MNOR sent us this photo of his friend’s service rifle. He did not say which country his friend serves. The HK416 is a popular rifle for special forces around the world, and the standard service rifle for a number of European countries. This rifle features a slim profile stock, Aimpoint Comp M4 and a nifty paintjob.

Submit photos you have taken to TFB’s Photo Of The Day.



Advertisement

  • G0rdon_Fr33man

    That is a Norwegian service rifle. That configuration with the CompM4 and that particular stock is standard issue. Designated HK416N.

    • iksnilol

      My guess too. Since Norway likes expensive stuff and that is the standard service rifle.

    • toms

      Don’t forget the agr definitely Norwegian

      • iksnilol

        What’s an AGR?

        Do you mean the AG3?

        • G0rdon_Fr33man

          No, he´s talking about the automatic gas regulator, which I forgot in the OP.

          • iksnilol

            Makes sense, how does that work? Can you do manual (read: fine) adjustments if you have an AGR?

    • Gyufygy

      Does Norway produce them in-country the way they did with the AG3s?

  • DAN V.

    No slingerino?

  • Mud

    And what does this rifle do that a stock M4 does not?

    • Taylor TX

      HK416 uses a piston, standard M4 is direct impingement

    • G0rdon_Fr33man

      It does everything a stock M4 does, but it runs cleaner, cooler and more reliably.

      • ColaBox

        Mind elaborating? Id like to see someone back this claim up for once.

        • HKGuns

          Stop being ignorant.

          I own both and I absolutely HATE cleaning my filthy DI rifles after shooting them. Piston rifles are “minimally” 95% cleaner than their DI counterparts after shooting.

          The difference is nothing short of astounding. If you think differently, you’re just plain ignorant and need to buy one yourself.

          • Zachary marrs

            You don’t really need to clean, just lube

          • roadsterjosh

            You were originally speaking of realiability as well as cleanliness, but you’ve reverted back to speaking of just the ease of which it is to clean.
            With high quality ammo they are both relatively clean, but with wolf and tula nothing stays that way long. Also, wiping out a di gun is not in the slightest a hard job, but trying to scrape out the baked on, hardened carbon from a piston system is quite a bit more difficult. Hence the hundreds, of not thousands of new carbon scraper products currently on the market.
            Ignorant or not, I’ll keep using a 50 year old system that has had the kinks worked out. Amazingly the military was unable to find any of the next gen guns doing anything truly better than what they already have, if this platform were night and day different from the standard di system, and could show true miraculous improvement it would have been picked up in mass.

          • iksnilol

            Well, trials did find the 416 better but not good enough to justify rearming everybody.

            Norway simply took the 416 with the 5.56 when they switched from the G3.

          • Zachary marrs

            All the others had more class 3 stoppages, not what I’d call an improvement

          • roadsterjosh

            Sure there were improvements, from all entries. But nothing that was so dramatic that it rendered the m4 and m16 irrelavent. The systems presented are certainly an improvement, and some were picked up by our tier 1 guys.
            Don’t take my previous statement to mean that this is an inferior system, far from it. I just think the individuals that scream about the improved reliability, or the cleaner operation should look at the studies that have been brought forth. People much more experienced than any of us have proven time and again that with a high quality system, no matter how it operates, you can do the job at hand effectively, without stoppages or failures. Piston, DI, roller delayed, or blowback, the problem is uninformed, fanatical people want to justify their purchases and only their opinion matters.

          • ColaBox

            This is my point exactly, I want somebody to show EVIDENCE of why this gun is better. All you’ve said is basically, “because I said so” which is how HK gets most of their reputation to begin with seeing as how they have a great marketing department. Love GRAW and Dick Marcinko novels dont ya? Go to just about any board regarding the 416/556 and its nothing but people flinging crap at each other without giving any backing to their claims. But, this is the internets. And what’s wrong with DI? Its easy to clean and runs reliably. We’ve been using it for decades without issues. At least you don’t have to worry about multiple failures from DI like you do with a piston because it wont eject a damn shell if the gas system is tuned slightly off.

