Talk:Heckler & Koch HK416/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Archive 1

HK M5000?

The beginning of the article states the 416 was originally called the "HK M5000", which is quite obviously incorrect. I'm changing it back to "HK M4" Spartan198 (talk) 02:23, 12 March 2009 (UTC) Spartan198


Does anyone know of a so-called "418" variant chambering the 6.8x43mm cartridge? Spartan198 (talk) Spartan198 —Preceding undated comment was added at 21:15, 7 December 2008 (UTC).

Are you talking about the M468 by Barrett? (talk) 02:42, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
No, not the REC7 or M468. Supposedly there's a 6.8mm variant of the HK416, but I have yet to find anything on it. Spartan198 (talk) 23:22, 23 February 2009 (UTC) Spartan198
The former Military Programs Manager at HK Defense, Jim Schatz, has said that there were less than 20 HK416 manufactured in 6.8mm for test and evaluation by US agencies/units. --D.E. Watters (talk) 00:25, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

edit from

Recently someone from IP removed my addition of the supposed deal between H&K and Wilcox Industries stating that "Heckler & Koch and Wilcox have not made an official announcement of their relationship or products they will manufacture in the US." Fair enough, but when I looked up who owns this IP, low-and-behold, it's from H&K's own subnet. Come on, H&K! If you're going to edit information about your own products at least register an account.

Don't know when this was posted, but did you ever consider the possibility that it is't true? H&K would know, after all. Spartan198 (talk) 09:55, 24 June 2008 (UTC) Spartan198


The supposed "improved" characteristics of the weapon have no objective base to support them. The characteristics portion of the article still read more like an H&K advertisement than an objective reference material. Many of the features listed as "unique" are nothing of the sort.The Dark 04:08, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

HK 416 is basically Daewoo K2 upper that can be use in a Colt lower—The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talkcontribs) 23 Mar 2007.

Do you have any knowledge of firearms to state that claim? Also, that type of "improved" remark is probably saying "improved" from the Colt M4. The 416 is based off of it, ya know. Lkegley9 00:59, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

So why not say "improved" form Colt M4, if in fact it is improved. If the article has to be objective it should be changed, no matter if it sounds like an ad. But it looks the unique features are taken from the official US site of HK. And as far as I know internaly HK 416 is based on the AR-18 system (HK G36/XM-8) and only externaly based on Colt M4. The improved/comparison is probably just to show that this rifle that is probably a candidate for the new US Army weapon is better than the old one. If someone has acctually tryed these weapons (HK 416 and Colt M4) now is the time to add something.

Ok, you state a good point there. I still thing that when he meant by "improved" couldn't be disputed. Maybe it says its improved over other H&K rifles of the past. I really don't know. And to be honest, I have never shot either of these guns either. But you don't need to have shot the gun to write an article on it. All you really need to know is the statistics and other information. Inaccuracy and how it feels to be fired are irrelevant for an encyclopedic article. Lkegley9 04:46, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

All it said was "improved." If we're going to claim to have objective, verifiable data, those data need to provide points of reference to verify against. I have no doubt its systems are "improved" against an early model Winchester, but it may not be "improved" when compared to certain other modern rifles (or it may, I don't know. That's why people should verify what is claimed rather than accept it willy-nilly). Without a basis to measure against, "improved" is, in my opinion, a subjective term.The Dark 20:21, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Ok, that makes sense. I'll do a little research on what rifles it can compare against and state what it is improved from. I'm done debating at this point in time. You state very good points. Thanks Lkegley9 22:07, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Usage in Malaysia?

There aren't any news or like that about Malaysia having purchased the 416. And it's the only operating country in the article who's purchasement isn't proven by an external source. Is it really true or did just some fanboy add that point? -- 16:02, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Did a bit of searching using Malaysian Google. This is basically not true/unsubstantiated as there are no hits at all, even when I was using Malay. Also. PGK is a fairly secretive organisation (due to their nature the government usually censors any information on them) and does not openly discuss their arnament. I think unless proven otherwise, we can assume that a fanboy added this entry because he thought it was cool.
Appears though that the Malaysian Navy had evaluating this on a small scale, based on the reply in the Royal Malaysian Navy forum:,com_smf/Itemid,30/lang,en/topic,145.msg4308#msg4308. I don't think this is important enough to be added into the Wiki entry however. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Amoki86 (talkcontribs) 11:47, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Realy improved.

