# Army takes HK416s from special unit



## Boondocksaint375 (Mar 10, 2008)

*Army takes HK416s from special unit*
By Matthew Cox - Staff writer
Posted : Monday Mar 10, 2008 17:04:44 EDT

The Army has stripped the Asymmetric Warfare Group of its weapon of choice — the Heckler & Koch 416 — saying that its mission requires the unique outfit to carry the standard issue M4 carbine.
The decision reverses a policy that allowed the AWG to buy 416s instead of carrying M4s when it was established three years ago to help senior Army leaders find new tactics and technologies to make soldiers more lethal in combat.
Members of the AWG have declined to comment on the issue, but sources in the community told Army Times that the unit fought to keep its several hundred 416s, arguing that they outperform the Army’s M4 and require far less maintenance.
In a response to a March 6 Army Times query, the Army acknowledged initial approval of the AWG’s move to the 416.
“The AWG is empowered to procure, on a limited basis, select non-standard equipment to assist in identifying capability gaps and advise on the development of future requirements. To this end, the Asymmetric Warfare Group did purchase H&K 416 rifles,” said Army spokesman Lt. Col. Martin Downie.
“The AWG also advises units on training, tactics and procedures. In this capacity, the use of the standard issue M4 is required. In support of this mission set, the decision was made to transition to the M4 and the AWG is now turning in its H&K rifles.”
This is the latest round of controversy surrounding the M4 since late November, when the weapon finished last in an Army reliability test against several other carbines.
The M4 suffered more stoppages than the combined number of jams by the three other competitors — the Heckler & Koch XM8, FNH USA’s Special Operations Forces Combat Assault Rifle (SCAR) and the H&K 416.
Army weapons officials agreed to perform the dust test at the request of Sen. Tom Coburn, R-Okla., in July. Coburn took up the issue following a Feb. 26 Army Times report on moves by elite Army Special Forces units to ditch the M4 in favor of carbines they consider more reliable. Since then, Coburn has questioned the Army’s plans to spend more than $300 million to purchase M4s through fiscal 2009 rather than considering newer and possibly better weapons available on the commercial market.
Army officials have downplayed the test results, maintaining that soldiers using the M4 in combat praised the weapon in a recent study by the Center for Naval Analysis.
But this isn’t the first time the M4’s performance has come under fire.
U.S. Special Operations Command decided nearly four years ago that it wanted a better weapon than the M4. After a competition, it awarded a developmental contract to FN Herstal to develop its new SCAR to replace all of the command’s M4s.
But even prior to USSOCOM’s decision, the Army’s Delta Force replaced its M4s with the H&K 416 in 2004 after tests revealed that its piston operating system reduces malfunctions while increasing the life of parts.
The M4, like its predecessor, the M16, uses a gas tube system, which relies on the gas created when a bullet is fired to cycle the weapon. Weapon experts say the M4’s system of blowing gas directly into the receiver of the weapon spews carbon residue that can lead to fouling and heat that dries up lubrication and causes excessive wear on parts.
The AWG followed Delta’s example when it stood up in March 2005 to advise the Army’s senior leadership on how to identify and counter emerging threats on the battlefield. With Army approval, the unit bought several hundred 416s for its members to carry when they deployed to Iraq, Afghanistan and other hot spots.
Many senior sergeants in the AWG were angered that soldiers in the unit had to turn in their 416s, a process that began last fall, said a U.S. Military officer with knowledge the special operations and AWG communities.
“They were outraged,” he told Army Times. “It’s a reduction in capability. It’s a waste of money that was already spent, and it makes the job more difficult since [the M4] is much more maintenance-intensive.”

http://www.armytimes.com/news/2008/03/Army_no416s_031008w/

http://www.militarytimes.com/multimedia/video/carbine/  (VIDEO)
http://www.militarytimes.com/projects/flash/2007_02_20_carbine/  (interactive)


----------



## moobob (Mar 10, 2008)

uhhhhh... I thought that the AWG advised units on how to counter emerging threats, not how to clean their M4s....


----------



## Ravage (Mar 10, 2008)

Boondocksaint375 said:


> But even prior to USSOCOM’s decision, *the Army’s Delta Force replaced its M4s with the H&K 416 in 2004 after tests revealed that its piston operating system reduces malfunctions while increasing the life of parts.*



Marketing or confirmed ? (I'm no secret squirrel but that would be like telling UFO's landed in the White House)


----------



## Ravage (Mar 10, 2008)

> The Asymmetric Warfare Group is a unit of the United States military created during the Global War on Terrorism to craft doctrine for asymmetric warfare. The unit is stationed at Fort Meade, Maryland and is not associated with Special Operations Forces.



