I was first introduced to the HK416 by Larry Vickers and Ken Hackathorn at SHOT Show about six or seven years ago. Back then, it was known as the “HK M4” before Colt had the chance to call foul on the name. Since then, probably every fan of the M4 pattern carbine has heard of it, especially since the commercial version, dubbed MR556, has been released. Gun store gossip aside, do you really need one?
I’m not going to go into all the particulars as far as design differences; that has been covered pretty well over the last half decade by the gun rags and online media outlets. Suffice it to say, one of the issues that the DI guns have is a small operating window in its short barrel formats. For example, in a 10.5″ format, the gas port is necessarily very close to the end of the muzzle. The time which gas must be bled from the barrel, travel down the gas tube, and work the operating parts is extremely short, much more so than a 14.5″ or 16″ format. They can be made to work, but in extreme altitude or temperature differences, they can become problematic. The HK416 is designed to mitigate these issues and essentially adapted the short stroke piston system from their G36.
Hilton and I have run 14.5″ or 16″ standard DI guns for decades now, and have cumulatively seen millions of rounds go downrange. The reality is that if you have a properly built and maintained semi-automatic 14.5″ or longer barreled DI gun, you likely will not gain much benefit from a piston operated carbine. But don’t let that stop you. The HK416 started a wave of change in the way manufacturers and end users look at the M4 carbine. It was adopted by special operations units and its hammer was dropped on the most wanted terrorist in history.
As for 416 uppers, many dealers and local police agencies strapped for cash have purchased complete 416 carbines, swapped out the upper receivers with standard DI parts, and sold the 416 uppers for a premium. To my knowledge, HK has never released 416 upper receivers for commercial sale (save the MR556 kits.) I’ve been told that HK will no longer send out 416’s as dealer samples, so actual 416 uppers are quite rare and expensive.
So if you want a piece of history, you’re gonna have to pay. But you will be the coolest kid on the block.
The answer to “do you really need x,” where x is a gun, is ALWAYS YES.
ALWAYS.
Heavy, less accurate, expensive, proprietary parts, etc. 10.5″ is too short in any format IMO. Only one inch to 11.5″ increases the dwell time by 40% in a DI gun. Huge difference. I prefer 12.5″ but some insist on shorter. That being said an op rod on an M16 from any manufacturer is a solution to a problem that never existed. Why they want to continue to piss on Gene Stoner’s genius is a mystery.
I have never seen so many catch-phrases in one post.
Ever do any thinking for yourself?
Shorter barrels are more accurate, fact.
Proprietary parts are a reality for almost every single gun out there except the AR, AK, Glock, and arguably 1911 family of weapons. If you own any gun outside those 4 groups, you’re walking into proprietary parts territory. Who cares? Stoner’s final AR design is full of “proprietary parts”.
Expensive, only on the second hand civilian market. They’re actually reasonably priced for agencies.
10.5″ is too short? I’ll let DEVGRU know that the next time they go after someone like Bin Laden.
Dwell time on a DI gun is kind of off topic, don’t you think? And when we’re talking about shooting suppressed, which is what the HK416 was made for, you actually want as little dwell time as possible because you’re going to have a whole lot of excess pressure either way.
A solution to a problem that never existed? I’m not even going to respond to that.
Thanks Mike for your input, as misguided and full a cliche and rhetoric as it is. I really don’t want to waste any of my time much less other readers here time with such drivel, but I will do so this time.
“Shorter barrels are more accurate, fact.” Mmmmm.
The “proprietary parts” argument you made for me.
“Reasonably priced for for agencies” Perhaps you could enlighten the readers here of the costs to an “agency”.
“10.5″ is too short? I’ll let DEVGRU know that the next time they go after someone like Bin Laden.” I can’t find the words to respond to this. I suspect most of the other readers here are of the same thought.
Dwell time is completely within the scope of the topic Mike if you understood the conversation. It is evident that you don’t. The 416 was NOT created for suppressor use. It was “created” to increase the alleged reliability issue with 10.3″ DI weapons. Suppressor use was a “bonus” if you will.
Bottom line, the 416 does nothing a quality DI weapon will at higher cost, front end heavy, proprietary parts, more parts, and so on. THAT is the fact my friend. With some of the improvements and new stocks/buffers etc, short DI weapons run and run well. For me 12.5 inch is ideal. But hey, since you said it is fact that short barrels are more accurate, 7″ is in my future!