I think that it is fair to say that the 416 has some improvement over the M4. And in is not solely based on the ar18, the rifle uses a standard AR15/M16/M4 receiver. The gas system is simply altered from a direct impingement system to a piston system( wich have proven to be more reliable).

It is fair to say that the HK 416 has improved reliability over the standard AR15 series. This does not detract from AR15's they are great guns, they are accurate and very reliable. However there are many firearms that are more reliable( AK47 and all its varients, HK G3, SIG 550 series, HK G36) The AR15 type rifles have some features that it surpasses other rifles in, Ergonomics, balance, and accuracy to name a few.

If some one tells us that Heckler and Koch has built a M4 upper reciever that is more reliable fine, from all accounts that statement seems to be true.

AFAIK, the 416 is offered both as an upgrade kit (full upper reciever, with a couple parts to be dropped into an AR lower) and a complete weapon. Spartan198 (talk) 10:00, 24 June 2008 (UTC) Spartan198

Why not manufactured in Delayed Blowback?

Why isnt the H&K416/417 made in Delayed Blowback?, It would be more reliable/more accurate powerful and faster reloading.

User:Jetwave Dave

Because wikipedia is not a forum. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 23:17, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

A Good Stub.

Although the H&K 416 may very well be an improvement over the existing AR-15 receiver design (which in principle, it looks to me like it is - though it's not based on the AR18 design - the AR18 bolt carrier travels down two recoil rods each with a tightly wound spring, which stop at the back of the upper receiver, whereas the 416 retains the same bolt carrier of the M16 [well, they would have had to change the bolt key - but I digress...], which recoils into the buffer and spring, located in the buffer tube in the butt), I do agree that the article reads too much like an advertisement. I also disagree with some of the claims. Less cleaning comes particularily to mind; anybody who has been in the Army knows that "less cleaning" doesn't exist. If you fire so much as one shot, you know that you'll be spending six hours the next day cleaning your weapon anyway, regardless of the gas system that it uses. Joking aside:

-Improved reliability: possibly. Although the only problems that I have personally had with the Canadian C7 (which is of the conventional AR-15 upper receiver group design) have been related to gross, deliberate neglect on my part. And one incident with a non-servicable magazine.

-100% function: impossible. Every weapon has circumstances that will cause it to malfunction.

-No fouling directed into the weapon: utter nonsense. This is impossible. If the piston assembly were completely leak-proof, the piston would not be able to move. It obvioulsly fouls less, since gas isn't being blown directly into the upper and lower receiver assemblies, but no fouling is an absurd claim.

-User removable / exchangable parts: fair enough. But so is virtually everything in the M16. Explain the improvement here.

-Insensitive to barrel length and ammunition changes: more nonsense. Changes in the barrel length and ammunition will invariably have an effect on the gas system. Period. Outside temperature and humidity will affect the gas system. The effect of changing the barrel length and ammunition may not be major enough to inhibit the weapon from functioning, but it will exist.

-Improved buffer / magazine / bolt, yadda, yadda, yadda: how? It's nice to say that it's improved, but how is it improved over the previous design? How exactly do you improve the design of an extractor spring? It's a single-coil spring about 2mm long - I have a hard time seeing a lot of room for improvement there. "Improved extractor and spring / buffer." Explain what the extractor and spring have to do with the buffer. Improved function. How does it pull spent casings from the chamber better than the previous design?