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

http://www.awg.army.mil/




> A tactical advisor with the U.S. Army's Asymmetric Warfare Group, sits at an abandoned hospital in during an operation in Baquba, Iraq, June 21, 2007. He is attached to the 5th Battalion, 20th Infantry Regiment, 3rd Stryker Brigade Combat Team, 2nd Infantry Division. (U.S. Army photo by Staff Sgt. Curt Cashour)


----------



## Diamondback 2/2 (Mar 10, 2008)

WillBrink said:
			
		

> Hmmm, I thought I knew most of the secret squirrel groups, but AWG is a new one for me. I know Delta aint called that any more....but what does AWG do for the army SF, "Delta," etc don't already do? What, "Delta" not asymmetric enough?! :)
> 
> PM me if this is OPSEC issue.



AWG has a totally different mission, then SOF-D. They are not even remotely close in mission statement. AWG primary mission is to asses the battle field, type of attacks and then advise the command groups on how to counter the type of attacks. They develop new tactics based of battle field data, and serve as an attachment to conventional and unconventional units…

SOF-D primary mission is counter terrorism.


----------



## Simmerin' SigO (Mar 10, 2008)

The more important issue is that someone who is more interested in looking good over being good decided that a superior weapon was no allowed because it wasn't "fair".  :doh:

Who cares if they are Delta-like, Delta-lite, or just a task-focused special purpose unit.  The fact is that an assessment, by competent leadership, was made of the right weapon, and they selected, procured, and employed it.

Now, more money/time/effort wasted.  Way to go Dept of the Army.

I thought we were past this 20th Century "ordinary forces" bull already; that the post-9/11 era hearkened a new time where the best tools for the task was the order of the day.

Apparently not.


----------



## AWP (Mar 10, 2008)

WillBrink said:
			
		

> Hmmm, I thought I knew most of the secret squirrel groups, but AWG is a new one for me. I know Delta aint called that any more....but what does AWG do for the army SF, "Delta," etc don't already do? What, "Delta" not asymmetric enough?! :)
> 
> PM me if this is OPSEC issue.



If it is an OPSEC issue then no one should be PM'ing you with an answer. This is one of those questions that can either be answered open source or it can't.


----------



## WillBrink (Mar 10, 2008)

J.A.B. said:


> AWG has a totally different mission, then SOF-D. They are not even remotely close in mission statement. AWG primary mission is to asses the battle field, type of attacks and then advise the command groups on how to counter the type of attacks. They develop new tactics based of battle field data, and serve as an attachment to conventional and unconventional units…
> 
> SOF-D primary mission is counter terrorism.



Ah,  the only other group I know who uses the 416 being "Delta," it sounded like they were HSLD types who felt they needed the 416. Does not sound like the 416 has any greater utility to that unit then the M4, unless I am reading it wrong. I'm more surprised they ended up with the 416 to begin with if i am understanding the mission of the AWG correctly.



Freefalling said:


> If it is an OPSEC issue then no one should be PM'ing you with an answer. This is one of those questions that can either be answered open source or it can't.



I suppose that makes perfect sense. Hell, they have their own Wiki page, so I guess that's as open source as it gets...


----------



## Diamondback 2/2 (Mar 10, 2008)

WillBrink said:


> Ah,  the only other group I know who uses the 416 being "Delta," it sounded like they were HSLD types who felt they needed the 416. Does not sound like the 416 has any greater utility to that unit then the M4, unless I am reading it wrong. I'm more surprised they ended up with the 416 to begin with if i am understanding the mission of the AWG correctly.
> 
> 
> 
> I suppose that makes perfect sense. Hell, they have their own Wiki page, so I guess that's as open source as it gets...



In reality any unit in the military can spend their funds as they see fit, with in reason. The issue is that a newly formed unit (AWG) picked a good piece of kit, and was told due to cost NO! SOF-D or CAG is not the only unit that uses the 416, there are many unit’s that use the 416. However, the M4 is cheaper and has fund sites available for punches in units.

As for OPSEC, there is nothing posted here that breaks OPSEC. However, the subject is a mute point, due to the fact that the big Army already decided on the AWG weapons…:)


----------



## 8'Duece (Mar 11, 2008)

Maybe the AWG doesn't really deserve them and they'll find their way to an SF Group or Ranger Batt. 

Just a thought.


----------



## tigerstr (Mar 11, 2008)

82ndtrooper said:


> Maybe the AWG doesn't really deserve them and they'll find their way to an SF Group or Ranger Batt.
> 
> Just a thought.



