# Hk416 to Direct Impingment



## KevinB (15 Mar 2008)

Hk 416 to M16FOW DI gas Short Barrel (11.5) Pictorial overview






Both weapons fired for over 1100 rounds (800 AA40 Frangible, and 300 rds M855) ea.  No cleaning performed other than adding lube to the 11.5 DI gun three times.  I am not trying to lead a horse to water in this – just to offer up the observations on this issue.  The 10.3 was not fired in this aspect.
Weapons where shot semi-auto during a variety of drills, however no excessively rapid rates of fire where used, however the Hk416 was shot at a more rapid rate.  Two ammo related stoppages occurred with the 11.5 DI gun (one poor crimped round got stuck in the barrel, and one head of a round was managed on feeding – both with the AA40 Frangible Blackhills load), one stoppage was noted in the Hk416 with M855 - failure to feed, USGI mag)




Weapons where stripped, and as to be expected the DI weapon immediately showed visible carbon build up












DI Bolt




Hk416 Bolt





Receiver bodies
DI




Hk416





Hk416 gas system take out





Quick wipe of chamber Hk416




Quick wipe of 11.5





Clean and lube requirements





One issue to be noted – due to the round getting stuck and the bullet sticking in the chamber of the 11.5 gun, there was an abundance of ball powder accumulated – however it was absorbed into the carbon slurry and impossible to remove without a full cleaning so it was left in.

Cleaning the Hk416 took aprox 7 min – inc removing the handguard and replacing it.  Cleaning the 11.5 DI gun took aprox 15 min – inc relubrication.

I will not intially comment on the two - but will let this stew in peoples minds for a bit.


----------



## uzi (16 Mar 2008)

what i heard is HK416 has balance problem. Also, gas piston mechanism is less accurate than direct gas operation. That's why Bushmaster ACR uses  Free-floating barrel design.


----------



## KevinB (16 Mar 2008)

I heard that it is better to remain silent and be thought an idiot, rather than opens ones mouth and prove it.


The Hk416 (and Hk417 7.62x51, and now the Hk418 as they split the 6.8x43 SPC guns off into their own subset rather than 6.8 416 guns as previously done) series guns are ALL freefloating barrel.

I will be back with a tutorial on the differences in the system in a bit.  I need to bang me head into a wall for a bit first.


----------



## LordOsborne (16 Mar 2008)

Thanks for posting those, Kev. 

on a side note, have you fired or handled the ACR, and what are your impressions on it, especially compared to the HK 416 / SCAR?


----------



## KevinB (16 Mar 2008)

I handled a Masada prototype -- but that was as far as it went.  

 I have been using the M16 FOW since 1989 - so I have a ton of muscle memory with it -- so the Hk416 is better for


----------



## Old Ranger (16 Mar 2008)

At least no one has questioned the number of rounds fired, and why you would need too.


----------



## Panzer Grenadier (16 Mar 2008)

Old Ranger said:
			
		

> At least no one has questioned the number of rounds fired, and why you would need too.



There are always those "special" few who will.


----------



## KevinB (16 Mar 2008)

I'm a firm believer in aim more - shoot less - hit more, that said sometimes life really does suck and wearing a helmet is not enough.

The Hk gas system is remarkably cleaner - and due to wear the gas exchange is the bolt stays cooler - leading to a bolt life of triple + of a standard direct impingment system.

 I'm not an engineer so my blather about the system is just from a knuckle dragging enduser -- I did stay at a Holiday Express a few nights ago, but I never took anything "mathy" in University.

  The bolt carrier has both a larger end piece to stop carrier tilt (due to the design of the pistons -- impact on them will not be center line like the gas impingment system is inside the bolt carrier/bolt), LWRC added a ring to their piston carriers, and while DI guns dont need them - any piston gun (POF, BM, Ares, etc don't and they all suck BTW) based on the M16 system requires the anti tilt expansion on the carrier.  The Hk is unique since it also has a firing pin safety so that the hammer must impact the bolt carrier to push the safety out of the way prior to hitting the firing pin (note well the Hk system REQUIRES the use of a full auto capable hammer).

