The Turkish HK416: Mehmetçik-1

Earlier this year the Turkish Ministry of Defense announced they will be switching from the G3 7.62mm rifle to the HK416. The Turkish government owned arms and ordnance manufacturer MKEK will be producing the rifle under license from Heckler & Koch.

The H&K G3 battle rifle has been phased out in many countries and replaced with assault rifles chambered in intermediate cartridges. Along with the H&K G3, MKEK also produces the a variety of H&K MP5 models so the move to another H&K rifle is not surprising. Norway is also replacing the G3 with the HK416.

Picture 25
An important Turkish guy holding the Mehmetçik-1.Photo from

The pistol grip and stock look different to most of the HK416 photos on the internet. The wikipedia page has a photo with “HK416N” markings and the same configuration. The photo is marked for deletion from Wikipedia and there are few other references to the “HK416N” on google.

Picture 27-2
HK416N markings. Photo from Wikipedia.

Picture 26-3
Mehmetçik-1 markings

I cannot see any other differences between the Mehmetçik-1 and the HK416N other than the MKEK markings. The only different I have read about on a couple of forums is that MKEK are using different manufacturing techniques and different metals than H&K, which I take to mean a slightly different aluminum and steel alloys, which is not surprising.

The scope pictured above is the Elcan SpecterOS34x scope which well known for its use on the Canadian Diemaco C7/C8. The grenade launcher is the H&K AG416.

The Turkish Wikipedia page says the rifle will be manufactured in four different models. A Sub-carbine (10.5″ barrel), Carbine (14.5″ barrel), Rifle (16.5″ barrel) and “Distance” (Sniper/Marksmen, 20″ barrel).

Below is a video of a press conference with that important Turkish guy showing off the weapons and looking out of his depth:

By all accounts the HK416 is a great rifle combining the best of the AR-15 platform with the benefits of a gas piston system.

Turkey has also adopted a new sniper rifle that I cannot identify. Anyone know what it is? See the below photo.

UPDATE: Alcibiades, correctly identified it as the 7.62x51mm JNG 90, also made by MKEK.


Mehmetçik-1 and JNG 90 sniper rifle. Photo from

Hat Tip: GunPundit

Steve Johnson

Founder and Dictator-In-Chief of TFB. A passionate gun owner, a shooting enthusiast and totally tacti-uncool. Favorite first date location: any gun range. Steve can be contacted here.


  • In the photos from the original introduction of the Mehmetçik-1, the upper receiver of the rifle clearly had HK date codes and a proof mark from the Ulm proof house in Germany.

    • Sean Dillinger

      I would not be surprised to see the HK416 as the new US ARMY M4 replacement . It’s a awesome weapon and needs to be cleaned 60% less and is great in water, mud, sand and never heats up. ARMY SF and Seals are already using it more than anything else. Heck even bin laden met the biz end of the HK416.

  • Alcibiades

    I had to do some searching, but it might be a JNG 90?

  • jdun

    Gas piston AR took what great about the AR and made it mediocre. For what perceived reliability. Below is a good read why piston AR aren’t good.

    from UZI Talk…..

    Industry Member

    Join Date: Feb 2006
    Location: TN
    Posts: 94
    iTrader: 0 / 0%
    Nice post, Amphibian!

    From a designer’s perspective, the only advantage of the overhead piston, compared to a Stoner DI system on an AR15 is that there will be less carbon left in the bolt carrier because the piston is above the barrel on the overhead piston gun.

    There is no other advantage.

    The carbon in the carrier in a Stoner gas system is easily dealt with, by periodic lubing, and that problem is gone. And the reason the carbon is there, is because the Stoner Gas System IS a piston system, with the piston located in the carrier. And by re-locating the piston into the carrier, Stoner solved almost all the problems that existed in the overhead piston designs that were common in his day(and today too).

    There are numerous deleterious effects that the overhead gas piston system introduces into the weapon, when replacing the Stoner Gas System with this overhead piston. Too numerous for me to even list right now, because I only have a few minutes.

    Basically overall, it’s a very bad trade-off, with the bad far outnumbering the good.

    When pressed into a corner on the subject, most overhead piston aficionados admit that the reason that they like it is because they hate to clean the carbon off the carrier periodically, and can give no other reason that actually “holds water” from a technical perspective. If you hate to clean the gun periodically, maybe it’s for you.