What Joe said…
To Joe, shorter barrels are more accurate than a longer barrel of equal diameter and build. That is a fact, you will obviously lose maximum range as due to a loss of muzzle velocity. But they are more accurate. Velocity does not equal accuracy.
I’m in the what Joe said camp for the most part. With that said, the HK Piston system does some things well. IF I needed either a short barreled suppressed AR platform, or an Automatic rifle, the HK would be my first choice. I don’t have much use for either, so I don’t (although as an HK Red Kool Aid Drinking Fan, I would “Like” to have a 416, and really “want” a 417). These days I am back to running an AUG, and several Colt/Centurion 16″ AR’s that work for most of what I need, and I am in process with a 6.8 SPC for a 12.5″ SBR.
I’d never buy an HK rifle, as long as there are so many other options available for half the cost.
I do like the gun. Make no mistake it is well built and performs, well just like everything HK. It is heavy, heavy to the point where if you needed to use it as a breaching tool, you could, but you’d be dummy for doing it. Like everything HK it is prohibitively expensive.
It is the ferrari of M4’s, you have to wait, you have to pay, everyone will stare, and you’d get more out of an AWD 911 turbo. But damn it is cool
Basically, if you need to run a short AR in the most extreme manner you need the 416. I had an M16 for years and the best setup I had for running it full-auto suppressed was a 10 inch 416 upper. I ran Noveske and Colt uppers and neither was as trouble-resistant as the HK. I know, I know, if I would have picked up a magic buffer, or sprinkled magic fairy dust on the DI uppers they would have run fine. But the fact of the matter is if you need something that works without luck, the 416 is the goto gun. That is why you see the SEALS run them while hobbyists give you the “xyz upper is just as good if you hold your butt cheeks right when you fire it.” nonsense.
Cool to be sure. Cost effective for joe average not. Right now here at home in ny we are dealing with a mess of legislative nonsense that basically outlawed our ar’s over night. I would love to relocate some day and get into the sbr and can game.
For 98% of applications a conventional di gun will do the job.
Allot of HKool-aid flowing here.When these types of references are made a flag is immediately thrown.
If 6 had used a MK18 on the OSM raid, every mthrfkr on the planet would be scrambling to get one, as they are affordable. The 416 happened to be the flavor of the week for da boys. I think if you look you will find most have returned to the DI model.
I am afraid “luck” has nothing to do with it, it is physics my friend.
If I recall reading correctly, Larry Vickers stated that the niche the 416 found itself best serving was in the 10.4″ barrel with dedicated suppressor format, and that it outperformed anything DI related in that envelope, and that is how the Tier 1 units were using them. He did state that with the longer barrel lengths of the 416 did not do anything that a properly set up DI gun would do, so a 416 wasn’t the best option unless you’re going to go 10.4″ on it.
Ah, found the quote from (lots more info regarding the 416 on this thread as well): http://www.m4carbine.net/showthread.php?92876-Hk-416-user-feedback/page10:
“The Tier One Special Operations units that use the 10.4 HK416 could use Mk18’s if they chose too – they don’t and the 416 is not leaving service anytime soon with those organizations
If you compare a 14.5 HK416 to a 14.5 M4 the advantages are not that great – an argument could be made that a dialed in end user would get no advantage from running a 416 instead of an M4
In the short barreled format that is absolutely not the case – Mk18 formatted DI guns are absolutely not as reliable as the HK416 10.4 inch weapon – end of story
Within the framework these guns are being used in combat there is no comparison – don’t fool yourself into believing the Mk18 is just as good
Proof positive is one Naval SOF unit used Mk18’s before getting 10.4 HK416 – and they haven’t went back to them
That as they say is a clue
LAV “
Vickers quote is well over a year old, and the HK voodoo magic has worn off the 416 with many folks.
I don’t deny it works, but as previously stated, with some help i.e. the A5 buffer system, and going against conventional doctrine that the DI must be kept sanitary and relatively DRY, short DI rifles run like raped apes. The added front end weight, reciprocating parts, the loss of accuracy, etc. makes the 416 a no go for me.