 While some crap and corruption is found in the chamber - due to gases in the casing and barrel upon extraction, it is visible cleaner and cooler than an impingment system.  The addition of a supressor, is much eaiser accomplished with a piston - however it does increase the gas vented into the atmosphere at the piston point (more Db) - and also due to increased back pressure - will result in more in the barrel and chamber.  NOTHING like a DI system however for fouling -- and the DI system will vent more gas out of the chamber into both the reciever and out the ejection post in some cases.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (16 Mar 2008)

Kev do you think as a whole we would be better off going back to semi automatic weapons? BTW not advocating either.


----------



## LordOsborne (16 Mar 2008)

Very interesting stuff. I had a good chuckle at the Holiday Inn reference.

Ex-Dragoon, I took a moment to think about your question, and I know it was directed at Kev, but I think going back to a semi-auto-only rifle probably wouldn't make much of a difference. I'm not advocating either way, but going back to all the training i've done, I haven't used the C7's full auto mode much at all. Naturally i've done the 'charlie take the trench' drill for my section attack training, and sprayed merrily away at point blank. Whether or not I'd ever put it on FA is hard to say. I don't have the benefit of longer service or a tour, so I'm going to stick to my lanes. Still, it would be interesting to see if the next service rifle we recieve down the road will retain a full-automatic capability.


----------



## medaid (17 Mar 2008)

I've given Ex-Dragoon's questions some thought as well. Coming from a completely NON combat arms perspective, and haven't done full-auto since section attack training, I guess what I wonder is if we really require a fully automatic rifle?

I mean if we wanted to have sustained fire base, that's where our machine guns come in correct? If this so, and a machine gun is generally utilized as an area suppression weapon, what good is a rifle, whose traditional role had been to provide accurate, aimed shots be with a full-auto capability? 

Now that being said, I know that full-auto is also of great use when one is clearing a house in a CQB situation at times and that is predominantly where we're at at the moment... but wouldn't a compact sub-machine gun i.e. MP5 be of more use here?

I don't know, just eager to learn and ask questions


----------



## KevinB (17 Mar 2008)

I think Auto does have a role -- I use auto occasionally to heat up a gun to see if the weapon will function well hot. 

 Seriously it is a nice to have option, but I've never needed it -- and when BigRed's lower got an ablonged autosear hole so it would not go auto anymore he got a new one...  So I am not the only one who likes the idea of keeping ones "thumbs up for safety" option open. 

The Semi-Auto (or worse 3rd in Big Army USA) issue is a TRAINING issue not a mechanical issue.
 The issue is when scared it takes a lot of discipline and training to get your breathing back and focus on the marksmanship principles and kill the smelly bearded bad people, some tend to let volume of fire make up for poor skills.

CQB is a PRECISION EVENT -- use of F/A in this is a big bad fail.  I've had some time with the MP-5 -- its a pistol round and a poor long gun -- the M4/C8 is MUCH better for killing people who really do need to be killed.

Issue for F/A - from the "book" are Anti Aircraft drills (I never bought into it but hey..)   - If your confronted with a hoarde of cockroaches auto can help (from buddies in TF Ranger in Somalia -- when even the miniguns where having a tough time clearing the streets of all the targets).


FYI I carry belt feds for auto...  but you have to run what you brung, maybe your SAW gunner is down and you need immediate supression?


----------



## medaid (17 Mar 2008)

Infidel-6 said:
			
		

> I think Auto does have a role -- I use auto occasionally to heat up a gun to see if the weapon will function well hot.
> 
> Seriously it is a nice to have option, but I've never needed it -- and when BigRed's lower got an ablonged autosear hole so it would not go auto anymore he got a new one...  So I am not the only one who likes the idea of keeping ones "thumbs up for safety" option open.
> 
> ...