    Alot of hype going around on this subject.
    twlyons@juno.comThis e-mail address is being protected from spam bots, you need JavaScript enabled to view it

    Industry Member

    Join Date: Feb 2006
    Location: TN
    Posts: 94
    iTrader: 0 / 0%

    Originally Posted by Orion
    Ahhh!! But less cleaning means more reliability! My M16 with DI used to be good for about 6-700 rds before it would get so dirty that it wouldn’t cycle. With a suppressor we’re looking at 200 rds before jams. But now…with the gas piston, the sky is the limit before a cleaning is absolutely necessary, same with a suppressor.

    Have you installed an adjustable gas system on the Stoner System gun, which would be the proper course of action when using a suppressor? The suppressor changes the gas system parameters, and should be accounted for with an adjustment when using the suppressor.

    The POF includes a gas system change(piston reversal) for use with the suppressor, why not also use one with the DI AR?

    Also, a spritz of lube into the carrier exhaust ports every couple hundred rounds will eliminate those “jams”. Lube it heavy. Sure, it looks gunky, but it will continue to run. As long as the carbon is suspended in the lube, it will run. If it dries and cakes, it can cause problems. Same thing with unsuppressed, except that it won’t build up the carbon as fast unsuppressed, so it will run longer between spritzes of lube when unsuppressed.

    You may not have to do that lubing with the overhead piston gun, so I do see your point(to an extent) when using the suppressor on it, compared against a DI gun that’s not equipped with a gas regulator. However, it is almost inconceivable that a person could shoot thousands of rounds without having any time to squirt some lube into the carrier via the ejection port, without even having to open up the gun. A well-built AR15 will run 5000 rounds without cleaning, as long as you periodically squirt some lube into it.

    Don’t know exactly what the problem with your AR15 was, but I don’t know anybody’s gun that jams at 600-700 rounds if they lube it during breaks at the range. Do you normally shoot a case of ammo at a range outing? And if you do, are you saying you don’t have time to spritz a squirt of lube into the carrier ports during that day?

    And there is no military action which would ever require the gun to do anything near that nature of uninterrrupted firing, so the point is moot from a military standpoint.

    Now, yes I realize that the expected response here will probably be, “Well with this piston gun, I don’t have to do any lubing to it”.

    And, if not having to do any lubing at all to it, is what floats your boat, then more power to you.
    twlyons@juno.comThis e-mail address is being protected from spam bots, you need JavaScript enabled to view it

    Industry Member

    Join Date: Feb 2006
    Location: TN
    Posts: 94
    iTrader: 0 / 0%
    Originally Posted by Freedom Eagle

    I just say the AR gas tube system (originally from the post WWII Swedish design) hasnt been used by anyone with the exception of Daewoo with the K1. Most manufactures must be right in not using this system. Just about every manufacturer uses a gas piston system.

    This is because the Stoner Gas System was under patent for at least 17 years, and by the time the patent expired, every other manufacturer realized that they weren’t able to do it any better than the M16 for any less money.

    None of the piston guns from other manufacturers have exceeded the M16, and this is easily seen from the history of the last 45 years.

    Basically, the Stoner Gas System solves the flaws of the overhead piston design, by moving the piston into the bolt carrier.

    This has the side effect of leaving carbon in the carrier area, but overall it solves more problems than it created, so it is a good move.

    The Stoner Gas System is the more modern design.It is different than previous DI systems because it uses a piston inside the carrier, and doesn’t just push the carrier with gas at the gas key.

    Both the Stoner System and the overhead piston systems are both true piston systems, and vary primarily in the placement of the piston. The location of the piston behind the bolt inside the carrier is a vast improvement in operation, due to the method of resolving all the operating forces into a single line and axis that is coincident with the boreline. No other gas operated system achieves this. It is this inline operating system that puts the Stoner Gas system head-and-shoulders above the rest.
    It has proven itself over 40 years against all overhead piston competition.
    The record speaks for itself.

    Issues with residual carbon in the carrier are easily overcome with proper applications of lube, and the round counts of reliable operation exceed current military requirements for combat ammo loads carried by the infantryman by at least a factor of 2x or 3x.

    Heat in the bolt/carrier area is inconsequential to the longevity of those parts, due to the heat being too low to affect the material structure, although it can evaporate some lubricants, requiring occasional re-application.

    All the other key design parameters are clearly in favor of the Stoner Gas System, by a wide margin.
    There’s no contest here, really.

    The most that could be said about any of these overhead piston systems is that when round counts are very high, and this is higher than any possible military requirement(>5k rounds), that the eventual carbon build-up will require the Stoner Gas System to be cleaned at an earlier schedule.

    This is a “theoretical advantage” at best, because soldiers religiously clean their weapons in real life. Guns are always cleaned prior to 5k rounds fired.