There is a video floating around that shows the 416 in comparison to an M16 shooting in slo mo that reflects the large amount of flex of the 416’s barrel due to the action of the reciprocating mass of the op-rod. It is not unlike an AK. It is very pronounced compared to the DI weapon which exhibits little to none. Couldn’t find it, perhaps someone else can and post it here.
And to the fellows that continue to profess the accuracy of shorter barrels, let’s get in the real world here. It is a non-issue for all practical purposes for this discussion and the weapons that are the subject at hand.
I’ve heard lots of internet rumors of the slow mo video yet I’ve yet to find it. Any sources for it?
I have one sitting in my safe right now that a buddy is letting me shoot for some “T&E”. It’s an absolute beauty! Money being no object, I’d get two of them…..you never know, one might get dirty and I’d need a backup;-)
I ran about 60 rounds thru it the other day at an indoor range (outdoor work will be after Santa finishes his ops) and really enjoyed it.
Having never been a super-secret, Tier “Infinity” ninja I do have one observation and one question:
1. I didn’t care for the ambi safety on my right hand during shooting. I imagine that the safety can be removed and/or modified to alleviate that issue. In addition, I would imagine that were I to use it on a daily basis I would quickly get used to it.
2. I discovered that the PMags and GI mags don’t work. This being my first experience with the H&K rifle I didn’t even think to ask about the magazine compatibility. So, other than the infamous “We’re H&K and we hate you” type explanation, why didn’t they make the rifle capable of accepting GI magazines? Obviously, from a US perspective the weapon was designed with LAV’s friends in mind and we all know that they get what they want. While I’m just a former dumb 0311 rifleman, was it not envisioned that DevGru/Delta/Cub Scouts et al might have a mission or situation where they were working with conventional forces and might need to be able to use that particular unit’s mags…..? I’m thinking of a Mogadishu type scenario where a Tier 1 unit working with blocking or follow on forces and a re-supply is not possible….
Just curious on that little detail.
Still, the rifle is sexy as hell!
Semper Fi,
W
Basically, the 416 mag well was designed before the PMAG existed. Magpul, trying to figure out how to make a plastic mag that was as durable as possible maxed out the mags dimensions. HK (and FN SCAR, etc) minimized the mag well’s dimensions so that the magazines would be held more firmly in place. So basically both companies were working towards the same goal from different ends.
Greg, why would you want to make an already relatively snug mag well tighter? you don’t think that HK wanted to ensure that end users used HK mags entered the equation? The super special “marinized” HK mag lost favor quickly once the PMag was introduced and HK took it in the ass on that plan.
HK is notorious for making stuff that you can only get from them, and that is usually only after bowing at the alter of Orbendorf. After dealing with them in LE supply for years, it did not surprise me PMags did not readily work in the 416.
I don’t think it had anything to do with PMAGS or GI mags. They had designed the Steel Hi-reliablity mags to replace the standard GI mags used in the SA-80. They had found the Gi mags to be a weak point. They designed a more reliable mag. They, obviously, chose to use the most reliable mag in their HK M4. The only alternatives to the GI mags were sub-par poly mags from Israel and true junk like Ramlines. I don’t think anything bit them on the ass. They have sold scads of 416s to American Special forces, the Marines, etc. Hell, entire nations have adopted it. They will be OK.
My point was HK wants end users to use everything HK. No “aftermarket” stuff for them. I also believe they thought the so called “high reliability mag” was thought by the powers that be at Hk to be the panacea of M16 magazines and they would sell millions upon millions of the. Didn’t happen.
I don’t believe that “scads” of 416’s have been sold to American Special Forces. Fact is, it was purchased in very very limited quantity, and as previously stated by others has seen only any real use by two units in the SF community and that has even waned at this point.
W your comment on magazine interchangeability is one primary complaint about the SCAR mk17 and the 417l. I know it is a money thing for the gun company but I think that the military as a whole needs to say this is the magazine pattern. Abide by it or do not get the contract. Interoperability needs to supersede profitability.
Thanks to all for expounding on the magazine compatibility question. Sadly, it all makes sense.
To Fox33’s point, however, I would think that the military demanding interoperability for being awarded the contract would be an even simpler fix: if I’m an “operator” of Tier 1 status I would simply choose another primary weapon. Now, I’m assuming that many of the individual members of said super-secret, Tier 1 assets have a substantial amount of leeway when selecting individual weapons. Right? Wrong? A little in the middle….?
