HK416 vs Colt Water Test

HK416

An old video but an interesting one. HK tests their HK416 with a very specific test. Submerging it under water and then shooting it immediately after coming out of the water. The results for the Colt were surprising.

Although the safety measures taken for the Colt kind of give away the result.

HK416 colt

 

 

Quite the catastrophic failure.HK416 colt explode



Nicholas C

Co-Founder of KRISSTALK forums, an owner’s support group and all things KRISS Vector related. Nick found his passion through competitive shooting while living in NY. He participates in USPSA and 3Gun. He loves all things that shoots and flashlights. Really really bright flashlights.

Any questions please email him at nicholas.c@staff.thefirearmblog.com


Advertisement

  • Zachary marrs

    Y’all posted this back in 2008.

  • Michael Hardy

    Two things: 1, why didn’t they have more than one competitor test sample? Just FOR this contingency? 2, what’s up with the frogman in the rain puddle?????

  • Whatever you do, DON’T open the video in a new tab and start reading the comments!!!

    • Mr. Fahrenheit

      Arghhh. Don’t push this red button.

  • petru sova

    Many years ago before the U.S. adopted the M16 they did a water test and found out that it blew up. They then modified the test by pulling the bolt back and allowing the water to drain out. In other words cheating like hell to get the gun to pass because McNamara who knew less about guns than he did about the history of Viet-Nam wanted the new gun for the U.S. military. Why? He thought it was the “latest and the greatest”. Fifty plus years later the gun is still a failure on the battlefield.

    • echelon

      Watch out – the DI AR15 fanboys will be on you like flies on a dog turd.

      Inconvenient truths and all…

      • Zachary marrs

        The biggest problem is hk fanboys who know nothing other than marketing videos

        • echelon

          Yes, the HK fanboy club is a different topic altogether.

          But, you know, HK – because we hate you.

      • Joshua

        Actially it happens to most .223 rifles due to water retention in the bore.

        Guns require specific mods to keep from blowing up when met with a bore obstruction.

        The hk in this test is the OTB variant with those mods. Trust me plenty of op rod driven guns would have failed this., and the basic HK416 model would have failed to.

        • echelon

          Trust me, I know.

          • iksnilol

            Any gun will blow up due to the bore being obstructed. Smaller caliber = harder to drain = more likely to be obstructed (I believe).

        • petru sova

          What you say is quite true but the main thrust of such arguments usually leads to the discussion of the 5.56 caliber and how it has and continues to fail in combat. Not as accurate at long range as compared to the 7.62×51, not as deadly as even the lower powered 7.62×39 and of course the larger calibers do not blow up when filled with water.

          • Joshua

            5.56 fails in combat? Must have been special man killer ammunition I was given in Iraq and Afghanistan.

      • Truth is usually more inconvenient to marketing executives than to researchers.

        • echelon

          Or DoD officials and politicians…and climate change scientists…definitely them…

          • petru sova

            Yea sure, every top scientist in the world has proven that climate change is the result of man’s pollution and only this week every country in the world had protests against the prostitute political hacks that are trying to cover it up for the rich industrialists. The recent dog and pony show here in the U.S. made a laughing stock of some of the nit whit republicans one of which had everyone rolling in the isles with laughter when he suggested climate change was not the fault of the greedy rich but was due to Earth wobble. After which the idiot was reminded by a scientist who reminded him it only takes place every 100,000 years and the effect is so minimal it is barely detectable. If it was not for the seriousness of the situation this Congressman should have moonlighted on the TV show “Laugh in” or applied for a job as Rush Limbaugh’s nit wit fruit cake partner.

          • echelon

            Oh, the hubris of man…

    • Zachary marrs

      They gave the 416 more time to drain, you can see the m4 was canted upwards

      If this video was done by a third party, I’d put more faith in it

    • Zachary marrs

      And there are plenty of vets here who would disagree with you on your “failure on the battlefield” comment

    • Zachary marrs

      Another thing, you dont have to completely pull the ch back, you just have break the seal.

    • TomcatTCH

      yeah man! The Seals carried M14s until the HK416 came out!
      Wait. No they didn’t.

      • SEALs have pretty much been able to carry whatever the hell they want. If there is something not in inventory, they request it and it gets an NSN number right away. Sounds bogus, but if you fall under the JSOC umbrella you can get more or less anything requisitioned.

        • seans

          You realize only one group of Seals fall under JSOC right, Devgru. The number teams all fall under Socom, and do not even come close to the same priority. Other wise the MK17 and MK20 would already be long gun.

          • iksnilol

            Except that one guy who would use a tacticooled Makarov (drum mag, quad rail with all the accessories) just to mess with all the tacticool guys and wannabes. (I presume these guys are pro enough to be able to operate such a weapon effectively in all manners of dynamic operations).

          • kingghidorah

            Don’t be a diss’in my quad railed drum fed maka9x18. I hold it @ 3 o’clock, and can run forward while shootn’ backwards. Or worse for you, through a secret packet in my east german coat!

          • seans

            Meant to say long gone

          • Yep.

          • Joshua

            This is correct. The only 2 groups using the HK416 in US SoF and SF are the two who adopted back in 2004 when it actually had advantages over the M4A1 and Mk18.

            Those days are long gone and that is why the 416 never saw broader adoption beyond those 2 units.

    • n0truscotsman

      There is much wrong with your statement.

      It isn’t a disadvantage unique to the M16. It is unique to pretty much any smaller caliber weapon that traps water in its barrel. 30 caliber weapons for example, allow water to easily drain out.

      The M16 replaced the M14 because it was less expensive, lighter, and fired a cartridge that weighed less than 7.62 NATO, allowing the soldier to carry 600 rounds of 5.56 for every 200 rounds of 7.62 he could carry. Another was that the original design envisioned by Stoner in the AR15 was changed to a configuration that was inferior, only to be changed back.

      What is interesting is that the M16 started a trend towards 5.56 and other light and fast cartridges because they’re more conducive to modern infantry combat than 7.62 NATO and other full sized cartridges. Like it or not, it was “latest and greatest” then and set a precedent for small arms evolution.

      because pulling the bolt back slightly to drain the water out is such a big deal and everything. /rolls eyes/

      “Fifty plus years later the gun is still a failure on the battlefield.”

      Yeah such a “failure” that over 8 million have been manufactured since its inception and that it is in service with over 80 countries worldwide, easily making it the most used 5.56mm weapon in existence. Yup. Some failure.

      I have my criticisms of the design, although there is a difference between criticism and outright stupidity. You offer no legitimate claims, just baseless opinion that is easily dismantled by established fact.

      • petru sova

        You close your eyes to history. Stoner’s system was a failure from the beginning of day one and no amount of changes that have been made to date have made the gun more reliable as it continues to fail in real combat conditions. As far as the amount of Nations that used it you again fail to understand much of anything about the real world of arms procurement. When a nations thinks a gun is good (as many European nations did when they adopted the German Luger) then they make the mistake of adopting it. Also many nations often get free weapons from the U.S. or ones that are practically given away so why wouldn’t they use the weapon. Nations often regard their soldiers as expendable as their weapons and if they get the weapons for free the thinking is that “they are expendable” in war. Sad but the real truth.

        • n0truscotsman

          “You close your eyes to history. Stoner’s system was a failure from the beginning of day one”

          Then why is it that US Special Forces advisors favored Stoner’s “AR15”? I mean, were their eyes closed too and were they stoner fanboys? (LOL..right)

          “and no amount of changes that have been made to date have made the gun more reliable as it continues to fail in real combat conditions”

          You’re wrong again

          Why is it that AR15s like filthy 14 exist? with tens of thousands of rounds through them?

