COLT vs H&K

[essohbe]

Well, I am looking to purchase an AR-15 for my next rifle. I really like what Colt has done but have better (yet probably misplaced) expectations for the civiliian version of the HK (MR556) coming out in "late 2009" (so says their website).

With the HK being better engineered to the Colt design, I'm not going to be jumping out of swamps of rubbing the gun into the sand so that pretty much eliminates the need for the better engineering. I don't think the HKs are as modular as the Colts either.

Also, I've never shot an HK so I still need to test it out but maybe someone here already has and if I could get your input it would be appreciated, like maybe how do they handle up against the Colt rifles?

Thanks!

[Hind_MI24]

HK any day.

Colt is to guns what Fender is to guitars . Sacrificed quality because they can ride on their name.

[alberich]

I'd go for that HK without a second thought, it's not only about quality, but the HK 416 design is improved and uses a piston. If you are interested in more info on that topics, I linked an article and SOCOM test video to some other thread, it was named like M4 in 7.62x39 IIRC.

[RT]

Hk for the cool factor and the bragging rights.. if you can actually get your hands on one.
I am happy with my DI rifles, but if I were to buy a piston AR it would probably be a LMT or LWRC, maybe even a XCR . Or I might just go all out and buy a FN SCAR?

[KChen986]

The general consensus is that piston ARs are generally not necessary unless you run a suppressor or an SBR. Most modern ARs with 14.5" of barrel or more will run reliably.

If you're waiting for an HK, I'd suggest you find a retailer who's willing to take pre-orders. New, highly anticipated rifles are generally scarce, and people will usually scalp em' for twice the price.

Also, I'd suggest considering if possibly paying 1.5x more is worth the HK name and the piston. (Price is unconfirmed at this moment, but i remember reading the price point in the mid 2ks or 3ks).

To my knowledge, Piston ARs have a little harsher recoil (but it's a .223...I mean come one, how harsh can recoil be?).

[essohbe]

Yea, and then there's the whole price thing too... I still like the HKs but it's a bit impractical fo me to pay so much. I'll see what developes.

Thanks for your replies everyone.

[Bartholomew Roberts]

Shoehorning a gas piston into an AR15 is a difficult-task engineering wise and you end up making some tradeoffs. H&K has done it well; but the result is a heavier foreend and a taller upper receiver rail. Modularity wise, the HK416 is similar to the AR15 except for any accessory relying on the top rail (sights, optic mounts) and fewer rail systems (different rail system and different height). You can actually use AR15 accessories on the top rail of an HK416, they will just be a bit off.

For what it is worth, Colt also makes a gas piston version (and offered it to the Army over ten years ago), though I haven't seen any available for sale. They showed their Colt LE1020 semi-auto only gas piston at SHOT 2006.

If you are just comparing gas piston to direct impingement then the search function will reveal several discussions on that comparison.

[Bosshoff]

I'd go full poser.

[lipadj46]

I would take a piston gas system any day over DI even if it does make the forend heavier. I know the AR has been proven and is a good solid battle rifle but gas pistons are just a more robust reliable design IMO.

[Kmar40]

With the HK being better engineered to the Colt design,

Get what you want, but HK doesn't necessarily equal "better engineered", see VP70 and those crappy AR mags that don't work in anything. As a general rule, I don't buy anything from a company that despises me (civilian shooters).

[Bartholomew Roberts]

I know the AR has been proven and is a good solid battle rifle but gas pistons are just a more robust reliable design IMO.

You know, I might be willing to concede that point if we were talking about a rifle that had been engineered from the start to be a gas piston rifle, though even then the difference is pretty minimal. However, when you start trying to keep the same parts/layout as an AR15 but totally redesign the gas system, that is a substantial engineering challenge and there are no shortage of AR gas piston designs that are not as reliable and robust as the direct impingement system they are replacing.

Key shear, carrier tilt, bolt lugs dragging the chamber extension - these are all problems caused by trying to make a rifle designed around direct impingement into a gas piston rifle. Some manufacturers have dealt with this better than others; but all of them have to engineer around these issues and still fit everything in the original AR dimensions. Which is one reason why you so often find companies with successful gas piston designs (HK for example) stretching those dimensions just a bit for extra room (such as the taller than normal upper receiver).

The big weakness in direct impingement comes when you change the dwell time by shortening or lengthing the barrel without changing the gas port. Shortening the barrel is OK up to about 10.5" and then you start to hit a wall where the time necessary to extract and the size of the gas port leave less and less room for error. The other extreme is when you add a suppressor - which effectively increases the dwell time significantly without changing the gas port size or location. With longer gas systems, you have a little bit of tolerance but in the shorter gas systems the effect is more pronounced. So shorties, suppressors, and especially shorties with suppressors, and there is a good role for a gas piston.