The article contains enough objective information to make a good stub, but the improved features list I believe should be either explained and cross-referenced or deleted. RCEME Craftsman 06:31, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

The disputed "advertisement" section of this article appears to come from the H&K website The HK 416 system section on the 416, which explains why it sounds like an advertisement. This might also introduce copyright issues (I'll admit that I'm new and I don't know how that works completely yet). --Skuhns 03:17, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

--On the user removable/exchangeable parts comment, on a standard issue M16 anything beyond the field-strippable parts requires armorer's tools to change out. Perhaps it is referring to parts that are not user-swappable on the M16 but are on the HK G36 and it's sister weapon, the XM8, like the barrel, grenade launcher, and underslung shotgun. --Steelcobra 0825 zulu, 14 April 06

The Improvement is ...

The improvement mentioned is a standard H&K mechanism, in fact. It's the same mechanism in all of their semi and fully automatic rifles (possibly in the handguns as well). The improvement is on the linkless Browning mechanism, along with the delayed action buffered feedback of the gas to cycle the action. This keep the operating temperature of the gun down, the inside of the gun cleaner from unburned bits of crap, the recoil lower and the action smoother.

As an aside, the text should probably not just be a near cut-and-paste from H&K's site...


HK 416 magazines are more rugged and feed better. 416 magazine is forged from steel which is tougher than the standard aluminum magazine. It can take more abuse in combat such as being dropped or banged. It is reportedly of sturdier construction and does not need to be under-loaded to preserve feed reliability. In contrast, standard M-16 magazine must be loaded with no more than 28 rounds or reliability of function is not guaranteed. Lary Vickers a former Delta Force operator who was involved heavily in the design of HK 416 stated in an interview that the M-16 magazine was singled out for improvement.

-Chin, Cheng-chuan

Chin, Your statement that you have to load 28 rounds into M16 magazines to maintain reliability is incorrect. They were designed to hold 30 and do so very well. This myth stems from GI's mistreating their mags in Vietnam in the 1960s. This started in Vietnam with 20 round magazines. What would happen is they would load 21 or sometimes even 22 rounds into a 20 round magazine by mistake. This would cause binding problems in the magazine spring. Also, some parts in the magazine could get reversed thus causing binding when loaded to the correct 20 rounds. The 30 round magazines of today don't have problems, and the 20 round magazines didn't have problems if loaded properly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ivanator (talkcontribs) 04:33, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

"It's the same mechanism in all of their semi and fully automatic rifles (possibly in the handguns as well). The improvement is on the linkless Browning mechanism, along with the delayed action buffered feedback of the gas to cycle the action".

Uh??? HK uses several different mechanisms. For instance the roller-locked delayed blowback of the G3 family differs from the gas piston/rotating bolt G36. And the "linkless Browning mechanism", by which I think you are referring to the Browning Hi-Power pistol, has nothing at all to do with the HK416, except for the fact they are both firearms.

Mechanically, the HK416 is simply an AR-15 operating system changed to incorporate a G36 or AR-18 type gas piston in place of the direct impingement gas tube.Strangways (talk) 23:09, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Removal of "Legal Issues"

I have removed this section for the following reasons.

1. It was entirely unsourced

2. It carried a POV and was misleading (statements such as "found their way into civilian hands" imply wrong-doing)

3. It was contradictary (section was named "Legal Issues" while also pointing out there was nothing illegal about the purchase of 416 uppers despite HK policy)

There was some small controversy over HK 416 uppers ending up bought by individuals, but as I understand it, it was hardly a "legal issue".

Only half of the last sentence in the section talks about any legal issues. "upper receiver assemblies used to assemble complete firearms would have to follow regulations on assembling rifles from foreign made parts."

Because it's such a non-issue (outside of complaints by HK) I don't think this section can be recovered. Perhaps someone could write a different section entitled "Controversy" or something which is NPOV and sourced. Unfortunatly, I can't even find much information about these "legal issues" to source. 10:28, 31 January 2007 (UTC)


When is the army going to use the 416?