          Why is it that many of the world’s most credible special operations forces use M4s and other stoner-variant rifles?

          Ill give you a clue: its probably not because there have been changes that made the rifle more reliable. Just sayin.

          “As far as the amount of Nations that used it you again fail to understand much of anything about the real world of arms procurement.”

          Where is the failure on my part? you cannot argue with facts dude. That shows how little *you* about arms procurement (and what makes you the expert? are you a corporate salesman?)

          “When a nations thinks a gun is good (as many European nations did when they adopted the German Luger) then they make the mistake of adopting it. Also many nations often get free weapons from the U.S. or ones that are practically given away so why wouldn’t they use the weapon”

          You are missing the inconvenient fact that those are special operations forces. They dont use weapons that dont work. Simple. If a weapon is found faulty or defective, it is replaced.

          “Nations often regard their soldiers as expendable as their weapons and if they get the weapons for free the thinking is that “they are expendable” in war. Sad but the real truth.”

          Thats a nice political rant but again, special forces are not “expendable”. Not all nations have the manpower and financing to view soldiers as “more expendable” either.

          You should do more reading and research and less posting.

          • petru sova

            Take a look at this. The Jessica Lynch story proved false as her M16 jammed up as well, she admits it. NOW THAT MAKES A 100 PER CENT FAILURE OF ALL THE GUNS IN THAT COMBAT THAT DAY. And do not give me the conservative baloney that Wikepedia is not accurate info as the info is checked before publication. Now how can you squirm out of this one.

            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jessica_Lynch

          • n0truscotsman

            sure…100% failure of all guns…/rolls eyes/

            Because clearly a M16 from a Marine infantry fire team performs just as poorly as a M16 from the 507th….LOL…

            So a wikipedia article about Jessica Lynch refutes Mike Pannone and the results from Filthy 14? Can I visit your parallel universe sometime for scientific study?

          • Joshua

            The 507th……really nothing more needs to be said. A bunch of POGues stumbled on an ambush meant for someone else, sucked at training and generally in life, and got their asses kicked.

            I could tell you a dozen instances of never seeing rifles fail, but then again your square range expertise and that of the news clearly trumps my real world experience .

          • 1911a145acp

            Step 1) go to YouTube. Step 2) search Jessica Lynch testifies before U.S. Congress. Step 3) listen to the words come out of Jessica Lynch’s mouth that the story of her heroic fire fight while a driver with the 507th with her trusty M-16 in which she held off Iraqi militia and was shot and wounded and only quit when her horrible terrible M-16 jammed IS A LIE. A lie made up by the ARMY brass and fully shared and perpetuated by the media. Step 4) continue to believe that every thing on Wikipedia and the internet is true because it is the ONLY experience you have. You continue to blather ad nauseum in this forum in an attempt to convince others of your knowledge and experience. Nearly everything you state is counter to the experience of others- why IS that?

          • petru sova

            Brother you had better have someone who can read and understand English interpret my posts for you. I went to You Tube and listened to the interview. She refuted the fact that she was a Rambo and did not once claim she even ever fired one shot which is exactly what Wikipedia is saying. The only question that remains unknown is whether or not her gun was jammed before or after the battle as she did not say. Although her statements are vague and even somewhat evasive it is still hard to determine what exactly she did or did not do that day. She does seem to lead one to believe she did nothing except suffer horrible wounds that incapacitated her which again is exactly what Wikipedia had said. This is exactly what my post alluded to and at the bottom of my post is the link to Wikipedia, go back and read it.
            She also states that 11 soldiers died and 8 were taken prisoner although her voice falters and she seems somewhat confused when making the statement as to the numbers. Interviews conducted with survivors all have said all the M16’s jammed which would be a total of 19 weapons according to Lynch herself assuming all had rifles and it seems that in a war zone they certainly all would have been armed and not out for a picnic or joy ride in the middle of hostile territory in the desert.
            When 19 weapons fail that should tell you something about the total unreliability of this weapon when used in actual combat conditions. Again it mirrors my experiences with this weapon dating from the 1960’s to the present. Again I state I have used the original M14 as well as the civilian verision M1A as well as the AK47 and those guns do not constantly fail me like the AR-15 did and continues to do so to this very day.

          • 1911a145acp

            You can’t keep up with the all the BS you have been posting. You stated that A) Pfc fired her weapon and B) it jammed. You stated that C) this info was on the Wikipedia page and that said info was checked and was factually accurate about the events and her statements. Wikipedia states that “Initial official reports on Lynch’s capture and rescue in Iraq were incorrect. On April 24, 2007, she testified in front of Congress that she had never fired her weapon, her M16 rifle jammed, and that she had been knocked unconscious when her vehicle crashed.[1]” Which is wrong Pfc Lynch or Wikipedia? She has stated she “never” fired her weapon- not before during or after. She was severely injured in the crash- bur she did not suffer “horrible wounds” i.e gunshot wounds, because as she has stated she was NOT shot. All the “facts” you have stated- she has repeatedly refuted since at LEAST 2005. Now you say that ALL of the survivors weapons jammed and that they have stated this in interviews. 19 out of 19 M-16s failed somehow? You have seen, read or heard interviews pertaining to the event that details 19 M-16 failures?? Provide document-able proof or just shut the F**K up. I am done with you.

          • petru sova

            If you had bothered to follow this news story when it was aired you would not be making such a fool of yourself. Noting that I stated was not on the news for 300 million Americans to see except of course you. Are you going now to state the interviews were all a left wing conspiracy? Perhaps you were glued to your TV listening to Rush Limbaugh ranting’s, we all know how accurate he is on the news.

          • petru sova

            If you had been paying attention to the news when all this was going on only 300 million people saw the interviews. If that is not proof enough I do not know what is. Perhaps you were glued to your tv watching Rush Limbaugh as we all know how accurate he is on reporting the news.

            Here is an excerpt by a real Marine that used both the M16 and M4 in Iraq. It will be interesting on how you try to refute this post which also has comments by Michael Kalashnikov
            The M-16 rifle : Thumbs down. Chronic jamming problems with the talcum powder like sand over there. The sand is everywhere. Jordan says you feel filthy 2 minutes after coming out of the shower. The M-4 carbine version is more popular because it’s lighter and shorter, but it has jamming problems also. They like the ability to mount the various optical gunsights and weapons lights on the Picatinny rails, but the weapon itself is not great in a desert environment. They all hate the 5.56mm (.223) round. Poor penetration on the cinderblock structure common over there and even torso hits cant be reliably counted on to put the enemy down. Fun fact: Random autopsies on dead insurgents shows a high level of opiate use.

            AK47’s. The entire country is an arsenal. Works better in the desert than the M16 and the .308 Russian round kills reliably… Luckily, the enemy mostly shoots like shit. Undisciplined “spray and pray” type fire. However, they are seeing more and more precision weapons, especially sniper rifles. (Iran, again) Fun fact: Captured enemy have apparently marveled at the marksmanship of our guys and how hard they fight. They are apparently told in Jihad school that the Americans rely solely on technology, and can be easily beaten in close quarters combat for their lack of toughness. Let’s just say they know better now.

            Here is the rest of it:

            http://neveryetmelted.com/2006/04/18/mikhail-kalashnikov-says-his-rifle-is-better/

          • 1911a145acp

            Again, I am devastated by your accusation that I am a Rush Limbaugh worshiper.I may slit my wrists over that. If 300 million people saw the interviews that detail 19 of 19 M-16 malfunctions AS YOU CLAIM- then it should be a simple matter for you to provide the links to support your claim. But you didn’t and you won’t because you can’t. Your second link is NOTHING related to claims you have made. Kalashnikov is saying the weapon he was given credit for designing is superior ( SHOCKING!) and a service man stating he observed problems w/ weapons jamming in desert conditions and doped up enemy soldiers are hard to put down. No proof of the outrageous claims you have made of ALL M-16s failing in one fight. If a little knowledge is a dangerous thing… then you may be the most dangerous man in the world.

