HK416: Worth it or just a glorified AR?

[Tucker 1371]

The bulk of firepower at the Platoon level comes from the M240 machine guns. Army Platoons normally get two, and USMC Platoons three. The point of Squad Automatic Weapons is to give the Squad Leader enough assets to deal with a problem long enough to give the Platoon Leader (Army) or Platoon Commander (USMC) the time to maneuver the Platoon into position to deal with the problem. If you can't kill it with an M27 the odds of killing it with an M249 are also pretty darn low.

Yeah, you know how many platoon sized patrols we ran on a daily basis in Afghanistan? Zero. 99.9% of our day to day activity was squad level. That leaves us with ONE true support fire weapon, the 240. And humping the amount of ammo required to last a sustained engagement for a 240 isn't fun, we usually spread loaded a couple hundred rounds for both the 240 and the SAW throughout the Squad. I guess if I deploy again we will be carrying a lot more 7.62 linked. Considering that we carried about half the ammo for the 240 vs the SAW I'm not seeing where your "bulk of firepower" claim is based.

I'm sure the IAR is nice because it's 10lbs lighter than the SAW. But I wouldn't trust it to provide any kind of sustained fire. If you ask me the Army is going in a better direction with their LSAT program. The object of these weapons isn't necessarily to kill, if that happens great, but their real purpose is to gain fire superiority so that another fire team can maneuver, close with, and destroy the enemy. I'm sure the IAR can kill individual targets with much more ease than the SAW, it's a DMR that happens to be full auto. But I have serious doubts about its ability to put a group of enemies in cover and keep them there.
__________________

 

[Tucker 1371]

Duplicate post. Delete

 

[Jimro]

Yeah, you know how many platoon sized patrols we ran on a daily basis in Afghanistan? Zero. 99.9% of our day to day activity was squad level. That leaves us with ONE true support fire weapon, the 240. And humping the amount of ammo required to last a sustained engagement for a 240 isn't fun, we usually spread loaded a couple hundred rounds for both the 240 and the SAW throughout the Squad. I guess if I deploy again we will be carrying a lot more 7.62 linked. Considering that we carried about half the ammo for the 240 vs the SAW I'm not seeing where your "bulk of firepower" claim is based.

I'm sure the IAR is nice because it's 10lbs lighter than the SAW. But I wouldn't trust it to provide any kind of sustained fire. If you ask me the Army is going in a better direction with their LSAT program. The object of these weapons isn't necessarily to kill, if that happens great, but their real purpose is to gain fire superiority so that another fire team can maneuver, close with, and destroy the enemy. I'm sure the IAR can kill individual targets with much more ease than the SAW, it's a DMR that happens to be full auto. But I have serious doubts about its ability to put a group of enemies in cover and keep them there.

Squad level operations for the USMC are a bit different than the Army. The USMC squad is two fire teams and the machine gun team, an Army squad is two fire teams. So at the squad level in the USMC you can set up a fire team with the machine gun team to be the "fire" element while the other fire team is the "maneuver" element. Swapping IAR for M249 makes more sense if you want more ammo for the M240 and less weight in the fire teams. Task organize for the mission makes quite a bit of sense.

Suppressive fire is determined by the effect on the target not the volume of fire. A sniper with a bolt action rifle can, and has, suppressed a group of enemy. It's much easier with a machine gun to suppress, but it can be done with other weapons.

The reason we all associate "sustained fire" with "suppression" is that all of our force on force training is with blanks and MILES. This leads to a belief that if you aren't firing you aren't suppressing, which isn't the case with actual bullets.

Jimro

 

[Tucker 1371]

Jimro you make a good point. However, we already had a DM capability with the Mk12, which was also full auto. I know on most of the patrols I swept for we had an M240, M249, and Mk12. I really don't know how the adoption of the IAR as affected the use/issuance of the Mk12, so I can't really comment any further on that. Honestly all of this is likely neither here nor there, during my time in the sandbox the real fight stoppers weren't machine guns or rifles, they were the Mk32 40mm MGL and on one occasion a LAW.

Still, if I have to move in combat, I prefer it to be behind a wall of lead. That's just me, YMMV.

As for the Hk416/MR556, I really think "because the SEALs use it" is a terrible reasoning for buying a rifle. The SEALs also are issued the Mk23, a pistol dang near the size of a Desert Eagle, from what I understand most of them leave that boat anchor in the armory and carry 9mm Glocks. JSOC has an insane budget and can spend money on things that no one really needs.

 

[Jimro]

Tucker1371,

The Mk12 was full auto because it is easier to build a full auto match grade trigger than one with three round burst (has to do with the number of sear interfaces internal to the mechanism). It's the same reason the M4A1 is going back to the full auto trigger, because in semi-auto mode the shooter only has to deal with one trigger pull, not three. It seems counter intuitive to go full auto to get better semi-auto accuracy, but it is the truth.