If I remember well something I read a while back in an open source publication ,one of the SF Groups (1st ?) already bought a number of HK 416s with its own funds. 

Not sure though if they were for the CIF Company or for general Group use.

Anyway there is great controversy in the specialised press, between the M4, the new SCAR the HK- 416 and the possible need for a new (harder-hitting) caliber altogether, like the 6.5mm Grendel, instead of 5.56.

BTW, although not a part of SOF or USASOC, the AWG appears to be a Special Missions Unit.


----------



## Diamondback 2/2 (Mar 11, 2008)

tigerstr said:


> BTW, although not a part of SOF or USASOC, the AWG appears to be a Special Missions Unit.



I remember walking up to 3 new cherries a few years ago, I told them I had gotten a special mission form the CO and that they had been assigned to me due to them having the latest and greatest training from BCT/AIT. Thus making them the better trained soldier we have in the company.

“The mission was to provide security to the Supply NCO, while he transported new weapons from another armory. The reason this was a “special mission” was b/c we had been given a “terrorist warning” and that it’s possible they might attempt to steal the weapons. So the CO wanted the best on the mission. So we jump in the back of a 5 ton, and run with the Supply NCO down to the other armory. We get out load all the new weapons in the truck, issue 1 magazine a piece and get back to our armory. Then we turn in our mag’s unload the truck, and report to our squads (special mission complete)!”

These soldiers were all happy, and running around thinking they just conducted a “special mission”! What they really did was a bullshit detail; I was tasked with by my PSG for being late. I really don’t see how I could compare them to SOF though?:uhh:


----------



## irnbndr (Mar 11, 2008)

J.A.B. said:


> I remember walking up to 3 new cherries a few years ago, I told them I had gotten a special mission form the CO and that they had been assigned to me due to them having the latest and greatest training from BCT/AIT. Thus making them the better trained soldier we have in the company.
> 
> “The mission was to provide security to the Supply NCO, while he transported new weapons from another armory. The reason this was a “special mission” was b/c we had been given a “terrorist warning” and that it’s possible they might attempt to steal the weapons. So the CO wanted the best on the mission. So we jump in the back of a 5 ton, and run with the Supply NCO down to the other armory. We get out load all the new weapons in the truck, issue 1 magazine a piece and get back to our armory. Then we turn in our mag’s unload the truck, and report to our squads (special mission complete)!”
> 
> These soldiers were all happy, and running around thinking they just conducted a “special mission”! What they really did was a bullshit detail; I was tasked with by my PSG for being late. I really don’t see how I could compare them to SOF though?:uhh:



Haha!  Good technique!


----------



## tigerstr (Mar 11, 2008)

J.A.B. said:


> I remember walking up to 3 new cherries a few years ago, I told them I had gotten a special mission form the CO and that they had been assigned to me due to them having the latest and greatest training from BCT/AIT. Thus making them the better trained soldier we have in the company.
> 
> “The mission was to provide security to the Supply NCO, while he transported new weapons from another armory. The reason this was a “special mission” was b/c we had been given a “terrorist warning” and that it’s possible they might attempt to steal the weapons. So the CO wanted the best on the mission. So we jump in the back of a 5 ton, and run with the Supply NCO down to the other armory. We get out load all the new weapons in the truck, issue 1 magazine a piece and get back to our armory. Then we turn in our mag’s unload the truck, and report to our squads (special mission complete)!”
> 
> These soldiers were all happy, and running around thinking they just conducted a “special mission”! What they really did was a bullshit detail; I was tasked with by my PSG for being late. I really don’t see how I could compare them to SOF though?:uhh:



I see where you are coming from, been in such "special" details myself back in the day.

Having said that, please note that I dont compare AWG to SOF.

I just said that they appear to be a SMU ( the way they are organised,  assessment and selection, and a very special kind of mission).

SMU I believe does not mean just DA or CT.


----------



## Diamondback 2/2 (Mar 11, 2008)

tigerstr said:


> I see where you are coming from, been in such "special" details myself back in the day.
> 
> Having said that, please note that I dont compare AWG to SOF.
> 
> ...



Nope your right, anything can be deemed “special” by simply calling it special. AWG is not anything super special though. Basically a group put together by the army, to develop new tactics and doctrine. Almost like an “Observer Controller” they tell you how you fucked up, and or what you can do better. Then they help build new doctrine through TTP’s and modifying FM/ TSP’s…


----------



## Zeus187 (Mar 15, 2008)

My last deployment to Iraq in 2006 to 2007, we had AWG out with us on patrol. They gave us very usefull information out there to help us out. I wouln't say what it is due to OPSEC reseasons. One of them guy's was actually runnig around out there with us with one hand!! Thants hard core.


