carbine.html) - a shortened version of the M16 (http://tech.military.com/equipment/view/89049/m16a2-5.56mm-rifle.html) - that is now standard issue for most Army troops, some Marines and other specialized units is facing increased criticism because of its tendency to malfunction with even the minutest exposure to the elements.

Some ground communities, including special operations forces, have begun to sideline the M4 in favor of newer, gas-piston operated variants such as the Heckler & Koch-manufactured 416 and the FNH-built Special Operations Forces Combat Assault Rifle, or SCAR

In a routine acquisition notice March 23, a U.S. Special Forces battalion based in Okinawa announced (http://www.defensetech.org/archives/003386.html) that it is buying 84 upper receiver assemblies for the HK416 to modify their M4 carbines. The M4 fires using a system that redirects gas from the expended round to eject it and reload another.

The 416 and SCAR use a gas-operated piston that physically pushes the bolt back to eject the round and load another.

Carbon buildup from the M4's gas system has plagued the rifle for years, resulting in some close calls with Soldiers in combat whose rifles jammed at critical moments.

According to the solicitation for the new upper receiver assemblies, the 416 "allows Soldiers to replace the existing M4 upper receiver with an HK proprietary gas system that does not introduce propellant gases and the associated carbon fouling back into the weapon's interior. This reduces operator cleaning time, and increases the reliability of the M4 Carbine, particularly in an environment in which sand and dust are prevalent."

The 416 is used by the Army's elite Delta Force, and a recent Army Times investigation showed the service's top equipment buyers ignored data from the spec ops community showing the M4 had fundamental flaws. Enamored by the development of futuristic weapons such as the XM29 and, later, XM8 - neither of which were ever fielded - the M4 stayed in the hands of Soldiers deploying to hot, dusty, austere environments like Iraq and Afghanistan.

The Army would prefer to wait for the development of a new rifle firing an airburst, round - essentially leaping ahead of today's technology. But that innovation has been hard to find in the right weight class.

An Army spokeswoman for Program Executive Office Soldier, based at Fort Belvoir, Va., said in a statement the Army isn't buying into SOF's argument.

"At this time PEO Soldier is not procuring and does not have plans to procure the 416," said Army spokeswoman, Erin Thomas, in an email statement.

But special operations forces sometimes work outside the "Big Army" procurement system, so they can grab the best gear quickly.

"The elimination of the gas tube ... means that the M4 will function normally even if the weapon is fired full of water without first being drained," the justification for the 416 assembly buy states. "There isn't another company that offers these features in their products. It is a practical, versatile system."

Army weapons experts have been tinkering with new weapons designs, such as the HK-built XM8. Its modular design, rugged construction and accuracy intrigued many in the Army - and other services. But in 2005, the Army abandoned the XM8 after spending $33 million - though the Natick Soldier Systems Center has been looking at a shortened version of the XM8 (http://www.defensetech.org/archives/003355.html) as a personal defense weapon for officers and armored vehicle crews.

So far, however, the Army is unwilling to buy what the special operations community believes is a clearly superior system and is still spending money looking for another technology while Soldiers use what many say is an inferior weapon in harsh combat conditions.

"The Infantry School at Fort Benning, Georgia is currently conducting a Capabilities Based Assessment to determine future Army needs," Thomas said in the statement, declining to elaborate.


http://www.military.com/NewsContent/0,13319,131317,00.html?ESRC=dod-bz.nl



1. REQUIRING AGENCY – 1st BN, 1st SFG (A), APO AP 96376 (HSC 1-1 SFG (A))

2. NATURE/DESCRIPTION OF ACTION BEING APPROVED
Purchase of HK416 barrels and sights for the U.S. Army.

3. DESCRIPTION OF SUPPLIES REQUIRED TO MEET THE AGENCY’S NEEDS
Agency requires 84 Each HK416 10" barrel Upper Receiver Kits (5.56mm), 84 Each Diopter rear sights (HK416 10" barrel), 84 Each folding front sights (HK416, barrel mount), 10 Each HK sight adjustment tool (diopter sights), 10 Each Spare 10" HK416 barrels, and 1 Each HK416 Multitool (with headspace gauges).

6. DESCRIPTION OF EFFORTS MADE TO ENSURE THAT OFFERS ARE SOLICITED FROM AS MANY POTENTIAL SOURCES AS PRACTICABLE:
The requirement will be posted on FBO to determine if any other companies may offer similar products that could be evaluated for future use.

[...]

9. ANY OTHER FACT SUPPORTING THE USE OF OTHER THAN FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION:
Due to the specialized nature of the products required, through the conducting of extensive and ongoing market research by the customer, it has been determined that Heckler & Koch Defense, Inc. is the only company that can meet the Government’s needs.

