Survivalist Forum banner

Which rifle is better a Colt M4 or an HK 416?

78K views 47 replies 15 participants last post by  justin22885 
#1 ·
Colt M4 vs. HK 416, which is better and why?

Did Colt lose it contract to the Military? Apparently soldiers were complaining about the M4's jamming problem especially when exposed to sand or powder.
 
#2 ·
Both are fine rifles, but you are paying for a name. If you want great quality without having to pay for a name, then look no further than BCM.

As far as the guns jamming, if you run them wet they will run just fine.
 
#3 ·
The only real advantage the HK has over the Colt is in use for waterborne operations.

Other than that the M4 will run just fine as long as the operator does his part and keep it clean and lubed.
 
#4 ·
I had a marine friend, who was in falujah, tell me once that "the m-16 wouldn't jam as long as you; cleaned it before a firefight, after the firefight, and if you had 30 minutes to spare during the firefight you should clean it then too. For the op it shouldn't matter, but then he isn't in combat. :cool:

source
Like its predecessor the M16, the M4 also has a reputation as an excellent weapon – if you can maintain it. Failure to maintain the weapon meticulously can lead to jams, especially in sandy or dusty environments. Kalashnikovs may not have a reputation for accuracy, or lightness – but they do have a well-earned reputation for being able to take amazing amounts of abuse, without maintenance, and still fire reliably. The Israeli “Galil” applied these lessons in 5.56mm caliber, and earned a similar reputation. Colt’s M16 and M4 have never done so.
 
#5 ·
I have an AR15, and I don't understand why some people think it is so hard to maintain one.
Run the bolt wet, high temp wheel bearing grease is about the best you can use. If you start getting to a high round count, put a few drops in the vent hold on the bolt carrier.
It really is a very simple weapon.
 
#6 ·
I have an AR15, and I don't understand why some people think it is so hard to maintain one.
Run the bolt wet, high temp wheel bearing grease is about the best you can use. If you start getting to a high round count, put a few drops in the vent hold on the bolt carrier.
It really is a very simple weapon.
........that sometimes jams in combat. We know.


source

Gannett’s Army Times magazine also obtained a copy of Project Manager Soldier’s Weapons Assessment Team’s July 31, 2003, report:

“The executive summary said that M16s and M4s “functioned reliably” in the combat zone as long as “soldiers conducted daily operator maintenance and applied a light coat of lubricant.”
Soldiers had their own comments, however, which were also included in the report and relayed in the magazine article. 3rd ID soldier:

“I know it fires very well and accurate [when] clean. But sometimes it needs to fire dirty well too.”
 
#12 ·
M4/AR15's are easy to maintain, and not very finicky. The piston is a "solution" to a problem noone really had, and it brings a grab-bag of complications with it.

...........except it jams less often.

source
In response, H&K replaced Colt’s “gas-tube” system with a short-stroke piston system that eliminates carbon blow-back into the chamber, and also reduces the heat problem created by the super-hot gases used to cycle the M4. Other changes were made to the magazine, barrel, etc. The final product was an M4 with a new upper receiver and magazine, plus H&K’s 4-rail system of standard “Picatinny Rails” on the top, bottom, and both sides for easy addition of anything a Special Operator might require.

In exhaustive tests with the help of Delta Force, the upgraded weapon was subjected to mud and dust without maintenance, and fired day after day. Despite this treatment, the rifle showed problems in only 1 of 15,000 rounds – fully 3 times the reliability shown by the M4 in US Army studies. The H&K 416 was declared ready in 2004.
 
#10 ·
one of the things I was shocked to notice when switching from Marines to Army was how much more frequent the Army had jams with M16A1's.

Marines kept their weapons cleaner.

It boils down to discipline and the Marine warrior culture.
 
#17 ·
Lazy, or just really, really, busy? :confused:

source
Small Arms Jammed at Wanat
An Army report on the Wanat battle shows that the small arms used in the battle showed significant levels of failure, malfunctioning and jamming “at high cyclic rates of fire.” The weapons include the M4 and SAW.

According to a draft version of the report, the most damning conclusions are compiled in its recommendations section. It documents M4s fouling, and one instance where an M4 fouled and the Soldier picked up a SAW and that was jammed up as well.

