Army takes HK416s from special unit

[CommunityEditor]

The Army has stripped the Asymmetric Warfare Group of its weapon of choice — the Heckler & Koch 416 — saying that its mission requires the unique outfit to carry the standard issue M4 carbine.

The decision reverses a policy that allowed the AWG to buy 416s instead of carrying M4s when it was established three years ago to help senior Army leaders find new tactics and technologies to make soldiers more lethal in combat.

Members of the AWG have declined to comment on the issue, but sources in the community told Army Times that the unit fought to keep its several hundred 416s, arguing that they outperform the Army’s M4 and require far less maintenance.

In a response to a March 6 Army Times query, the Army acknowledged initial approval of the AWG’s move to the 416.

“The AWG is empowered to procure, on a limited basis, select non-standard equipment to assist in identifying capability gaps and advise on the development of future requirements. To this end, the Asymmetric Warfare Group did purchase H&K 416 rifles,” said Army spokesman Lt. Col. Martin Downie.

“The AWG also advises units on training, tactics and procedures. In this capacity, the use of the standard issue M4 is required. In support of this mission set, the decision was made to transition to the M4 and the AWG is now turning in its H&K rifles.”

This is the latest round of controversy surrounding the M4 since late November, when the weapon finished last in an Army reliability test against several other carbines.

The M4 suffered more stoppages than the combined number of jams by the three other competitors — the Heckler & Koch XM8, FNH USA’s Special Operations Forces Combat Assault Rifle (SCAR) and the H&K 416.

Army weapons officials agreed to perform the dust test at the request of Sen. Tom Coburn, R-Okla., in July. Coburn took up the issue following a Feb. 26 Army Times report on moves by elite Army Special Forces units to ditch the M4 in favor of carbines they consider more reliable. Since then, Coburn has questioned the Army’s plans to spend more than $300 million to purchase M4s through fiscal 2009 rather than considering newer and possibly better weapons available on the commercial market.

Army officials have downplayed the test results, maintaining that soldiers using the M4 in combat praised the weapon in a recent study by the Center for Naval Analysis.

But this isn’t the first time the M4’s performance has come under fire.

U.S. Special Operations Command decided nearly four years ago that it wanted a better weapon than the M4. After a competition, it awarded a developmental contract to FN Herstal to develop its new SCAR to replace all of the command’s M4s.

But even prior to USSOCOM’s decision, the Army’s Delta Force replaced its M4s with the H&K 416 in 2004 after tests revealed that its piston operating system reduces malfunctions while increasing the life of parts.

The M4, like its predecessor, the M16, uses a gas tube system, which relies on the gas created when a bullet is fired to cycle the weapon. Weapon experts say the M4’s system of blowing gas directly into the receiver of the weapon spews carbon residue that can lead to fouling and heat that dries up lubrication and causes excessive wear on parts.

The AWG followed Delta’s example when it stood up in March 2005 to advise the Army’s senior leadership on how to identify and counter emerging threats on the battlefield. With Army approval, the unit bought several hundred 416s for its members to carry when they deployed to Iraq, Afghanistan and other hot spots.

Many senior sergeants in the AWG were angered that soldiers in the unit had to turn in their 416s, a process that began last fall, said a U.S. Military officer with knowledge the special operations and AWG communities.

“They were outraged,” he told Army Times. “It’s a reduction in capability. It’s a waste of money that was already spent, and it makes the job more difficult since [the M4] is much more maintenance-intensive.”


Article: http://www.armytimes.com/news/2008/0...o416s_031008w/
Video: http://www.militarytimes.com/multimedia/video/carbine/
How it operates: http://www.militarytimes.com/project...02_20_carbine/

This makes my hair stand on end! US soldiers are not so dumb that they can't learn to break down two weapons. That is the main issue, as the controls are virtually identical because the HK416 is just a replacement upper assembly, correct? I am sure that a soldier who carries a rifle into battle and all around the desert will know which one he is carrying, since they clean them before each patrol...

Issued unit by unit with transition training there should be little confusion. Give the HK416 upper a different color finish like OD until transition is complete so soldiers can tell at a glance what they are holding. OK, for the "what about confusion at night?" argument, the Army could put an IR visible dot, (visible only to the operator's point of view) somewhere on the upper, to signify which weapon the soldier picked up. Since both operate the same way, I am struggling to figure out WHEN exactly it would matter.