    Some might say this is great, because they think that everything else is the same, and this overhead piston gun will theoretically shoot longer. However, we must realize that we are sacrificing shooting performance beginning with round number one, if we move away from the Stoner System, because the accuracy and controllability is reduced with the overhead piston systems. And breakages in piston systems can, and does happen, and sometimes it’s alot earlier in life than you might surmise.

    It’s quite clear that both guns will shoot beyond any military operators needs and will run until they run out of ammo that they carry.

    So, then it comes down to accuracy, controllability, and hit probability, and those things favor the Stoner Gas System equipped rifle.

    And, cost and complexity are lower, and so is weight.

    In addition, I’m hearing rumblings from inside SOCOM that the 416 is not living up to expectations.
    And anyone with a design background has known this would be the case since day one.
    twlyons@juno.comThis e-mail address is being protected from spam bots, you need JavaScript enabled to view it

    Industry Member

    Join Date: Feb 2006
    Location: TN
    Posts: 94
    iTrader: 0 / 0%
    Originally Posted by Freedom Eagle

    TWR You have made some good points. I concede you probably have more knowledge on the AR-16/m-16 than I do. I have heard some denounce the claims that have been made about the Stoner Gas System stating Gas Piston designs are just as accurate. Ive seen test write ups in magazines claiming no difference in accuracy between the two. I could also refer to those who fought in Somalia under extreme conditions stating there M-16s/M-4s had jamming problems. I might not be in the industry of manufacturing weapons but I can understand the soldiers opinion times move on and its time the military needs a new weapon to replace the M-16/M-4. Tests i have read comparing the M-16, Galil and FN FNC in artic conditions were interesting. the M-16 didnt work. Im curious after reading The Black Rifle why Eugene Stoner and James Sullivan came up with so many Gas Piton designs after the M-16. The Stoner 63, Colt model 703, Taiwanese T65 rifle among others. Other tests I have read state the M-16 has had poor performance in the desert enviroments compared to Gas piston designs. Im curious as to why FN’s SCAR rifle doesnt use the Stoner Gas design. Lastly this design puts much heat into the receiver compared to Gas Piston systems. I appreciate you taking the time for your posting. I just like to get an understanding why you think the Stoner gas design in the ARs are superior.

    You raise some good questions.

    I’ll tackle them the best I can.

    First, the accuracy issue.

    The initial thing here is what the user finds acceptable for accuracy, given his use of the weapon, and what the comparators are.

    In the case of the overhead piston weapons, their primary purpose(at least how it was explained to me by people at SOCOM) is for CQB at short ranges with short barrels, where the standard Stoner Gas System begins to experience issues because of moving so far away from the original design with the longer barrel.

    For this purpose, MOA issues are not a big concern because we have a very short distance from the muzzle to the target, so MOA variances are less critical because there’s much less distance for the angular variance to develop into group spread. So, it could conceivably be considered a moot point at these short distances.

    Also, the comparators are often standard M4 weapons, using rack grade barrels and M855 ammo, which is not a really good accuracy combination anyway. You’d be lucky to get 2MOA out of that. Maybe half that with BH Mk262 loads.

    The overhead piston guns comparing to these M4 guns, are premium level guns with premium(sometimes even match-grade) barrels. Yes, the ammo used in comparison was probably the same, but the barrels aren’t at the same level. This will reduce the perceived differences in performance level, by “cheating” with a top-grade barrel in one of the contestants. If you put a Rock 5R into the M4, it would also get alot better accuracy over standard config. So, that’s a situation that is often unreported or unnoticed.

    The end result is that even if the M4 shows better or similar accuracy, it is obscured by lower quality barrels. If the barrels were equivalent in the $800 M4 and the $2k+ HK416, then it might show the difference a little better.

    Another issue is that the HK416 comes with a free-floated railed handguard, and the M4 has normal handguards that do not free-float the barrel, and cause accuracy decrease(particularly if using optics on the receiver rail).

    We have an “apples to oranges” comparison going on, with all kinds of premium accessories and barrel on one gun, and the other is a “plain Jane” rifle off the rack. Put the same level of products on the M4, and the accuracy will show itself again.

    However, if the sub-MOA accuracy level isn’t needed at CQB ranges, then the accuracy advantage of the M4 can be ignored. And this is exactly what the HK people want. Set up a scenario which negates the advantages of the M4, and highlights any advantages of the Hk416(if there are any).
    The comparison is simply not equal.

    I’m not going to comment on the “soldiers weapons jamming” commentary, because that’s what they said, and I’m not going to question it. However, actual weapon testing at Aberdeen says differently, and 81% of soldiers surveyed in the ARMY survey last year said that they never experienced a malfunction with their M4 during their entire military career in combat. 89% said that they never had a malfunction that couldn’t be cleared with an Immediate Action Drill, and return to fighting right away. I’ll let that stand.

