That time of the year again - Army seeks improved carbine

[Edward Yee]

Did you fire ones that were manufactured around the time that the M9 was first issued?

[Mr. Coffee]

Did you fire ones that were manufactured around the time that the M9 was first issued?

Yeah, I have. My Pop bought one that was manufactured in 1984, and it worked fine (shot ok and the slide didn't explode on us). Why I wonder what they did to one to make it explode. I've heard everything from it being a couple cases of defective units to people using cartridges loaded to way the hell past the pistol's rate chamber pressure tolerances, but I've never been able to get a confirmed reason for why the failures happened with the ones the US Military tested.

[[R_H]]

Didn't the HK416 come about specifically because a certain SOF wanted an AR-15 type with 10-inch barrel that could reliably operate while suppressed?

Pretty much, don't forget FA as well.

Article

The project started in the year 2001 when I was the weapons R&D NCO at my former unit. Jim Schatz was visiting on an unrelated matter when the topic came up of improving the military M4 carbine. I was well aware of HK’s success in fixing the problems of the British SA 80 and was very interested in what HK had in mind in terms of an upgrade to the M4 carbine. I have very extensive experience with the M4 even by Spec Ops standards both in using the M4 and training others to use it. I knew that the M4 as issued was having problems in SOCOM wide use, much of which is because the carbine was being used way outside it’s design parameters. If you keep the M4 lubricated, use only milspec ball ammo (M855 & M193), use magazines in good condition, and fire it on semi auto it works very well. But as soon as you try to push it outside those limits such as extreme firing conditions and extensive full auto fire, as well as running it with little or no lube you will have problems. In addition trying to issue versions with shorter than 14.5 inch barrels and suppressed fire are also big problem areas with the as issued M4. The design is a carbine modification of the 20 inch barreled AR 15/M 16 weapon system. The M4 is pushing that design as far as it can go and still have an acceptable degree of service life and reliability. Any requirements beyond that design envelope will require a redesign or a new weapon.

My former Unit had been searching for an M4 style carbine that was smaller and more maneuverable in confined spaces. This has been an ongoing effort to some degree ever since we had gone from MP5’s to M4’s. A lot of money had been spent on testing every short barreled AR style weapon we could find. At the end of the day we came to the conclusion that none of them answered our needs.

They may be fine for casual use but they were not suitable for the demands we place on a weapon of that type. In all honesty, none of them was even close. At that time we began our search to other non-AR style weapons such as the G36C and the SIG SG552. Shortly after these other efforts began we became aware of the HK offer of a product improvement program for the M4 carbine. HK had offered this to other key organizations in the US Military small arms community with no takers. HK was looking for loaner US Government property M4 carbines to analyze and begin an improvement process on, much like the SA80 program had preceded. The program would be of no cost to the Government with the understanding at the end of the program the Government had no obligation to purchase any product HK brought to the market. Bottom-line if we did not like what they produced we could just walk away. To me this was a no-brainer. I presented the proposal to the Unit chain of command and after a legal review it was decided to provide HK with the carbines they needed to begin the program .It was also understood that the Unit could pull out of the program at any time. As far as the Unit was concerned there was no downside to this arrangement. It is somewhat surprising why no other organization before the Unit took HK up on their very generous offer; however if you know the inner workings of the military small arms establishment and industry it is par for the course.

The modifications began with high speed video of the M4 carbine functioning. After carefully analyzing the firing cycle of the weapon a series of modifications were put into motion to address the various issues of the weapon. A key component was already done in the magazine that was taken from the SA80 program. (A little known fact is Ken Hackathorn and I brought the first SA80 magazines into the US in the year 2000 after a visit to HK Oberndorf (HKO) regarding the ill-fated HK 1911 program. I then placed an order for 200 magazines for test and evaluation at my Unit. That started a sequence of events that eventually led to the adoption of the HK M16/SA80 magazine for all of SOCOM.)

The main effort from the start was to adapt the unique HK gas tappet system used in the G36 to the M4 carbine. This was the crux of the effort from the very beginning. The engineers at HKO had the highest regard for several design features of the AR 15/M 16/M4 weapons system and they vowed from the start to retain as many of the good features the weapon already had and only address the characteristics that required attention.

Frankly, the M16 magazine design has inherent design flaws and a much better magazine could be utilized. The one major drawback to that is that it would make the magazine non-interchangeable with other M16 style weapons and magazines on the market. Unfortunately that took a different magazine off the table for this project. That left the gas system as the main effort.