In one instance, Staff Sgt. Erich Phillips had multiple M4 failures:


Staff Sergeant Phillips poured out fire, as recalled by another Engineer Specialist loading for him, “ [SSG Phillips] went through three rifles using them until they jammed.”

SSG Phillips recalled: “My M4 quit firing and would no longer charge when I tried to correct the malfunction. I grabbed the Engineers SAW and tried to fire. It would not fire, so I lifted the feed tray tried clearing it out and tried to fire again. It would not.”
 
#24 ·
The only stoppage I ever encountered in combat was running out of ammo once.

The M4 like the M16's only need a little common sense and cleaning to run reliably.......... either that or I was extremely lucky for the 4 years of my life I spent in hostile areas.
 
#25 ·
My former roommate was lucky, too, then, I guess. He says the same thing you do.

If the M4 were such a pile of junk, all of the former enlisted out there who have them are just stupid? No, I refuse to believe that. There are too many former enlisted who pay their own money to have one after they get out for it to be as bad as people make it out to be.
 
#33 ·
I am going to run a suppressor (if my Form 4 ever goes through...) and think DI is cleaner if it's regulated for a suppressed gun. It's definitely quieter.

The only REAL merit I can see to a piston is SSBRs.

In a fight where it's 15 vs 400, I can promise you the weapon is the last thing that is to blame for that failure.

You have made other points that I think are also valid, but who is to say the HK416 would be better? The only data we have on it comes from a lab, and you yourself are now saying that lab data is "clinical" in nature and not representative of the real world (I agree, it cannot be completely correlated).
 
#34 · (Edited)
I feel that those that have a complaint with the reliabliity of the AR are those that don't own one, don't know how to clean/lube one, or who are using a low quality AR and or ammo. I attended a 3 day Magpul Dynamitics course in 2010 in southern Colorado. It was hot and windy in a fine talcome powder sand/grit (we quite a bit of time on the gound). Started with a clean, properly lubed, AR. I shot for three days, only lubing the bolt through the ejection port door midday on day two and the morning of day three (EWL Slip 2000 as the lube). Round count was just over 1,700 rounds (M193 and M885). Not a single malfunction.

BCM midlength carbine upper with BCM bolt
LMT Defender 2000 lower


-To the OP H&K vs M4: If you got the money and like H&Ks then go for it. for the same amount of money, I would rather have two M4s available for my family/friend/neighbor to use or one rifle with money left over for ammo and training. YMMV
 
#36 ·
It's nice you like your ar. However, somehow I don't believe three days in windy colorado firing semi-automatic is the same as a full auto firefight in vietnam, iraq, or afghanistan.

I remember the jessica lynch story. I didn't pay as much attention to the hystrionics as many others did. Of course she was pretty and, apparently raped. What got my attention was the fact her m16 jammed. In point of fact just about everybody's m16 jammed that day. Of course the firefight occured during the middle of a reported sandstorm. It was iraq after all but why didn't the iraqi aks jam too?

This report blames the jams on bad lubricant. I remember when it was the lack of chrome lined chambers and no cleaning, yes that again, in vietnam. In iraq it was the lubricant, lack of cleaning, and sand. In afghanistan it is lack of cleaning and........sand, and according to one on this forum, how it's used. My favorite "it works for me" it must work for everyone else whatever all those other guys and dod studies say. Good grief.

source
Buried deep within the latest news report on the deadly ambush of the 507th Transportation Maintenance Co. in Iraq on March 23, 2003, was a chilling nugget of information. It now appears that the soldiers who were killed or taken prisoner in that now-infamous firefight shared a common misfortune.



Their rifles had all jammed.



Disavowing an earlier news report that had alleged Pvt. Jessica Lynch had fired multiple clips of ammunition at the attacking Iraqis before she was injured and taken prisoner, The Washington Post has now published a more detailed account. The newspaper described how she was seriously injured when the Humvee vehicle in which she was riding crashed at high speed into an overturned Army tractor-trailer. Then, the team of three Post reporters noted:



"Lynch tried to fire her weapon, but it jammed, according to military officials familiar with the Army investigation. She did not kill any Iraqis. She was neither shot nor stabbed, they said."