    Finding some soldiers who had a jam, and then printing only their comments out of context of the overall proven performance record of the weapon system, reeks of slanted reporting, and that’s exactly what it is.

    Next, the statement that the military “needs” a replacement for the M16/M4.
    Ok, that’s fine. Find me one that can beat it in an overall sense, and not simply an “implication” that some gun can do better in one category. None exist.

    All the recent exhaustive military testing for other 1st world countries, such as Britain and Netherlands, tested all comers from HK, FN, Sig, whatever, and the Canadian C8 won in both those trials, and was adopted. The C8 is the Canadian variant of the M4, made by Diemaco(Colt Canada). If you want to talk about Norway, they are not happy with the HK purchase package that they made, and I just got that news the other day. The simple fact is that while many “cry out” for something better(for whatever reason), there simply is nothing better available at this time.

    Okay, the Galil, or FNC, or other AK variant vs M16 in arctic conditions.

    Very simple. The AK, Galil, and FNC are all AK variants. AK and Galil weapons are severely overgassed by design. The FNC attempts to overcome this by using a “gas switch” for “normal conditions” and “difficult conditions” in which the normal gas setting is not overgassed, and the difficult conditions setting is severely overgassed. So, if you put them in conditions where overgassing is a benefit, then they show better. However, in normal conditions, they don’t perform better than an M4. If you drill out the gas port in the M4 and use a lightweight buffer, it will run in the ice too. But, not so good in the summer.

    In the bad snow and ice, just like desert sand, there can be build-ups in the action which slow or stop the M4 from operating because it is not severely overgassed. An FAL-style adjustable gas knob on an M4 gas tube could overcome this and allow a wider range of operating conditions, if they wanted to do it.

    Regarding the design of other overhead piston weapons, after the sale of the M16 to Colt, this gas system was patented, and Colt owned the patents. The designers simply were obligated by law to cease making anything else that had it for at least 17 years.

    Regarding “poor performance in the desert”, everything has reduced performance in the desert. Just look at the FAL. They had gobs of problems, and introduced “sand cuts” on the carrier, and other things to try to overcome it. That’s an overhead piston design. Talk to veterans coming home from the sandbox. AK’s jam. They jam plenty. SAWs stop running. Mag58s stop running. It’s a tough environment.

    Okay, “heat in the receiver” being a “problem”.

    Heat in the receiver, as regards an M4/M16 operating system is only an issue insofar as it causes the lubricant to evaporate off the BCG. The heat is not sufficient to cause metallurgical problems to the internal parts of the BCG.

    It is commonly brought up by people selling overhead piston variants, to put doubt in people’s minds about the Stoner Gas System. That’s what they have to do, to sell their product.

    If some CLP is sprayed thru the ejection port onto the BCG every few hundred rounds before cleaning, the gun will run for a very long time, and I’ve seen examples of 5k rounds and even 10k rounds between cleanings, as long as the BCG got spritzes of lube on it every few hundred rounds.
    Yes, the heat will evaporate most lubes over several hundred rounds of firing.

    If you want to highlight that as a “problem”, and don’t want to spritz the BCG periodically, AFTER you’ve already shot more rounds than any soldier is issued for combat in their personal ammo load-out, and then some, then I suppose there’s an issue for you to hang on to.

    Now, on to the FN SCAR.

    The SCAR was conceived as a special purpose rifle for a special purpose role. There were parameters in the RFP which called for a folding stock design.

    The M16 is not a folding stock design, and while the recoil spring can be relocated for accomodating a folding stock on it, this eliminates the “inline recoil system” design that is one of the main advantages of the M16. Once you lose the inline recoil system design, then many of the advantages of the Stoner Gas System, which made the inline recoil design possible, fall away, and the overhead piston system becomes just as viable. Viable, in a “not as good” way, mind you, but if you just have to throw that folding stock on there, and reduce the performance of the package to get it, then you’re already in the world of massive compromise, so what difference does it make then?

    Please note that the FN SCAR has had 3 revisions over 3 years to try to make it right, and it still isn’t. It doesn’t handle or control as well as an M4. Accuracy is not as good as an M4. There are reliability issues. The design does not meet, and will not meet the original RFP of having the same weapon being convertible from SCAR “L” to SCAR “H”. They had to make 2 different platforms. It doesn’t even meet the RFP for the trial that it “won”.

    I know numerous people who have shot the SCAR in lengthy trial sessions,(and the HK416 too). All reports from these users(both military users and designers) have told me that the M16/M4 is a better overall weapon for actual shooting use. But, they want to have that folding stock on there, and it seems like that feature is taking precedence over everything else.