The HKO engineers held the belief, as do I and many other knowledgeable firearms industry people, that the gas direct system of the AR family is less than optimum in many ways for a military service weapon. Frankly, the weapon has been as success in spite of this fact, not because of it. It was felt that the G36 gas system would be a perfect fit if it could be made to work within the M4 envelope. It answers the mail across the board as a gas operating system goes and in hindsight it is the gas system the AR should have had from the start. Essentially a product improved AR 180 /G 43/SVT 40 style gas tappet systems; it offers key proprietary features that no other gas tappet system has. In my opinion it is the best gas system currently on the market for a shoulder fired non-sustained fire weapon. HKO is justifiably proud of this and uses it whenever feasible. It is used in the G36, XM8, HK 416 and HK 417 rifles with it being one of the key attributes of those weapons.

At first simple modifications were performed using many of the original M4 components such as bolt and extractor. One thing that became apparent immediately was the extended service life of both of these critical components. That is when we discovered the hidden killer in the AR style gas direct system: heat. Heat from the gases funneled into the bolt carrier not only dry out lubricant and deposit carbon fouling, as anyone who has any time behind an AR style weapon knows, but also dramatically shortens service life of key components in the operating mechanism.

With the HK G36 style gas system, the operating parts stay dramatically cooler and thus prolong service life immeasurably. For instance, I have no idea how long an HK416 bolt and/or extractor will last because I have yet to see one break. I have seen HK416 style weapons with over 26,000 rounds fired through them with no parts breakages of any kind and plenty of serviceable barrel life. As I have demonstrated many times, the lack of heat transfer through the pusher rod of the gas tappet system and into the operating group is so dramatic that you can easily touch the pusher rod return spring and handle the bolt carrier in your bare hands after several magazines of full auto fire. The distinct advantages of this gas system over the original gas direct system are very impressive and have to be seen to be fully appreciated.

After the gas system was finalized and HK was fabricating all the key internal bolt carrier components, engineers at HKO turned their attention to the removable free float rail system. The Unit had a requirement that the rail system would allow access to the gas system for maintenance and return to zero for any rail mounted devices such as IR lasers. This was a very tall order to say the least. Frankly, I had serious doubts it could be done. What HKO brought to the table next is what really proved to the Unit and everyone involved that they truly are in a league of their own when it comes to engineering expertise.

The resulting HK 416 is a simple yet truly ingenious design that does exactly what it was asked to do. It has several proprietary features and is an example of superb engineering and manufacturing excellence on many levels. That was all the Unit needed to see and after a very successful 15,000 rd endurance test of one of the first production HK416 10 inch carbines, they placed the first order for several hundred HK416 complete 10 inch barreled weapons. Those particular carbines have been in continuous combat since when they left the factory in Oberndorf as this is written in June of 2006. No assault rifle in modern history has gone from development, testing, production, and sustained combat operations more quickly than the HK416. The Unit commander who was in place when the weapons were delivered said it was the most successful program the Unit had ever undertaken with a vendor. Needless to say I am very proud of the fact that I started the project back in 2001 and it has been a success; so much so that a follow on project with the HK417 is well on its way to being a sequel to the HK416 story. I can’t discuss that at this time but will give HKPRO an insider story when I can.

After fielding the HK416 only a few things were found to be in need of attention. One was that the heavy profile barrel under the handguards makes the weapon very heavy when accessories are attached. This was a by-product of the original M4 feedback and the projected high rate of fire the HK416 would have to endure within certain sectors of SOCOM that did a lot of full-auto fire. A lighter barrel profile that reduces the weight of the barrel by 7 ounces is available to answer that concern. Also some users were seeing slam fires when using non mil spec 5.56 mm/.223 ammo such as certain types of frangible. This is due to the higher closing energy of the bolt carrier due in part to the lack of gas rings and the heavier buffer and stronger spring. To address this, HKO designed a firing pin safety similar to the one used in the HK UMP 45 ACP SMG. This type safety is also being used in the HK417. In addition enhanced surface finishes are being researched as well as the ongoing refinement that occurs with all HK weapons.

In my estimation, the HK416 has 1/10th the carbon fouling in the receiver and bolt/bolt carrier as compared to a gas direct AR style weapon. This is equivalent to firing 1000 rounds through an HK416 being roughly the same as shooting 100 rounds through a conventional AR15/M16/M4 platform. If a sound suppressor is used, this ratio increases to approx 1/4th the amount of carbon fouling as a gas direct weapon.

As this is being written I have learned that all the US Military’s top special operations units in JSOC will be fielding the HK416 as their primary carbine. All the key Units in JSOC chose the HK416 in preference to the current M4 and the FN SCAR Light which is still in development for the rest of SOCOM. It is very satisfying to me that units that could field any carbine they want choose the HK416. This tells me we have done our job, and have done it well.

For the record, I have been one of the most vocal individuals inside HK pushing to have a civilian HK416 released to the gun buying public. Unfortunately, the decision is way above my pay grade. At this writing I have no idea if it will ever be available for the civilian market. I can promise you that I will keep pushing for it as long as I am associated with HK. Cross your fingers.

