Talk:Heckler & Koch HK416
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. | ||||||
| Start | This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale. | ||||||
|
|||||||
The supposed "improved" characteristics of the weapon have no objective base to support them. The characteristics portion of the article still read more like an H&K advertisement than an objective reference material. Many of the features listed as "unique" are nothing of the sort.The Dark 04:08, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
- HK 416 is basically Daewoo K2 upper that can be use in a Colt lower—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.161.25.43 (talk • contribs) 23 Mar 2007.
Do you have any knowledge of firearms to state that claim? Also, that type of "improved" remark is probably saying "improved" from the Colt M4. The 416 is based off of it, ya know. Lkegley9 00:59, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
So why not say "improved" form Colt M4, if in fact it is improved. If the article has to be objective it should be changed, no matter if it sounds like an ad. But it looks the unique features are taken from the official US site of HK. And as far as I know internaly HK 416 is based on the AR-18 system (HK G36/XM-8) and only externaly based on Colt M4. The improved/comparison is probably just to show that this rifle that is probably a candidate for the new US Army weapon is better than the old one. If someone has acctually tryed these weapons (HK 416 and Colt M4) now is the time to add something.
Ok, you state a good point there. I still thing that when he meant by "improved" couldn't be disputed. Maybe it says its improved over other H&K rifles of the past. I really don't know. And to be honest, I have never shot either of these guns either. But you don't need to have shot the gun to write an article on it. All you really need to know is the statistics and other information. Inaccuracy and how it feels to be fired are irrelevant for an encyclopedic article. Lkegley9 04:46, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
All it said was "improved." If we're going to claim to have objective, verifiable data, those data need to provide points of reference to verify against. I have no doubt its systems are "improved" against an early model Winchester, but it may not be "improved" when compared to certain other modern rifles (or it may, I don't know. That's why people should verify what is claimed rather than accept it willy-nilly). Without a basis to measure against, "improved" is, in my opinion, a subjective term.The Dark 20:21, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
Ok, that makes sense. I'll do a little research on what rifles it can compare against and state what it is improved from. I'm done debating at this point in time. You state very good points. Thanks Lkegley9 22:07, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
Contents |
[edit] Realy improved.
I think that it is fair to say that the 416 has some improvement over the M4. And in is not solely based on the ar18, the rifle uses a standard AR15/M16/M4 receiver. The gas system is simply altered from a direct impingement system to a piston system( wich have proven to be more reliable).
It is fair to say that the HK 416 has improved reliability over the standard AR15 series. This does not detract from AR15's they are great guns, they are accurate and very reliable. However there are many firearms that are more reliable( AK47 and all its varients, HK G3, SIG 550 series, HK G36) The AR15 type rifles have some features that it surpasses other rifles in, Ergonomics, balance, and accuracy to name a few.
If some one tells us that Heckler and Koch has built a M4 upper reciever that is more reliable fine, from all accounts that statement seems to be true.
[edit] A Good Stub.
Although the H&K 416 may very well be an improvement over the existing AR-15 receiver design (which in principle, it looks to me like it is - though it's not based on the AR18 design - the AR18 bolt carrier travels down two recoil rods each with a tightly wound spring, which stop at the back of the upper receiver, whereas the 416 retains the same bolt carrier of the M16 [well, they would have had to change the bolt key - but I digress...], which recoils into the buffer and spring, located in the buffer tube in the butt), I do agree that the article reads too much like an advertisement. I also disagree with some of the claims. Less cleaning comes particularily to mind; anybody who has been in the Army knows that "less cleaning" doesn't exist. If you fire so much as one shot, you know that you'll be spending six hours the next day cleaning your weapon anyway, regardless of the gas system that it uses. Joking aside:
-Improved reliability: possibly. Although the only problems that I have personally had with the Canadian C7 (which is of the conventional AR-15 upper receiver group design) have been related to gross, deliberate neglect on my part. And one incident with a non-servicable magazine.
-100% function: impossible. Every weapon has circumstances that will cause it to malfunction.
-No fouling directed into the weapon: utter nonsense. This is impossible. If the piston assembly were completely leak-proof, the piston would not be able to move. It obvioulsly fouls less, since gas isn't being blown directly into the upper and lower receiver assemblies, but no fouling is an absurd claim.
