wonderful... wonderful...So.... Since these are now surplus, where could a guy pick one up?
I read most of the replies so far-generally of the opinion that the 416 is head and shoulders above the M4/M16.
Well, how about some reality?
The only benefit is that of the “propellant gases channeling back into the upper reciever, tending to dry lubricant and gum up the works”
In a dry dusty environment, the prescribed lube level is DRY (hence the dry film lubricant applied to the inner upper surfaces and the bolt carrier) If this coating is compromised, unit armoers are equipped to re-apply it in the field, it works. End of arugument.
I routiinely had to make a point on the proper lub of weapons in dry dusty enviroments-Soldiers from BCT through senior levels have been trained by (poor)example to pump CLP into every opening of the M16 family to make it run-wrong.
The M4/M16 is a fine weapon, is very efective within its design parameters (300m) and is very reliable in its current format.
The dust test required somewhere around 8000 rounds fired w/o maintenance-try that with anything and the performance will suffer(much). The rate of failure of the “worst” weapon, the M4, was somewhere in the range of a larger handful, compared to smaller handfulls of failures of the others.
Statistically stupid. No trooper is ging to run his weapon for 8k rounds sans maintenance, and then wonder why it don’t work.
The BS is the criticsim and the resultant testing protocol.
Why not get a ball park range of combat use/rounds fired per day and then test on that more realistic number-that way, when a bullet launcher fails to launch, it IS statistically significant.
The 556 M855 round is very lethal, only thing is you must actually hit the target-always a problem when the doo doo hits the fan (trust me!)
The 6.8SPC is about as powerfull as the 762x39 or 30/30 win-with a trajectory of a rainbow past 300m-so we are back to the same result (if it was a super round, the High power community would use it-not a one will touch it as it is a turd in a punchbowl long range performance wise toooslow and too light bullet balisitally speaking).
Up the caliber to 762x51 or so, and you get a weapon with more terminal enegery, but at the expense of additional recoil and load mass.
No free lunches for the dogs of war!
I trusted my life for many years with the M16A1, A2, M4 and M4A1, and they always went bang, accurately.
This test is akin to telling us a Soldier’s uniform smells, and then blaming the manufacturer for the troopers poor hygiene....
God Bless
MOLON LABE
Remember PO2 Monsoor, SEAL, USN CMH
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.
Follow the money. Polticians, defense contractors, and military officers are lining their pockets. Idiocy like this can always be explained if you just follow the money. I hope somebody with more resources than me - - and somebody who cannot be purchased - - will do so.
Why the heck would a crack military unit want something with better performance and less maintenance?
/sarcasm
The US Army and Marine Corps should switch either to AKs or “semi-auto” M14s. The M16 package should be relegated to Air Force MPs protecting paved airfields, as was the intention of Air Force General Curtis LeMay during the Vietnam War.