          • Uniform223

            This is a very well written article by someone who has far more personal experience ( most likely ) then most if not all ( including myself ) commentators here. This is NOT a DI vs Piston article but it does do a great job of dispelling a terrible myth and preconception that has followed and hounded the AR-15/M-4/M-16 platform for a very very long time. Interestingly enough the modifications he purposes at the end of his article is what you will find in the US Army’s newer mass issued M4A1s.

            http://www.defensereview.com/the-big-m4-myth-fouling-caused-by-the-direct-impingement-gas-system-makes-the-m4-unreliable/

          • roadsterjosh

            DR is one of the best sites anywhere. No BS, not full of opinion, and just good information.

          • Joshua

            Not to mention the author of that article is Mike Pannone who is former SFOD-D as well as a regular trainer for AWG(Asymmetric Warfare Group)

          • HKGuns

            HK has a “great” marketing department? Seriously? If there is one thing they “don’t” have, it is a great marketing department.

          • n0truscotsman

            Where does this “95% cleaner” come from?

            I’ve owned and tested many off the shelf gas piston systems for the AR and didn’t notice any difference in overall mechanical reliability.

            I want to see some proof that they are more reliable.

            Facts, documentation, testing. Not just marketing quips. Time for you to put up, gas piston fans, like Ive been asking every time a article like this is published.

          • HKGuns

            Reading and comprehending isn’t your strong suit is it?

            95% cleaner comes from my personal experience with both platforms. Ask anyone who has both and they will tell you the same. Cleaning up each after 100+ rounds is night and day different. Not marketing quips, real world experience Scotty.

            Nowhere will you find me saying it made either platform more reliable than the other. That extrapolation is on you. If you think carbon fouling = reliability issues then that is your conclusion, not mine.

            Carbon fouling is now just a spring issue.

          • n0truscotsman

            “95% cleaner comes from my personal experience with both platforms.”

            Thats not what I asked. I already knew that because my reading comprehension is anything but lacking.

            You misunderstood my question. What method did you use to come up with the 95% number? thats pretty damn specific for a non-scientific test. If its a guess, just say so.

            “Ask anyone who has both and they will tell you the same. Cleaning up each after 100+ rounds is night and day different. Not marketing quips, real world experience Scotty.”

            And who cares about 100 rounds difference between “dirtiness” when functionality is the same?

            The root cause of the AR15s problems aren’t associated with how dirty it is. It is how well maintained its internal components as well as being adequately lubricated. Try reading the DR Mike Pannone article sometime about the AR15 http://www.defensereview.com/the-big-m4-myth-fouling-caused-by-the-direct-impingement-gas-system-makes-the-m4-unreliable/

            “Nowhere will you find me saying it made either platform more reliable than the other.”

            Then why does cleanliness matter?

            You seem pretty wrapped around the axle about that, accusing somebody of being “ignorant” when they asked for evidence.

            “That extrapolation is on you. If you think carbon fouling = reliability issues then that is your conclusion, not mine.”

            I dont think you are following along very well. If you have paid any attention whatsoever to my arguments on this article so far, it wouldn’t be that difficult to conclude that is NOT my conclusion whatsoever. On the contrary.

            You responded to Colabox by telling him to “stop being ignorant” when he asked Gordon Freeman to elaborate on his initial claim of “…It does everything a stock M4 does, but it runs cleaner, cooler and more reliably….”

            So again, where is the evidence that it is cleaner, cooler, and more reliable?

          • Dual Sport

            Here’s a pearl for you. Fan boy info can’t be trusted any more than HKs info. I had an hk the company shafted me on years ago, just because they could.

            Your nonsense of relying on personal attacks to support your arguments just make you look like an ignorant child on a rant.

      • roadsterjosh

        The piston vs di myth strikes again

        • Nicks87

          No myth, just people that cant afford piston guns trashing them. I was one of those people until I finally convinced the wife that we needed one. Under sustained firing I do believe they are more reliable and run cleaner but for the average firearms enthusiast the extra weight and cost are probably not worth it.