Why is this important today? The answer is in the form of another question. Why did the rifle jam?



As the Pentagon proceeds with its official "after action reports" and "lessons learned" effort from Operation Iraqi Freedom, troubling information has begun to emerge from numerous sources that jammed weapons were a serious problem in Iraq. Worse, it appears that this happened because many American troops were equipped with a lubricant to clean their rifles and sidearms that was ineffective in the harsh desert environment.



It wasn’t just Pvt. Lynch in the 507th Maintenance Co. who fell victim to a jammed weapon. An earlier report in The Washington Post on Apr. 14, 2003, contained the first detailed accounts of the ambush from the just-rescued POWs:



"The bullets and explosions came from all sides. Some of the vehicles flipped over. Other drivers hit the gas hoping to outrun the danger, but ran into even heavier fire. In the swirling dust, soldiers’ rifles jammed. Pfc. Patrick Miller, 23, from suburban Wichita, began shoving rounds into his rifle one at a time, firing single shots at enemies swarming all around. " Finally, it fell to Sgt. James Riley, a 31-year-old bachelor from Pennsauken, N.J., and the senior soldier present, to surrender. ‘We were like Custer,’ he recalled today, still sounding shocked. ‘We were surrounded. We had no working weapons. We couldn’t even make a bayonet charge " we would have been mowed down (italics added).’ "



The probable cause of this widespread weapons failure has been blamed on a government-issued lubricant known as "CLP" that has been provided to many " but not all " U.S. Army soldiers. A number of Army veterans and contractors have denounced CLP as totally ineffective in preventing sand and dust buildup in weapons in Iraq.



"The CLP and Breakfree brand oil the military purchases is worthless," said Aaron Johnson, a 10-year veteran of the Army and Army Reserve, and author of a DefenseWatch guest column on the Army M9 sidearm ( "How to Save the M9 Beretta," June 16, 2003). "I'm sure large amounts are acquired [by the Army] at relatively low cost, but that’s why it should be done away with. That oil is too rich, and has little effectiveness at keeping weapons clean."



"The troops will tell you, CLP attracts dirt and grit." Johnson continued. "It is also so thick it can reduce recoil speed, resulting in stoppages. It thickens in the cold, and when in hot weather areas it is usually attracting dust and sand."



In an e-mail forwarded to DefenseWatch, retired Lt. Col. Robert Kovacic, who works for a defense contractor in Kuwait that trains U.S. military units, echoed Johnson’s remarks. "I can say with complete assuredness, from many, many observations [of training exercises], that CLP does not work. I did not use it " at Fort Polk (cause it did not prevent rust, I don’t care what the government says), and it sure as hell does not work here."
 
#37 ·
DHS tested the HK416 against several other DI and piston driven uppers in the most extensive rifle test conducted in the US, in 2005/2006. The test consisted of a basic endurance test of 10,000 rds in slow semi auto fire. It was followed by the battery of dirt, cold, moisture tests and others that have been the standard battery of testing for many years. No parts were allowed to be replaced during the entire testing. Every malfunction was documented by round and nature of the stopage. The shooters name, ammo lot number and other important information about the details were documented.

During the test, the HK reps were caught trying to replace parts and were subsequently banned from handling their test samples. None of the piston guns survived the basic endurance test. The HK guns suffered catastrophic failures due to the excessive wear inside the receiver. Both rifles suffered an out of battery discharge due to excessive wear around the locking lugs and excessive wear in the rear of the receiver due to carrier tilt.

The HK duns did due better during SOME of the environmental testing, but the Colt 6920 still did better over all. DHS rejected all of the piston driven systems based on the score of these tests, the Colt 6920 is still the standard for over all performance. To date, DHS is still using the DI system with no plans to change over until another weapon system surpasses the 6920 across the board for overall score.