    Here’s the bottom line:
    Everything has its “pros and cons”. Nothing is perfect, and nothing is ever going to be perfect.
    On balance, the Stoner Gas System in the M16/M4 has the best ratio of “pro” to “con”.
    The M16/M4 is the best overall design package that is available today.

    Compromise away from it, and compromise is what you get.

    It is an awesomely good design. However, the very short barreled carbines do stress the limitations of the original design.

    I’m sure that it could be beaten someday, but there’s nothing out there right now, or even on the drawing boards that I’m aware of, that can beat it in an overall sense. Yes, you may beat it in one criteria or two, but you’ll fall off the bridge in other areas of performance, and that’s why it is so hard to beat it overall.

    I’m all for improving our weapons.

    I’m just waiting for an improved one to come along, and it hasn’t materialized so far. And I’m on the drawing boards with the rest of the design world to try to make an improved weapon design.

    Edited to add:
    This does not mean that I think that there’s no place for overhead piston guns. I think they are fine, and I own some.

    There are nice things about them, they work, and I like them.

    However, when it comes to talking about replacing the M16/M4 as our US military weapon, and citing “reasons” why it should be done, then I feel it is important to itemize exactly what is going on, and why the M16/M4 is (IMO) the best choice available. And I give reasons for it.
    If a person likes some aspects of the overhead piston guns, and it makes them happy, and they clean less, and enjoy the gun, then there’s no reason on Earth that they shouldn’t buy one and have fun with it.

    My intent is not to throw a wet blanket on everybody’s fun.
    My intent is to clarify the muddy waters that have resulted from oceans of hype that have been thrown around on the internet and media, in order to help people see thru it, and understand that there’s more to it than they’re being shown, in most cases.
    twlyons@juno.comThis e-mail address is being protected from spam bots, you need JavaScript enabled to view it

    Industry Member

    Join Date: Feb 2006
    Location: TN
    Posts: 94
    iTrader: 0 / 0%

    Remember that Somalia and to some extent Afghanistan campaigns were prior to the new lubing protocols that have been issued by the Army.

    This is relatively new, and the older regimen was to lube lightly, because they thought that less stuff would stick to the lube on the BCG. This has been found to be erroneous, and the heavy lubing has been shown to improve things, as it keeps the particulate matter in suspension with the lube.
    The new lubing protocol is now in use.

    While not any help to soldiers in previous campaigns, there has been some progress made to help now and in the future.

    There is going to be a trial for sand-worthiness, scheduled by the Army over the next 6 months, at the request of a certain member of the Armed Services committee, because of this very concern about new weapons and their capabilities.

    It will include the M4, HK416, FN SCAR, and HK XM8 in a 60k round test in the sandblasting chamber.

    We will see what comes of it.

    It will be valuable information.
    twlyons@juno.comThis e-mail address is being protected from spam bots, you need JavaScript enabled to view it

    Industry Member

    Join Date: Feb 2006
    Location: TN
    Posts: 94
    iTrader: 0 / 0%

    The M4 uses the carbine gas system, which was originally developed for shorter barreled weapons in the 1960s.

    It does deviate significantly from the original design, which operated at significantly lower pressures.

    I would suggest that Colt didn’t really do as much thinking about that carbine change as they “should” have. It appears to me to have been a quick “chop off” of the sytem, probably to get it into service quickly, to meet requests from commandos. Once it was in service, it became “institutionalized”.

    However, it does work within a reasonable percentage of the reliability of the parent full-length gas system, so perhaps they felt that was good enough at that time. As time went on, things were developed primarily by other companies, to improve the carbine system function, based on the observed issues that came to light. Colt is only recently even starting to see daylight on these matters.

    Perhaps Colt isn’t concerned about improvements, since the M4 contract runs out in 2009, and they might have other plans.

    The activity going on now may very well result in a weapon change, after the M4 contract runs out. Nothing will happen prior to that, in terms of large purchases from another company.
    If they select anything from the currently available crop of weapons being offered as the replacement candidates today, they will be making a mistake IMO.
    The only hope is that something other than what we see today emerges between now and then, that is a true overall improvement compared to the M4.

  • Alcibiades, I think you are right. The JNG 90 has that distinctive handguard behind the bipod. Thanks for doing the research. I have updated the blog post.

  • Pingback: GunPundit()

  • Remember I used to have gas piston upper, of which there are pictures of on this blog. Gas piston AR-15s are not that great. I traded mine for an AK-47. Blasphemy I know, but I figured if it had to have a gas piston . . . I know it was not a HK gas piston rifle.