[JointStrikeFighter]

Turns out the Ar15 sucks.

Who knew?

[MKSheppard]

Why I wonder what they did to one to make it explode.

They happened becuase the SEAL CT units were pushing an absurd amount of lead through their pistols -- something like 10 to 20,000 rounds in a really really short amount of time.

The fact that they were using non-standard 'hot' loads only compounded the problem.

[The Spartan]

According to Rogue Warrior, they were firing 3000 rounds a week per SEAL. I fairly sure that that number wasn't for a single weapon, but that still adds up to a lot of rounds going through a weapon, even for standard loads.

[Zixinus]

Did you fire ones that were manufactured around the time that the M9 was first issued?

Yeah, I have. My Pop bought one that was manufactured in 1984, and it worked fine (shot ok and the slide didn't explode on us). Why I wonder what they did to one to make it explode. I've heard everything from it being a couple cases of defective units to people using cartridges loaded to way the hell past the pistol's rate chamber pressure tolerances, but I've never been able to get a confirmed reason for why the failures happened with the ones the US Military tested.

According to my book: "This happened several times during the earlier years of the Model 92F service in the US military, apparently because of metallurgical problems, combined with the 'built-in' weak points in the slide where the locking block cuts are made."

They happened becuase the SEAL CT units were pushing an absurd amount of lead through their pistols -- something like 10 to 20,000 rounds in a really really short amount of time.

The fact that they were using non-standard 'hot' loads only compounded the problem.

No wonder the Mark 23M0 was over-engineered.

[Marcus Aurelius]

No wonder the Mark 23M0 was over-engineered.

Yes. It turns out special forces need special weapons engineered for a higher standard than ordinary infantry weapons. In retrospect it's kind of strange nobody realized that before the problems with the M9.

[[R_H]]

Turns out the Ar15 sucks.

Who knew?

Turns out the Carbine length gas system isn't the greatest for FA, suppressed fire.

Why do you and Stark hate the M16/AR15/M4 so much? Were you the only kids on the block who didn't have one?

[Aaron]

In a way I actually find it kind of funny that folks who have never carried one and likely will never use one, care more about it than those of us who have. I know lots of guys that didn't care for it, or lamented the end of the FN but we were all "well its what we've got." *shrug*

[CaptHawkeye]

Turns out the Ar15 sucks.

Who knew?

Turns out the Carbine length gas system isn't the greatest for FA, suppressed fire.

Why do you and Stark hate the M16/AR15/M4 so much? Were you the only kids on the block who didn't have one?

How about you contribute something to your own thread other than bullshit?

[[R_H]]

How about you contribute something to your own thread other than bullshit?

Which of my posts are you referring to now? And why do you believe they are bullshit.

[Thanas]

Guys, please do not let this thread degenerate into a bitchfest.

Not directed against anybody in particular, just a general announcement.

[Edward Yee]

They happened becuase the SEAL CT units were pushing an absurd amount of lead through their pistols -- something like 10 to 20,000 rounds in a really really short amount of time.

The fact that they were using non-standard 'hot' loads only compounded the problem.

No wonder the Mark 23M0 was over-engineered.

Funny thing about this is, based on Kit Up!'s initial post on the SCAR "cancellation," the SEALs were apparently the lead group behind the SCAR as well. (The author claims that USSOCOM buys the SEALs their guns, unlike the other services' SOF, and at least one of the Kit Up! posters in another post alluded to naval special ops pushing the SCAR.) In this on the other hand, you have an alleged operator saying that it was more the caliber than the weapon, and then there's outgoing Commandant Conway (USMC) alluding to an issue of weapon length:

Marines like that M4 carbine because it looks cool. And I've had some Marines complain to the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff saying 'you know, the officers are getting these things, but we're still having to carry this rifle.' Well, the Marine Corps will always be a rifle Marine Corps. The carbine is an extension of the pistol, not a reduction of a rifle. And in the Afghanistan scenario where you're shooting long distances you gotta be able to reach out and touch 'em. And a carbine is just not designed to do that.

or lamented the end of the FN

What's this referring to, the SLR??

So far trying to find anything specific on the 'Net on the SCAR thing has left me practically trying not to drown in a shitstorm of posters pushing their own favored weapon system or caliber... *looks for a retch emoticon, settles for *

That's not meant as a knock on anyone here, but rather shit like "7.62, the only caliber for men!" (this one is fucking rampant... but I'd point them towards the "75% of American youth physically unfit to serve") or "6.8 is the best caliber" or "should have gotten Robinson XCRs"...