Are their Tier 1 units using the 416? Yes, there are. But, in speaking with Armorers in those units and reviewing the Armorers courses for these units from Crane NSWC, the maintenance schedule is much higher than that of the M4. Parts are replaced at much higher levels than that of the M4. Internal wear is also much greater for same number of rounds fired. Given the significantly higher cost of the initial unit and replacement parts, the M4 is a much more cost effective system for the Military. The M4 served the SOF community with minimal problems for decades. Granted, their level of training is significantly better than those of conventional units, but lack of proper training by individual commands for environmental factors or operational tempo does not mean that the DI system is a bad or dangerous system. I took more than 500 M4's to AFG as the CJSOTF and FOB 191 Armorer. FOB 191 saw extensive combat during their deployment, none of the issues experienced by conventional units were of issue during that deployment, or subsequent deployments to the Philippines in 2005, AFG 2007, HOA in 2008/2009, or Iraq in 2009/2010. The water tests are a red herring, who here does OTB operations? SEAL's do, maybe that is why they now use the 416. Our MAROPS Teams, USMC Recon and MARSOC units have reported no issues with this to Crane (Crane is the supply and parts distributors for all SOF units, and ultimately the clearing house for SOF weapon systems). Perhaps it has more to do with training based on unit specific missions and training than anything else. Maybe it also has something to do with Tier 1 units having a budget that is greater than a unit many times their size, and their ability to use and maintain these systems.

Comparing the current system to the ones use in VN is also a red herring. The powder used in the ammo is different, the system has undergone updates and modification to eliminate these issues. This is often the call of those who are not really familiar with the issues experience during the VN war, and the underlying causes of those issues that had little to nothing to do with the system itself. The government is notorious for asking for a system to a certain spec only to change the periffial components (such as ammo or accessories) based on new needs of the military. An example is the short barrels on the M4, then the MK-18. Sure there were cycling problems. They came up with a dozen different solutions for the problem when in the end it dawned on someone that simply opening up the gas port solved the majority of the issues. The addition of the rubber o-ring and new ejector spring solved the rest of the issues caused by the increased gas pressure and shortened lock time in the carbine length systems.

I would simply submit that the M4 is an excellent system if the Command provides proper training for their forces and the individual soldier preforms the proper user level maintenance. Not only does my personal experience as a SOF Armorer bear this out, but so does the most extensive and most heavily documented rifle test in US history. For a civilian, and in fact for LEO's and their mission, the Colt 6920 and it's civilian counterparts is more rifle than anyone will need.
 
#39 ·
DHS tested the HK416 against several other DI and piston driven uppers in the most extensive rifle test conducted in the US, in 2005/2006. The test consisted of a basic endurance test of 10,000 rds in slow semi auto fire. It was followed by the battery of dirt, cold, moisture tests and others that have been the standard battery of testing for many years. No parts were allowed to be replaced during the entire testing. Every malfunction was documented by round and nature of the stopage. The shooters name, ammo lot number and other important information about the details were documented.

During the test, the HK reps were caught trying to replace parts and were subsequently banned from handling their test samples. None of the piston guns survived the basic endurance test. The HK guns suffered catastrophic failures due to the excessive wear inside the receiver. Both rifles suffered an out of battery discharge due to excessive wear around the locking lugs and excessive wear in the rear of the receiver due to carrier tilt.

The HK duns did due better during SOME of the environmental testing, but the Colt 6920 still did better over all. DHS rejected all of the piston driven systems based on the score of these tests, the Colt 6920 is still the standard for over all performance. To date, DHS is still using the DI system with no plans to change over until another weapon system surpasses the 6920 across the board for overall score.

Are their Teir 1 units using the 416? Yes, there are. But, in speaking with Armorers in those units and reviewing the Armorers courses for these units from Crane NSWC, the maintenance schedule is much higher than that of the M4. Parts are replaced at much higher levels than that of the M4. Internal wear is also much greater for same number of rounds fired. Given the significantly higher cost of the initial unit and replacement parts, the M4 is a much more cost effective system for the Military. The M4 served the SOF community with minimal problems for decades. Granted, their level of training is significantly better than those of conventional units, but lack of proper training by individual commands for environmental factors or operational tempo does not mean that the DI system is a bad or dangerous system. I took more than 500 M4's to AFG as the CJSOTF and FOB 191 Armorer. FOB 191 saw extensive combat during their deployment, none of the issues experienced by conventional units were of issue during that deployment, or subsequent deployments to the Philippines in 2005, AFG 2007, HOA in 2008/2009, or Iraq in 2009/2010.