10. A LIST OF SOURCES THAT EXPRESSED IN WRITING AN INTEREST IN THE ACQUISITION:
Heckler & Koch is the only source that has expressed interest at this time.


[...]

Currently Heckler & Koch Defense, Inc. (H&K) is the only company that can meet the Government’s needs. H&K is the only company that manufactures the 416 Upper Receiver Kit. The 416 Upper Receiver Kit is an upper receiver replacement that allows soldiers to replace the existing M4 upper receiver with an HK proprietary gas system that does not introduce propellant gases and the associated carbon fouling back into the weapon’s interior. This reduces operator cleaning time, and increases the reliability of the M4 Carbine, particularly in an environment in which sand and dust are prevalent. The elimination of the gas tube currently used in the M4 Carbine means that the M4 will function normally even if the weapon is fired full of water without first being drained. There isn’t another company that offers these features in their products. It is a practical, versatile system.


http://www1.fbo.gov/spg/USAF/PAF/18CONS/FA5270-07-R-0009/Attachments.html

lt tahoe
04-12-2007, 09:18 AM
Blah blah blah...

Why does it matter that an SF unit uses them? One of the acknowledged problems with the M4 is that SF units tend to ride them a lot harder than the average troops--oh, and they have the full-auto version, which makes a big difference.

"its tendency to malfunction with even the minutest exposure to the elements"? Funny, I've never heard that from experienced troops. I used M16 and M4 variants for over a decade in the field and never had the kind of problems that are supposedly "rampant" now.

Obviously, YMMV, but the reports I've heard lately have been overwhelmingly positive.

bugkill
04-12-2007, 10:00 AM
Blah blah blah...

Why does it matter that an SF unit uses them? One of the acknowledged problems with the M4 is that SF units tend to ride them a lot harder than the average troops--oh, and they have the full-auto version, which makes a big difference.

"its tendency to malfunction with even the minutest exposure to the elements"? Funny, I've never heard that from experienced troops. I used M16 and M4 variants for over a decade in the field and never had the kind of problems that are supposedly "rampant" now.

Obviously, YMMV, but the reports I've heard lately have been overwhelmingly positive.

dude, i ABSOLUTELY agree with you. the only problem i had with the M4A1 is that with all the shooting we were doing in group, we would crack an assload of bolts, but the malfunction issues were not a big deal. i've seen the way some guys handle their weapons and some people are just not doing enough maintenance on their guns, which leads to some of them having issues.

also, there is not enough fighting in iraq or afghanistan where there is enough consensus that the m4 is failing. the combat in both of those conflicts are low (force on force) and most of the action is a bomb going off, and Soldiers firing some rounds at an enemy that runs away. the funny thing is that we fired more rounds training than we do in combat, but i don't remember that many complaints coming from the troops before we went down range.

RGRBOX
04-12-2007, 11:44 AM
We, as in when I was in, didn't comlain, we just got on with it.. but a fact that is there, is that the M16/M4 is better on the Range, then Down Range.. You need a weapon that can get dirty and still function.. Shìt we would spend a lot of time cleaning, and doing maintenace on the weapons, but I can remember a lot of times, when the weapon had a malfunction due to just getting dirty from moving to the Obj.. even in Trianing, on some of those great sandy DZs at Bragg, you pull your weapon out of the 1950, and it gets a lot of sand in it and on it.. I'm not going to say that it doesn't work.. it does.. but I would rather have the best then second best.. works with everything.. The Army spends too much money on testing crap that it never takes, and no enough on making better some of what it already has.. Look at the MOLLE System for example.. great idea, but the old LBE ALICE system worked too.. so they sunck a couple billion bucks on MOLLE.. when the mags that are issed, and carried in these high priced pouches are substandard.. a lot of the problems I've seen witht he M16 are Mag realated, along with the weak extractors.. but I will say this, the 416 case is a good one, it fixes one fo the biggest problems witht he M16/M4 family.. why not use it..

RB

We did use to have a saying about the M16 back when I was in..

Something about remmebring that this weapon was made by the lowest bidder..

jagermeister
04-12-2007, 11:59 AM
honestly how many times are we gonna debate this. It is better then the M4 but speaking from my experience the M4 still works fine. Every jam i had could be traced back to the mags and a new upper isnt gonna fix that.

Mechanical Ambush
04-12-2007, 12:42 PM
That's right ... just like Kalashnikov said, "the M16 sucks!"