          • n0truscotsman

            “just people that cant afford piston guns trashing them.”

            Maybe because they see the wisdom in the fact that

            1.) They are no more reliable than less expensive legacy ARs.

            2.) The money savings is better spent on optics, a weapon light, ammunition, and training, rather than a newfangled piece of technology that is a gimmick more than a measurable improvement.

          • roadsterjosh

            The funny part about this is I have carried both on duty, and have ran through classes with both. After extensively testing the capabilities of both, and running them extremely hard, I’ll keep my DDM4. It has never let me down when the need to deploy my rifle arose, and has somewhere near 10k rounds through it.
            I have obviously replaced some parts in its life, but it is the only rifle I will even consider putting in my patrol car.
            I like shooting piston guns, and own an LWRC. But when push comes to shove and my families, mine, or any citizens life is threatened it would not be my first choice to grab.
            If you know without a shadow of a doubt that your rifle is dead nuts realiable, then there is no argument needed.

      • Joshua

        Tell that to the 10th SFG or pretty much every US SoF and SF who have tested it against the M4A1 and Mk18 since 2007.

        The only time there was an actual tangible benefit from it was pre 2007 before Colt got their upgrades through testing and got them widely issued.

        This is also why there are only 2 groups using it, and those 2 groups happen to be the ones who adopted it back in 2004-2005 ad built up a huge supply chain for it.

      • …and is less accurate and more expensive to produce, as well as much harder to clean when the piston does get gummed up.

        DI vs Piston is a tired old meme. DI has its advantages. Piston has its advantages. Both have their problems. I’m a DI girl, I have piston lovers among my friends. Let’s leave it at that. The HK416 isn’t a “fixed M4”, it’s just another take on the AR-15.

      • n0truscotsman

        and where is the documentation to prove this?

    • BjornTheBrave

      Nor am I at all impressed.

      The HK416 is an utterly inferior, flawed weapon system. Vuurwapenblog sums it up pretty well. http://vuurwapenblog.com/2013/08/04/dealing-with-hk416-bolt-over-base-malfunctions/

      Here’s what I consider to be a proper duty AR general purpose rifle setup.

      PWS MK116 Mod 1 Upper
      PWS 416 Enhanced Buffer Tube w/ Magpul STR Stock & Enhanced Rubber Butt-pad 0.70″
      KAC SR-15 IWS E3 Mod 2 lower
      KAC Aluminum Combat Trigger Guard
      Geissele SSF Trigger
      BCM Gunfighter Charging Handle Mod 4
      BCM Gunfighter Mod 1 Grip
      Troy Industries Micro Set HK Front and Round Rear Tritium BLK Battle Sights
      XS Sight Systems Glass Assault Tool
      TangoDown Vertical Fore Grip QD BGV-QDSF
      TangoDown SCAR SC-002, SC-004, SC-006 Rail Panels
      Surefire SFMB-556-1/2-28 Muzzle Brake
      Surefire SOCOM556-MINI Fast-Attach Suppressor
      Surefire M620P Fury Scout Light w/ Z68 Tail Cap Switch w/ LaRue Tactical Surefire Scout Light LT272 QD Lever Mount @ 9
      Trijicon TA02 4×32 ACOG w/ GDI R-Com E-Model Combat Optic Mount
      Aimpoint Micro T-2 w/ LaRue Tactical LT724 QD Lever Mount @ 3
      Trijicon TANS
      Trijicon ATCS w/ GDI R-Com E-Model Combat Optic Mount
      L-3/Insight AN/PEQ-15 ATPIAL @ 12
      Savvy Sniper Quad X Cobra Sling
      Lancer Systems L5AWM Translucent 30-Round Magazines
      Federal 62gr MK318 Mod 0 SOST, SSA/Black Hills 77gr SMK Mk262 Mod 1 OTM
      Maglula StripLULA 5.56 AR-15 10-round Magazine Loader
      Eagle Industries Discreet Case Soft Hard 35 Eagles Rifle Bag
      Slip 2000 Extreme Weapons Lubricant, Gun Cleaner, Carbon Killer Gun Cleaner and Weapons Cleaning Kit

      • G0rdon_Fr33man

        Sofa-operator detected.