Otherwise, let's look at the recent Army sand tests (6,000 rounds in sandstorm conditions, quick field clean every 600 rounds, full clean every 1,200 rounds) to quantify that "more robust and reliable" number. The difference between the M4 (last place finisher) and the first place finisher was 1% more reliability in some very extreme conditions. The difference between the HK416 and the M4 was even less. So if you aren't going to be firing three times your basic infantry load without cleaning or lube in a sandstorm of talcum-powder like sand, are you even going to notice the reliability differences between a Colt LE6920 (semi 16" M4) and an HK MR556 (semi 16" HK416)?

[IZZY]

Bart,

Sounds like a field test I would love to read. Do you have a link for that?

Was the Ak a "control" in the tests???

Thanks.

[mrray13]

don't forget the sig 556..it's out now, has a 2 stage adjustable piston system and is under the $2k price tag. the three or so i've seen in my area are all around $1600...




just had to toss that one in there.

[kraigwy]

You know, you can rant and curse the M16 until you are blue in the face, but all the rumors don't match reality.

First, I wont to remind you, the soldiers who use the rifle, (I'm talking about end users in combat, not rear area support), were surveyed, 80% are happy with the M16/M4 System. Thats a pretty large margin. Yeah you have the 20% but you cant please everyone.

Second: The AMU (Army Marksmanship Unit) was task with coming up with a Desinated Marksman Rifle (See Shooting Times: Guide to Long Range Rifles).

The M14 worked but is suffering from lack of parts, and the requirment to train infantry troops with another weapons system.

The AMU came up with a National Match Type M16 (Using both Colt and FN Lowers). The only differance in it, and what you buy for your NRA High Power Matches is the lack of open sights on the SDM Rifles. Another big additions is the MK262 Mod 1 ammo, which, is what most load for high power matches with the ARs. Nothing more then 77 SMKs loaded in Match Brass. DM shooters are trained to hit man size targets out to 900 meters. The Rifle also fires the M855 ball, which is also good in this rifle at extended ranges. Its easier to find M855 Ball on the battle field then it is to find M118 (for the M14s).

So we can rant and rave all we want, but the M16 system is hear to stay. The army just ordered another 450K M16/M4,s that dosnt sound like a switch to the H&k to me.

You can choose what ever rifle pleases you, Personally I'd go the AR, and spend the left over funds on ammo down range. But thats just me, your milage may very.

[Bartholomew Roberts]

Originally Posted by Izzy

Bart,

Sounds like a field test I would love to read. Do you have a link for that?

This was the sand test requested by Senator Coburn prior to purchasing more M4s. The contestants were 10 rifles each from the M4, FN SCAR, HK XM8 and HK416. The lowest scoring contestant (the M4) was reliable 98.6% of the time in a test that was so severe that not one of the test rifles (for any brand) had safe headspace by the end of the 6,000 round test.

You can find a PowerPoint that goes into specifics of the test and results here: http://www.defensereview.com/modules...ticle&sid=1084

You can also find discussions of this test on TFL at:
http://www.thefiringline.com/forums/...t=M4+sand+test
http://www.thefiringline.com/forums/...t=M4+sand+test

Also a good piece relevant to M4 reliability here:
http://www.thefiringline.com/forums/...t=M4+sand+test

[jman841]

HK with a piston (HK 416) or one of the newly released weapon systems such as the SCAR and the AUG has been rerelased this year which is an excellent weapon as well. All of them are fairly pricey however.

[Wildalaska]

Well lets see...a reliable, mil spec AR that is actually a combat arm design for $1575 that is available right now vs an unproven in combat pie in the sky gun (that indeed, I have on order and a waiting list on, to each his own) with a whoopeedo piston (big deal IMHO) that will sell for $2500 plus?

WildwearefromhkandyousuckAlaska ™

[alberich]

Wildalaska

Combat proven indeed. That's exactly why Delta force were cooperating with HK on 416 development. Obviously these ungrateful bastards issued with a superb M4 without that obsolete whoopeedo pistons were just fancying a new shiny toys.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AGwkH...eature=related

[Wildalaska]

Delta force indeed

I know..Operators......can't be a operator without an HK

You can ev en load the mags backwards and they work

Let me know when a whole brigade drags 416 though the dust on a whole tour. I hav'nt had one complaint about the M4 yet.

