Of Arms and the Law

Navigation
About Me
Contact Me
Archives
XML Feed
Home


Law Review Articles
Firearm Owner's Protection Act
Armed Citizens, Citizen Armies
2nd Amendment & Historiography
The Lecture Notes of St. George Tucker
Original Popular Understanding of the 14th Amendment
Originalism and its Tools


2nd Amendment Discussions

1982 Senate Judiciary Comm. Report
2004 Dept of Justice Report
US v. Emerson (5th Cir. 2001)

Click here to join the NRA (or renew your membership) online! Special discount: annual membership $25 (reg. $35) for a great magazine and benefits.

Recommended Websites
Ammo.com, deals on ammunition
Scopesfield: rifle scope guide
Ohioans for Concealed Carry
Clean Up ATF (heartburn for headquarters)
Concealed Carry Today
Knives Infinity, blades of all types
Buckeye Firearms Association
NFA Owners' Association
Leatherman Multi-tools And Knives
The Nuge Board
Dave Kopel
Steve Halbrook
Gunblog community
Dave Hardy
Bardwell's NFA Page
2nd Amendment Documentary
Clayton Cramer
Constitutional Classics
Law Reviews
NRA news online
Sporting Outdoors blog
Blogroll
Instapundit
Upland Feathers
Instapunk
Volokh Conspiracy
Alphecca
Gun Rights
Gun Trust Lawyer NFA blog
The Big Bore Chronicles
Good for the Country
Knife Rights.org
Geeks with Guns
Hugh Hewitt
How Appealing
Moorewatch
Moorelies
The Price of Liberty
Search
Email Subscription
Enter your email address:

Delivered by FeedBurner

 

Credits
Powered by Movable Type 6.8.7
Site Design by Sekimori

« AZ makes self-defense bill retroactive | Main | Appellate rulings -- what attorneys have to deal with »

Debate on a new military rifle

Posted by David Hardy · 28 February 2007 06:22 PM

The Army Times carries the story. H&K have come up with a light rifle that uses a piston and operating rod (so 20th century!) and is far more jam-resistant than the M-4/M-16 series. Probably cheaper, too. The military's resistance to it (and to other proposals to improve the rifle) is basically it'd cost so much (a whole billion) to replace, and so they'd rather wait until the day when they can design a planned space-age weapon down from 16 pounds to something carryable. The technology will become available someday, they hope.

It's interesting to reflect how ready they are to spend billions on high-tech weapons, but not to give the grunt a reliable rifle.

[Hat tip to Dan Gifford]

12 Comments | Leave a comment

Letalis | February 28, 2007 7:08 PM | Reply

Well, this is turning out to be a very controversial story. I don't know whether the HK416 is all it is purported to be, or not. When the British SAS switch from the M16 direct impingement system to the HK416 or something else, I'll be more willing to pay attention.

The Stoner AR system lives and dies by the chamber. Keep your chrome lined chamber clean, and the bolt/carrier well lubed, and you will have few if any problems.

That being said, I don't know why Stoner designed a bolt with 9 locking lugs. The AK and Garand system have 2 lugs. The FAL only has 1, although it is a big one. Gene must have had his reasons.

Sebastian | February 28, 2007 7:51 PM | Reply

I'd get more excited about H&K if they would get more excited about making civilianized versions of their rifles.

Jared McLaughlin | February 28, 2007 8:05 PM | Reply

If I had to make the call, I'd probably do the same thing. Wait for a rifle that is actually an evolutionary step forward, and jump on it before anyone else. The M-16 series is a best of breed in my opinion, and if anything only requires some minor tweaking. We've been tweaking it for years, and we can continue to do so relatively inexpensively. The support in the civilian market is signifigant, too. The procurement cycle seems to be moving more and more towards using COTS equipment where possible, which I think is smart.

But then, I was just a grunt.

RKV | February 28, 2007 8:10 PM | Reply

Replace the upper with 6.8mm SPC and we're good for another 20 years.

Pete Stephenson | February 28, 2007 9:33 PM | Reply

I fail to see why replacing the entire system would be necessary.

The advantage of the M16/M4/AR15 platform is its modularity. Most M16/M4 lower receivers are perfectly functional.

Simply order a bunch of gas-piston uppers that are commonly available for ARs for less than $500 each (I'm sure the military could get good deals), and mate them to M16/M4 lowers. They could surplus the uppers, as they're not regulated/serialed items, or simply give them to reserve units for practice. Hell, they could send them back to a centralized armory and have armorers strip barrels and other usable parts out of the uppers, scrap the gas tubes, and have a ton of barrels left over.

Or, knowing the army, they could just stash all the old uppers away, "just in case", like they did with the M14s and 1911s.

There's no sense in designing a whole new rifle from the ground up when solutions already exist for much less money and are likely more effective.

Brad | March 1, 2007 1:31 AM | Reply

AR-15 bolt heritage

I believe the design of the multi-lugged bolt of the AR-15 rifle is based on the bolt of the older Johnson recoil operated rifle. The advantage of the multi-lugged bolt is light weight and easier mass production.

happycynic | March 1, 2007 10:28 AM | Reply

Well, I have to say that the piston v. direct impingement debate has been going on for quite a while, actually since the late 60s when Stoner developed the AR 180 gas system, which became the H&K G36, which became the 416. Is the 416 actually more reliable than the current M-4? No one really knows. H&K only has its own internal tests so far, although some U.S. Special forces units do use it. Also, before everyone jumps on the 416 bandwagon, Colt, FN, and several other manufacturers have piston designs of their own, which may be better than the 416.

If you want to know more about this hop onto www.ar15.com and look around. Plenty of debate as to whether a piston design is actually better than a direct impingement design. Let's just say the jury is still out on that one.

Letalis | March 1, 2007 11:23 AM | Reply

As to the SPECOPS community using the HK416, the only purchase of which I have "heard" was by Op Det Delta.

Brad | March 2, 2007 1:46 AM | Reply

Direct gas impingement

Direct gas impingement never seemed to be a problem in the French and Swedish tilting-bolt semi-automatic rifles it first appeared in.

But the Ar-15 design is different. First off the Ar-15 is scaled down from the Ar-10, providing more relative surface area for grime to accumulate. Secondly the Ar-15 bolt and bolt carrier system employs a gas cut-off and expansion chamber inside the bolt carrier, which is clever and lightweight but provides even more area for heat and grime to cause trouble.

Brad | March 2, 2007 1:48 AM | Reply

Reliability

"Is the 416 actually more reliable than the current M-4? No one really knows."

The USMC knows the M-16a4 is more reliable than the M-4.

R Sweeney | March 4, 2007 12:21 PM | Reply

Anyone should have serious reservations about a design that dumps hot dirty gases into a critical area that works only when clean and lubricated.

The M16 is far from perfect, let's get over the Stoner worship and move on.

Job | April 30, 2008 2:26 PM | Reply

Why dont they just use AK's? They are proven to be reliable and easy to maintain, not to mention that they are far cheaper. Why are we using a gun that utilizes a questionable operating system, when we know that AK's work so well?

Leave a comment