      • SP mclaughlin

        I’m not a fanboy of the 416 but clearly HK engineered it right given its widespread use. Probably cheaper for Norwegians than ordering a custom mall ninja AR15

        • BjornTheBrave

          Of course it is. I’m just saying the HK416 isn’t all that, though. HK416A5 is a step in the right direction, but I still don’t see it being better out of the box than a custom AR. I just prefer custom builds.
          And like vuurwapenblog already stipulated: the HK416 is a flawed design. I don’t care whether it’s the rifle that killed Bin Laden or not. I just strongly believe in going the custom route. If you get the best quality components out there, you’re gonna get a quality result. So why not go with high end stuff? Just my $0.02
          Btw: money is not at all an issue for the Norwegians Any idea how rich they are? They can basically buy anything they’d like. The Norwegian Army just chose to buy something for the convenience of having a one stop shop. Yet I still do not see it being superior to a custom AR. The grip is ergonomically very odd, HK is known for making horrible triggers and that stock is just ‘geesh’. The design is flawed, it overheats way to fast and is prone to malfunctioning. Long stroke piston is the way to go. The AK has proven that. PWS knows what they’re doing, and so does IWI.

          • G0rdon_Fr33man

            Who says the 416 was supposed to be better out-of-the-box than anything that could possibly be built? It was designed for militaries, which is looking for bang vs bucks and standardization. This is a battle rifle, not an IPSC-race gun. Anyone looking for a race gun is going to go full-custom and skip the MR556 in a heartbeat. When choosing the new battle rifle, the Norwegian Army also concidered the Diemaco C8, HK G36, Sig 551, and FN F2000.

            The C8 (FSK/HJK) and G36 (KJK) was formerly being used by a few select forces, but today the 416 has replaced everything and is standards accross the board.

            Price of the 416 contract was 100 million NOK, which gives a unit price of 12200 NOK. That is 2000 USD, or 2/3rd of the street price of an MR223 in Norway.

            What would be the price of your custom race gun? And please factor in the logistics cost of having to deal with 25 different parts manufacturers.

          • n0truscotsman

            “but today the 416 has replaced everything and is standards accross the board.”

            This is not true either.

            The C8 is very popular still, as are G36s and the AUG.

            But the M4 family, to include C8s, is the most popular 5.56 rifle in the world, but a long shot. And will become even more popular.

            The 416 is not going to beat it. Ever. And that is because it costs significantly more without any measurable improvement.

            The Norwegians will enjoy their 416s for the first five years, until they start to wear out and soldiers learn that short stroke pistons suck in arctic conditions (many are already starting to discover this). The only smart ones in the region are Finland.

          • MNOR

            As a serving Norwegian soldier, having used the 416 for 5-6 years now:
            – the 416 works fine in the artic. When it first was adopted we were using the wrong kind of lubricant that would trap water and subsequentely freeze the bcg in the reciever. New lube solved that.
            Secondly, the 416 IS standard across the board now, although SOF still uses they’re C8 SFW’s. According to a friend serving with army SOF(FSK)
            they are planing to get the 416A5.
            So in short, They held off on the 416 until they got the infancy-querks sorted out.

            The G36 was used by the coastal rangers(KJK) and for a short time by some regular Norwegian ISAF-units whilst they were still selecting a new service rifle—> the 416.
            I haven’t seen any KJK guys rocking the G36 in a few years now.

            Aand: The AUG has never been used by the Norwegians, I can’t even find any documentation that supports that it has even been tested.

