Armory Sponsor
Posted: 4/14/2008 5:48:00 PM EDT
|
I heard about this rifle called the HK417 its supposed to be accurate, reliable, and it fires the 308! anybody else hear about it |
|
Welcome Jretter to AR15.com, Yes, the HK 417 is a short stroke gas piston operated AR platform chambered for 7.62x51mm or .308 Winchester. Unfortunatly, the HK 417 is not available for US Civilians sale because of an Import Ban currently put in place by US law that prevents firearms deemed "assault rifles" from entering into the USA. The 5.56x45mm (.223 Remington) MR223 is a civilian version of the HK 416 and will soon be available for civilian sale in Germany, BUT as of today I am not aware of any plans to bring those rifles here to the USA, which would require either modification of the design or construction of various components of the rifle here in the USA. We currently have a growing selection of gas piston .308 AR platform rifles available though so that's the good news. I would look into the LWRC and POF .308 rifles as a nice American alternative. Perhaps the most exciting .308 rifle coming to the Civilian market soon is the SCAR H or MK17. |
Ummm, HK is currently progressing with their plans to build and sell both rifles here in the USA. HKPRO has more info on this.. |
If you think the SCAR is too expensive, you're going to think the same about HK stuff. I don't think I've seen a single firearm from them recently that was under $1000. |
|
basically im just saying that the hk will never make it to our shores, yes there is a slim chance the wilcox industries will sell us some once they fill military and department only 416's or 417's. unfortunatly if hk does get a model here, is anybody will to take a bet that it will be the same altered upper version that can not be used with a standard lower so in short, we have somthing that operationally is very close to the original but in hte end is practically useless like hk sl8 and usc(10 round mags) |
I'm guessing the ones you've fired are 20+ years old and belonged to the .mil, correct? If thats the case let me tell you that NO mg is going to fare well with as many rounds as the .mil's have had through them. One a side note I would get a semi-auto M3HB for $7800 long before I would get a M249 |
| You're half correct. I used 20 year old ones in basic but my 1st unit used MK46s weren't even that old and they still jammed. Doing POPS up to twice per belt. As far as all machineguns that have been shot out jamming I disagree. I've had very very few malfunctions on M240Bs. |
|
I wouldn't normally agree with certain members who have responded to this thread, but in the case of the M249, I will have to concour. IMO, its trash...or atleast, there are much better alternatives. Recently, the M249 series had the lowest soldier confidence and the highest failure rate of all weapons used by US forces in the GWOT. Compare this to the M4/M16 which had a higher than 80% soldier confidence. Many problems associated with the M249 can be traced to high round count, older/abused weapons. Other issues are inherent flaws in the design. Both the belt and magazine feed have been the source of numerous problems. Adding the magazine feed adds complexity and excess parts/weight. Not to mention that reliability/functionality is further reduced when the weapon is fed from a 30 round magazine. Testing was done to explore the feasability of feeding M249's from Beta C mags to improve ammo commonality and simplify re-supply. Reliability was abysmal and like earlier experience with STANAG 30 round magazines, the feed device was frequently damaged/destroyed. In addition to being ineffective with the magazine feed, the belt feed mechanism is also a weak point. It has proven to be sensitive and comparitively weak. Ammo boxes/pouches and thier mounting is also an issue with some SAW's. The operating system is also not ideal for the application. Its quite violent, causing increased wear and recoil. It also diminishes controllibility. Accuracy is also below the level of other LSW/SAW type weapons. Speaking of LSW's, the British have begun re-issuing the L86LSW to replace the L108A1 and L110A1 in certain applications. The British have found that the L86A2 makes an excellent "spotters weapon". Being based on the L85A2, which would be a typical weapon for a spotter, the L86A2 isn't much of a leap. The L108A1 has also been used in this role, however its heavier and it lacks any sort of "precision". The L85 series are exceedingly accurate 5.56 infantry weapons, equal to or superior than the M16 series. Issuing the spotter a L86A2 offers the capacity of a 5.56 DMR and a base of fire weapon, especially when equipped with Cmags*which it frequently is*. It offers most of the "support" of a SAW, plus excellent accuracy. Several SAS and British sniper teams have reported favorible results after using the L86A2 in Iraq/Trashcanistan. Sadly, the US doesn't really have an equivalent system. All of the above are reasons that the DoD is exploring the replacement/upgrade of the M249 series. Certainly, a new Mk46 is better than a pre-PIP SAW*which still exist in our arsenal*, however it would seem that the weapon is fundamentally saw. The US, UK, Australia and other nations have all had Minimi issues