Search found 2 matches

by longhorn_92
Mon Oct 12, 2009 7:28 pm
Forum: General Gun, Shooting & Equipment Discussion
Topic: U. S. military weapons fail in battle?
Replies: 43
Views: 4060

Re: U. S. military weapons fail in battle?

surprise_i'm_armed wrote:On page 1 of this thread, TAM had posted a longish piece which contained this:

U.S. special operations forces, with their own acquisition budget and the latitude to buy gear the other military branches can't, already are replacing their M4s with a new rifle.

Does anyone know what rifle this is?

**************************************************

SIA
My guess would be either the H&K 416 or the FN SCAR.... not sure?...
by longhorn_92
Mon Oct 12, 2009 10:22 am
Forum: General Gun, Shooting & Equipment Discussion
Topic: U. S. military weapons fail in battle?
Replies: 43
Views: 4060

Re: U. S. military weapons fail in battle?

The Annoyed Man wrote:
KD5NRH wrote:
The Annoyed Man wrote:The article mentions "white hot" barrels. I assume that if a barrel glows white hot, the properties of the metal are changed, bore diameters are affected one way or the other, etc., etc.
I'm not entirely sure that gunpowder could actually get a barrel white hot. I've done some blacksmithing, and there's a huge range of red/orange/yellow hot temperatures before white. Then there's the fact that orange hot metal within a foot of your face will get very painful very quickly.
but it's not just gun powder involved. There is friction too, between the bullet and the bore. Operating at full auto, that part of the barrel temperature which is due to friction can add up quite a bit.

I recall an episode of Future Weapons in which Mac tests some variant of an M16 platform in which the rifle fires from a closed bolt under semi-auto, and from an open bolt on full-auto. He pulled the gun out of a bucket of water and it fired without failure. He buried it in sand, pulled it out and fired it without failure. And after emptying a 30 round mag on full auto, the receiver was cool to the touch. I don't remember who the manufacturer of the rifle was, but it seemed like a good idea on the surface of it.
Is this what you're talking about?....

" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

or this?

" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

It is the H&K 416.

(From Wikipedia)...

"The HK416 is an assault rifle designed and manufactured by Heckler & Koch. It is an improved version of the M4 carbine with many changes, most notably a new style gas system borrowed from the HK G36. It is available as a complete firearm or as an upper receiver kit that fits on any AR-15 type lower receiver."

"In July 2007, the US Army announced a limited competition between the M4 carbine, FN SCAR, HK416, and the previously-shelved HK XM8. Ten examples of each of the four competitors were involved. Each weapon was fired for 60,000 rounds in an "extreme dust environment." The purpose of the shootoff was for assessing future needs, not to select a replacement for the M4. The XM8 scored the best, with only 127 stoppages in 60,000 total rounds, the FN SCAR Light had 226 stoppages, while the HK416 had 233 stoppages. The M4 carbine scored "significantly worse" than the rest of the field with 882 stoppages."

I believe that they are about to introduce a civilian version (H&K MR556) - not sure when they will introduce it to the public. It does look mighty fine!

What are your opinions of the H&K 416?

Return to “U. S. military weapons fail in battle?”