          • n0truscotsman

            I never said the AUG was adopted by the Norwegians, I said the 416 does not threaten other 5.56 carbines such as the AUG among european militaries (or outside europe).
            Im talking about outside norway proper. The 416 has not replaced everything across the board.
            And it is a fact that prolonged arctic conditions generally wreck havoc on small arms, especially short stroke pistons. Modern lubricants have solved many problems in that regard, although, Finland’s valmet is still a superior choice for such a climate in my opinion.

      • ColaBox

        Holy hell man, that actually hurt to read. Least you got your priorities straight, I think.

        • BjornTheBrave

          Yep. Isn’t the Marine and his rifle the deadliest weapon in the world? If you get my drift…

          • big daddy

            No the deadliest weapon in the world is human greed. It has caused the death of more humans, animals and the planet itself.

          • BjornTheBrave

            Smack on! True, very true! As a GREEN guy I wholeheartedly agree with your statement.

          • Yellow Devil

            People are by nature greedy in some way, shape or form. Even animals exhibit mannerism of greed. No use in trying to pretend it can be done away with. It’s ultimately what you do with greed, whether in the end for good or evil, that matters.

          • SP mclaughlin

            Unless his rifle is a M27 IAR 🙂

      • Anonymoose

        As a GENERAL PURPOSE rifle it ought to come in .308 and have a 20″ barrel. I guess most of those parts (except the SR-15 lower and the mags/ammo, obviously) would work in a MK220. Also, why the PEQ-15 instead of the PEQ-16?

        • BjornTheBrave

          I wouldn’t exactly call .308 a GP round. What you describe is a DMR. I’d look at a different primary optic (Nightforce BEAST) for that role.
          PEQ-15 vs PEQ-16 has everything to do with longer battery life on the 15 as well as wanting to keep separate devices for each task. Lights are for illumination (so buy a light), lasers are for target designation and such (so buy a laser). Also, you want to keep at least one of those up and running in the event of a breakdown. I’m not a fan of integrated ‘all in one’ devices. They also tend to be power hungry. You want to keep everything modular.

          • Anonymoose

            Yeah, nah. The are only three reasons to ever choose .223/5.56 over .308:
            1.You are trying to save the pelts.
            2.You are worried about overpenetration.
            3.You need to lug more ammo (Carry twice as much ammo, which has 1/3 the effectiveness per round! Best tradeoff ever!)
            With a semi-auto platform, you should not be worried about carrying tons of ammo because you can’t lay down suppression fire, so .308 is the superior choice.

          • BjornTheBrave

            No it is not. A .308 platform will always be a tad slower to operate than a 5.56 platform. Have you ever tried it? You’ll notice the difference in engagement speed. Handling effects aside, you do realize that .308 is a very slow travelling bullet? Infantry deployment tactics have been machinegun centric since the Great War (and the Germans perfected and understood this very well in WWII), that has not changed. So .308 is the central caliber down to the lowest tactical level (because the 240 is the central weapon system), and as much as I acknowledge that the logistics chain would -or better said, could perhaps- be simplified, logistics doens’t seem to have any problem handling both calibers. I would not revert to 308 as the rifle caliber simply because there is no need to. Nowadays ammunition technology made 5.56 come a long way up to a point where we conclude that it has been fixed. The Marines in Afghanistan have been very happy with SOST. The round works fine. There’s just no way that .308 FMJ is the more aggressive round in the terminal ballistics realm. Modern BTHP and OTM 5.56 cause far more damage. Just take a look at ballistic gel tests and see for yourself what they do. Compare that to .308 FMJs. Chances of surviving a clean entry and exit wound from the latter are much greater as opposed to the severe tissue and bone matter damage caused by the former. In my view we should standardize on SOST, use SMK OTM for longer range engagements and bin everything else. Including the EPR. There is no need for such a round because the 5.56 sucks for that purpose anyway. Realistic combat engagement takes place within the <300m threshold for which 5.56×45/7.62×39 is ideal. For that 500m shot you use SMK. Everything further out is for machineguns and DMRs.

          • Anonymoose

            Nah.

        • n0truscotsman

          No.