          • petru sova

            Your incoherent ramblings are making you look like a fool. You even reject a marine’s statements about the unreliable M16 when he was actually there. When did you ever serve in the Middle East or like myself actually use the gun in NRA across the course shooting where you can easily put 3,000 rounds through an AR-15 in one summer of competition. I have the experience to prove what I am talking about while you play arm chair commando in front of your computer as well as insulting a real life military marine who was honest enough to face the wrath of arm chair commando’s like yourself.

          • petru sova

            Your attributing things to me I never said. You also fail to even understand that weapons can jam before they are fired i.e. in the process of charging the chamber. Tell me, have you ever even fired an automatic or semi-auto weapon, obviously not. I suggest you go back and view Lynch’s testimony as well as Wikipedia’s info. If you are capable of reading comprehension they are not very far apart. The only difference is Lynch’s vaguely worded testimony which leaves some of the story of her demise open to interpretation. All this is way beyond your comprehension. No wonder you will never understand the difference even between simple mechanical devices and how they work and how such systems are either inherently more or less reliable. To you such mechanical devices work only in relation to whether or not they are immersed in patriotism, as all other mechanical devices are inferior simply by their country of origin. Why have you not given us a dissertation on the inferiority of the AK-47 as compared to the flawless design of the M16. I eagerly await your words of fantasy couched in your bizarre mechanical theory’s.

    • As I mentioned in another comment, there were serious methodological issues with the trial in question, weighted against the AR-15. It’s telling that there has been virtually no mention since of operational AR-15 pattern rifles exploding due to rainwater in the bore.

  • Lee

    That techno sonar music was something. These guys know how to market a product.

  • Abakan

    This AR problem was solved for the navy with buffer tube having a drain hole, obviously they weren’t using that version here, quite deceptive.

    • iksnilol

      Does everyone use that version?

      I think it would be more dishonest to use a special version that only the navy uses.

      • Zachary marrs

        Hk used a special 416

      • Joshua

        That is a special HK416 variant just fyi. It has a number of mods making this possible.

        • Just an OTB model.

          • iksnilol

            “OTB model”? What does that mean?

            Also, what makes it special? To me it looks like a regular HK416. I am not taking sides here. Had to say that before someone accuses me of being an HK-fanboy or AR-fanboy.

            EDIT: googled a bit. HK has been doing the whole OTB capability for a while, starting with the G36.

          • M

            http://www.hkpro.com/forum/hk416-hk417-hq/167716-over-beach-otb-faq.html

            According to this, OTB has to be special ordered, also:
            5) There are three features found on many MR556’s and HK416’s which are common to the OTB guns. The presence of these features does constitute the firearm as being OTB capable. They are as follows:
            1) Three drain holes at the rear of the receiver extension (buffer tube)
            2) Extractor support lug in the barrel extension
            3) Minimal chamfer on the chamber face for added casing support

            Things you cant see without breaking the weapon down

          • tactical guest

            Not in 2005, in the time when that video was made.
            In that year, there were 2 versions of HK416, A1 and A2.
            A1 was standard model, had no OTB capability.
            A2 was OTB model.
            A2 models could use only FMJ ammo due to its barrel modification.
            During HK was making A3 model for Norwegian army(some period in 2005-2007), barrel modification was removed and they add more buffer tube holes to guarantee OTB capability.
            This feature is inherited to later model produced after 2007, MR556(A1),HK416A4,and A5.
            So at least, in 2005 , this video was pretty exaggerated.

          • tactical guest

            Note that HK never annouced there were such variants, officially.
            Honestly I think HK416 is great rifle, but marketing method is quite unfair.

          • Joshua

            Actually not really. The OTB variant has drain holes in the receiver extension, extra drain hole in the carrier, a extractor support added to the barrel extension, a flat chamber face(of which reduces extraction reliability), and has a drain hole in the barrel extension.

            The standard HK416 has the extractor support but not extra drain ports or the flat chamber face.

            Most any .223 will detonate unless it has OTB features, I have seen a LWRC, ACR, and even the Mk16 detonate in OTB trials.

            Actually did you know the only SCAR-L that the SCAR-L only passed the OTB portion of the trial thanks to the 10″ barrel variant not detonating, as the longer barrel did blow up the rifle.

            During the XM16 trials it was found that a bore greater than .25 will not hold water and is OTB safe, but going,below .25 and it is a concern.

            Bore obstruction is a very real concern in a .22 bore and has nothing to do with the method of operation and everything to do with designing it specifically for OTB capabilities.

          • The rain in bore trials you mentioned involving the early AR-15 had major methodological flaws. Any gun can detonate if the barrel is obstructed.

          • Joshua

            Depends, they held the rifles muzzle up in the simulated rain and let the bore fill with water, then lowered them and let them drain.

            A .22 bore does not fully drain and will still have the bore obstructed, once passed .25 this no longer is the case and once the muzzle is tipped down the bore will fully drain past .25.

          • Here are two documents mentioning the rain tests:

            http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/202468.pdf

            http://www.dtic.mil/get-tr-doc/pdf?AD=AD0301920

            Notice that in the first, they do not think the rain-in-bore issue is a major obstacle to the rifle’s adoption. Also notice that in Section 4 of the second document, they say:

            “Engineering tests conducted at Aberdeen Proving Ground indicate that the rain-in-the-bore deficiency may exist in .25 caliber or larger weapons.”

          • petru sova

            True enough but we were discussing the M16 v/s the M14 or the AK47 both of which shoot superior calibers that do not blow up with water in the barrel.

          • Right as usual iksnilol.

          • iksnilol

            “as usual”?

            Does that mean that I am kinda respected here? That’s cool.

          • Of course. You’re our favorite Balkan/Norwegian poster 🙂
            In all seriousness, your unique outlook is always appreciated.

          • iksnilol

            People on the internet like me.

            Life is good (except the grade in physics).

    • Yes; the modifications made to the OTB 416 include drainage holes in the buffer tube, barrel extension, and chamber. No reason those cannot be applied to a regular AR-15. Not recommending anyone do this at home, of course!

      • petru sova

        They may have done that but it did not work as the cartridge blocks the water from draining out of the barrel. The cartridge must first be extracted leaving an empty chamber and then the gun must be tilted and shook hard to get the water to drain out. Guns like the AK-47 and M14 with their larger bore diameter passed the water test without even opening the bolt. Lets face facts there are so many things wrong with the design of the M16 it should have been scraped during the Viet-Nam war as nothing on it has ever really been fixed to make it even close to the equal of an AK or M14 rifle. Then there is the pip-squeak 5.56mm cartridge. It was originally developed with the idea that with its light recoil a soldier could control it better in full auto fire. This also proved to be false as tests proved the average recruit could not keep the gun on target passed the 2nd round of fire so sticking with the 7.62×39 or 7.62×51 would have been the wiser choice.
        When firing the M16 in the rain it was found that the rain water mixed with the burnt powder that the M16 sprays all over the action. The military spent several million to develop the LSA fluid to keep this inferior design working a few minutes longer before jamming up in the rain. The AK and M14 need no such exotic fluid to keep on working.
        One soldier reported in Viet-Nam that he ran out of ammo and hit an enemy solder by swinging the M16 and hitting him with it and the junk plastic stock disintegrated. He said he saw other U.S. soldiers hit people with captured AK-47 guns that had wood laminated stocks and the stock received no damage at all.
        In the desert a few years ago a truck full of U.S. soldiers was annihilated and the survivors captured because all but one of their M16’s jammed up and this is 50 some years after Viet-Nam. Strange the reliable AK47 worked just fine on that day in question. Of course they did not have to fix anything on the AK, it always has been a very reliable weapon.