    Remember a gas piston on a AR is nothing new. Armalite had a gas piston rifle back in the 1970s. Did it go anywhere? No, wonder why?

    The thing about these types of changes and all is it involves big money and politics. This nation used to use a Krag, but we quickly went Mauser action. Remember why? So mistakes can be made and have been made. I am glad HK is making money of Turkey.

  • Jennersen, I didn’t realize you got rid of the piston system. That too bad 🙁

    I posted a link to Jennersen’s gas piston photos here:

  • Vitor

    M1 Garand was very reliable and it was replaced by the M14, that was very reliable also. Now the M16 is much less reliable, much more maintenance intesive, but some people are just to defensive about it.

    And its false to say the only advantage of gas-piston is less fouling. Gas piston also allows the gun to work even if the receiver and bolt are underwater or very wet. Also the intensive lub required by the DI system works as a “sand magnet”, what can be fatal in certain “sand boxes” around the world.

    Delta Force went piston with the HK, SOCOM went piston with the FN-SCAR, and Im sure those guys have very good reasons for that besides rubbing at commun troops faces that they can have access to the coolest gear.

    But yeah, lets keep on treating the M16 like a sacred spoiled cow.

  • It did not cycle very well. I was very disappointed. I would fire 3 rounds, jam, 1 round, jam, 1 round, jam, 5 rounds, jam, etc etc . . . I used various ammo loads and magazines. I put about 1k of ammo through it. I cleaned, re-cleaned, and checked everything thrice. Still no love. I was angry that day. 🙁

  • Anonymous

    “The pistol grip and stock look different to most of the HK416 photos on the internet.”

    All current production HK416s have that stock and grip. Also, every lower receiver I have seen is marked as ‘HK 416 N’, I have no idea what the N stands for, but it appears to be standard.

  • Anonymous, the photos of the HK website do not have this stock and grip configuration. What makes you think this is standard?

  • Anonymous

    The U.S. website hasn’t been updated, but you can see it on the global website:

  • Anonymous

    And sorry I was mistaken, MOST have ‘HK 416 D’ marked on the lower receiver. Picture from latest HK brochure:

  • jdun

    Vitor, if you read my post above you will know how bad piston AR is. It takes everything that is good about an AR and made it mediocre.

    The AR is the best combat rifle out there. There is nothing that currently comes close to all the advantages that the AR has. I have not seen US Special Forces used piston AR in prolong combat action.

    SCAR is dead. There is another competition for the next great rifle. That to will probably fail.

    Again go read my previous post and you’ll understand why AR is the best. It’s long but very informative for those people that don’t understand what make the AR the best rifle in the world.

  • Vitor

    Piston requires less lub.
    Piston deals better with water.
    Piston deals better with sand.
    Piston cools down faster.
    Piston get much less fouling, consequently requires less cleaning

    5 facts that I cant really see DI system overcoming.

    South Korea went with a gas piston rifle, they liked. German did the same, and the G36 sells quite good around the world.

    “all the operating forces into a single line
    and axis that is coincident with the boreline.”

    Sounds fancy and it even rhymes! But all the advantages of gas piston remains. Engineer poetry wont change that.

  • jdun

    I don’t think you understand how DI AR works.

    The G36 is dead. The couldn’t give them away. That’s why HK went with an AR clone.

    Like the guy said the only advantage to piston AR is ease of clean. That’s it. The piston AR isn’t better in water. I assumed you watched the fake HK AR video. Any gun that has water in the barrel will go KB! It just common sense. Like they said HK has the best marketing department in the gun industry. They can fool anyone that has no engineer experience.

    The piston AR has been done in the past by many companies. It was abandoned because it doesn’t provide any benefits.

    Here is the HK416 in action without the HK marketing department paying people or editing their videos. Notice at least 2 jams (probably more) and the worst part is they weren’t testing the 416 reliability. The 416 was marketed as a better alternative for suppress AR.

  • The HK416N is simple a version of the HK416 manufactured for Norway contract.


  • REMOV, that explains it! Thanks.

  • EzGoingKev

    Wow, now that I read this I know the piston design is no good.

    I wonder how much better the M1, M14, and all the other piston rifles would have been if they too had dirty exhaust gas blowing back into the chamber area.

  • Miguel

    I heard that US Special Force had adopted the gun but will the US Marines and Army Adopt it? Last I heard the USArmy had rejected the HK M-8 in 2005 not sure why.

