I hate to throw fuel on the fire... but here we go. If this is referring to the test that the Army did to find a new gun of choice there is a lot of speculation surrounding the findings. First of all the M4's that they used were taken from the local army supply (not new) and a startling # of the failures were from 1 particular gun (something like 40% of the 882 failures were form one gun). Second, the other manufacturers were notified of the upcoming test and could hand pick the guns that they sent to be evaluated. Third, one of the manufacturers was allowed to re-oil (I believe the FN Scar ). There was a good writeup about the testing in a issue of special weapons for military and police that showed the results and ended with...well this test isn't all that accurate due to these circumstances.Interesting, it shows up on my comp every time I open this thread. Ill re-host it.
![]()
I read that article and was appalled at the testing procedure. If you are going to test something and publish the results, then the playing field needs to be level.I hate to throw fuel on the fire... but here we go. If this is referring to the test that the Army did to find a new gun of choice there is a lot of speculation surrounding the findings. First of all the M4's that they used were taken from the local army supply (not new) and a startling # of the failures were from 1 particular gun (something like 40% of the 882 failures were form one gun). Second, the other manufacturers were notified of the upcoming test and could hand pick the guns that they sent to be evaluated. Third, one of the manufacturers was allowed to re-oil (I believe the FN Scar ). There was a good writeup about the testing in a issue of special weapons for military and police that showed the results and ended with...well this test isn't all that accurate due to these circumstances.
Just my 2 cents. I'm not bashing one or the other just stating what I have read on the subject.
nateroach
I don't doubt your claims for a second. The M4 when kept properly oiled is pretty reliable, even when dirty.I hate to throw fuel on the fire... but here we go. If this is referring to the test that the Army did to find a new gun of choice there is a lot of speculation surrounding the findings. First of all the M4's that they used were taken from the local army supply (not new) and a startling # of the failures were from 1 particular gun (something like 40% of the 882 failures were form one gun). Second, the other manufacturers were notified of the upcoming test and could hand pick the guns that they sent to be evaluated. Third, one of the manufacturers was allowed to re-oil (I believe the FN Scar ). There was a good writeup about the testing in a issue of special weapons for military and police that showed the results and ended with...well this test isn't all that accurate due to these circumstances.
Just my 2 cents. I'm not bashing one or the other just stating what I have read on the subject.
nateroach
Sounds like the typical arrogant HK.I have a buddy who's Department ordered a bunch of HK416's. He said they're junk. I have no reason to doubt his claim and he has no reason to lie to me about it.
He also told me they can't get H&K to give a crap about servicing them either.
I'm not talking about a small 1 or 2 gun order. This order was in excess of 200 guns if memory serves me right.
Couldn't get them all running right all at the same time. He said there were several in the lot that constantly had all sorts of various problems from feeding to cycling to ejecting problems, etc.I wholeheartedly believe the H&K Customer Service problems (even LE service sucks)...been that way for decades now with H&K and is consistently one of the company's biggest flaws!!!
As for the "problems" with the 416's...now that is a different story altogether. I haven't seen any reports of any function/reliability problems with the 416s whatsoever. Did he say "why" he thought they were "junk"???