Which army? No one has had really any interest yet besides police forces and private organisations, so we will just have to wait and see. By the way, what exactly is 'Lauch'? is that lunch, laugh or launch? X360 05:30, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Wrong, X360. Delta Force has been using the weapon in Iraq and Afghanistan since around 2004. And the product page this page links to at the bottom show the weapon in use by 101st Airborne soldiers, US Marines, and members of the German armed forces. Plenty of people have interest in it.Thrawn300 04:09, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

On the 12th of April 2007 the Norwegian MoD signed a contract with H&K with the intention of replacing the aging G3 with the HK416 as the standard rifle of the armed forces. 10:13, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Sorry Thrawn300, but at the time of writing there was no confirmed info about Delta Force adopting the weapon. X360 00:17, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

An Okinawan-based Special Forces battallion announced that it is purchasing 84 HK416 upper receivers. (Sekiryu 02:36, 2 May 2007 (UTC))

Article Title Needs to be Changed

The title H&K 416 is incorrect. For one the gun is called HK416 (with no space) and it should have Heckler & Koch before it in the title, thus making it Heckler & Koch HK416 (Like the G36 article for example). The same applies for the HK417 article. We also need to change all the mentions in the article to HK416 (or HK417). Before I had been just changing all the mentions to 'HK 416' for consistancy since I can't change the article name, but we need someone to fix the title. X360 05:30, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I've changed both articles but the redirect isn't taking me straight to the article. Is there a way to fix this? X360 05:53, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

The reason I did this by the way is because other articles, like MP5 and G36 both feature Heckler & Koch in the title. The weapon is actually called the HK416, not the 416 with a Heckler & Koch acronym at the start. X360 08:18, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Ok, the redirect is fixed. The problem was there was a double redirect. X360 04:43, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Gents, I have carried a 10.5 inch HK416, fired it, taken it appart and cleaned it in Iraq. The mud slinging comments I have read above surprises me. It may sound like an advertisement to someone who is in-flexible and stuck in the past, but every "improvement" HK made were inteligently executed and make sense. If I had had the time I would have written an article about them in detail. They are so stricking I will be puchasing one asap. The only complaint I have is that it is heavy. The free floating rail HK chose makes it very heavy. My colt M-4 with a sure fire, PEQ-2, Aimpoint, and a 28 rd mag was lighter than the 10.5 HK416, empty. Do some research before you bash a weapon. The gun runs 50,000 rounds without cleaning and without malfunctions. My M-4 only starts to run into problems between 1,200 and 2,000. Yes, in the modern Marine Corps we are running Enhanced Marksmanship ranges in which we fire those 2,500 in one day. In my unit we run them all the time. A well lubed M-4 will work through 2,500+ rounds. Why does it matter. Well my weapon gets much dirtier out here from flying dust, raining mud, mud in the vehicles, etc. I liked the HK416 so much that I was shopping for info when I ran into this article. After using it I didn't want to give it back to the DOJ guy (except that it was HEAVY.) Don't get me wrong, I love my M-4. She got me through allot and I only have 2 weeks till I get home. I trust her with my life, she just demands a little more attention. Good ones often do. R, TORO

Delta Force Use

According to this article, it's already in use by the US Delta Force: Better than M4, but you can’t have one --Zegoma beach 12:49, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

The Armytimes don't know what they are talking about. First Army Times doesn't own by the US Army. Second Delta isn't even acknowledge by the US Army. The information about Delta using HK416 is probably false. Army Times is a trade magazine and it job is to promote products that is paid for by companies. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talkcontribs) 30 Mar 2007.
While your first comment is correct - Army Times is owned by Gannett, Inc - your second comment is not. The US Armed Forces has never refused to acknowledge that SFOD-D exists. They do not comment on its membership or activities to maintain security for the unit. And while ArmyTimes was the biggest one to comment on it, the connection between SFOD-D and the HK416 has also been mentioned by HKPro,, and plenty of non-citeable sources that seem to have pulled from them. The Dark 12:07, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
The Secretary of Defense [1] and the Secretary of the Army [2] acknowledge that Gen Schoomaker was assigned to Delta Force earlier in his career. Jons63 12:25, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
Did the Army officially stated that Delta exists in public or not? We all know it exists but the Army never commented on it. You got Army Times, DefenseNews, etc saying this and that about Delta yet they never give the name of their sources. Those sources are not creditable and to me it is all BS. I know a Delta guy but I can't give his name out because well he is special. He told me that his unit wear pink panties into battles. I am telling you the truth, don't you guys believe me? To those magazines everybody is a Delta/Navy Seal/etc. Give me a break. The problem with the M16 is not the gas system but operator error, magazine malfunction, or action/buffer spring wore out. HK is fixing the wrong part of the platform and making the weapon heavier.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talkcontribs) 01 Apr 2007.