  • Ken

    Glad to see this thread.Even better to see some industry rep on hand too. Seems to me that heavy lubing seems to be a way to keep the gun going.All that extra lube is counter productive.Anybody see the obvious here? Would you throw sand in your cars engine to see if it works? So why would you design a gun that throws dirt in the vitals? Forget the direct gas action, its dead.Design reliable.Design something user friendly that wont fail.
    The 60k round sandblaster test is interesting.I see the writing on the wall already.Parts worn out early. Headspace gone sooner than thought. Gun seized up.Didnt realize the the troops were fighting in sandstorms all the time. Who comes up with this stuff?
    As an American Im tired of seeing FOREIGN names like HK and FN in the spotlight.Is there an AMERICAN company out there who can knock these guys out?Granted they are doing a good job of it themselves..
    It completely baffles me that with all the information available, that a good rifle system cant be made.This “stop gap” and “half baked” junk others come up with seem to fall through the cracks and get adopted. Governments hopefully see now that “brand name” does not always equal quality. Also hopefully, engineers can get their act together and design something that is Reliable,Accurate and Simple.
    While you guys duke it out,I will keep working on my design,which is everything above and more. 🙂

  • XxleoxX

    what scope is on that HK416? the one with the “important turkish guy”

  • igorfazlyev

    The DI system needs more cleaning and lubing than the gas piston system to operate properly, otherwise it does jam more often, it’s a fact and if you have a stoppage in the middle of a firefight it can be lethal. Minute advantages in accuracy are not that important if your rifle simply won’t fire at the crucial moment.

  • subby

    The other main advantage so far at least has been the m16’s weight.

    If the rfb design proves reliable, and its .223 incarnation proves to just as light as the m4 then it would be a superior replacement for the current us military rifle.

  • JJ…03289/#updates

    From the looks from the link above, M-4 is inferior…period.

    Having to squirt oil every 2-700 rounds seems…inferior. No matter how accurate a gun is, if it doesn’t go bang, its a tomato stake. Personally, reliability is the most important factor for me when purchasing a rifle.

    Don’t remember if you guys remember this, about the supply convoy getting ambushed in iraq and m-16’s jamming. You know, if their job isn’t primarily being behind the trigger, but stuck in a truck convoy for two days…they didn’t have time to clean their weapons and subsequently their guns jammed.

  • Nalle

    The HK416N is used by Norwegian Army

  • Henry Bowman

    What’s with that grip at the front? From what detail is available in that photo, it looks like it’s actually a full-size SA pistol in some sort of clamp/shroud.

  • sully

    Judging by all the frustration on this forum with European and American produced weapon systems, I think Id opt for an AK variant any day with modern accessories, I think its a matter of time before Western armies get to that, like theyve done with the RPG.

  • tippin

    AK’s jam just like anything else you know. No weapon is perfect. DI and M16/AR16 get a bad rap, they’re perfectly good rifles.

  • snmp

    French MAS38, MAS40, MAS44 MAS49 & MAS 49/56 have DI without problem In Indochina, Algeria, and African small war .

    The Same for The AR10 (Build by Dutch) in Angloa & Mozambique War .

  • hey Nalle the N stands for Norway.

    Btw in a battle between Diemaco C8 and HK 416, the C8 would own HK in CQB, Precission, accuracy, speed, endurance and also frost. yeah the HK dosnt stand the cold, the bolt freezes and u have to warm it up to use it again. no Im not kidding, used that bad excuse for a gun over a year and thank god I got the uppertunity to change it to Diemaco C8

  • m.d

    S.O.C, what you say about the hk freezing in the cold is true. i have experienced it myself. But the problem isnt the gun itself. The problem occurs when snow gets in between the boltassembly(Norwegian: sluttstykke) and the upper reciever, and then, when you take your rifle in to a heated tent/vehicle/buliding, the snow melts—> water. go out in the cold again and after a while the water on the bolt assembly freezes stuck to the receiver.

    Solution: Remove the rear lock pin(the one that holds the upper and lower receiver togheter), open the gun, remove bolt assembly, whipe off water, insert bolt assembly, close the gun, insert rear pin again, load your weapon and you’re ready to go.
    Whole procedure takes about 20 seconds.

    Another solution:

    Keep the bolt in the rear position until you’re ready to engage targets, hit the forward release, and just like that, you’re ready to fire.

    Third solution(maybe not the best one):
    If traveling on foot/ski’s without vehicles, keep the weapons right outside the tent instead of bringing them inside. Result: snow doesen’t melt = no water = no freezing stuck between the bolt assembly and receiver.

    Fourth solution:
    Be patient, the norwegian military is developing a new oil that supposedly removes that problem.

    Other than the freezing problem, I have had zero problems with my hk416.
    It’s a superb weapon, and I’d take it over any DI rifle out there.

  • Someone

    this project is dead as… dead by 2009.