Wildandihavethe501stboysallovertheplaceAlaska ™

[Ozzieman]

Having owned a 91, 93, still have a SLR-8 and have also owned several Colt AR’s and still own one, I would go with the HK.
I have not seen the MR556 but since it has the same piston system as the G36 and the SLR-8 and with the history that I have had with HK’s barrels I think it will be a very good weapon.
I have not heard anything about price and I am sure it’s going to be on the high side but I feel that with an HK the money spent will be well worth the quality returned.

[Bartholomew Roberts]

Obviously these ungrateful bastards issued with a superb M4 without that obsolete whoopeedo pistons were just fancying a new shiny toys.

Or maybe they had a need to use short ARs with and without suppressors, one of the areas where the gas piston does show an immediate advantage over a direct impingement rifle.

The other issue is comparing new HK416s to old M4s being used by a unit that is very, very hard on firearms due to their dedication to training/shooting. If I give you an M4 with 80,000 rounds on it that has had typical Army maintenance and any other new semi-automatic rifle, the new rifle is probably going to look pretty good - at least at first (kind of like the HK High Reliability Magazine was all the rage until it was discovered that the "High Reliability" was not also "High Longevity.")

[lipadj46]

Otherwise, let's look at the recent Army sand tests (6,000 rounds in sandstorm conditions, quick field clean every 600 rounds, full clean every 1,200 rounds) to quantify that "more robust and reliable" number. The difference between the M4 (last place finisher) and the first place finisher was 1% more reliability in some very extreme conditions. The difference between the HK416 and the M4 was even less.

From what I recall of the latest "dust test" was that the M4 came in last place and malfunctioned somewhere around 900 times whereas the HK malfunctioned somewhere around 120 times. They classified the M4 as performing "significantly worse" than the leading rifles.

http://www.armytimes.com/news/2007/1...sttest_071217/

This makes people wonder what was done differently between these two test where in the first one like you said the M4 was not as bad. I assume the military gets the results it is looking for and in this case they wanted the M4 to look bad for whatever reasons. But it still stands that this test was very clear that in extremely dusty conditions the newer gas piston designs are more reliable.

[Stevie-Ray]

Get the Colt.

[Bartholomew Roberts]

From what I recall of the latest "dust test" was that the M4 came in last place and malfunctioned somewhere around 900 times whereas the HK malfunctioned somewhere around 120 times.

Out of 60,000 rounds fired (6,000 each through 10 rifles), the M4 had 863 Class 1&2 stoppages (can be fixed in the field) and 19 Class 3 stoppages (armorer level maintenance). This means the M4 fired 98.53% of all rounds with no issues, even though by the end of the test none of the rifles had proper headspace.

The HK416 had 219 Class 1 & 2 stoppages and 14 Class 3 stoppages. This means the HK416 fired 99.62% of all rounds with no issues, even though by the end of the test none of the rifles had proper headspace. So in extreme sand conditions (25 hour dust storm, lubricated only 10 times, cleaned only 5 times), the HK416 was roughly 1.1% more reliable.

Of note, the Army ran the same dust test earlier that year with only the M16A2 and M4 and the M4 had only 296 Class 1&2 stoppages with 11 Class 3 stoppages - giving it a 99.49% reliability and suggesting that even the 1.1% difference in reliability under these extreme conditions may not be that big after all.

When we further look at the cause of the stoppages, we see two areas that stand out - Failures to Feed (typically magazine problems). The M4 had 253 - 102 more than its nearest competitor (which happened to be the HK416). The M4 was using USGI mags. The HK416 was using HK HRM mags. I wonder how that test would have come out if we switched the two mags around?

The second big area is failure to extract - the M4 got blown away here. It had 271 failures to extract. Its next closest competition (the XM8) had 9. Unfortunately, this isn't much of a shock. Every other single competitor used a modern proprietary extractor that had more grip than the M4 and that required a different bolt and barrel extension design. The M4 had the black insert and 5-coil spring upgrade; but it is using a 40yr old design that was originally designed around a 20" barrel. As the barrel is shortened to 14.5", you increase the forces on the bolt around 1.5 times past the original design due to the way DI works (remember the comment about shorties and suppressors?).

But it still stands that this test was very clear that in extremely dusty conditions the newer gas piston designs are more reliable.

Yes, they are around 0.28 to 1.3% more reliable in these extreme conditions. The question then becomes is the price difference worth it for that reliability in conditions you will never see or is it better to just add lube every 300 rounds instead of every 600 rounds?

[Funeralfog]

i bought a Colt and probably shot 3000 rounds through it, never jammed once. and the value of it went up anywhere from 300-500 dollars, plus it feels nice to own a Colt, and not some foreign version