I would think that this “consumer’s choice” would be heard/felt from a company like H&K (maybe/maybe not?). I’m also not naive enough to believe that even Tier 1 units don’t get over ruled at times and must salute, perform an about-face, and use the equipment that has been selected/issued by a procurement officer…..we all have to take a bite of the proverbial $hit sandwich at times. Another assumption within my scenario/question is that this Tier 1 operator, and teammates, would be operating in the current environments of Iraq, A-stan, and other theaters where they were/are working alongside conventional forces armed with M4s using GI mags. If, however, you’re working in an urban direct action type scenario (I’m thinking SAS in Belfast circa 1983) and you don’t have to be worried about being caught in the hills for days before an exfiltration, well, the mag issue probably doesn’t matter much (more like a SWAT team at that point).
My point was originally to wonder out loud how much impact on a company like H&K if individual operators declined to use the weapon based upon an issue like the mag compatibility………?
Semper Fi,
W
Carried in combat. Have an upper on a Spike’s lower.
LE pricing @ $1200
Expensive for civilians – yes.
Less accurate – no less than an M4. <1MOA
Its an assault rifle not a sniper rifle.
Heavier- Yes
More reliable – you cant imagine
Magazines- Original magwell was slightly flared and more vertical thinking it would help reloads. Didnt play well with standard mags; That's why MAGPUL made the EMag 5ish years ago. The HK416A5 uses a standard magwell.
Need it (civilian) – Nah, never had a well maintained M4 fail on me based on my needs as a civilian. I don't shoot it much anymore because I cant get a replacement barrel easily. http://www.hkparts.net has all the rest.
Need it (military)- Hard to say. Had M4s fail before. Never had a 416 fail. Service life is outstanding. Can be pushed to extremes and very high round counts. Won the Marine IAR competition. They must be doing something right.
Suppressed- phenomenal suppressed. HK416A5 has an adjustable gas block to improve performance as well.
A spikes lower?
That could be current for LE. Generally it seems they were in the $1400+ range a few years ago.
At the ranges a 10.3-10.5 is used, probably not too much of an issue.
I think the reliability issue is a wash at this point.
The USMC IAR deal is a goat f*#K of the first order. Replacing a belt fed weapon with a magazine fed weapon that will do no more than a similarly configured M16 is, ummmmmm, ignorant?
http://www.spikestactical.com/new/ss/index.php
To me, a lower, is a lower, is a lower. I’ve never had a lower fail (just my experience). I save my money for better triggers and ammo.
You could very well be correct on the current price.
I have a 14.5″ gun. More rare than the 10.5s that were sold as upper kits. Personally I view assault rifle range as @ 400m or less. The requirements for PID beyond those ranges require larger optics and conflicts with CQB work. I prefer non magnified optics for CQB and have yet to be comfortable with the whole offset optics/ piggyback concept. For me, it doesn’t work out in stressful situations. I probably need to train more to be confident in it but, so far, haven’t needed to.
Not arguing the merits of the IAR choice. I think in terms of the “automatic rifleman” role it makes sense to go back to an automatic rifle capable of the accuracy and volume of fire required. As long as it meets the capability requirements they are after I would have to defer to the Corps (I’m not a Marine). They seem to do some really smart things of late.
I just could never wrap my head around a lower with a spider as the logo! Some of these companies try a bit too hard to he “bad ass” I guess.
I don’t see too many engagements beyond a couple hundred yards with a 10.3″ barrel as the primary weapon, optics being one of the primary considerations as you stated. Wrong choice of gear IMO. Not saying it won’t work, but not my first choice.
I have evolved over the years and 12.5 and 16″ is my choice of gear at this juncture. 10.3 and 14.7 are out.
In any case, op rod M16’s are not my cup of tea.
I’m with you on the logo thing. Only reason I bought the Spikes was the price. It was inexpensive and they did the coloring of the safety settings as well. Simply novelty on my part.
I too prefer 16″. The performance of 16″ over 14.5″ is quite noticeable. The extra inch and a half isn’t going to break anyone. The standard M4/ Mk18 has put down a lot of bad guys just fine. Most folks (including myself) will never push a piston AR anywhere close to the edge of performance. A quality DI AR (I prefer Noveske) works just fine.
I dont need one . I would like to have one .
Very Expensive Rifle .
I think my standard M4 works just fine.