It mystifies me how the Army so stubbornly refuses to address the lack of reliability and high maintenance attributed to the M16 family of rifles.

I think the problem here was that ASW carrying the HK416 was a walking talking reminder that the M4 is not the best weapon for the job. What advice could ASW possibly give the average GI related to his M4 that would be news? It has been around forever. The advice would likely be, get yourself a 416!! Or SCAR.

One last comment regarding the article: The Army says the troops like the M4. At some level this is a red herring. I believe that the soldiers like how it works, when it works. It is accurate and relatively easy to keep on target. However the HK416 is just as easy to use but doesn't stop or get dirtied up as quickly. So, if given the HK416 for comparison, they would quite likely say they like it ALOT MORE. Wisely, the Army does not seem to have offered GIs a chance to comparison shop.

[warr1or]

I'm not sure if I'm 100% on this, but it may be an Army vs Special Operations situation. I don't know why there's always a stubborness to try new things, especially when it can make the difference between life and death.

The only other thing I can think of is that someone saw the AWG carrying the HK416 and got irked because some chairborne troops see it as a status thing. All it takes is one 'tard to screw it up for everyone else.

Also, Community Editor, Delta still doesn't exist /

This doesn't surprise me.

Today's military is run by know-nothing administrators who demand blind obedience, starched ACU's & all-regulation gear & weapons (they look soooo pretty marching in formation).

I've served under too many delta foxtrots like that. That's why many quit in disgust. True leaders are shoved aside by blithering idiots who want power & glory for themselves. These are the same ones who jealously deny commendations for bravery in combat to those who've earned them.

[The Universal Curmudgeon_guest]

Originally Posted by Crusty

This doesn't surprise me.

Today's military is run by know-nothing administrators who demand blind obedience, starched ACU's & all-regulation gear & weapons (they look soooo pretty marching in formation).

I think that you missed the point.

If it can be proven that the HK-416 is a better (read as just as accurate, not significantly different in weight, but more reliable) weapon than the M-4, how is that going to look on the promotion sheets of the people who recommended that the US military purchase the (MADE IN THE USA) M-4 rather than the (FOREIGN) HK-416?

I mean, after all, how many votes can HK deliver to a Senator or Representative seeking re-election in those states where Colt has manufacturing plants.

Come on now, if you can't trust William M. Keys (LtGen USMC (Ret)) to only sell the best to the US military, who can you trust?

[rexmundi]

Originally Posted by The Universal Curmudgeon_guest

I think that you missed the point.

If it can be proven that the HK-416 is a better (read as just as accurate, not significantly different in weight, but more reliable) weapon than the M-4, how is that going to look on the promotion sheets of the people who recommended that the US military purchase the (MADE IN THE USA) M-4 rather than the (FOREIGN) HK-416?

I mean, after all, how many votes can HK deliver to a Senator or Representative seeking re-election in those states where Colt has manufacturing plants.

Come on now, if you can't trust William M. Keys (LtGen USMC (Ret)) to only sell the best to the US military, who can you trust?

That's what I suspect as well. I remember that a few years ago the contract was out for the M16/M4 replacement. HK seemed like a shoe-in until the whole contract fell apart at the last moment and I haven't heard anything about an M16/M4 replacement ever since. It'll be interesting to see if the SCAR line will make it into the hands of SOCOM or if it gets sidelined. Maybe being a US subsidiary of a Belgian company will be enough to keep FN in the running.
I think Colt should do the right thing and modify the M4 design to incorporate a piston system. There's certainly no reason they can't; I have a Sig 556 with a piston system in it that has Made in Exeter NH stamped right on it. If the Army is going to protect Colt's profits, the least they can both do is change the M4 design to incorporate an action similar to the HK 416. That way the Army gets to keep a US weapon, Colt gets their business, and soldiers get an HK 416 clone.