James
04-12-2007, 12:49 PM
I've heard through the grapevine that HK416 uppers don't work so well w/o the HK lower, but the Gov't is buying the upper alone because HK is being greedy and charging $4000 for one rifle.

jimmyboots
04-12-2007, 12:49 PM
Well it didn't suck for us in fallujah. When did it suck for you M.A.?

bugkill
04-12-2007, 03:45 PM
i honestly believe that the Army has gotten so "tech-happy" that we have lost touch with our warfighting skills. the m4 is fine and can get the job done. we are fighting an enemy that would pick up anything to fight and they even show up without body armor. too many soldiers are talking about we need this or we need that, but what we really need is some f**kin' balls!!!

i'm a freakin' paratrooper and we cheat death all the time. i did'nt give a damn about needing a new weapon or more armor for my truck when i was in iraq. i only cared about being ready for the enemy and taking care of my gear to best of my ability just in case i got into contact with them. now, everyone is trying to "trick out" their guns or get all technical about the m4, but they don't talk more about sharping their shooting skills with the weapon they got.

i would much rather have the money spent on doing more live-fire ranges, instead of buying new guns or upper receivers. it will always boil down to the operator and how he performs, simple as that.

Seraphim
04-12-2007, 04:29 PM
This article includes Delta Force and 416...Im guessing this thread will reach to one billion pages.

James...you sure they selling for 4k for a complete?

RGRBOX
04-12-2007, 05:18 PM
i honestly believe that the Army has gotten so "tech-happy" that we have lost touch with our warfighting skills. the m4 is fine and can get the job done. we are fighting an enemy that would pick up anything to fight and they even show up without body armor. too many soldiers are talking about we need this or we need that, but what we really need is some f**kin' balls!!!

i'm a freakin' paratrooper and we cheat death all the time. i did'nt give a damn about needing a new weapon or more armor for my truck when i was in iraq. i only cared about being ready for the enemy and taking care of my gear to best of my ability just in case i got into contact with them. now, everyone is trying to "trick out" their guns or get all technical about the m4, but they don't talk more about sharping their shooting skills with the weapon they got.

i would much rather have the money spent on doing more live-fire ranges, instead of buying new guns or upper receivers. it will always boil down to the operator and how he performs, simple as that.

Bug your right about this.. the Army needs to be told to get out there and end this.. the Politicians are holding the Army back from doing what it's trained to do.. I't great what you guys are doing over there.. but I wish they let you guys do what your there to do.. I'm sure that you have a better idea of this then myself.. but info that comes done to us civis has been watered down so much, we get the impression that all you guys are doing is gettin ghit by IEDs.. I'm sure your kicking some butt over there.. but I think this could have already been cleaned up, if they'd hlet you guys do it..

RB

ZoneOne
04-12-2007, 05:41 PM
honestly how many times are we gonna debate this. It is better then the M4 but speaking from my experience the M4 still works fine. Every jam i had could be traced back to the mags and a new upper isnt gonna fix that.

Maybe we should ditch those old metal mags that have been around for ever and turn Magpul into the next "mag-nopoly" and have them produce the all the mags for the Military.

Wishful thinking ;-)

RGRBOX
04-12-2007, 05:43 PM
Magpuls making mags know..

Damn I need to check out their site..

RB

jagermeister
04-12-2007, 07:31 PM
Maybe we should ditch those old metal mags that have been around for ever and turn Magpul into the next "mag-nopoly" and have them produce the all the mags for the Military.

Wishful thinking ;-)

that would be awsome......

justagoodolboy
04-12-2007, 11:11 PM
I've heard through the grapevine that HK416 uppers don't work so well w/o the HK lower, but the Gov't is buying the upper alone because HK is being greedy and charging $4000 for one rifle.

it'd be cheaper if the gov't would give them a bigger contract. of course the government won't give them a bigger contract until the price is brought down. lovely how it works aint it?

James
04-12-2007, 11:11 PM
This article includes Delta Force and 416...Im guessing this thread will reach to one billion pages.

James...you sure they selling for 4k for a complete?

Not sure at all, just something I heard.

punchinout
04-12-2007, 11:19 PM
Not sure at all, just something I heard.

man 4k is freakin huge, its no 416, but we got quoted the price on the Civilian SCARS(if and when they ever come out) and they are about 2k.

Seraphim
04-13-2007, 04:58 AM
Not sure at all, just something I heard.

In regards to 416 price.

http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/showthread.php?t=109619

lt tahoe
04-13-2007, 01:09 PM
Maybe we should ditch those old metal mags that have been around for ever and turn Magpul into the next "mag-nopoly" and have them produce the all the mags for the Military.

Wishful thinking ;-)

I got a chance to run rounds through those a couple weeks ago; pretty sweet mags, and the "torture test" someone posted was pretty convincing. Why has it taken 40 years for someone to make these things?

mohica
04-13-2007, 02:52 PM
Get an LWRC. Simpler, easier to maintain, just as reliable, and less weight. Plus, HK diopter sights aren't for me.