----------



## Viper1 (Jun 28, 2008)

Has anyone hear ever shot the HK-416 (i haven't).  How does it compare to the M-4 and other similar weapons systems?


----------



## WillBrink (Jun 28, 2008)

Viper1 said:


> Has anyone hear ever shot the HK-416 (i haven't).  How does it compare to the M-4 and other similar weapons systems?



I did, but it was 1 20rd mag at a range, so I can't say it was superior or different. Shot and felt like an M4 under that limited experience, but seemed like a mighty fine gun.


----------



## 8'Duece (Jun 28, 2008)

The H&K 416 has been discussed, ad nauseam, all over the net. 

Is it a "better" rifle than the current Colt M4A1 ? Yes, it probably is, especially right out of the box when your carrying a rifle that has reached it's service life and needs a new barrel, new barrel extension, new bolt and carrier, etc, etc, etc, etc, . 

I don't believe the Army is real good at replacing old and worn out weapons, at least in my limited experience. 

Trust me, the H&K 416 may be a great rifle, but someone somewhere is going to have an op rod break or bend and his or her rifle is going down. I'd rather have to just replace a fireing pin, or a bolt or extractor than wait for for another rifle or to have an armorer fix it back at the base. 

Just my .02


----------



## Paddlefoot (Jun 28, 2008)

Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't HK come out with the 416 as a weapon that has several design features in common with the AK variants, only a little more workmanship put into the total weapon?

One of the best features of the AK is the ease of maintenance, which is a real plus when you have to break down a weapon for a quick cleaning and get back into a fight. When we were running an AK range for one of our brigades during my last summer in, breaking down the weapons coming off the range for a quick clean was a breeze. 

I don't care how good you are at breaking down an M-16 or M-4, they have way too many pieces that have to be dealt with. And you lose a couple of those smaller pieces, like that little pin that holds the bolt extractor in place, forget about it.


----------



## pardus (Jun 28, 2008)

Paddlefoot said:


> I don't care how good you are at breaking down an M-16 or M-4, they have way too many pieces that have to be dealt with. And you lose a couple of those smaller pieces, like that little pin that holds the bolt extractor in place, forget about it.



LOL, I went from an M16A1 to the Steyr AUG, the M series are a dream to strip compared to the Steyr. Steyr has an insane amount of parts when stripped something like 13 or so! 

Barrel = 4 parts

Butt = 4

Bolt group = 4 :uhh:

Receiver = 1

What did I miss Irish?

I loved the M16 for its simplicity.


----------



## Ravage (Jun 28, 2008)

Just as a side note, GROM is switching from the M4 to the HK416


----------



## 8'Duece (Jun 28, 2008)

Paddlefoot said:


> Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't HK come out with the 416 as a weapon that has several design features in common with the AK variants, only a little more workmanship put into the total weapon?
> 
> One of the best features of the AK is the ease of maintenance, which is a real plus when you have to break down a weapon for a quick cleaning and get back into a fight. When we were running an AK range for one of our brigades during my last summer in, breaking down the weapons coming off the range for a quick clean was a breeze.
> 
> I don't care how good you are at breaking down an M-16 or M-4, they have way too many pieces that have to be dealt with. And you lose a couple of those smaller pieces, like that little pin that holds the bolt extractor in place, forget about it.



Actually, no.

The 416 has the same bolt and carrier and same trig components. The op rod system is the only difference. 

So  you might be replacing an extractor pin anyway. Either way, it's a great rifle, just pin it to your Colt lower.


----------



## Diamondback 2/2 (Jun 28, 2008)

The huge plus that the 416 brings to the table, is the round count between cleaning. The M16 series uses a gas blow back operation, gas block (front sight assembly), gas tube and gas key (top portion of the bolt assembly).

When firing the M16 series rifle, the gas is pushed through the gas tube into the gas key (bolt), this pushes the bolt back. Thus cycling the weapon. This causes the carbon from the gas expulsion to build up in the chamber, bolt assembly and the rails that the bolt glides on.

The HK416 uses a gas piston system, allowing the gasses to be expelled at the gas block end. Thus keeping the gas and carbon out of the chamber, bolt and rails. This also allows for the bolt to stay cooler during operation, allowing the operator to clear a stoppage with out cool down periods.