          Modern war has pretty much proven 7.62NATO for general purpose use as an obsolete concept.

          You want to carry more ammunition.

          • ColaBox

            Not to mention the standard of engagement is to maim and not kill. Instead of killing one and searching for his friends, injure him and hit his friends when they come get him. Sneaky, sneaky. Nobody comes back for a dead man.

          • n0truscotsman

            Thats actually a myth and its just easier to carry 3 times the ammunition for the same weight. Nothing sneaky about it.

          • Anonymoose

            But we’re not talking about modern war., and that is most certainly not the case in Afghanistan He also said “general purpose rifle” not “urban combat rifle,” and general purpose means you’re going to have to survive with that rifle against bears and moose and God-knows-what-else, and enemies that might pop up at ranges outside your usual house-to-house engagement range.

          • n0truscotsman

            That IS the case in afghanistan because the fact doesn’t change that infantry will typically engage targets only within 2-300 meters when under fire. 7.62 NATO and easily hitting steel at 800 meters does not translate into easy of 800 meter shots under combat conditions.

            I know what was meant and I stand by my statement that for general purpose use, 7.62NATO and all full sized cartridges have been superseded for a reason (and im not hunting-centric). Im far more concerned about two legged predators than I am the four legged type.

            and 5.56 is accurate FAR past house-to-house engagement ranges, typically up to 4-500 meters.

      • HKGuns

        HAHAHAHAHAHA! You’re probably serious too! HAHAHAHAHA

      • Samson

        Just curious. Why in the world, and I mean, literally, why in the world, would you think anyone on the internet would actually care what YOU *think* a “proper duty AR” consists of? Then you list all your little toy parts , its like a combination of mental illness and ADHD. All I have to say is lolwut

      • jamezb

        Troy Industries Micro Set HK Front and Round Rear Tritium BLK Battle Sights
        Surefire M620P Fury Scout Light w/ Z68 Tail Cap Switch w/ LaRue Tactical Surefire Scout Light LT272 QD Lever Mount @ 9
        Trijicon TA02 4×32 ACOG w/ GDI R-Com E-Model Combat Optic Mount
        Aimpoint Micro T-2 w/ LaRue Tactical LT724 QD Lever Mount @ 3
        Trijicon TANS
        Trijicon ATCS w/ GDI R-Com E-Model Combat Optic Mount
        L-3/Insight AN/PEQ-15 ATPIAL @ 12

        Are you SURE you have got enough lights an sights?

        • BjornTheBrave

          In fact I do 😉

          • John

            Yet, you didn’t even name the best optics out there, which is Hensoldt.

            Trijicons and Aimpoints are mere Chevy and Saabs next to Hensoldts Mercedes S-Class. Hensoldts suck on light like the biggest black hole

            Mall Ninja Alert.

          • n0truscotsman

            oh really? LOL

            You mean the atrocious Hensoldt optics on the G36 that get binned for Aimpoints, Eotechs, Trijicons, and Elcans?

            Why do you suppose the world’s militaries that take gunfighting seriously have those aforementioned optics on their guns and not Helsoldt optics? That is very telling.

          • Nicks87

            This is a fact. Hensoldt ist sehr gut, ja!

      • Nicks87

        When you said “Vuurwapenblog” I quit reading.

    • n0truscotsman

      Nothing, in a word.

  • Vasco

    Did anybody see the gunbroker auction for a 10″ HK416 upper? Finally sold for $4000. What would this sell for on gb (assuming it wasn’t select fire)?

    • G0rdon_Fr33man

      The HK416 is by default select fire. Otherwise it would be called MR556 (or MR223 in Europe).