        • No.

        • Commonsense23

          I am starting to believe this guy has to be trolling. Its like reading the worst of the Soldier of Fortune magazine all in one comment

          • petru sova

            When one cannot make a counter argument for ones point of view then often they throw a tantrum like a child and start yelling troll. Grow up and post a reply based on tests or experience and you will sound more credible.

        • Ge

          There are many, many studies done on the M16 reliability by many different people, mainly due to the undying reputation of its failure in Vietnam. Many of the ‘horror stories’ told about the M16 were ‘I heard’, or ‘they heard from their friend’ campfire tales that fall apart when asked for a source.

          The tales are also often extremely exaggerated, with entire platoons of soldiers, (or truckload in your case) all having their weapons fail in unison. FUNKER530 on youtube has hours upon hours of combat foortage and there is yet to be one where the M16 weapons system fails as badly as the tales would tell.

          If such tales were taken as fact, it is mind boggling why many countries would switch to such a weapons system. If it was that bad, it doesn’t make sense that so many countries would buy the weapons system, and continue to do so.

          Furthermore, data collected from the Army in 2005-2006 cited a mean round count of 5000 between stoppages. If one were to take that data and calculate the probability of failure to the point that required tearing the weapon down, for even man, for an entire platoon, it becomes dubious that the modern day tales of Vietnam-scale failures are due to the intrinsic weapon system but rather a confounding variable: poor maintenance, worn parts, or otherwise

          • Commonsense23

            As much as I hate to defend any of that dudes post, the initial fielding of the M-16 in Vietnam did have somewhat disastrous results. Which most of the problems came down to two factors. The last minute change in the powder for the 5.56 without proper testing, and issuing the weapon without training manuals or cleaning kits. The powder was the biggest problem. After that was solved, the M16 satisfaction rating eventually hit 98 or 99 percent, and the people unsatisfied with it wanted the CAR-15 instead.

          • The powder itself wasn’t defective (actually, it’s still in use today), but there were bad lots of powder with too high levels of calcium.

            Also, I’m told rifles got shipped out that didn’t meet QC guidelines because the demand for the black rifle was so high.

          • Hank Seiter

            I’ve read that the ball powder used in the early M193 5.56 cartridges was the same Winchester ball powder being used in the 7.62×51 of the day. Something about too much calcium carbonate, which was used to retard the acidity of the WC846 ball powder during the manufacturing process, clogging up the gas tubes. Apparently this wasn’t an issue with the bigger 7.62×51 weapon/cartridge platforms.
            There were three or four propellants that were used during the early 1960s in hopes of getting a cleaner burn while keeping chamber pressures under 55,000 CUPs (PSI back in the day) while keeping velocities around 3200 fps out of a 20 inch barrel. I believe a DuPont IMR powder was the original powder used in development of the 5.56/.223 cartridge and there were very little fouling issues with this powder.

          • The correct specifications for the Winchester powders ended up being at the opposite ends of the spectrum for 7.62 and 5.56mm, so they split WC 846 into two powders, WC 846 and WC 844.

          • 1911a145acp

            You are absolutely right. Dept of Defense demanded immediate delivery of massive quantities of 5.56 in the early days of Vietnam and the contractors looked around and said gee we have several tons of this IMR ball powder for 30-06 and 7.62×51 left over from WW II and Korea…..let’s use THAT!

          • Well, in the defence of the contractors, they DID ask for (and receive) a waiver to use that powder. Which DoD granted, despite multiple reports from Colt, Armalite, and Eugene Stoner saying, “DON’T DO THAT! IT WILL INCREASE MALFUNCTIONS!”

          • Commonsense23

            It was the wrong powder though, the Army SF and seals had been using 5.56 with the DuPont powder, but when the M16 was mass fielded somebody decided to switch over to a different powder which they had plenty extra of and was cheaper. This powder was the root of the majority of the problems, once the M16 was switched back to the powder it had been initially been tested with, it started to work like it had advertised.

          • The M16 was never switched back to the DuPont powder. To this day, 5.56x45mm uses WC 844, which is a variant of WC 846 (the “problem” powder) tweaked for best performance from 5.56mm.

          • petru sova

            True they switched powder but that did not cure the problem. They even went so far as to chrome plate the chambers as well. Again and Again and Again this did not change the operation mechanism of the gun which still sprays burnt power all over the inside of the action and the gun 50 years later is still failing as proved by the continuing failures in the field especially in desert environments where one cannot keep drowning the rifles action in oil.

          • Ge

            If you read carefully, I never denied the failure in Vietnam. I’m making the argument that the claims of Vietnam – level failure today is greatly exaggerated

          • petru sova

            Baloney, Guns & Ammo a few years ago did a torture test on an AR15 and they only got it to work by frequently stopping to drown it in oil which of course to some degree also washed out some of the burnt power the weapon was spraying all over the action. No such cheating (to sell guns) was necessary with the far more reliability of the AK series of weapons because they do not spray burnt powder all over the action. God gosh this is not rocket science.

          • mig1nc

            And draftee soldiers that didn’t want to be there in the first place. Funny how these reports died down after the draft was ended.

          • petru sova

            Wake up and watch the news some time as I am referring to the well publicized event that was all over the news media and even a movie was made about the cut little blonde that had the only weapon that worked that day. Really do you not watch the evening news. Obviously very little.

          • 1911a145acp

            Well Gee! If your getting all this solid info from the Evening News…..why didn’t ya say so! Rock solid fact right there-CASE CLOSED!

          • n0truscotsman

            You are talking about Jessica Lynch and a company of trans soldiers that didn’t properly maintain weapons.

            That is a poor comparison.

            Why is it that disciplined infantry or combat soldiers have had minimal issues with their M4s?

          • petru sova

            Wrong again as you do not have any knowledge of history. Your post proved it. Many countries adopted the unreliable German Luger just because they thought it must be good because the Germans were using it. Other factors also come into play. It is well known that the country of Israel received M16’s literally for free from the U.S. and naturally started to use them. They proved way more unreliable in desert warfare than their domestically produced variation of the AK 47. And 5,000 rounds between stoppages are controlled pristine propaganda tests that do not reflect the reality of real usage by real soldiers that often neglect their weapons in dusty or other adverse environments.

          • Ge

            Bringing up the Luger is a straw man argument comparing an officer’s pistol with a service rifle.

            Israel took the M16 sure, but why did them in lieu of their Galil in one of the dustiest environments ever? The galil was created in response to the reliability issues of their FALs. They had both available in equivalent numbers, and chose to put the galil in reserve forces and move the M16 in the frontline. So they chose the M16, a weapon you purport to jam a lot…. over the weapon they created to address jamming issues of a different rifle they received for free…. because it was free? Not buying it.

            As for the Battle of Nasiriyah, three M16s jammed, not ALL. Exaggeration much? In addition, many of their other weapons jammed as well. Interviews conducted indicated that the rear-echelon soldiers failed to maintain their equipment, resulting in wide scale weapons failure, not just the M16.

          • petru sova

            More excuses for a failed weapon. Your 3 weapon story is baloney as well as real life interviews broadcast with the survivors prove all the weapons jammed and here is a statement by Jessica Lynch herself refuting the story that her gun did not jam, it did.