Ah got it  thanks for the clarification Kev!


----------



## mudgunner49 (17 Mar 2008)

I can't believe that no one has said *"Nice floor"* yet.... ;D

Nice floor - oh, and good summary of a bunch of salient points, incl the efficacy of belt-fed for full auto applications.  The "Shoot Less, Aim More" needs to be revisitied every once in awhile also...

Check your PM's...


blake


----------



## Haggis (17 Mar 2008)

I had a chance to fire an "out-of-the-box" HK416 about two weeks ago.  Found it quite manageable and controllable in S/A and bursts.  We put about 1,000 rounds though it and I found it MUCH easier to clean up than any C7/M16 family weapon I've ever used.

Kev:  great quality photos, BTW (and a nice floor, too).


----------



## Teeps74 (17 Mar 2008)

Why would you have to fire sooooo much ammo? What a waste.......



















 ;D  I kid. I kid.   ;D

Gun porn... I feel dirty and need a cigarette now.


----------



## Mike Baker (17 Mar 2008)

Teeps74 said:
			
		

> Gun porn... I feel dirty and need a cigarette now.


I do too, and I don't even smoke! ;D


----------



## KevinB (22 Mar 2008)

A few members got to put some rounds down 











and my son...




of course he is 10 now -- he got some suppressed full auto C8 shooting when he turned 4 so this a step down in a way  ...


and yours truly borrowing some TWolf time


----------



## a_majoor (23 Mar 2008)

The full auto on Infantry weapons can be traced back to two things in my opinion: the large scale use of submachineguns during WWII to get a lot of fire downrange from conscript armies (especially the Red Army with their PPsH series of SMG's; but everyone from the Finns on down was in on the act), and SLA Marshal's observation in "Men Against Fire" that infantrymen tended to fire at the enemy if they felt they could influence the battle in some way. Generally speaking this meant a crew served weapon or a powerful individual weapon like a BAR.

How true these things actually were in the real world is open to debate, Red Army tank riders may have felt like bad-asses jumping off the T-34, but how much firepower is represented by the tank and accompanying artillery and close air support? In the case of SLA Marshal, his historiography is now suspect, but at the time it was considered very creditable.

Anyway, since the powers that be _believed_ this was true, these observations drove the development of the modern assault rifle capable of fully automatic fire. As noted, an LMG fulfills the function better, although there are weapons like the Ultimax 100 and the Shrike which are light and small enough to be considered belt fed assault rifles.

I am in agreement with Kevin here; training soldiers to be accurate shots has a much higher payoff than increasing volume of fire. In any practical sense, that battle was lost a long time ago; platform mounted weapons can carry far more ammunition and fire with greater accuracy than any infantry soldier (at least until Starship Troopers powered battle armour comes along), so expending a 30 round magazine or 200 round drum on automatic can be replied with a minimum of 220 rounds of 7.62 using a NATO standard machine gun on a pintle mount, and several hundred or more rounds from a coax. If that didn't put the hurt on you, the main gun comes into play  ;D


----------



## Mike Baker (23 Mar 2008)

Kev, can you be my dad?  ;D


----------



## KevinB (23 Mar 2008)

Cobra-6 and I (well my son to but he did not take much part in the discussion) where discussing the Hk416 on the way back to Ottawa yesterday - along with where or not I should set him up with my GF's sister.

 His comment after watching MG34 strip the gun and see it carbon free (chamber/bolt and botl carrier) was that it is like the Staples "Easy" button -- and came up with the great Hk commerical too.
   If you think the system needs to be cleaned maybe evvery 15-20k of rounds -- how much time does that save troops, recruits etc?
Where we can do valueable training in its place, yes I know cleaning can be used to teach attention to detail -- but we get the troops so caught up in it - that cleaners are used that are harmful to the weapon lifespan -- and items are cleaned that actually damage the weapon.  Rather 15min of kim's games that 15 min of wasted cleaning.