      • Samson

        the upper is not select fire or not select fire. You can buy an HK416 upper in the US and put it on your AR lower. I almost did in late 2012 when I came into a lot of money. But it was $5000 just for the HK416 16.5″ upper and that is beaucoup money. Plus I lived in NJ, so I could not do an SBR and get what I really would have wanted, the 10.3″ bbl. So I looked at ordering an MR556A1 rifle, it was $3500 minimum cause they weren’t in stock many places. I never decided by December, and then Newtown happened and prices skyrockteted. But I had come close in late Oct/Early Nov. I had the money, had an order form filled out, just had to click “send” and I would have bought an amazingly expensive piece of kit. I said, do it in the morning if you still want it, slept on it, decided it was a stupid idea, and wound up blowing the money little by little like an idiot. But hey, what are you gonna do, right?

        • G0rdon_Fr33man

          But the MR-upper is just has different markings, does it not?

          • Samson

            Pretty much right. I believe the HK416 has a chrome-lined barrel but the MR556A1 does not have chrome-lining. Also- the MR556A1 comes with a heavy-profile barrel, I do not *THINK* the HK416 comes with a heavy profile; I think in fact there are several profiles you can order or maybe it’s based on the length. in Europe they use the 16.5″ HK416 as a service-rifle, I think our JSOC guys that use the HK416 use a 10.3″ version with a regular profile. I am no authority and I apologize if I came off rude, I am no expert I will admit just an enthusiast that likes to read as much as I like to practice my ninja flips. 😛

    • Rusty Shackleford

      Why not spend the money you save buying a complete MR556 to mill the barrel down to length.

    • BjornTheBrave

      4K for just an upper??? No upper is worth that kind of money, certainly not an HK branded product (yes I’m one of those who dearly hates HK back)… Go the custom route!

  • Michael R. Zupcak

    Don’t the Norwegian reserve soldiers get to keep their service rifle at home (with no ammo) or is that another country?

    • ColaBox

      Switzerland. AK5 now I believe.

      • FourString

        AK5 is Sweden. Switzerland is still SG550. Easy to confuse. Both are cool cat countries.

    • toms

      Some Norwegians do actually keep their rifles at home but I don’t think they keep them after service is over. Switzerland doesn’t let you keep the rifle after retirement anymore either. They give you an old 7.5 stgw if you want.

      • n0truscotsman

        You can keep the rifle, but it has to be converted to semi-automatic only.

    • Martin Grønsdal

      They do. But with the firing pin stored by the local National Guard chief.

      • G0rdon_Fr33man

        Depends on what force you are in. HV-I have their guns operational, the HV-F does not, but may request it to practice on his own initiative.

  • Elvis

    I would offer that this rifle clearly belongs to a civilian, as a proper military rifle would camouflage over the HK logo, in spite of the fact that it might not be visible.

  • big daddy

    WOW still arguing DI vs, piston. I have a bunch of ARs, not because I like/love them, because they have the most support in the USA. I can configure an AR just about anyway I can think of, parts are less expensive and my needs are for HD & range toys. If I had to go into battle the AR platform would be a good choice but not my first one, yes I was in the Army. The AR design was for DI, fitting a piston on it is as stupid as making an AK DI. You loose all the advantages of the AR by adding a piston. That said I haven’t seen anything remotely close to what would be the perfect service rifle. It would not be in 5.56mm IMO and it would be a piston design not a piston AR. What elite units use and what the average soldier uses & needs are completely different. There’s even a difference for mech troops and infantry, different needs. A design like the Tavor is better for pure mech troops. I’d rather have an AK type rifle than an AR and in a true intermediate cartridge like the 6.8mm. Please don’t start with the 6.5 vs. the 6.8, neither are perfect rounds but IMO a better choice for battle.

    • BjornTheBrave

      I agree with you and Hebizuka in a sense that a piston rifle will never be as accurate as a DI rifle, I fully acknowledge that, yet I swear by long stroke piston. Because you don’t take a dump where you eat…. A DI rilfe will NEVER be as durable and sustainable as a long stroke piston rifle.
      As for 6.8, and don’t get me wrong, I used to be all over this round myself, but why would you want to replace one round that has been doing exactly the same thing as SPC II and has been doing this fine since 1947, for a Dior priced, obscure, exotic and nearly extinct round that hardly fits in to the established logistics chain? There is no need to move away from 7.62×39 and the ‘fixed’ [=SOST, SMK] 5.56 rounds.