[Stark]

I found a forum yesterday where I was told that the F88 is significantly worse than he base Steyr, and that the M16 is still a more reliable weapon.

No, really.

[Aaron]

What's this referring to, the SLR??

Yeah.

[Stark]

Nobody misses the 'trainees break their shoulders from holding it wrong' thing though.

And the AR15 family is obviously servicable and has been for decades; but nobody with a brain who had an open choice should ever choose it because of various 'features'.

[Aaron]

Nobody misses the 'trainees break their shoulders from holding it wrong' thing though.

And the AR15 family is obviously servicable and has been for decades; but nobody with a brain who had an open choice should ever choose it because of various 'features'.

Don't set the gas setting to zero, thats for sure.

[RIPP_n_WIPE]

The AR style of weapon is very useful and very simple. A personally owned AR can be baller. The problem is that military M4/M16 are crappy. I carry one around every day. It's really not that spectacular a weapon. Bitch to clean, alright at the range. Optics make it easier but still we really should be using gas pistons. Why they cost the military so much is probably because colt and other manufacturers are pricing based off civilian market. They've always done that. It's purely a profit margin thing and they know they're going to get it because they employ Americans and no doubt have lobbies up the yin yang. Could they sell them for less? Yes. Will they? No.

[Stark]

Useful... to do what every gun does. Simple... simply unreliable. In the civilian market you have generation that loves the M16 as a US icon, but that doesn't make it a good military weapon (although as noted the US army can fuck up the 92fs and the Minimi, otherwise solid weapons, so...). It's more important to realise that it's unlikely America will ever get a 'real' choice for political, cultural and ennui reasons. The ADF liked the FAL but they didn't marry it the way the Americans did with their rifle.

[Mr. Coffee]

Useful... to do what every gun does. Simple... simply unreliable. In the civilian market you have generation that loves the M16 as a US icon, but that doesn't make it a good military weapon (although as noted the US army can fuck up the 92fs and the Minimi, otherwise solid weapons, so...).

It's really not the Army that makes the M16/M4 suck so much as it's the specific vendor for the M16/M4s they have. Colt is fucking terrible, overpriced, and pretty much just survives on cultural inertia and name recognition. The M9's initial fuck ups were also more the fault of the manufacturer and/or a specific group of potential end users who went out of their way to make the fucking things break (Gee, turns out when you shoot enough rounds though a gun in a month as the manufacturer expects the weapon to shoot in it's entire service life it breaks, who knew).

Other than age and overuse, not sure why the M249s we have are shitty when compared to other countries that use them. I mean, same fucking vendor, right.

It's more important to realise that it's unlikely America will ever get a 'real' choice for political, cultural and ennui reasons. The ADF liked the FAL but they didn't marry it the way the Americans did with their rifle.

If we switch vendors from Colt to Noveske we'd probably see a dramatic difference performance and reliability. Both companies make M16/M4s, but not all M16/M4s are equal. Colt just happens to have a very old, very recognizable branding and they've been around so long providing firearms to the US Military they've made a lot of friends.

[His Divine Shadow]

From what I've heard from people like Mike Pannone and his writings, one can actually lay blame at the feet of the US army too, he pretty much say it abuses it's guns and doesn't have a very good service schedule and keeps reusing parts and magazines far after they should have been discarded or even if they where broken. He was referring to the issues of the M4 with that, a gun he otherwise says is very reliable.

[Mr. Coffee]

From what I've heard from people like Mike Pannone and his writings, one can actually lay blame at the feet of the US army too, he pretty much say it abuses it's guns and doesn't have a very good service schedule and keeps reusing parts and magazines far after they should have been discarded or even if they where broken. He was referring to the issues of the M4 with that, a gun he otherwise says is very reliable.

Whelp, that settles that, I guess. Still can't help the matter that Colt sucks.

[Thanas]

That does not explain why the Special Forces still did not like it.

I believe there to be more than just simple "The US Army sucks at maintenance".

[His Divine Shadow]

No and there is no one simple answer or statement that explains it all like Clarissa.

It might be that when you cut a carbine down even more and suppress it, it gets problematic with a DI system in a variety of ways. A piston system neatly solves the issue of giving a reliable and small suppressed carbine. Various special forces have also stated not being happy with 5.56 as a caliber (and it would perform pretty badly out of a barrel less than 14") so that's another possible reason.

There are probably lots of reasons factoring in here.

Ninja-addon:
Amongst other reaons are that the M4/16 system is showing it's age and is not as reliable as more modern designs (though that doesn't = M4/16 sucks and is unreliable, it's very reliable IMO, just not as reliable as other designs) and it's about time to get something new. I would support the HK416 as the easiest transition (can reuse all those ACOGs & Aimpoints then too) and possibly a move to 6.8SPC or other caliber for special forces.