I would simply submit that the M4 is an excellent system if the Command provides proper training for their forces and the individual soldier preforms the proper user level maintenance. Not only does my personal experience as a SOF Armorer bear this out, but so does the most extensive and most heavily documented rifle test in US history.
This is good to know. BTW, just exactly what caused the jammings in iraq and afghanistan? Just why didn't the sandstorm that reportedly disabled so many m16s in jessica lynch's column not apparently disable the aks used by the iraqis? Did the wanat battle failures occur because of improper maintenance or because they were being used as "sub-machine" guns as has been suggested here? Also, would you please provide a link to the study you refered to? I would like to read that.
 
#43 ·
#44 ·
I guess this video answers my question. It was prepared by HK. The Colt M4 exploded doing testing!
HK (Heckler & Koch) versus Colt - YouTube


Great article that discusses problems US soldiers have had with the Colt M4 in Iraq
http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/the-usas-m4-carbine-controversy-03289/

This video goes back to my original post, the HK is better suited to waterborne ops where the shooter may have to exit the water and immediately engage a target or defend themselves.

But those of us that water was part of our operating environment were trained to clear the barrel and gas system upon breaching the surface, it's not a complicated procedure at all and doesn't take a long time. Pull the charging handle back slightly and give the weapon a shake.

Of course doing it the way HK shows in their tests will blow a conventional DI weapon up, but that has been common knowledge since the 60's.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Sped Man
#46 ·
I joined the Marine Corps in 1982 early on we were still issued the m16a1 then came the a2 and so on and so forth, I'm not gonna say i never suffered a failure but they were few and far between, the gas piston idea isn't a new idea, in 1968 i believe rhino systems designed a gas piston system for the army to test which they did the test showed that the gas piston system did not perform any more reliably than the direct impingment when the rifles were maintained as they are supposed to be, now you may argue what if you don't have time, that is a very unlikely event. We had some failures due too overheating which couldn't be avoided at times but if you take care of your weapon as if your life depends on it then barring a parts breakage failures are rare, anybody that tries to sell you on a weapon that doesn't require lube and cleaning you best beware.
 
#48 ·
AR-15s are far more reliable than most its alternatives that have come and gone over the years, much more than the M1A, the FAL, and many of the tried and failed 556 rifles like the L85, FNC and others.. the downside is its a fairly lightweight carrier group compared to other options and the travel distance of the bolt doesnt leave much room for error.. running it wet just attracts dust, creates glue and friction and causes more problems than running it properly maintained and non of these are addressed by a piston that for the most part does jack **** but add weight and cost

the AK if you get debris inside the chamber or in front of the bolt will still jam, they are not invincible and running them dry is the dumbest **** ive ever heard as well.. the AKs reliability is not from its piston, its from the fact that the german engineers working on it designed the carrier to be fairly heavy (over a pound) it has a length of travel compared to a 308 rifle so there is a large margin of error, and it employs active pre-engagement so the bolt cannot even attempt to turn out of battery to cause friction from the lug rubbing against the receiver. not to mention there are many spaces for dirt inside to go and it was designed specifically to not have a bolt hold open because a rifle that locks open in a dust storm or gets dropped while reloading is going to have problems

companies selling piston ARs of course will claim piston ARs are going to be AK reliable when they touch on absolutely none of what makes an AK reliable.. like the ARAK-21 upper that failed to do this but still made that promise.. i remember getting banned from some forum because i called out faxon firearms (a member) for their fraudulent claims that later, once these POS uppers hit the market only proved me right.. i was trying rather hard to save people from being scammed, i hope i succeeded at least once

the key to a reliable AR is to make sure first of all the rifle is properly tuned, understand things like dwell time, gas pressure vs gas system length, weight of the carrier, buffer weight, recoil spring.. problems exist when people who fail to understand these things start changing parts and barrels without much idea of what theyre doing.. and run them PROPERLY lubed with a good lube that isnt going to dry out or burn off..

the only real advantage to the AK is that large margin of error takes much of the guess work out of tuning it and when introduced with something thats going to slow down bolt speed like mud behind the carrier, it has some energy and momentum to spare

bottom line is, know your weapon and quit chasing that unicorn that is the magical new product that will make your rifles 100% reliable, such a thing doesnt exist for any weapon
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top