  • Massan

    So much misinformation going on here, its very disappointing to say of TFB.

    Using the Army’s ICC as an example of the 416(and other piston designs) not being “good” because it wasnt adapted is a false argument when one does not take into effect the Army’s procuring procedure. The Army “was” looking for something that was mind boggling better than the current M16/M4, which none of the systems introduced was capable of. Were they better, yes but not to the degree the military was looking for since it is not just the simple cost of buying new rifles but the whole logistical side of manuals, training, parts, etc, even for a similar platform like the 416 or LWRC.

    As for Vuurwapen’s video, its a bit misleading in the way it was presented. Yes the 416 still runs stupid overgassed when shooting suppressed but so does every other AR. The difference is even in the stock form the 10″ 416 is still more reliable than a stock AR15, just look at the amount of work into making a functional MK18. If one were to take a stock 10″ or 14.5″ 416 and throw a silencer on it you will still be able to run more rounds through it with less stoppages than a stock 10″ or 14.5″ AR(ie not fiddling around with your gas ports and buffers)

    As for the functionality and reliability of the design, I’ll just leave this here.
    http://soldiersystems.net/2013/03/30/canipe-correspondence-retiring-my-416/
    http://www.hkpro.com/forum/hk416-hk417-hq/149804-technical-reasons-why-hk-416-mr-556-superior-ar-15-design.html

    The 416 is by no means a perfect design, nothing will ever be. But the 416A5 to me is as close to the perfect AR system as there will be as it fixes all the “flaws” the original one had.

    • n0truscotsman

      “The difference is even in the stock form the 10″ 416 is still more reliable than a stock AR15, just look at the amount of work into making a functional MK18”

      10th Special Forces Group didn’t draw to the same conclusions though. The Mk18 was just as reliable as the 416.

      and how the hell do you know about the HK416A5??? That is not even in service yet.

      • Massan

        Read up on the original reason why the HKM4/HK416 was designed for, it was due to the fact that the original MK18s were extremely unreliable(not so nowadays after years of designing by NSWC Crane). With the modern variant of the MK18s the advantages of the 416 are not so vast as before though IMO it is still more reliable when suppressed.

        As for the 416A5, it has been adopted(though granted on a much smaller scale currently compared to the older 416s). But lets look at some of the original “issues” of the 416 that was mentioned.

        HK magwell could not take MOE PMAGs = A5 variant went back to standard AR15 style magwell
        No AGR, hence overgassing when suppressed = A5 now has AGR, better version than the 416N’s

        Non ambi = A5 is completely ambi now including bolt catch/release
        Non continuous upper rail = Fixed also
        Heavy = A5 is closer to SOCOM profile rather than the ridiculous HBAR style of the AF/AH date codes
        Plus a bunch of other misc “fixes” that HK did

        • Joshua

          Back in 2004 the HK416 had some advantages, but CRANE worked with Colt and got the Mk18 to be just as reliable and ended up with a far cheaper rifle to purchase and maintain(both have nearly identical life cycles).

  • David

    Good Lord, people, just enjoy the pic of a cool rifle. All the arguments I read below are hollow, “I have this, so it must be best” arguments. Lots of different ideas will get the job done. Save the vitriol for the anti-gunners.

  • Hank Seiter

    I have both DGI (direct gas impingement) and Piston ARs in 5.56 and 7.62. Piston systems run much cleaner and keep the heat off the bolt and bolt carrier group… 95% cleaner is a pretty close guess.

    However, there are stories sworn on a stack of Soldier of Fortunes about DGI ARs
    still running after 10K rounds with no cleaning and very rudimentary lubrication.

    BTW, I own a SCAR 16, IWI Tavor, Beretta ARX100, FS2000, and the Bushmaster (Remington) ACR and they are all excellent, reliable and very accurate piston rifles. That being said, dollar for dollar a piston operated (okay, also the DGI AR) AR gets my Consumer Report best buy rating.