    • Someone, really? do you have a link to information about them dropping the rifle?

  • S.O.C.

    I know about those solutions, but when I transfered to another department of the military I got new weapons. Like the Diemaco C8 SFW. We are also getting the new MP7 and Im looking forward to trying it out..

    the best soluting with the freezing problem will be to change the bolt. the entire thing to the one that are in C8 since that dosnt freeze what ever u try but there is a problem with it. the C8 bolt gets warm when ur fire it on family mode. the problem there can be that the chamber can explode. But I heard that the HK416 had another problem. In 2nd Battalion (Norwegian Infentry Division) one HK went suddenly on family mode. I just heard that happen ones.. It was something with the changer ther broke and it suddenly went on family and puked out all the ammo.. luckly he pointed it on the boards other wise that could be ugly

  • Someone

    Official Turkish Statement :

    i sended an email to ssm(Secretary of defence) about 416 and the response is : We dont have any intrest anymore.

    Here’s orginal text in turkish :

    Müsteşarlığımızca “Mehmetçik-1 (HK416) tüfekleri ile ilgili proje” yürütülmemektedir.Türk Silahlı Kuvvetlerinin yakın muharebe görevlerinde, gece ve gündüz, her türlü arazi ve hava şartlarında etkin, süratli ve sıhhatli ateş gücü sağlayacak 7,62 mm çapındaki tüfek ihtiyacının yurt içi geliştirme yoluyla karşılanmasına ilişkin olarak yürüttüğümüz projenin adı Modern Piyade Tüfeği (MPT) Projesi’dir. MPT Projesi kapsamında Tasarım ve Geliştirme Dönemi Sözleşmesi 22 Ocak 2009 tarihinde Makina ve Kimya Endüstrisi (MKE) Kurumu ile imzalanmıştır. Hâlihazırda tasarım ve
    geliştirme faaliyetleri devam ettiğinden, tüfeğin ağırlığı ve uzunluğu da dahil olmak üzere, herhangi
    bir teknik bilgi verilememektedir.

    Tasarım ve geliştirme faaliyetlerinin 2011 yılında tamamlanması ve bilahare seri üretim sözleşmesinin imzalanması planlanmaktadır.

    I am so lazy so here’s google’s translated version

    Undersecretariat of Treasury “(soldier -1) (HK416) projects related to guns” are not maintained.


    Armed Forces in close combat, night and day, all kinds of terrain and weather conditions

    efficient, rapid and healthy firepower to 7.62 mm in diameter of the gun needs to develop domestic

    As we run towards the project through the name of modern infantry rifles (MPT)

    Project. MPT Project Design and Development Contract Period January 22, 2009

    on Mechanical and Chemical Industry (TCI) was signed with the Agency. Currently, the design and

    development is ongoing, the rifle’s weight and length, including any

    technical information is not available. For the same reason it is not possible to post a picture of guns.

    Design and development activities to be completed in 2011 and later production contract

    It is planned to be signed.

  • furies

    The little town of Oberndorf on the Neckar has been making the finest firearms in the world for over 150 years – call it Mauser Werkes or Heckler Koch or what have you…these people know metallurgy – using alloys and temperature variance to create precision on a quantum level – though, like the japanese sword-smiths, they weren’t initially sure why the greatness occurred – these days…they know.

    The HK marketing department isn’t that big. It does not have to be. They simply organize testing of their products which sell themselves. A separate firm creates the licensed logo “shwag” that moves so promptly on ebay – SOP for any company with govt contracts anywhere in the world

    The German mastery of creating metal characteristics is also reflected in the car industry, where they have consistently churned out stiffer chassis’ than any other country by more than ten years of product – tight handling and safe + forgiving. Just like their guns – they easily make average shooters/drivers into comparatively better than than the competition, right out of the box/off the lot – it’s what their massive engineering R&D is dedicated to.

    Mercedes just crash tested their 60,000th car – for what they cost and how their built it seems a shame. But it is the safest car in the world.

    I agree…what’s your family’s life worth?

  • Pkekyo


    Just figured I’d let you know – the HK416N is the version developed for the Norwegian Armed Forces.

    Amongst other things it features a very distinct 16.5″ barrel with a bayonet lug.

  • Armand Heydarian

    Are these unlicensed copies?

  • Ilgar Ö. Değirmenci

    Dear Armand

    Project is already cancelled by undersecretariat. MKEK was planning to produce rifles without licensing … TR Govt. cancelled the project because on press release MKEK officer’s said the rifle is %100 Turkish in terms of design , which is a lie …Army and Secratary wanted something orginal but we still waiting for the second rifle design