Keeping the carbon caused by gas out of the key functioning components, makes the rifle much more dependable. Allows for less cleaning, less sluggish running when dirty and allows Joe to fix a stoppage with out burning his hands…

As for being able to tell a difference in operation, I could not tell until about 700 rounds. The 416 upper was running much smoother then the M4 upper.
:2c:


----------



## pardus (Jun 28, 2008)

J.A.B. said:


> The huge plus that the 416 brings to the table, is the round count between cleaning. The M16 series uses a gas blow back operation, gas block (front sight assembly), gas tube and gas key (top portion of the bolt assembly).
> 
> When firing the M16 series rifle, the gas is pushed through the gas tube into the gas key (bolt), this pushes the bolt back. Thus cycling the weapon. This causes the carbon from the gas expulsion to build up in the chamber, bolt assembly and the rails that the bolt glides on.
> 
> ...



Good post.

Can't beat a piston!


----------



## 8'Duece (Jun 28, 2008)

pardus762 said:


> Good post.
> 
> Can't beat a piston!



Agree, good post on the basics of the gas impingement system vs a gas piston operation. 

Since I haven't seen nor operated the gas piston system then I have a few questions regarding the basic operation. 

1. Does the Operating rod actually move back and forth from the gas pressure therefore the op rod is pushing  on the gas key vs gas pushing on the gas key ?

2. If the above is true, then how long is the actual operating rod ? It would seem very long to push the bolt assembly all the way back into the extension.  I would think that the operating rod would possible bend or break with enough fire time behind the weapon. (I have one POF rifle that I witnessed the op rod bend after 500 rounds during a marksman class)

I understand that the gas is being ported and released at the sight block rather than through the gas tube back to the gas key of the bolt carrier, which is the reason that carbon fouling and heat transfer are not present on the bolt and carrier after sustained fire.  That's a huge plus and I don't doubt that round counts are lengthened substantially with this operating system. 

Hope that didn't sound too ignorant of the system.


----------



## digrar (Jun 29, 2008)

pardus762 said:


> LOL, I went from an M16A1 to the Steyr AUG, the M series are a dream to strip compared to the Steyr. Steyr has an insane amount of parts when stripped something like 13 or so!
> 
> Barrel = 4 parts
> 
> ...



Sounds about right.
 I only spent about 6 weeks with an A2, but I thought the steyr was easier to strip down and I was still pretty new to the steyr at that stage.


----------



## pardus (Jun 29, 2008)

82ndtrooper said:


> Agree, good post on the basics of the gas impingement system vs a gas piston operation.
> 
> Since I haven't seen nor operated the gas piston system then I have a few questions regarding the basic operation.
> 
> ...



Totally ignorant you fucker!  lol ;)

Scroll to the bottom of this link for a good display on both systems...

http://www.lwrifles.com/tech.php

Op rods and gas pistons are at varying lengths, the Steyr has a short piston and two op rods that are solid.
The FN and AK have long pistons that are solid.

Never heard of a gas piston/op rod breaking/bending before though I'm sure it's possible likeyou said.
The POF op rod looks pretty bloody thin to me.
Think of an FN or an AK, both Gas pistons and we know they are both magnificent reliable rifles.




digrar said:


> Sounds about right.
> I only spent about 6 weeks with an A2, but I thought the steyr was easier to strip down and I was still pretty new to the steyr at that stage.



Really? wow.

The A1 just had a removable bolt group for field stripping which was 5 parts IIRC including the cocking handle/lever thingy.

Is the A2 different to this?


----------



## 8'Duece (Jun 29, 2008)

pardus762 said:


> Totally ignorant you fucker!  lol ;)
> 
> Scroll to the bottom of this link for a good display on both systems...
> 
> ...



Ok Mate ! 

I just stripped my AK down (First time) and it all makes sense now. :doh:>:{

The op rod has suffient gas pressure to provide enough velocity on the bolt carrier group to cycle the weapon efficiently. 

I'm assuming those gas key's are staked pretty darn good or the gas key is not a separate part but machined as one piece with the carrier. 

Thanks for the link.


----------



## Diamondback 2/2 (Jun 29, 2008)

82ndtrooper said:


> Agree, good post on the basics of the gas impingement system vs a gas piston operation.
> 
> Since I haven't seen nor operated the gas piston system then I have a few questions regarding the basic operation.
> 
> ...





1. YES

2.The length of the operating rod will depend on the length of the barrel/ gas block from the bolt. I am unsure on the specs on the 416, but I will post them as soon as I get a reply to an email ;)!

As for Operating rod’s breaking, I have not heard nor seen it. I put about 2500 rounds through a 416 upper we were testing. The only issues we found was, that the Op rod and gas block needed cleaning after every 1000 rounds.