of one type or another. The USMC is also exploring the possiblity of replacing/supplementing the M249 in thier service, perhaps trying to make good for letting the XM22 slip through thier fingers? Were it not made by FN, I believe the M249 would have turned out like Poison-it wouldn't have survived the 80's. Adopting a Minimi clone was a giant mistake in the first place, as was the insistance upon the SS109*also made by FN* over the XM287AP. IMO, the clear front runner in the SAW trials was the HK23. Based on one of the most proven/reliable MG designs, it was also caliber convertible. The HK23 could be configured to fire 7.62 M43 and NATO during the trials and it no doubt could be easily converted to fire 6.8SPC. As opposed to the Minimi, which has no officially recognized 6.8SPC variant and its 7.62 NATO model is a far cry from the MAG 58/M240. The HK23 was a much better choice and a clear front runner, but some mouth-breather at HP White fiddled with the trigger pack way beyond HK's reccomendations, rebuilt it inccorectly, then deamed the weapon unsafe and disqualified it. The MG3 is one of the most reliable/respected/popular 7.62 NATO GPMG's and the HK11, HK21 and HK23 continue to be used the world over. I still would love to have seen an improved/modified Ameli, which I believe would be a superior SAW/LSW. The HK23 would have carried on the tradition of the BAR, in that it was an excellent automatic rifle and it would have fullfilled the requirements of the SAW program. This was just the beginning of the DoD smiting HK... I would love to see the M249 replaced by the HK MG4 or Ultimax. The IMI Negev would also be a worthy consideration, though not a huge leap beyond the M249. A LSW derivation of the 417 would be an excellent L86A2 counterpart for our sniper teams. A 20 inch fluted/heavy/polygonal barrel with a free floated quad rail, some sort of light/adaptible bipod, adapted G3 90 round drums and an Elcan with the M240 reticle would be a great place to start IMO. Unfortunatly, the DoD has screwed HK out of just about every serious trial they have ever conducted. As good as the 416/417 is, I don't think it has a prayer so long as powerhouse FN makes the SCAR. |
Great post, but I have to disagree with parts of it. The M249 is a great Light Machine Gun. However it is a lousy Automatic Rifle, and our military often tries to employ it like how we would have employed the BAR, and it is lousy in that role. One of the major problems with the M249 is operator error. Many people do not know the correct way to handle a jam or malfunction, and preforming incorrect actions(such as just rack/fire/repeat) over and over will damage the gun. Also, improper cleaning can damage the gun. It is very hard to get a machine gun white glove clean(and it shouldn't be white glove clean) and soldiers/Marines taking short cuts do damage weapons. It doesn't help when some buck private gets handed a SAW knowing almost nothing about it and is expected to employ and maintain it effectively. Hell I had one for about a year before I really got to know its nuisances, how much lube to use in cold weather, the best points to lube, at what rate of fire I could shoot with out ever changing the barrel, etc. Going back to what I said, right now the US military wants a Automatic Rifle. The USMC is looking at the ultramax and the LWRC offering. The M249 falls flat as a automatic rifle due to its weight and awkwardness, and it being less reliable then a close bolt action. The M249 when employed as a light machinegun is excellent, I would recommend using the ones we have in roles such as the upguns in humvee turrets and in static defenses. We need to remember that we can't have our cake and eat it too. As we move towards smaller handier Automatic Rifles like the Ultramax or the LWRC IAR, we need to remember we will be loosing some of the capabilities provided by Light Machine Guns. Someday when we fight the next conventional war, we may need those features again. Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that I love the M249 or thats its the best, but its not the POS many would make it out to be. As long as we have it, we might as well employ it to its full potential instead of trying to shove it in a role its not well suited for. Perhaps in the future it would be good to have a light weight GPMG, and have the infantry rifle be able to provide limited fire support. That might be simpler for logistics and supply then to have dedicated MMG's, LMG's, Automatic Rifles, and Infantry Rifles/Carbines. |
| That's the thing though, in my opinion if the weapon is that picky and the soldier has to know every little thing about it to get it to function properly it doesn't belong in the hands of soldiers. I carried one for quite some time and I never got it to function 100% or even close to it and I consider myself to be somewhat technically proficient. Most of our soldiers aren't gun experts by any means and treat the weapons as the FMs tell them to treat them at best. I guess I can't give the SAW all the blame for this as a lot of it falls squarely on the shoulders of the Army, but if the weapon cannot be employed effectively and reliably in the hands of the average soldier with standard weapons training I believe we need something different. |