Ironoically the driving reason the HK416's were taken from the AWG operators was because the whole subject of current select Army small arms (M9, M4, M249) being aged and unreliable when compared to modern carbines like HK416, SCAR and XM8 was because Army leadership was getting too many questions from commanders who saw AWG with the HK416 and asked the obvious question " why can't we have the same thing". In the CNA survey the Army always quotes 19% of the 2600 soldier surveys taken from troops just returning from OEF/OIF w/i 12 months stated they had had at least one stoppage during a firefight while engaging the enemy that they could not clear after immdiate and remedial action DURING THE ENTIRE DURATION OF THE FIREFIGHT! It's right there on pages 17 and 18 and the Extreme Dusts Tests conducted three times at APG proved it is in fact true yet the Army is spending $300M buying more of the same without even evaluating clearly superior COTS weapons. It is shameful to not buy our troops the very best, especailly when in the case of HK416 it could be had in quantity for the same amount we pay for M4's. It is in fact down right criminal to take away superior weapons from those like AWG that already have them and have proven them superior. We should ALL be enraged.

If the M4 is so well liked by troops, why did it perform so poorly in Army tests (3) at Aberdeen Proving Ground? If it is so great, why did the XM8 perform 8 times better and the SCAR and HK416 5 times better in the APG test? If the M4 is the best available why is ALL of SOCOM going away from the M4 and to SCAR? Why did the classified units in SOCOM ALL replace their M4's with HK416s? If the M4 is so superior and loved by the troops why does the Army take weapons away from units like AWG? Why not instead conduct a comprehensive head to head test and settle the argument once and for all. If they are right then should the M4 not come out on top? Better yet how about taking the decision away from GO's and career acquisition types that no zip about modern rifles and their use in battle and give it to the real users of small arms. Field an infantry company with HK416's, one with SCAR's, one with XM8's and let THEM tell the Army which rifle to spend our tax payer dollars on, which weapon THEY will carry into battle. It's not the GO's in the pentagon or civilians at Picatinny Arsenal on the battlefield with the rifle being shot at. Why should they then have the final say, or any say at all for that matter? Somehow the process has been reversed, the exact opposite of the way it should be. That needs to be fixed before someone else dies as a result.

The Army spent > $50M on the devlopment of the XM8. Never fielded. They spent > $150M on the OICW/XM25 over > 10 years. Nothing fielded. They spent $60M on the Advanced Combat Rifle and caseless ammunition. Nothing fielded. > $477M over the past years on so-called "leap ahead" technology. Nothing fielded. USSOCOM has spent > $20M on the SCAR since Jan. 2005, so far nothing fielded. As a contrast of what is possible select units within the USSOCOM spent 0 (zero, no, none) US R&D dollars on the HK416 developing it and testing it with HK as a partnership, a successful one that yeilded a superior M4-like carbine in less time than any of these programs mentioned above, by a long shot. It is now THE rifle of choice in many of these units and was for the AWG until recently. Seems these units should be selecting ALL the small arms for our military if they can do it so well, so cost effectively and so quickly. Is that not what we owe all of our brave men and women in uniform? The very best this country can provide and soon as it is available. If the Army can't get the job done, let's give the work to those who have proven they can and fire the rest. How many new SCAR, XM8 or HK416 carbines could we have purchased and fielded with $477M? Makes on sick just to think about that.

What we are witnessing is greed and head in the sand politics, as somone is getting their pockets lined by Springfield Armory or Colt. The HK 416 could have been replaced by the Heckler Koch XM-8 system or even HK's 417 an identical caliber to the M4 yet itis designedidentically to the reliable HK 416. The sad fact is gas piston operating systems has almost no wear even in the hazzardous dust test. HK's FAR superior design can be completely submerged in sand, shaken about eight times and cold fired. Maybe some military brass should try that drill with their beloved M-4's or AR 15's they will never try this as it means catastrophic failure to those guns. No one wants their son or brother carrying inferior anything in a time of war.

Please tell me where I can buy these "inferior" HK's that are turned in so I can have one. To see the HK 416 in action check out Richard Maciewicz(SP) on Future weapons or youtube the demo. Like HK's slogan suggests "No Compromise" or as it used to read in th 90's "In a World of Compromise, some men don't" along side that credo read "When lives are at stake, leave nothing to chance. HK weapon systems are trusted the world over by SWAT teams, and Special Ops groups or elite fighting force in almost every country. At least they could have picked Sig Sauers 556 if they had to settle!!! Ask ANY soldier what they would prefer, you thoight we would have learned in Vietnam!!!