Thanks!
PM sent.
Artic1 I do agree there are other places that could save more weight, but I still stand by my comment that every ounce counts. Decreaseing overall weight of items carried by 15-20 pounds is great, then add another pound from the rifle and even better.
Difference isn’t one pound. Difference really is the difference in weight between the oprod and gas pipe which is really minute.
Most of the weight difference is not related to the gun being a piston at all. Already barrel profile will make a lot of that
Sure, the oprod might not add a lot of weight isolatedly, but the weight difference between a stock 14.5" HK416 and a stock 14.5" KAC SR-16, both with HK steel mags (253 grams), is 1.07lbs. Nobody can argue that.
If HK started implementing changes to the 416, such as thinner/lighter barrel profile like Grumpy has on his MR, lighter buffer etc, then the difference would be smaller.
Arguing about a single pound on a single item in regards to weight bearing is completely ridiculous.
Typos brought to you via Tapatalk and autocorrect.
Agreed.
there’s a 1.5lb difference between hk416 14.5 & KAC sr16 14.5
This is a 23% difference, nearly a 1/4 more weight for the 416. This is a significant %.
I found the heavier HK got me .3moa tighter groups. For my purposes of little significance.
1.5lbs is
- over a loaded magazine of weight
- a secondary weapon, pistol
- more than my load-bearing gear
- almost 1/2 what a ballistic plate weighs
- some shrapnel spreading fireworks
- significant in my realm
IMO Your either a savvy minimalist of sorts, or chewing the cud while the opposition runs rings around you in the hills. Likely your chewing cud in an armored vehicle and have never left a paved road(cause your overweight POS attempt to isolate all dangers vehicle, is unable to navigate the roads and you can’t access exactly the places security forces should be going. If your not speaking of an accoutrement of war, but of some ballistic hobby I suppose a lb alone wouldn’t matter to you. If you’ve been waddling around so overloaded like 99% of mil types, your so far behind being combat effective, i suppose it doesn’t matter.
I think it’d be cool if there were mini events, biathalon-esq, mini-scrambles… that would cause a best of breed minimalist evolution in assault rifles and gear.
Reg the HK magazines, in actuality made for the SA80A2 bullpup… not the hk416 with a much higher cyclic. They weigh 2x what alum ones do and have had SOCOM safety not for combat use notices put out about em.
there’s a 1.5lb difference between hk416 14.5 & KAC sr16 14.5
This is a 23% difference, nearly a 1/4 more weight for the 416. This is a significant %.
I don’t see how those numbers can be correct. 
According to HK USA’s site, the 14.5" HK416 weighs 8.24lbs with magazine:
http://www.hk-usa.com/military_products/hk416_specs.asp
According to KAC’s site, the 14.5" SR-16 weighs 3kgs (6.61lbs) without magazine.
http://www.knightarmco.com/sr16.html
In my comparison, I added an HK steel magazine to make it simliar to the HK, and that adds 253 grams (0.55lbs). The total of the KAC will then be 7.17. The difference is 1.07 pounds.
IMO Your either a savvy minimalist of sorts, or chewing the cud while the opposition runs rings around you in the hills. Likely your chewing cud in an armored vehicle and have never left a paved road(cause your overweight POS attempt to isolate all dangers vehicle, is unable to navigate the roads and you can’t access exactly the places security forces should be going. If your not speaking of an accoutrement of war, but of some ballistic hobby I suppose a lb alone wouldn’t matter to you. If you’ve been waddling around so overloaded like 99% of mil types, your so far behind being combat effective, i suppose it doesn’t matter.
I don’t know if that was directed at me, or just a general opinion? If it was directed at me, why the negative impression?
I respect that you are from a totally different work environment than myself, me being GPF and you being SOF. But I can assure you that I do not take lightly on individual packing requirement lists, both 2nd line, 3rd line and 4th line (our rucks), and try to minimize as much as I can, both for myself and for my guys.
But we have a set of operational requirements in terms of self sufficiency before resupply, the way it usually is with GPF maneuver warfare. And I do not think that a SOF approach on things is neccessarily directly applicable.
And I can assure you that I have done more than just ride in an armored vehicle on Ring Road in Afghanistan.
Again, for me, that 1 pound on the gun is a non-issue in the big picture compared to weight saving that could be done in other areas of our fighting/sustainment load.
Reg the HK magazines, in actuality made for the SA80A2 bullpup… not the hk416 with a much higher cyclic. They weigh 2x what alum ones do and have had SOCOM safety not for combat use notices put out about em.
Agree on the weight issue. Just my basic load in magazine weight is 1,7kg/3,7lbs. If I could cut that in half I would be happy. But thus far we are only allowed to use the HK mags. Haven’t had any issues with mine yet though.
Other than the toys we own in real life if you were in the military [joined or conscripted]you would be issued a rifle and that would be what you use. No caliber choice ,no option on weight and no choice of DI or piston. Just a thought.
Remember that the HK also has a taller receiver, larger gas block etc.
A pound in your hands has more effect than a pound on your back. Ounces are pounds and if weight doesn’t increase capability it isn’t worth carrying. Even most HK416 proponents won’t tell you that it’s necessary in 14.5" unsuppressed rifles on a lighter firing schedule.
This is kind of my point, though it is a little more condescending than what I was getting at.