One of the designers of this weapon Larry Vickers is a Delta veteran and he says Delta is using it. Chin, Cheng-chuan

There's even a pic of a tier one and presumable Delta force soldier with an HK416 in Iraq.

heres an idea shut the **** up untill i have those pics or have a credible source im going to keep removing it. besides due to the speical nature of delta force they can use basicly anything so its pointless being on the list. (Esskater11 13:22, 11 June 2007 (UTC))

As per this site, with an article written by one of the designers, all SFO groups under JSOC are using HK416, which would incude 1 SFOD-D (aka Delta Force) and DEVGRU (former Seal Team 6). It's also noted as being used by Delta here. Given the number of sources, it is credible to include SFOD-D and DEVGRU as users of the HK416. The Dark 19:36, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

I recently found this picture, it's quite interesting. X360 02:28, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

That is most liekely a civialn demonstarion, u can tell from the old military uniform any elite unite would have the lastest camoflauge such as the ACUPAT. i have seen many pictures like that in gun magizines with guns that arent currently issue(ForeverDEAD 04:03, 2 August 2007 (UTC))

Here is a link to website with interesting photo in iraq for the hk-416 : --Max Mayr 18:16, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Is there any proof that DEVGRU own this carbine ? , i recently read an article saying that Delta own 500 HK416 plus the original proto types and designs . --Max Mayr 18:16, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Part of the problem with the M16 was the operating system and saying it's not means you have no idea how the gas tube works. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 02:10, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

I removed the paragraph about Delta working with H&K to create the carbine. The ref that was provided did not verify the statement. My edit was wrongly reverted by Nukes4Tots, who claimed it was POV. Good faith was not assumed by Nukes4Tots. I reverted the article back to the way it was. Please don't add content without using valid references and please don't make reverts without a valid reason.Outdawg (talk) 20:46, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Your edit was hostile and now you're attacking another editor? You make an assertion that is not supported by YOUR reference and then you remove somebody else's assertion? I'm all about assuming good faith, but you REALLY are operating assuming bad faith. You're obviously against including the information that Delta worked with HK... so prove they didn't or put a 'fact' tag at the end of the section. Don't act in BAD Faith and remove the information unilaterally. --Asams10 (talk) 21:15, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
Wow, took all of 30 seconds to find this in the referenced article, "The elite unit collaborated with the German arms maker to develop the new carbine." Sounds like, uh, support? I'm going to assume good faith and therefore just pass it off as an honest mistake on your part in that you assumed bad faith without checking that what you were saying was honest. Good day. --Asams10 (talk) 21:19, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

My edit wasn't hostile at all. Now that I double checked the ref, I see that I made mistake but you really should calm down because you're the one coming off hostile. Outdawg (talk) 21:30, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Not hostile at all, eh? "My edit was wrongly reverted by Nukes4Tots, who claimed it was POV. Good faith was not assumed by Nukes4Tots. I reverted the article back to the way it was. Please don't add content without using valid references and please don't make reverts without a valid reason." You assumed BAD FAITH on N4T's part, looks like he read the reference. Hostile, yes; heck, you called him a liar when you were wrong. I know hostile. --Asams10 (talk) 22:26, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure why you're getting so upset but you really need to chill. Its really not that big of a deal. I've already admitted that I made a mistake so just be cool.Outdawg (talk) 23:58, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, but you maligned N4T... did he get an apology? --Asams10 (talk) 01:24, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Nukes4Tots, my bad, I didn't mean to almost start an edit war. I hope everything is clear now. Outdawg (talk) 01:35, 19 March 2008 (UTC)