The IAR may end up being a DM rifle at some point, as we've used M4s, Mk12s, Mk20s, M14s (wood stock), M14 EBRs, M110s, M16A2, and M16A4s, all for the DM role. Even today though the biggest limitation to DM effectiveness isn't the rifle, it's the shooter. Get a competent DM and the Snipers will pull him up and out of your formation and you have to start all over again (that's my experience anyway).

In Afghanistan a Mk19 on a pintle mount is about the best fight stopper that Light Infantry can have (as long as they have a mounted fire support platform). It has the range to return fire from insurgents with a DshKa and the explosive effects on target to do what needs to be done. Of course collateral damage concerns means more folks are rocking M2s and 240s than Mk19s. I have never experienced "overkill" in combat....

Jimro

 

[Tucker 1371]

Agreed. Hard to argue with full auto 40mm with a 1900m effective range. Unfortunately I spent my whole deployment dismounted so I've never fired one in combat.

I'm sure the MR556/HK416 is a great rifle. I'm not saying it is a bad rifle, I just think there are other rifles that can go round for round with it for less money.

I hope the IAR works out well for us. I'm skeptical, but that's just my opinion. I'm a believer in the SAW because it's what I know.

 

[Jimro]

Tucker1371,

I don't disagree with you. One of my 11C (mortarman) NCOs was adamant about borrowing a SAW for dismounted patrolling. Even if it wasn't a 240B it was a helluva lot more effective for direct fire than a mortar section had on MTOE. At that time I was in a Stryker company (PL, then XO) and it was easy to push SAWs around because every platoon had two M2s and two Mk19s mounted (except the mortars and MGS sections, which had 240s mounted). I tried to get more M2s for the mortars and MGS guys, even if they weren't on a remote weapons station a swing arm mount would have given them a lot better firepower for everything that wasn't an MGS with the 105mm cannon.

It's sad that it was seven years ago now I deployed with that unit (Iraq). Time flies.

Jimro

 

[Tucker 1371]

Agreed, can't believe it's been almost 5 for me, feels like I just got back.

 

[Brit]

When I see the size, and weight of some pistons (AK47 comes to mind)
The little 3" piston in my 35-year-old AUG, that takes forever to get dirty?
That's a handy little rifle, compared to a HK416.

And the polymer waffle magazines of the Steyr AUG, the best magazine's to load, and work, of any I have ever used. Thirty and 42 round versions.

One point, using the 42 round magazine, as a stand? Never had a malfunction.

 

[kcub]

Ditto on the AUG. Mine is full auto and I've never cleaned it. Someday I might spring for a heavy barrel with bipod.

 

[orsogato]

I think the HK-416 is obviously state of the art and its use by professionals attests to its quality, durability etc.

However, for us mere civilians that have to pay out-of-pocket, I think you are definitely hitting a law of diminishing returns.

I agree with some other posters if you want a quality piston operated gun, give the LWRC a hard look, before you spend the extra 1400 federal reserve notes on the HK.

 

[Cyanide971]

Squad level operations for the USMC are a bit different than the Army. The USMC squad is two fire teams and the machine gun team, an Army squad is two fire teams.

Not intending to derail the original subject or start an argument, but have a question. Has the Corps changed the infantry squad structure in the last couple of decades?

When I was a grunt from 89 - 93, our platoons comprised of three squads made up of three fire teams each, before adding in weapons platoon attachments with M60E2's, SMAW's, and the 60mm tube strokers....

 

[Tucker 1371]

When I deployed with 1/6 in 2011 they had two fire teams per squad, one had the 240, the other the SAW, two M203s with the TLs, a corpsman, and me (the engineer). Either myself or one of the 0351s would carry the SMAW. I never really saw a mortar in country, have no idea where those guys were or what they were doing.

My engineer platoon is pretty much the same except we only have one M203 per squad and only one squad in the platoon has a 240, each squad has a SAW though.

I haven't seen a full strength squad my entire 6 years in the Corps, always short one fire team.

 

[Jimro]

Not intending to derail the original subject or start an argument, but have a question. Has the Corps changed the infantry squad structure in the last couple of decades?

When I was a grunt from 89 - 93, our platoons comprised of three squads made up of three fire teams each, before adding in weapons platoon attachments with M60E2's, SMAW's, and the 60mm tube strokers....

You are correct that on paper it is three fire teams. The reality, at least as I remember it, the "Heavy Weapons Infantrymen" from the Weapons Platoon are task organized for mortars and the rifle platoons checked out the 240s, one per squad. At least that is how it has always been done with the Marines I've worked with (which is way less than someone who has been a Marine in terms of experience).

The last time I worked with Marine Infantry Officers, they stated for a fact that pushing the mortars to the Platoons was just how things were done, but this was five? seven? years into the "War on Terror" so that may have colored their experience just a tad.

Jimro

 

[Mystro]

I would go LWRC if price is no object. I like the 416 but like the LWRC better. Its reputation is also well respected in the professional world.