            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jessica_Lynch

          • Joshua

            And I could list hundreds of SoF and SF who have never had issues with theirs.

            My M4A1 and CQBR ran suppressed nearly 100% of the time and I can count on one hand the amount of stoppages I had, and they were all magazine or ammo related, none from the operating system of the rifle.

            Then again I reckon SoF don’t have anything on the 507th

          • 10mm or Bust

            Actually, there’s some pretty significant footage of a squad being ambushed on Funker’s channel wherein the cameraman’s M4 jammed several times in a very dangerous situation.

            The fact that we didn’t adopt the Stoner 63 or AR-18 is disgusting, frankly. Stoner tried to repent for his sins in making the AR-15/M-16 by making good, piston-driven weapons.

            It’s a real shame young men have died because of our sub-standard weapons and self-destructing small arms industry that hates change and panders to neigh-suicidal civilian demand.

        • Here’s something that will blow your mind, petru; it’s a CBF of the M14. Note on page 25 that the M14 is only expected to fire just 600 rounds between failures. Today, the M4 achieves a reliability of about 3,600 rounds between failures. So much for the hyper reliable M14, I guess.

          Tell me, did you learn all the things you repeated in your post by someone who eventually sold you an M14, perhaps? 😉

          • n0truscotsman

            Im glad you addressed this because you pretty much shattered the mythology behind the M14 for good on your blog.

            A note to the others: if you bother to go through the articles on Nathaniel F’s blog, he addresses many of the issues being currently discussed to an impressive detail. I cannot encourage it enough.

          • I’m flattered! Though, to be honest I don’t really remember tearing down the M14 specifically…

            Maybe I should, though most of my posting fuel goes towards TFB now.

          • n0truscotsman

            Well it wasn’t the M14 specifically, but 7.62 NATO and the fallacy of “stowed kills” and other such arguments often made in favor of the M14 (“caliber mafia”)

            Not that im picking on the M14 specifically, but rather battle rifles in general. But yes, such a post would be quite welcome.

          • It would… Attract attention, most likely.

          • petru sova

            My response to our Local M16 Guru who Nathanial F pretends to be the last word on the M16 world stated that the M16 was more reliable than the M14. I have a question for him. Since the WWII M1 Garand is held in near religious fervor and almost never ever bad mouthed like the M14 on this forum then how is it since the M14 was an improvement on the Garand i.e. it had an improved gas system that corrected the Garand’s broken op-rod problems, had a detachable box magazine that could also be topped off unlike the Garand and had a steel liner to keep the stock from getting loose and causing inaccuracy and had a flash hider too is according to our Guru Nathanial an inferior weapon. Does anyone fathom such nonsense?

          • n0truscotsman

            Why are you attacking Nathaniel? He is just citing documented fact that you are deliberately ignoring. Does it piss you off that those facts contradict your own personal anecdotes?

          • petru sova

            To disagree with a post and not become an awe inspired sycophant is not an attack but a response to counter his line of thinking. If you think I am posting anecdotes talk to real life combat veteran’s like Jessica Lynch who now will suffer from wounds the rest of her life. Remember her problems with the gun and her fellow soldiers problems took place 50 some years after its adoption. Do you really think that if her squad had been using AK47’s every one of them would have jammed up? Come on get real.

          • n0truscotsman

            First of all, you seem to be under the mistaken thought that all opinions are valued as equal. This couldn’t be further from the truth. Some opinions by qualified professionals and experienced shooters are more valuable, than say, someone that just uses personal anecdote to make a point, despite facts saying otherwise.

            You seem to be missing the fact that Lynch was incapacitated, therefore, like what was said before, she could have been given a 40 watt phaser and the end result would have been the same. You had a unit of ill-trained, unprepared soldiers that encountered an adversary on that day that was prepared to fight and win and that took advantage of their weaknesses.

            Get off the technology-centric rant and start thinking about the mindset.

          • Joshua

            Actually to be precise the group the 507th stumbled on was just as surprised to see them.

          • n0truscotsman

            That is true and raises the question of what happens when you have uneducated bullets oppose each other.

          • petru sova

            If you hand been paying attention to my posts you would know I am an experienced shooter since 1962 plus have competed in NRA National Match Shooting, 3 position rim-fire shooting, pistol shooting, Skeet Shooting and Bench Rest shooting just to name a few as well as accurizing rifles. If that is not enough experience for you then nothing is except of course if I happened to belong to your “good old boy” crowd. I base my posts on real events and personal experience not contrived fake military tests to get the M16 adopted or to try and increase AR-15 sales by praising it on various web sites including this one.
            Your bizarre dissertation on Lynch really had me scratching my head. It seems to be an attempt to make yet another wild excuse for M16 failures in the field. You seem to think that the only professionals are those people that agree with you, all others need not express their personal experience or even refer you to real life events which thoroughly damn the M16’s sorry history.
            At our rifle club which has been in existence for over 75 years to which I have been a member for over 40 years I have seen so many AR-15’s jam up that when a person yells for help I usually do not even have to look to find out it is an AR15, now if that is not enough experience I would not know what is. When you see at the same range AK’s, M1A’s, FN-Fals, HK-G3’s etc etc humming along just fine it does not take a course in rocket science to realize the AR-15’s have a real problem with reliability.

          • n0truscotsman

            So range experience only? that makes perfect sense.

            and I doubt TFB is in some kind of covert conspiracy to sell more AR15s. After all, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

            “if I happened to belong to your “good old boy” crowd”

            LOL that shows how little you really grasp the situation.

            Im probably one of the most disliked people that posts here. Im abrasive, opinionated, and generally a jerk. Not the kind of guy that forms cliques or is involved in them.

            So where is my good old buy crowd? its awfully lonely in here.

            “Your bizarre dissertation on Lynch really had me scratching my head”

            Oh i know it must be bizarre; elementary concepts such as improperly maintained and lubricated weapons being placed in a sandstorm environment by a group of soldiers not trained and disciplined enough to keep them properly working. Such rocket science this is! /rolls eyes/

            You are alluding to your fallacy of misleading vividness again. Why is it that others have different experiences in conditions far worse?

          • petru sova

            I can tell you from personal experience the M14 will go way more than 600 rounds without jamming. I have also used the M1A in competition and it has never I repeat never jammed up on me as compared to using the AR15 in competition which I have also used. The AR must be drowning in oil and must be clean to boot when in competition or you get a jam up. Trying to say the AR or M16 is more reliable is so laughable one wonders if you have any real experience with either weapon. Your reference to 3,600 rounds without failure for the M4 is laughable in the extreme. When used in real combat it is not a pristine environment that is often encountered in propaganda tests. You have been duped by nothing more than propaganda.
            As far as the truck load of soldiers post I am referring to the cute little blonde that had the only M16 that worked when she and her fellow soldiers was attacked. They even made a movie about her rescue. Again this catastrophic failure happened 50 some years after Viet-Nam and since her fellow soldiers were basically not front line soldiers it is safe to assume that they were not on their 3,600 and 1 round of fire when all of their unreliable M16’s jammed up. Get back to reality. The M16 is the most unreliable mechanism since the French Chauchat machine rifle of WWI.
            And to the person that referred to me as a troll. Would it make you feel more comfortable if I lied and told you what you wanted to hear rather than be truthful in regards to shooting the AR 15 family of weapons since the 1960’s. How much real experience do you have, obviously very little.