----------



## digrar (Jun 29, 2008)

pardus762 said:


> The A1 just had a removable bolt group for field stripping which was 5 parts IIRC including the cocking handle/lever thingy.
> 
> Is the A2 different to this?



I was thinking of the full strip. Taking off the hand guards, the small pin in the bolt, separating the upper and lower etc.


----------



## 8'Duece (Jun 29, 2008)

J.A.B. said:


> 1. YES
> 
> 2.The length of the operating rod will depend on the length of the barrel/ gas block from the bolt. I am unsure on the specs on the 416, but I will post them as soon as I get a reply to an email ;)!
> 
> As for Operating rod’s breaking, I have not heard nor seen it. I put about 2500 rounds through a 416 upper we were testing. The only issues we found was, that the Op rod and gas block needed cleaning after every 1000 rounds.



Thanks Brother !!!


----------



## pardus (Jun 30, 2008)

digrar said:


> I was thinking of the full strip. Taking off the hand guards, the small pin in the bolt, separating the upper and lower etc.



Ah roger, that handguards are a fucking pain in the arse!

Th rest was easy, I was always nervous about that bloody tiny pin in the bolt though.


----------



## Ajax (Jun 30, 2008)

The question that needs to be answered is where are the 416's that are being turned in headed to?  If they're just going to sit in an arms room somewhere for the next couple years, then what was the point of this action?  

Remember a few years ago when staff types had their panties in a wad everytime they saw someone with velcro on their sleeve?  And now what?  EVERYONE has it.  I would bet money that the same people who ordered the 416 turn-in will be the first to hail the replacement of the M4 as a bold new policy and a great step in forging warrior eliteness and other Army fluff in a couple years.

Fucking officers...


----------



## 8'Duece (Jun 30, 2008)

Ajax said:


> The question that needs to be answered is where are the 416's that are being turned in headed to?  If they're just going to sit in an arms room somewhere for the next couple years, then what was the point of this action?
> 
> Remember a few years ago when staff types had their panties in a wad everytime they saw someone with velcro on their sleeve?  And now what?  EVERYONE has it.  I would bet money that the same people who ordered the 416 turn-in will be the first to hail the replacement of the M4 as a bold new policy and a great step in forging warrior eliteness and other Army fluff in a couple years.
> 
> Fucking officers...



I'm with ya.  Why turn in a perfectly sound weapon system without any rational logic behind the decision ? 

They should be in some SF Groups armory ready for deployment or other SOF force within the structure of USASOCOM. 

Beats the hell out of me, but what do I know ?


----------



## Ravage (Jun 30, 2008)

Ajax said:


> Remember a few years ago when staff types had their panties in a wad everytime they saw someone with velcro on their sleeve?  And now what?  EVERYONE has it.  I would bet money that the same people who ordered the 416 turn-in will be the first to hail the replacement of the M4 as a bold new policy and a great step in forging warrior eliteness and other Army fluff in a couple years.
> 
> Fucking officers...



Am I understanding this right ? they want regular units to look more "SF-ish" with all kinds of super gear ? Hell and I thought it's only in my military....:doh:


----------



## Diamondback 2/2 (Jun 30, 2008)

82ndtrooper said:


> I'm with ya.  Why turn in a perfectly sound weapon system without any rational logic behind the decision ?
> 
> They should be in some SF Groups armory ready for deployment or other SOF force within the structure of USASOCOM.
> 
> Beats the hell out of me, but what do I know ?



Yep b/c we would not want any other ground combat units to have a sound weapon system…

The only thing sooooooooo special about the 416 is the round count between cleanings… You super hi speed Velcro and hair gel wearers can have your stupid 416, I like my M4 any damn way;)

PS. I will gladly give you back the velcro shoulder pockets too!


----------



## Rapid (Aug 3, 2008)

'Scuse me, I heard from some guy that the Army has also confiscated some 416s from actual SOF units? Any truth to this?

Edit: wait, I guess it is right if the following is true:



> The truth is that the SMU community did it legally, but not the traditional Army way (the expensive, 5 to 10 year, political Army way). But when some senators (Coburn included) asked the acting Secretary of the Army and Vice Chief of Staff of the Army (Gen Cody) why the SMUs have these better weapons and the regular Army is investing $375 Million in the M4, they responded that the SMUs and other SOF units (many SF Groups) were not authorized to purchase the 416s. The Vice COS (Gen Cody) ordered all units (including Delta) to stop using the HK416s due to political backlash. Most units (including the AWG) all but refused and gave every rebuttal possible. Delta fought it because it could technically be considered in their charter – but this wasn’t settled until recently. Two Tier-1 units were the only units allowed to keep their HK416s.



http://www.defensereview.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=1111

Is that correct? Kinda sucks... foreign countries are getting it before US SOF, while the latter is being bound by political BS.