-User removable / exchangable parts: fair enough. But so is virtually everything in the M16. Explain the improvement here.
-Insensitive to barrel length and ammunition changes: more nonsense. Changes in the barrel length and ammunition will invariably have an effect on the gas system. Period. Outside temperature and humidity will affect the gas system. The effect of changing the barrel length and ammunition may not be major enough to inhibit the weapon from functioning, but it will exist.
-Improved buffer / magazine / bolt, yadda, yadda, yadda: how? It's nice to say that it's improved, but how is it improved over the previous design? How exactly do you improve the design of an extractor spring? It's a single-coil spring about 2mm long - I have a hard time seeing a lot of room for improvement there. "Improved extractor and spring / buffer." Explain what the extractor and spring have to do with the buffer. Improved function. How does it pull spent casings from the chamber better than the previous design?
The article contains enough objective information to make a good stub, but the improved features list I believe should be either explained and cross-referenced or deleted. RCEME Craftsman 06:31, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
The disputed "advertisement" section of this article appears to come from the H&K website The HK 416 system section on the 416, which explains why it sounds like an advertisement. This might also introduce copyright issues (I'll admit that I'm new and I don't know how that works completely yet). --Skuhns 03:17, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
--On the user removable/exchangeable parts comment, on a standard issue M16 anything beyond the field-strippable parts requires armorer's tools to change out. Perhaps it is referring to parts that are not user-swappable on the M16 but are on the HK G36 and it's sister weapon, the XM8, like the barrel, grenade launcher, and underslung shotgun. --Steelcobra 0825 zulu, 14 April 06
[edit] The Improvement is ...
The improvement mentioned is a standard H&K mechanism, in fact. It's the same mechanism in all of their semi and fully automatic rifles (possibly in the handguns as well). The improvement is on the linkless Browning mechanism, along with the delayed action buffered feedback of the gas to cycle the action. This keep the operating temperature of the gun down, the inside of the gun cleaner from unburned bits of crap, the recoil lower and the action smoother.
As an aside, the text should probably not just be a near cut-and-paste from H&K's site...
Respectfully,
HK 416 magazines are more rugged and feed better. 416 magazine is forged from steel which is tougher than the standard aluminum magazine. It can take more abuse in combat such as being dropped or banged. It is reportedly of sturdier construction and does not need to be under-loaded to preserve feed reliability. In contrast, standard M-16 magazine must be loaded with no more than 28 rounds or reliability of function is not guaranteed. Lary Vickers a former Delta Force operator who was involved heavily in the design of HK 416 stated in an interview that the M-16 magazine was singled out for improvement.
-Chin, Cheng-chuan
[edit] Removal of "More Accurate"
I have removed the "More Accurate" section of the barrel description. As someone who has carried an M-16 in combat and experimented with an HK416, there is not a chance in hell it is more accurate. The addition of a piston and more moving parts, means more barrel stress and more moving parts. Adding the piston degrades accuracy, not by much but it does.
[edit] Removal of "Legal Issues"
I have removed this section for the following reasons.
1. It was entirely unsourced
2. It carried a POV and was misleading (statements such as "found their way into civilian hands" imply wrong-doing)
3. It was contradictary (section was named "Legal Issues" while also pointing out there was nothing illegal about the purchase of 416 uppers despite HK policy)
There was some small controversy over HK 416 uppers ending up bought by individuals, but as I understand it, it was hardly a "legal issue".
Only half of the last sentence in the section talks about any legal issues. "upper receiver assemblies used to assemble complete firearms would have to follow regulations on assembling rifles from foreign made parts."
Because it's such a non-issue (outside of complaints by HK) I don't think this section can be recovered. Perhaps someone could write a different section entitled "Controversy" or something which is NPOV and sourced. Unfortunatly, I can't even find much information about these "legal issues" to source. 220.239.88.91 10:28, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Lauch
When is the army going to use the 416?