          • 1911a145acp

            I have been shooting competitively for 30 plus years. I have documented 3000 plus rounds and no cleaning ( generous lube ) through 3 different COLT AR variants. None of my ARs or I have never been in Combat and I have nothing but the utmost respect for the men and women that do. I have however, sold, shot, repaired, built, modified and observed THOUSANDS of AR variants over the same time period. Your statement-“The M16 is the most unreliable mechanism since the French Chauchat machine rifle of WWI.” is counter to my limited experience.

          • petru sova

            Good Lord you just agreed with me without even realizing what you were saying i.e.’ GENEROUS LUBE’. That’s been my whole point on how unreliable this weapon is under real combat conditions.

          • Joshua

            Do you have any operational experiences with these guns? Before the M110 was widely issued we had M14’s to fill the DMR role and trust me they required daily maintenance in Afghanistan as well as lubrication

          • Which matches what I’ve heard from a couple of buddies who were snipers during the period spanning the transition away from the M21. . . To a *man*, they hated the M21 for being finicky and maintenance intensive, compared to the other options they had HANDS ON experience with.

          • 1911a145acp

            You are delusional- I agreed with you in no way what so- ever. You are an AR hater whose opinions run counter to nearly everything I have every experienced with a maintained, spec AR. The MILLIONS of AR buyers who repeatedly vote with their hard earned money and THOUSANDS of World class shooters in DOZENS of disciplines are ALL wrong and you are the only guy who knows the “truth” about ARs. There are no perfect weapons systems and ARs aren’t either. Your statement-“The M16 is the most unreliable mechanism since the French Chauchat machine rifle of WWI.” indicates you haven’t a clue about the subject.If your’re right- why bother ranting here in this forum? Who do you need to convince beside yourself?

          • n0truscotsman

            So do pray tell, what is your experience with the M16 and M4? What do you know that Mike Pannone doesn’t?

            Nathaniel presents you with facts and you just ignore them with “well from my personal experience…”. Those are logical fallacies of misleading vividness and denial of evidence.

            “The AR must be drowning in oil and must be clean to boot when in competition or you get a jam up”

            That shows how little you know about the AR.

            It needs to be properly lubricated but not drowning in oil.

            and clean? Just google search “filthy 14”. or this http://www.defensereview.com/the-big-m4-myth-fouling-caused-by-the-direct-impingement-gas-system-makes-the-m4-unreliable/

            http://www.defensereview.com/m4m4a1-carbine-reliability-issues-why-they-occur-and-why-theyre-our-fault/

            “Your reference to 3,600 rounds without failure for the M4 is laughable in the extreme.”

            From the about section, “WeaponsMan is a blog about weapons. Primarily ground combat weapons, primarily small arms and man-portable crew-served weapons. The site owner is a former Special Forces weapons man (MOS 18B, before the 18 series, 11B with Skill Qualification Indicator of S), and you can expect any guest columnists to be similarly qualified.”

            18Bs are not laughable references, bucko.

            “When used in real combat it is not a pristine environment that is often encountered in propaganda tests.”

            LOL

            Im done arguing. Ill let someone else take over.

          • petru sova

            Take a look at the real world rather than Nathanels rants as Jessica Lynch admits even her gun jammed up without even firing a shot. That makes a 100 per cent failure of all the M16’s used that day. Now that’s from a real veteran that was honest enough to tell the truth about the M16.

            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jessica_Lynch

          • Joshua

            Holy shiy!!!! The 507th strikes again.

            Those tards could have had power armor and laser fingers and they still would have been screwed.

            But lets be honest here and ignore all the huge successful engagements the M4 has been in since the last major overhaul in 2006, can’t have hundreds of successful battles under the belt, that is to honest.

            Then again what would 99% of SOCOM know about shooting.

          • 1911a145acp

            If you are drawing info from USER altered reference pages like Wikipedia as factual references your argument is flawed from the start. According to the page”Initial official reports on Lynch’s capture and rescue in Iraq were incorrect. On April 24, 2007, she testified in front of Congress that she had never fired her weapon, her M16 rifle jammed, and that she had been knocked unconscious when her vehicle crashed.[1] Lynch has been outspoken in her criticism of the original stories reported regarding her combat experience. When asked about her heroine status, she stated “That wasn’t me. I’m not about to take credit for something I didn’t do… I’m just a survivor.”[2] She was severely injured in the crash-6 inch gash in her head, broken leg, crushed foot, dislocated vertebrae in her spine. Her vehicle and comrades were taken under enemy fire in an coordinated ambush- but she has stated she never fired her weapon. I can find NO reference of Lynch actually stating her weapon jammed.Many lies were told by the ARMY and U.S. Government about the incident. Lynch has repeatedly tried to set the record straight.

          • petru sova

            Baloney> That is your conservative paranoia. Wikipedia checks its facts and in this article they could have been sued big time if they had not. Please move into the 21st century.

          • 1911a145acp

            You show your true colors by pathetic deflecting personal attacks and trying to place disparaging labels on me. You reveal your distinct ignorance by stating that Wikipedia checks facts. Perhaps you should watch Ms. Lynch’s live un-edited testimony before Congress in which she repeatedly reveals the lies that were told surrounding her capture and the battle.
            You are wrong about her and you are wrong about ARs because you have no understanding of either.

          • petru sova

            Maybe you should bother to research Wikepdia sometime, they state that they do and it is the most used Encylopedia reference on the internet. Perhaps the millions of users know something you do not.

          • dockilldare

            no college allows students to cite wikipedia as a source for papers.

          • dockilldare

            ok i’ve read enough of this silly arguement.

            let me start by saying that i am a us army paratrooper vet from 1982 – 2004. i have used the m16A1,A2,A3 as well as the XM177e1/e2(car 15) and the m4 series of weapons. i have also used the m21 sws version of the M14. (semi auto only. tricked out for a sniper). i will in this discussion us the full varient name of the system i am referring to at the time. ie m14, m21, m 16, m16a1 etc if talking in general i will use the list “series” ie m16 series weapons, so as to be no misunderstanding.

            now let me give you a history lesson on the m16 series weapons. the jamming problems of the early m16 were a combination of a few factors. 1; poor training of troops. in fact they were originally told that the weapon was self cleaning. 2; the army in an attempt to save money changed the original specifications of the weapon and the ammo used. ammo was changed from a high grade imr type powder to a cheaper variant. the original chrome lined barrel and molly were replaced with steel. this cause the barrels to warp during a firefight be because the original cyclic rate of fire for the m16 was over 110 rounds/min.

            ALL OF THESE PROBLEMS WERE SOLVED WITH THE ADVENT OF THE M16A1. however, this did not bring the M16 series weapons up to reliability standards of the AK series weapons. “routine maintenance” as the army calls it, was and still is required for most AR/M16 series weapons. this problem is also two fold. first and formost, the problem is caused because unlike the M1 Garand (one of my personal favorites), the M14, and the AK the M16 series weapons are a direct impingment gun. ie they push carbon and other hot gasses directly back into the chamber. this makes the weapon a carbon magnet. second is the tighter tolerances to the construction.