Is the name HK416 or HK 416? Operators Manual and HK's own site says HK416. The roll mark is HK 416. 08:00, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure its HK416, but when HK advertises their products they tend to break up the name sometimes, like MP7 A1 (instead of MP7A1). I have no idea why they do this but it seems the majority of the way the name is written is HK416. 00:15, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Consumer version.

Any information on when they will be releasing a consumer version of the rifle?

Nothing yet, but I know Heckler & Koch is growing a trend that it doesn't like selling guns to the civilian market. Most of their commercial firearms are heavily modified; I doubt the HK416 will make it through unmodified, but I may be wrong. X360 02:25, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

It has been confirmed that H&K will sell the civilian version of HK416 rifles [3]

Why was this artical changed to a magazine ad

Seriously can someone change it back to the old artical, currently this one looks like it came stright out of guns and ammo.(ForeverDEAD 21:56, 10 September 2007 (UTC))

This article has always looked like a magazine ad or one of HK's brochures. D.E. Watters 00:01, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Last time i was here it was diffent and didnt have the "notable features section" personaly i think we should scrap this versian(ForeverDEAD 01:04, 11 September 2007 (UTC))


any one have a free use image of HK416? --ZH Evers 04:13, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

I concur with the above user. That CG pic is an eyesore. Hopefully someone has one of a real 416 that can be put up. Spartan198 (talk) 13:55, 6 July 2008 (UTC) Spartan198


HK416 lost on July OICW competition against M4 , please confirm .--Max Mayr 07:25, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

The dust chamber evaluation announced in July was rescheduled from August to December. D.E. Watters 23:20, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
Update: Army Times reported yesterday that the tests started in late September due to early delivery of the SCAR-L. The tests aren't expected to be finished until Thanksgiving. D.E. Watters 04:13, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Iraq war use ?

Any sources , Photos for that ?--Max Mayr 10:10, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

here [4] look though the photos one is during Iraq —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 16:29, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

HK416 used by UKSF & French Special Forces Brigade?

Can someone confirm this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by BenBrehaut (talkcontribs) 20:27, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

It is. 300 weapons were delivered in 2008 and 200 will be delivered in Q3 2010 (14,5 and 10" versions). —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 20:43, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
An anonymous IP saying it is true is not a reliable source Roger (talk) 08:01, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Grenade Launcher

There is no mention of the grenade launchers HK416 uses on this page. My quick google search produced HK AG-HK416 and picture of Hk416 with M203. Im asking someone confirm and to add these, as I have taken the policy of not editing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 17:50, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

The Hk416 can take the M203 or the HK AG36 Grenade Launcher. But I have only seen photos of the HK AG36. —Preceding unsigned comment added by BenBrehaut (talkcontribs) 12:50, 17 October 2008 (UTC)


The coast guard of Taiwan and the german KSK and GSG-9 are also using the HK416.-- (talk) 21:49, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Please provide a reference so we can verify this and it will get added. --Nukes4Tots (talk) 22:45, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
The german Wikipedia says it. Its in the articles about the KSK and the GSG9.-- (talk) 20:51, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
Please provide a reference... didn't I already say that? Read up on how to reference and provide an English-language reference. --Nukes4Tots (talk) 21:50, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Just had to be said

I cannot help but think tha it looks like the demented lovechild of the FN SCAR and the M4 Carbine. sorry i just had to say it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 11:45, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

It is a competitor to the SCAR-L. The HK417 is a competitor to the SCAR-H. (talk) 02:47, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not a forum. Read WP:NOTFORUM. --Nukes4Tots (talk) 02:52, 18 February 2009 (UTC)