----------



## moobob (Aug 3, 2008)

J.A.B. said:


> Yep b/c we would not want any other ground combat units to have a sound weapon system…
> 
> The only thing sooooooooo special about the 416 is the round count between cleanings… You super hi speed Velcro and hair gel wearers can have your stupid 416, I like my M4 any damn way;)
> 
> PS. I will gladly give you back the velcro shoulder pockets too!



I'll take the shoulder pockets. Those can be semi-useful.

How about the lower leg pockets? What idiot came up with those? I know of people that had full-size pockets there to separate their demo stuff to get some distance between stuff on your body so it doesn't go boom.

I think somebody thought oh hey, some sweet SOF guys have lower leg pockets, lets put them on the ACUs! Except that the pockets on the ACUs are too small to put anything in them but a cell phone...


----------



## Diamondback 2/2 (Aug 3, 2008)

moobob said:


> Except that the pockets on the ACUs are too small to put anything in them but a cell phone...



Oh but the CSM better find a PT belt in one of those pockets


----------



## Farang (Aug 3, 2008)

Just curious where that pic of J.A. in the first post came from? I know him and his background and I know he would not be happy with that pic on the iternet.
My best friend is with AWG WGI and he wanted me to come over there afew years back and I was surprised when I asked what gear they were using and he told me the HK 416's cause I knew only one unit that was using and liking them but if you knew the make up % wise of that company you wouldnt be surprised.


----------



## pardus (Aug 3, 2008)

Farang said:


> Just curious where that pic of J.A. in the first post came from? I know him and his background and I know he would not be happy with that pic on the iternet.



Seems to be an official Army published photo judging by the blurb below. 
Ravage will lets us know more ASAP.


----------



## Farang (Aug 3, 2008)

pardus762 said:


> Seems to be an official Army published photo judging by the blurb below.
> Ravage will lets us know more ASAP.


 Yeah you are right but even not knowing his background Iam very surprised he would let this happen to say the least.


----------



## Ravage (Aug 3, 2008)

The photo is all over Army.mil and DoD. Sorry, never meant to cause any problems...


----------



## pardus (Aug 3, 2008)

Ravage said:


> The photo is all over Army.mil and DoD. Sorry, never meant to cause any problems...



You didn't don't worry, the people that fucked up here are the DoD for continuingly publishing things like this.

On the other hand the Soldiers themselves should have more presence of mind to not be photographed and give out their info for all to see, not too smart IMO.
You can't allow the media free reign to your info then cry PERSEC when they publish it. :2c:


----------



## Ravage (Aug 3, 2008)

Farang said:


> My best friend is with AWG WGI and he wanted me to come over there afew years back and I was surprised when I asked what gear they were using and he told me the HK 416's cause I knew only one unit that was using and liking them but if you knew the make up % wise of that company you wouldnt be surprised.



I saw a pic of SEALs preparing for deployment, one of them was holding a HK416. Guess they get a little more free space in choosing their toys.


----------



## 8'Duece (Aug 3, 2008)

Rapid said:


> 'Scuse me, I heard from some guy that the Army has also confiscated some 416s from actual SOF units? Any truth to this?
> 
> Edit: wait, I guess it is right if the following is true:
> 
> ...



Anything from Defense review can also be taken with a grain of salt, or better yet a handful !!!

They are nothing more than a profit motive driven entity also just like Military.com and Christian Lowe.  Does anybody here really think that anyone at Defensereview or Military.com has anymore information than a line grunt with one stripe on his arm ?


----------



## AWP (Aug 3, 2008)

82ndtrooper said:


> They are nothing more than a profit motive driven entity also just like Military.com and Christian Lowe.



I don't follow the "cool" military sites so I've never heard of this dude. I find it interesting that he's another reporter with zero time in uniform. While he seems to have traveled well and talked to many I find it curious that a man with zero military time is on the forefront of change and information.

Kind of like Mark Bowden.

I would suppose that following their model I could with a few years of experience in a hospital critique surgical practices and comment on the latest in laser technology for the operating rooms. Not just some podunk hospital either, something like John's Hopkins or whatever the top-of-the-line facilities are.

I know! I've read a bunch of articles in _Outside_ magazine, time for me to tell a Sherpa how to better climb a mountain. 