Sounds kinda like the arguments I hear for the US adopting the AK. Well if our soldiers can't clean the M4 enough, perhaps we just need to give them a different weapon. No its not the weapons fault. I don't think its the individuals fault, I think its the system not properly teaching and employing the Machine Gun. The US does not use the MG to its full potential. The Nazis, the North Vietnamese Army for example employed the MGs better then we do. We often just see them as a rifle that fires more rounds, and try to employ them as such. It's not your fault that you were "somewhat technically proficient", its your leaders faults for not making you COMPLETELY proficient with the SAW. Somewhere I have about 20 pages photocopied from one of my former squad leader of all the things he learned about using and maintaining the SAW. The manufacture making the TM doesn't have to carry the gun to war, and the officers and SNCOs who wrote the FM arn't either. Our military is doing a great job, but that doesn't mean there isnt room for improvement. |
|
Oh yeah, there is always room for improvement. That's never going to change and is a huge reason why we've seen such a jump at least I feel in firearms design in the last ten years. The HK417 to me is already behind the curve though. If HK had been able to release for sale their rifles when they first came out I feel they would have made a killing on the market, but now they're just one of many. Plus, the HK 417 is nowhere near as modular as other newer rifles coming out. I'm not saying that the rifle will not be a welcome addition to the market since we know there is a HUGE following with HK that will love this rifle, but it's not going to be the best rifle available whereas a few years ago I think it would have had a strong argument in favor of saying that. Toolless, modular, and polymer is the future. The SCAR, ACR, XCR, and so forth are the stop-gap rifles until some new caliber or caseless ammo comes out. |
I am referring to my general knowledge and understanding of mechanical systems, not the SAW. The SAW does have several legitimate downfalls and is an intricate and relatively sensitive weapon. Your NCO could make a list that was 1000 pages long about what he's learned about the SAW and that may make you better at using and maintaining the SAW, but that won't make the SAW a better weapon. The M4 is a pretty decent weapon. The DI system is a bit antiquated and definitely dirty but it is a fine weapon overall. The SAW is vastly inferior to many other light machine guns that we should/could be using. |
|
You shouldn't have to have a PHD to maintain a mlitary weapon. I would never knock the brave men/women that fight for our country, but not every sing one of them is tantamount to a FN engineer. Not everyone is an ARFCOM'er, obsessed or interested in weapons maitinance. Also consider the fact that if you are cleaning your SAW in Iraq, you were probably using it-in combat operations. You would probably be stressed/excited, not to mention you are worrying about Jody, rocket/mortar attacks, eating not-great food and wearing a uniform poorly laundered by KBR. This is precisely why military weapons need to be easy to maintain, reliable and durable. The FN Minimi is deficient in several of these areas. I would agree that the Minimi can do things an "automatic rifle" cannot, however the things that a light automatic rifle cant do, are things you should probably be using a GPMG for. For dismounted units, an automatic rifle can do everything the SAW could do. For a weapon mounted on a tripod or HMMWV, would you really prefer an M249 over a M60 or M240? There are/were several militaries that adopted/bypassed the SAW or Minimi at the same time or after we were balls deep in it. LWRC's automatic rifle that fires from both open/closed bolt positions could be an excellent automatic rifle for our troops. Feed by Cmags, it could easily/readily use the same ammo/feed devices as the rest of the squad. You can argue the merits of the platform, but this is something the FALO/MG36/LSW all do. Nazis didn't seem to have trouble haulding around a bunch of saddle drums, though they were all pumped up/high on anit-semitism... Hell, even a derivation of the Colt HBAR would be okay, though DI operation is the worst choice for a support weapon. The gas tube would be gone on your second Cmag, or sooner. I guess I don't like to see zip-ties holding stocks/feed chutes/top covers or ammo pouches on our soldiers weapons. The high failure rate and low confidence should be addressed forthwith. Even older generations realized the benefits of automatic rifles, like the BAR, Johnson or Bren. IMO, a light automatic rifle would be a better choice than the M249 most of the time... |
|
Sorry to change the subject but, IMHO I think it will be a long time before the Army makes any changes to new weapons. If anything maybe a new sidearm. The HK 417 looks to be a very bad ass weapon. I would love to own one,but I'm just not sold on the magazines just yet, not that I would never be lucky to get my hands on the 20 rounders. |
I agree thats why they train at least 1 soldier in each squad on how to use the SAW and how to un-jam them. |
Armory Sponsor