GUN Army takes HK 416's from special unit

Discussion in 'On Topic' started by johnson, Mar 12, 2008.

  1. johnson

    johnson New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2003
    Messages:
    38,412
    Likes Received:
    0
    Navy Times
    By Matthew Cox - Staff writer
    Posted : Tuesday Mar 11, 2008 17:13:09 EDT

    The Army has stripped the Asymmetric Warfare Group of its weapon of choice — the Heckler & Koch 416 — saying that its mission requires the unique outfit to carry the standard issue M4 carbine.

    The decision reverses a policy that allowed the AWG to buy 416s instead of carrying M4s when it was established three years ago to help senior Army leaders find new tactics and technologies to make soldiers more lethal in combat.

    Members of the AWG have declined to comment on the issue, but sources in the community told Army Times that the unit fought to keep its several hundred 416s, arguing that they outperform the Army’s M4 and require far less maintenance.

    In a response to a March 6 Army Times query, the Army acknowledged initial approval of the AWG’s move to the 416.

    “The AWG is empowered to procure, on a limited basis, select non-standard equipment to assist in identifying capability gaps and advise on the development of future requirements. To this end, the Asymmetric Warfare Group did purchase H&K 416 rifles,” said Army spokesman Lt. Col. Martin Downie.

    “The AWG also advises units on training, tactics and procedures. In this capacity, the use of the standard issue M4 is required. In support of this mission set, the decision was made to transition to the M4 and the AWG is now turning in its H&K rifles.”

    This is the latest round of controversy surrounding the M4 since late November, when the weapon finished last in an Army reliability test against several other carbines.

    The M4 suffered more stoppages than the combined number of jams by the three other competitors — the Heckler & Koch XM8, FNH USA’s Special Operations Forces Combat Assault Rifle (SCAR) and the H&K 416.

    Army weapons officials agreed to perform the dust test at the request of Sen. Tom Coburn, R-Okla., in July. Coburn took up the issue following a Feb. 26 Army Times report on moves by elite Army Special Forces units to ditch the M4 in favor of carbines they consider more reliable. Since then, Coburn has questioned the Army’s plans to spend more than $300 million to purchase M4s through fiscal 2009 rather than considering newer and possibly better weapons available on the commercial market.

    Army officials have downplayed the test results, maintaining that soldiers using the M4 in combat praised the weapon in a recent study by the Center for Naval Analysis.

    But this isn’t the first time the M4’s performance has come under fire.

    U.S. Special Operations Command decided nearly four years ago that it wanted a better weapon than the M4. After a competition, it awarded a developmental contract to FN Herstal to develop its new SCAR to replace all of the command’s M4s.

    But even prior to USSOCOM’s decision, the Army’s Delta Force replaced its M4s with the H&K 416 in 2004 after tests revealed that its piston operating system reduces malfunctions while increasing the life of parts.

    The M4, like its predecessor, the M16, uses a gas tube system, which relies on the gas created when a bullet is fired to cycle the weapon. Weapon experts say the M4’s system of blowing gas directly into the receiver of the weapon spews carbon residue that can lead to fouling and heat that dries up lubrication and causes excessive wear on parts.

    The AWG followed Delta’s example when it stood up in March 2005 to advise the Army’s senior leadership on how to identify and counter emerging threats on the battlefield. With Army approval, the unit bought several hundred 416s for its members to carry when they deployed to Iraq, Afghanistan and other hot spots.

    Many senior sergeants in the AWG were angered that soldiers in the unit had to turn in their 416s, a process that began last fall, said a U.S. Military officer with knowledge the special operations and AWG communities.

    “They were outraged,” he told Army Times. “It’s a reduction in capability. It’s a waste of money that was already spent, and it makes the job more difficult since [the M4] is much more maintenance-intensive.”
     
  2. Willie J

    Willie J New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2005
    Messages:
    3,428
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    the alamo
    saw this on arfcom the other day
     
  3. AustinL911

    AustinL911 Illudium Q-36 Explosive Space Modulator

    Joined:
    May 24, 2005
    Messages:
    2,430
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Columbus
    Not real operators.
     
  4. Tdizzle

    Tdizzle New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 1, 2007
    Messages:
    6,623
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Vegas, son.
    Thats pretty shitty thing to do
     
  5. thedude11

    thedude11 New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 11, 2003
    Messages:
    16,165
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    ATX
    I think it's pretty shitty to not allow SF pick their weapons.. haven't they always in the past?

    Also, what is their reasoning for sticking with the M4 when it came last in the reliability tests done a little while ago?
     
  6. Thunderbear

    Thunderbear Yggdrasil's Forester.

    Joined:
    Sep 23, 2001
    Messages:
    17,946
    Likes Received:
    1
    Location:
    -Tick tock, tick tock til Ragnarök-
    :rofl: Bean counters know best...
     
  7. They should ship them to me.
     
  8. cabriolet

    cabriolet ...

    Joined:
    Mar 7, 2003
    Messages:
    1,761
    Likes Received:
    0
    Sounds like a legitimate decision to me? They aren't spec ops from what the article says, they just go out and field new tactics, what good is it to field tactics for the rest of the army, using equipment the rest of the army doesn't have.

    They fielded a few tests with the 416's and got the data they needed, why would they keep them? Unless I'm missing something here?
     
  9. Vermincelli

    Vermincelli Banned

    Joined:
    Oct 11, 2004
    Messages:
    57,873
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    GET OFF MY LAWN!
    If they were done with the weapons in testing and passed, then they would reallocate those weapons to other spec ops forces who request them.
     
  10. johnson

    johnson New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2003
    Messages:
    38,412
    Likes Received:
    0
    Why would they give them to other forces when they bought it themselves?
     
  11. xpinchx

    xpinchx hes got a nice cock, on the thin side but its stil

    Joined:
    Dec 18, 2003
    Messages:
    46,800
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    East Lansing, MI
    All I have to say to AR crew is...

    [​IMG]
     
  12. GlobeGuy

    GlobeGuy New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 14, 2004
    Messages:
    2,974
    Likes Received:
    0
    This is what I call, bureaucracy at its best.
     

Share This Page