Which army? No one has had really any interest yet besides police forces and private organisations, so we will just have to wait and see. By the way, what exactly is 'Lauch'? is that lunch, laugh or launch? X360 05:30, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Article Title Needs to be Changed
The title H&K 416 is incorrect. For one the gun is called HK416 (with no space) and it should have Heckler & Koch before it in the title, thus making it Heckler & Koch HK416 (Like the G36 article for example). The same applies for the HK417 article. We also need to change all the mentions in the article to HK416 (or HK417). Before I had been just changing all the mentions to 'HK 416' for consistancy since I can't change the article name, but we need someone to fix the title. X360 05:30, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
Ok, I've changed both articles but the redirect isn't taking me straight to the article. Is there a way to fix this? X360 05:53, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
The reason I did this by the way is because other articles, like MP5 and G36 both feature Heckler & Koch in the title. The weapon is actually called the HK416, not the 416 with a Heckler & Koch acronym at the start. X360 08:18, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
Ok, the redirect is fixed. The problem was there was a double redirect. X360 04:43, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
Gents, I have carried a 10.5 inch HK416, fired it, taken it appart and cleaned it in Iraq. The mud slinging comments I have read above surprises me. It may sound like an advertisement to someone who is in-flexible and stuck in the past, but every "improvement" HK made were inteligently executed and make sense. If I had had the time I would have written an article about them in detail. They are so stricking I will be puchasing one asap. The only complaint I have is that it is heavy. The free floating rail HK chose makes it very heavy. My colt M-4 with a sure fire, PEQ-2, Aimpoint, and a 28 rd mag was lighter than the 10.5 HK416, empty. Do some research before you bash a weapon. The gun runs 50,000 rounds without cleaning and without malfunctions. My M-4 only starts to run into problems between 1,200 and 2,000. Yes, in the modern Marine Corps we are running Enhanced Marksmanship ranges in which we fire those 2,500 in one day. In my unit we run them all the time. A well lubed M-4 will work through 2,500+ rounds. Why does it matter. Well my weapon gets much dirtier out here from flying dust, raining mud, mud in the vehicles, etc. I liked the HK416 so much that I was shopping for info when I ran into this article. After using it I didn't want to give it back to the DOJ guy (except that it was HEAVY.) Don't get me wrong, I love my M-4. She got me through allot and I only have 2 weeks till I get home. I trust her with my life, she just demands a little more attention. Good ones often do. R, TORO
[edit] Delta Force Use
According to this article, it's already in use by the US Delta Force: Better than M4, but you can’t have one --Zegoma beach 12:49, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
- The Armytimes don't know what they are talking about. First Army Times doesn't own by the US Army. Second Delta isn't even acknowledge by the US Army. The information about Delta using HK416 is probably false. Army Times is a trade magazine and it job is to promote products that is paid for by companies. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.161.25.43 (talk • contribs) 30 Mar 2007.
- While your first comment is correct - Army Times is owned by Gannett, Inc - your second comment is not. The US Armed Forces has never refused to acknowledge that SFOD-D exists. They do not comment on its membership or activities to maintain security for the unit. And while ArmyTimes was the biggest one to comment on it, the connection between SFOD-D and the HK416 has also been mentioned by HKPro, DefenseNews.com, and plenty of non-citeable sources that seem to have pulled from them. The Dark 12:07, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
- Did the Army officially stated that Delta exists in public or not? We all know it exists but the Army never commented on it. You got Army Times, DefenseNews, etc saying this and that about Delta yet they never give the name of their sources. Those sources are not creditable and to me it is all BS. I know a Delta guy but I can't give his name out because well he is special. He told me that his unit wear pink panties into battles. I am telling you the truth, don't you guys believe me? To those magazines everybody is a Delta/Navy Seal/etc. Give me a break. The problem with the M16 is not the gas system but operator error, magazine malfunction, or action/buffer spring wore out. HK is fixing the wrong part of the platform and making the weapon heavier.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.161.25.43 (talk • contribs) 01 Apr 2007.
- While your first comment is correct - Army Times is owned by Gannett, Inc - your second comment is not. The US Armed Forces has never refused to acknowledge that SFOD-D exists. They do not comment on its membership or activities to maintain security for the unit. And while ArmyTimes was the biggest one to comment on it, the connection between SFOD-D and the HK416 has also been mentioned by HKPro, DefenseNews.com, and plenty of non-citeable sources that seem to have pulled from them. The Dark 12:07, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