            Petru, have you ever used a real AK? not the wasr 10 or other post 1986 production semi auto only. see that law and the 94 brady law forces the AK series weapons sold in this country to be manufactured here using American made lowers. and we screwed them up by reliability standards because we wanted to make them more accurate. if yo upick up a real AK (military grade used all over the world) and shake it, it sounds like a jar of marbles, very loose tolerances. Gen. Kalashnikov, purposely designed it that way.

            but the biggest factor in the reliability issue of the AK, FAL, Galil, and other weapons of that generation over the M16 series is that they are a gas piston system, like the H&K 416. this is also the primary reason for the failure of the m4 in this vid and the success of the 416. all you need for proof of this is that our seals and other spec ops units are now using the 416 even over the scar.

            now did anyone besides me read Lynch’s book? she admitted that her and her platoon members DID NOT DO PROPER MAINTENANCE ON THEIR WEAPONS. this is what caused the malfunctions. As a soldier and NCO i am appalled at her chain of command for allowing such behavior especially in a combat zone. but some of that responsibility most actually falls on the individual soldier.

            now to the M14, Nathaniel i don’t know where you got that intel on the M14 jamming after 600 rounds. but and I’m not attacking you here just the intel, I’m calling bull shit on it. i have fired over 2000 rounds from an M21 version in one sitting, in the desert (Egypt and Afghanistan) during training exercises and never had a jam. now i may be the exception to the rule, but that is my experience with that weapon.

            the rounds, i don’t think any real gun guy would argue the 7.62x 51 or the 7.62×39 is not a more powerful round than the 5.56mm/.223. i will say that the modern higher velocity bullets like the ss 109 do have a tendency to over penetrate during cqb operations. (that is of the human body) but that is the by product not only of the round, but of the increased rifling of the m16a2 and all subsequent series weapons over that of the m16a1. some jack ass remf got the idea to make a battle rifle out of an assault rifle. not a good idea, for what it was designed for i personally feel the m16a1 and the older car 15 series weapons are more effective than their later brothers the A2 et al series.

            bottom line both weapons systems AR/M16, M14, and Ak are all great weapons. each has their own strengths and weaknesses. each can be as reliable as the user holding it.

            that all said, i own 2 AR 15s both are now piston guns. one of them has the exact same piston system as the H&K 416. i only wish we had these kinds of weapons when i was in uniform, just going to the range and blasting away about 500 rounds you will see the difference. also the piston system opens up those tight tolerances slightly. these two reliability improvements do come with two drawbacks.1 heaver than the di guns and 2 less accurate.

            this is what i have seen, learned, and experienced in my 22 years of army experience as well as my private experience. as stated i wish we had weapons like the 416 rather than the standard m16 series weapons i did have. as for the m14 still love that weapon too.

        • Harold

          You can’t just type stuff up on the Internet and expect anyone to believe you. Please cite all of your amazing anecdotes so we can verify your wild claims.

          • petru sova

            Anyone who has not been living in a cave or a fantasy world is not surprised by my posts at all. Much of it has been discussed ad nausea for years. If you never heard of the cute blond and her fellow soldiers that were almost wiped out then you should watch the news more, only 300 million Americans saw it and the later movie as well, all except you of course. Your still claiming it never happened.

          • Joshua

            And if you have never head of the success of average guys at COP Keating you must live under a rock.

        • Dan

          I don’t remember hearing anything about a “truck load” of US soldiers being annihilated. I do remember two of my nephews (Army and Marine) and a niece (Army) saying they never experienced a malfunction. Someone is still resorting back to the flaws of Vietnam and trying to apply it to the weapon today.

        • BobDole_is_my_waifu

          Oh my God it’s the angry spirit of Dr. Carten. By the power of our lord and savior Eugene Stoner I command you back to the hell from wince you came.

        • Joshua

          Ddi you……..seriously? The 507th……..seriously? You used them as an example……….they could have been given 40watt laser rifles and they still would have had the same results.

        • Here is a very early test of the AR-15 against the M14 rifle. Note the early date – 1957. Also note that the AR-15 prototype used in the torture test portion experiences 6.1 malfunctions per 100 rounds, while the M14 control rifles experienced 14.6 malfunctions per 100 rounds – more than double that of the AR-15 prototype! The two weapons are much more comparable in reliability in the full auto portion of the test, but keep in mind that the AR-15 being trialled here is a prototype about the same weight as an M1 Carbine:

          http://bpullignwolnet.dotster.com/retroblackrifle/sitebuilder/images/Proto000001-600×174.jpg

          In later portions of the test, the M14 demonstrates more than four times more malfunctions when exposed to dust. Yikes! Likewise, when exposed to heat (125 d F for 72 hours), the M14 is equally unhappy, experiencing 49 malfunctions for every one malfunction the AR-15 has.

          • petru sova

            You gave it away. Proto-type and since Stoner was the one pandering this propaganda along with lackeys hand picked from the McNamara crowd what would you expect but glowing reports about the “latest and greatest”. Real life combat proved a completely different story both in Nam and up to the present day 50 some years later i.e. a poorly designed weapon that fails in dust, fails in rain, fails in killing power and fails in long range accuracy as compared to the 7.62×51. Why do you think U.S. sniper rifles continue to use not only the 7.62×51 but they are also still using the M14 along with other recently adopted newer weapons. If the M14 was such an unreliable weapon it too would have had a dismal record in real combat which it did not and it would not be used today in desert warfare. History seems to be proving you wrong when it comes to actual combat devoid of rigged testing to adopt a new weapon.

          • Joshua

            The M14 was used for the simple fact that the M110 was in high demand and short supply, so the M14 filled a DMR roll until units could get M110’s.

            I could also point out how most combat takes place sub 300M and how a DMR as a general issue rifle is a joke, but I imagine it would be out of your lane.

        • 1911a145acp

          Please supply a link to the all but one M-16 failed story……

  • tactical guest

    In fact that was “modified” OTB vesrion, HK416A2.
    Not only holes in buffer tube and bolt carrier, also barrel base is modified for reduce over-pressure to chamber while barrel fulfilled with water.
    http://www.hkpro.com/forum/hk-nfa-talk/202895-notes-hk416-armorer-course.html

    • You linked it before I could. I am do a lot of commenting on my phone. 😉

  • John

    Like this matters to 99% of all shooters here and I own a MR556 with the 3 massive drainage holes at the end of the buffer tube. My local gun range doesn’t have a swimming pool.

    • Harold

      What? You’re not a Seal like the rest of us here?

    • FourString

      everybawday shoosts underwater though! xD

  • I would take any internal company’s test with a truckload of salt.

    A firearm with an obstruction in the bore will experience pressure spikes, no matter what it is. Notice in the video that the Colt firearm experiences a catastrophic bolt and receiver failure; there is no failure of the gas system. If the firearm is properly drained, it will not have a catastrophic failure.

    The best way to counteract this is to make your firearm open bolt, which in part explains the past popularity of the Swedish Carl Gustav submachine gun with the SEALs. HK does have an OTB model of the HK416, which I imagine is what’s being tested here, but again, according to the reps at the HK booth at SHOT, the drainage modifications have nothing to do with the gas system, and actually impart restrictions on the weapon as to what ammunition is safe to use with it.

    Alternately, I imagine one could get much the same effect by simply leaving the bolt open on an AR-15 when coming out of the water. Frankly, that sounds awfully cheap when compared to buying a whole new gun.

  • Lance

    Hate to ay TFB already showed this video many years ago. Not worth the space Nick.

  • LongBeach

    Typical Germans… Couldn’t have just put the rifles in a large tub and gone on with the test, they just HAD to dig, insulate and decorate their own tactical koi pond, squeeze Hans the T&E assistant into a wetsuit and welding helmet, and THEN do the test.

  • guest

    Please submit your excused why DI is still in any way relevant in 2014 in a combat weapon below:

    • Commonsense23

      Please submit any proof that a Gas piston that wasn’t designed for o.t.b.’s would do any better than that DI. And 5th Group did a test between the MK18MOD1 vs the HK416 and saw no reason to switch over to the HK.

      • Joshua

        So did the 10th and a number of other groups, all came the same conclusion.