We had officers, NCO's and has beens, and background from SOF to reservists, 20+ years to 18months and all enjoyed the Hk coolaid and wanted to deploy with it...


----------



## TCBF (23 Mar 2008)

Infidel-6 said:
			
		

> ...-- but we get the troops so caught up in it - that cleaners are used that are harmful to the weapon lifespan -- and items are cleaned that actually damage the weapon.  ...




- I've always said that we wore out more weapons from cleaning than we did from shooting.


----------



## MG34 (23 Mar 2008)

The HK Kool Aid was drunk in volumes, thanks for the chance. I still feel that the HK system is more suited to a specialized role and there is a place for DI rifles, but afte4r seeing a couple in action and more importantly afterwards I can say I have not seen a more reliable system yet.


----------



## KevinB (23 Mar 2008)

true - we agree that it does not make sence to throw out a working rifle/carbine

However if your buying new guns or replacement guns -- the Hk416 series will also last 3-4x as long (bolt life - not so much barrel with the C7 and C8 being CHF'd as well, but other heat affected components).


----------



## Tuukka (27 Mar 2008)

The factory M4 weapons are good, reliable weapons that continue to serve around the world.

But if the HK416 is an available option, it is a worthwhile update. 

I also agree with the benefits mentioned here and elsewhere in professional discussions.

My experiences with the HK416 so far have been extremely good, both reliability and accuracy wise. 

Regarding the accuracy, on the last range trip I got on average 3.5 cm - 4.5 cm ( 1.2 MOA - 1.6 MOA ) at 100 meters with the 10" upper receiver. Ammuntion was Sako 62 gr SP.

At 150 meters I had a better support and the same ammo shot c. 1.1 MOA.

There will be much more rounds fired in the coming months and I would say that even the 10" upper has potential for more, but that kind of accuracy is good enough for that particular configurations.


----------



## xavier (11 Apr 2008)

Kevin

When you cleaned your barrels, what did you use?


Thanks!

xavier


----------



## KevinB (12 Apr 2008)

I use MPro-7 cleaner.  1) It was the one McMillan recommended for the Tac-50's when the ealier ones where suffering throat cracking - and 2) It is available from Brownels in a nice kit that they can mail (unlike most other cleaners), and I need mail transport boing where I am.


----------



## xavier (12 Apr 2008)

Kevin:
Thanks! That's very helpful to now.
Quick question: how long does it take to install the barrels to the lower receiver? 

Thanks again!
xavier


----------



## chanman (29 May 2008)

Infidel-6 said:
			
		

> true - we agree that it does not make sence to throw out a working rifle/carbine
> 
> However if your buying new guns or replacement guns -- the Hk416 series will also last 3-4x as long (bolt life - not so much barrel with the C7 and C8 being CHF'd as well, but other heat affected components).



A few months late, but I don't suppose it would be politically feasible to sell the existing uppers to civilians as milsurps and use the proceeds to partially finance buying 416 uppers, would it?

Do the 416 lowers differ significantly from other AR-15 lowers in any way?


----------



## KevinB (29 May 2008)

The CF could sell the uppers via Crown Assets - and if done in dribs and drabs could likley more than finance the purchases.


   The Hk416 mag well is not shaped the same and it wont take PMAGS due to its unusual bevel

The Hk417 lower and upper are proprietarial, and they cant be swapped - but the Hk416 and Hk418 (6.8x43mm SPC uppers) can drop on any mil spec lower, or any in tolerance civy lower


----------



## chanman (29 May 2008)

Infidel-6 said:
			
		

> The CF could sell the uppers via Crown Assets - and if done in dribs and drabs could likley more than finance the purchases.



Looking at some of the AR-15 threads on CGN, I wouldn't find that surprising at all.


----------