It is preposterous and yet people drink the Kool Aid.

http://www.defensetech.org/about.html



> Before assuming editor duties at Defense Tech, Christian was a senior writer for The Politico covering defense and national security issues after spending five years with the Military Times newspapers in Springfield Va. Always running to the sound of the guns, he has covered military operations worldwide, embedding with Army and Marine units in both Iraq and Afghanistan, observing detention facilities at Guantanamo Bay, covering humanitarian missions in Lebanon and New Orleans, participating in training exercises at military bases from California to Florida and reporting on military policy and budgets in the Pentagon and on Capitol Hill.
> 
> Christian traveled to Afghanistan in 2002 and 2004, spending time in Kabul, Khost and Kandahar chasing the bin Laden trail and scouring the countryside with U.S. forces for Taliban holdouts. He went to Iraq in June of 2003, living in downtown Baghdad and traveling throughout the south of the country for six weeks. Christian returned to Iraq in late 2005, spending a month in Ramadi during the December parliamentary elections and patrolling the streets of Hit in al Anbar province with the U.S. Marines during the new year.
> 
> ...


----------



## Farang (Aug 3, 2008)

pardus762 said:


> You didn't don't worry, the people that fucked up here are the DoD for continuingly publishing things like this.
> 
> On the other hand the Soldiers themselves should have more presence of mind to not be photographed and give out their info for all to see, not too smart IMO.
> You can't allow the media free reign to your info then cry PERSEC when they publish it. :2c:


 I agree 100%. FWIW AWG also had to turn in their 416's and got their old M-4's back much to my friends disagreement.

Ravage, where I work the west coast Teams come to our facility for drivers training and just last week I was having one of them give me the lowdown on my PEQ15 and I asked them if they had any 416's and he told me no and werent getting any as far as he knew but I wouldnt put it past the "other" Team unit to at least be "field" testing them.


----------



## Paddlefoot (Aug 15, 2008)

J.A.B. said:


> The huge plus that the 416 brings to the table, is the round count between cleaning. The M16 series uses a gas blow back operation, gas block (front sight assembly), gas tube and gas key (top portion of the bolt assembly).
> 
> When firing the M16 series rifle, the gas is pushed through the gas tube into the gas key (bolt), this pushes the bolt back. Thus cycling the weapon. This causes the carbon from the gas expulsion to build up in the chamber, bolt assembly and the rails that the bolt glides on.
> 
> ...



That was another great thing about the AK design, you could fire hundreds of rounds before cleaning it, and you could generally get by in the short term with a quick wipe down of the internal components and ramming the rod and cloth through a couple of times.

When we conducted the AK range for one of our brigades in '91 after returning home, working the weapons cleaning detail was a snap.


----------



## Olive Drab (Aug 16, 2008)

fucking stupid. reminds me of the knuckleheads I work who wonder why we need HF or even SATCOM when everyone else is using Freq Hop VHF. :doh: I drove by Division the other day and what do I see on some of the vehicles? NVIS antenna kits, so there goes that arguement since division falls into the "everybody" category. 
Always add on a capability, never take away. Foolishness


----------



## QC (Aug 16, 2008)

word


----------



## AWP (Aug 16, 2008)

Olive Drab said:


> fucking stupid. reminds me of the knuckleheads I work who wonder why we need HF or even SATCOM when everyone else is using Freq Hop VHF. :doh: I drove by Division the other day and what do I see on some of the vehicles? NVIS antenna kits, so there goes that arguement since division falls into the "everybody" category.
> Always add on a capability, never take away. Foolishness



Awesome. I'm guessing they've never heard of PACE?


----------



## Olive Drab (Aug 16, 2008)

Freefalling said:


> Awesome. I'm guessing they've never heard of PACE?


 some of these idiots not only skip the ACE part but the P too.


----------



## AWP (Aug 16, 2008)

Olive Drab said:


> some of these idiots not only skip the ACE part but the P too.



In their defense, radios and batteries slow you down....


----------



## QC (Aug 16, 2008)

Quills anyone?


----------



## Ravage (Aug 16, 2008)

Can anyone explain to me radio thing Olive Drag was writing about ?


----------



## digrar (Aug 16, 2008)

> Can anyone explain to me radio thing Olive Drag was writing about ?


HF can talk half way around the world, if the sig knows what he's doing, VHF is pretty much limited to the horizon. See where he is going with it now?


----------



## pardus (Aug 16, 2008)

Ravage said:


> Can anyone explain to me radio thing Olive *Drag* was writing about ?



LMAO!!!  He knows you so well OD!  



digrar said:


> HF can talk half way around the world, if the sig knows what he's doing, VHF is pretty much limited to the horizon. See where he is going with it now?



Supder duper high freq is two tin cans with a string.... ooops OPSEC sorry


----------