If you are working/living/traveling in a place that could unexpectedly erupt in gunfire intended to kill you, every pound you carry should be worth it. In my experience, Mk18s don’t work as well as 10.5" 416s, especially when going back and forth from suppressed to unsuppressed. To me, the weight increase associated with the 416 was worth it over the Mk18, but I never carried or used one in combat.
If a pound of weight on a carbine is a significant factor in your ability to do your job, you know it. Your point is valid, your considerable knowledge and skill is relevant, and your input is appreciated. There is no one that can say that you are wrong outside of your team, however, arguing about it here with people that are not in your community really doesn’t accomplish much. Same too goes for those that don’t mind the extra weight. Just because it doesn’t matter to you doesn’t mean that it is not a significant factor to others and the performance in their application or duty. So, again, if you don’t notice the difference in a pound added to your carbine, there isn’t much point in arguing with those that do.
And if you look at what I wrote in my first post to this thread you will see that acknowledged. That weight isn’t there because 416 is piston gun, but it is there because the engineers at H&K thought that it would be beneficial.
Without going into further details of the additional weight distribution on a 416 vs. your run-of-the-mill M4, we can just look at the barrel. We know 416 comes with a heavier barrel, we know that heavier barrel copes better with heavy firing cycles and we know it retains accuracy better when hot. This is universal, not related to the manufacturer. Putting same profile barrel on an M4 would result in heavier weight and better performance when hot. Obviously someone at H&K thought that having thicker heavier barrel would be a good idea.
What comes to the other changes H&K did, the same story pretty much applies. Gas piston doesn’t require heavier buffer per definition. Using more gas and heavier springs and buffers just increases reliability. H&K went all out for reliability.
This discussion should not be about if a rifle A is heavier than rifle B, but if rifle B is better (reliable, more accurate esp. during heavy firing cycles, and so on and so forth…) to warrant the heavier weight.
This is the first sentence of the OP. If we are still talking about the OP H&K in itself is a bad example because it is not a M4 with a piston, but an improved M4 with different features (piston being one of them).
A discussion of merits may be interesting in the same way the engineering of automotive racing is interesting. Minimum weight to what performance end.
Many of us don’t find a dump-truck or AK47 interesting. Expectedly durable, slow, and lacking precision. The compromises that allow peak performance interest me.
I find a conventional gas gun sufficiently reliable for all purposes. Nicer recoil impulse and lighter. If suppressed run a heavier buffer.
If you want to run 500rds day suppressed day after day, and not deal with cleaning, a piston & associated penalties may be a better choice for you or your institution.
The idea of the thread was the difference between DI ARs and Piston ARs. Not ARs and any kind of piston gun out there.
Taken as a whole, the HK, especially being the start of the current piston AR phase, is the perfect gun for these sorts of comparisons.
I didn’t direct that at you Grumpy. I appreciate this (and other ones, too) technical comparison you made. That comment was made to people saying that a piston gun is a pound (or what ever) heavier than a DI gun. H&K is, but that is not due to it being a piston gun, but due it being a gun designed to be heavier. It has parts that have more material on them thus making them more durable and heavier.
Weapons are compromises, just like any design is a compromise. You gain some and then you lose some. H&K is a good example of piston AR because it is solid design that works as intended bringing forth the good sides of the piston, but people need to look further than just general specs in wikipedia to judge the gun. It is far too easy to say: “416 is a pound heavier -> piston guns are a pound heavier -> piston guns are too heavy.” That is not the truth.
Someone, who shoots rifles for a living(his and other people) told me, asked how he compare KAC SR16 to HK416 (after his unit started to replace KAC to HK, but both are still in use), that “it is better to carry KAC, but it is better to shoot HK”.
HK was made for those who shoot (and to shoot it a lot), this is for what I believe LAV and his unit originally asked (LAV can easily correct me if I’m wrong). HK made it heavier (in several areas, to improve reliability) with thicker barrel specifically to accommodate this requirement. They did it so good, that they basically did not even need to put any internal mods, to meet IAR requirements for sustained fire and cook-off resistance much better than fancy designs from competitors.
Can piston rifle be lightweight? Of course it can. I actually just have opportunity to shoot one (not AR - MSBS-5.56 Radon) and it was very nice experience. All you need is pencil barrel (fluted to make it even lighter) and lightweight “anything else”.
What I want to say, it it is not “op-rod piston system” that makes HK416 heavier that similar “direct impingement piston system” carbines. It is sum of other, conscious, design decisions that make it heavier.
Actually “piston AR” weights more than “DI AR” by “weight of piston plus weight of op-rod assembly plus weight of receiver bushing minus weight of gas tube”. I can not found “pounds” here. Ounces maybe.
You do know who Dano is right? I will stay out of the piston vs DI merits but the part in red made me laugh comin right after what Dano typed.
Montrala, the one thing I will say is the HK M4 came about to fix issues with the 10" MK18.
I know you weren’t directing this towards me…but I don’t know who it is.
One example of a lightweight (or certainly well BALANCED piston carbine) is the LWRCi SPR with the interesting spiral flutes on the barrel.
What about this?:
If you can get away with cleaning/lubricating a little less frequently (with a piston gun), would it be reasonable to say that you could get away carrying around a few ounces less of cleaning solution and lubricant? Thus offsetting the initial weight difference?