    • Way lighter than conventional short-stroke. Very well understood as an operating mechanism. Provides in-line-with-the-bore force to operate the bolt. Prevents the bolt lugs from scraping against the extension during unlocking. Adjusting the design at the factory only requires a drill press and a little trial and error. It’s easily modified for different roles and requirements. It allows a very simple and light receiver with a very simply made operating group. Making the gas tube for DI is way, way easier than making a piston. The system is relatively insensitive to peak port pressure, as it derives force for operation from a longer section of the pressure curve.

      Frankly, DI and tappet stand pretty much head and shoulders above other forms of gas operation for use in infantry rifles. AK style fixed piston is also pretty good, but I see no reason for short-stroke operation a la AR-18 or Remington ACR to exist. The HK 416 and HK G36 use a sort of hybrid operation that, best as I can tell, combines a tappet with a short stroke “operating rod” that has its own recoil spring. Mechanically, I think this is identical to short-stroke, but I’d have to see high speed footage of a 416 or G36 with its handguards off to be sure.

    • Harold

      Go troll somewhere else with your marching orders. We don’t exist to prove something to you, guest.

      • petru sova

        The only troll is you. Just because you do not agree with another’s question or point of view you only show your ignorance by calling him names. Sounds like grade school doesn’t it?

        • Harold

          WTF petru? Troll is a verb, and WTF are you butting in. Here’s me calling you a name: jackass. Eight grade, beeyach. Suck it.

  • big daddy

    Maybe I am just not high speed enough but why would I fire a weapon after being submerged in water without clearing it or at least making sure the water is out of the barrel by opening the bolt?

    • Harold

      Because that’s how we Seals roll. LOL.

      • Dan

        Operators dont have time to clear barrels when aquatic operating

  • petru sova

    It never ceases to amaze me how the M16 crowd because of blind patriotism continues to make volumes of excuses for the continuing failure of a failed weapons system like the M16.
    They site endless hyperbole about powder changes, drowning the action in exotic fluids like LSA fluid, tests under pristine conditions or cheating in the tests by letting water drain out of the barrel or stopping to constantly drown the action in oil. It never occurs to them that better designed weapons like the AK need no such cheating in tests as they work. They seem to live in the fantasy world of “Since we made the weapon it has to be the very best” so do not confuse me with any history or historical facts.

    • n0truscotsman

      blind patriotism?

      Dude, I love AKs and everything Russian. I have my criticisms of the M16 and M4 like I do everything else when it comes to US DOD acquisitions; but, when it comes to the current reliability of the M4, the proof, they say, is in the pudding.

      You dont need exotic oils drowning the bolt carrier group. wheel bearing grease or synthetic motor oil keeps a AR running like a sewing machine for thousands of rounds. I can, and have on multiple occasions, cleared 2,000 rounds of 5.56 in a training weekend through my military specification AR15 (and many more while active duty with the M4) after just greasing the proper locations. No special cleaning or treatment or even a wipe down. Just shooting. And they have been just as reliable as my AKs.

      Both my ARs and AKs have had malfunctions (associated with magazines and ammunition mostly, as is always the case it seems) in windy and sandy conditions, or extreme cold, while caked in ice. One particularly course back east was rainy and sandy, which creates a perfect storm for choking Glocks and kalashnikovs.

      The point is that all weapons have limitations. It is about knowing your rifle well enough to take the necessary precautions to make it the most reliable. Infantry have been doing the same song and dance since they used to “weather” muskets with candle wax.

      We live in amazing times of technological evolution where we have badass lubricants and greases that maintain their lubricity in harsh conditions and have a damn hard time freezing even in arctic conditions. Our grandfathers with their garands lived in different times without such luxuries. Weapons have become more reliable as a result, not less so.

      /rant over/

      • petru sova

        And the real point is the AK does not need to be greased or oiled like the M16 does. When my AR consistently failed in competition unless kept very clean and drowning in oil and my M1a never needed the same pampering that should tell one something quickly as to which is the better and more reliable design.

        • Joshua

          Seen plenty of AKs fail in Afghanistan……

          • 1911a145acp

            I shot a new Polish AK pistol this Sunday w/ MagPul mags and Wolf and Hornady ammo and it GAGGED constantly through 2 mags! Following pet saliva’s logic of the statistical sample of one, then- “all AK’s MUST be junk!”

  • James Burtnett

    I’ll stay with my Colt!

  • petru sova

    Jessica Lynch story proves false. She admits even her gun jammed up and she did not fire even one shot. She admits she was not the lone heroine firing ammo till her gun ran dry. Nice Hollywood story but once again proves the M16 the most worthless rifle ever fielded by the U.S. military AS 100 PERCENT OF ALL THE M16’S THAT DAY DID NOT WORK. Now lets see the M16 fanatics worm their way out of this one. By the way Wikepdia does verify info that is posted on their sight so no conservative baloney that the story is not accurate.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jessica_Lynch
    My response to our Local M16 Guru who Nathanial F pretends to be the last word on the M16 world stated that the M16 was more reliable than the M14. I have a question for him. Since the WWII M1 Garand is held in near religious fervor and almost never ever bad mouthed like the M14 on this forum then how is it since the M14 was an improvement on the Garand i.e. it had an improved gas system that corrected the Garand’s broken op-rod problems, had a detachable box magazine that could also be topped off unlike the Garand and had a steel liner to keep the stock from getting loose and causing inaccuracy and had a flash hider too is according to our Guru Nathanial an inferior weapon. Does anyone fathom such nonsense?

  • OldSchool45B

    And yet the HK has still not submitted a sample that would pass the DHS basic endurance test, which must be completed without self destructing (which the HK does) before moving on to the environmental test. The Colt 6920 is still the industry standard for endurance and environmental testing. DHS some some of the most comprehensive and detailed weapons and ammo lot testing in the world, but they do not have the ability to replace the uppers every 5,000rds like the NAVSOF does.

  • Troy C

    Well, First one was allowed to drain more completely. Two seconds allowed they said!. I demand a re-test )

  • petru sova

    Here is a damning report from a Marine about the unreliable M16 and the M4 in the desert environment which is located farther down on the post. At the top of the post Mikhail Kalashnikov also gives his views on the superiority of the AK-47 but the interesting part is the damning letter from the U.S. Marine.

    http://neveryetmelted.com/2006/04/18/mikhail-kalashnikov-says-his-rifle-is-better/

  • petru sova

    Here is an excerpt from the Marine that used the M16 and M4 in the desert.

    The M-16 rifle : Thumbs down. Chronic jamming problems with the talcum powder like sand over there. The sand is everywhere. Jordan says you feel filthy 2 minutes after coming out of the shower. The M-4 carbine version is more popular because it’s lighter and shorter, but it has jamming problems also. They like the ability to mount the various optical gunsights and weapons lights on the Picatinny rails, but the weapon itself is not great in a desert environment. They all hate the 5.56mm (.223) round. Poor penetration on the cinderblock structure common over there and even torso hits cant be reliably counted on to put the enemy down. Fun fact: Random autopsies on dead insurgents shows a high level of opiate use.

    AK47’s. The entire country is an arsenal. Works better in the desert than the M16 and the .308 Russian round kills reliably… Luckily, the enemy mostly shoots like shit. Undisciplined “spray and pray” type fire. However, they are seeing more and more precision weapons, especially sniper rifles. (Iran, again) Fun fact: Captured enemy have apparently marveled at the marksmanship of our guys and how hard they fight. They are apparently told in Jihad school that the Americans rely solely on technology, and can be easily beaten in close quarters combat for their lack of toughness. Let’s just say they know better now.

    Here is the rest of it.
    http://neveryetmelted.com/2006/04/18/mikhail-kalashnikov-says-his-rifle-is-better/