Why is this considered a rifle in the lower "Modern U.S. Infantry Weapons" box? Isn't it technically a carbine? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 03:03, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

civilian ownership by q4 2009 in usa

add this —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 05:01, 17 June 2009 (UTC)


not sure if any of the folks that have commented on this weapon have it or even used it. Frankly, the best way to show the effectiveness of this thing is to place the ejector port side against the ground and fire on auto, then repeat with the current M4... The complete lack of burnt on gas residue, and an efficient and robust chambering mechanism make up for the paltry weight penalty that you see when you hump this thing around. Sadly, the grenade launcher attachment is nice, but the plastic quad sight and the pistol grip make it a bit poor, the pistol grip on the launcher makes it difficult to get the weapon low, but more importantly it adds another snag point to an already cluttered weapon when outfitted with the PEQ, reflex sights, etc. The shorter tube is also odd, why? Only issue I have, is that it wasn't made that way by the venerable Colt folks in the first place. Oh, and the magazines that HK makes aren't my favorite, trade out for the cheap alloy ones, the HK ones don't always lock back, and could give one the impression they are still hot. These are my opinions, based on actual use... —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 23:00, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

This is not a discussion forum. Do you have any literature or advice on how to improve this article? If not, keep it out. Koalorka (talk) 23:41, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

About Turkish clone

Article :Turkish Army will adopt a locally-built HK416 clone, named the Mehmetçik-1

Recent news,it seems TAF wont use the 416. TR Government will design another rifle in 7,62 Calibre or gonna use HK 417.

No translation,Sorry

source(look for MPT comment)[5] also look for official statement [6] —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 14:44, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

i'll delete that section —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 12:11, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm Turkish BTW (talk) 14:47, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Turkish use?

Should we remove it now since there's some word on the net that the Turkish Army won't use it? Ominae (talk) 21:02, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes. Actually, it looks like Turkey was already discussed here and removed from the article (then added back by someone else). ROG5728 (talk) 21:52, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
Guess we should if no one minds. Ominae (talk) 04:52, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

File:Ar-10.jpg Nominated for Deletion

Icon Now Commons orange.svg An image used in this article, File:Ar-10.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Media without a source as of 25 July 2011
What should I do?
A discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. If you feel the deletion can be contested then please do so (commons:COM:SPEEDY has further information). Otherwise consider finding a replacement image before deletion occurs.

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 08:40, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Death of Osama bin Laden

In light of the recent additions to this article, it must be noted that dozens of different guns, such as the SIG P226 pistol and HK MP7 submachine gun, are "reported" or "rumored" to have been used to kill Osama bin Laden. Rumor is not sufficient evidence for adding claims to Wikipedia, and that is especially true with regards to claims about a secretive DEVGRU operation. ROG5728 (talk) 05:04, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Last time I had checked, US News & World Report was a reliable source. Perhaps the wording of my addition to the article was too soft. I did not want to come out saying it that it was the gun used, even though the link I referenced said it as so. -Deathsythe (talk) 05:13, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
Bild (MP7) and NBC News (P226) also qualify as reliable sources, and they claim the exact opposite of what your source claims. Furthermore, the US News article you used clearly states that it is only repeating what was "reported" by "military gear blogs" based on comments by "a SOCOM vet." The claim is based entirely on hearsay, and it is contradicted by a number of other sources claiming various other weapons were used to kill Osama bin Laden. ROG5728 (talk) 06:08, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
The author of the book No Easy Day states in the book that he shot bin Laden in the chest with this weapon. Cla68 (talk) 10:48, 6 September 2012 (UTC)


I'm seeing the HK416 referred to as the "M416" occasionally in media, should this be on the article? (talk) 21:37, 11 August 2012 (UTC)


OK, I'm not a gun person, but technology and its terminology fascinates me. Which is why the description of the HK416 as an "assault rifle" confuses me. To my inexpert eye, it looks like a carbine. Its use cases are those of a carbine. So what makes it not a carbine? And if it isn't a carbine, what's it doing in the Individual Carbine competition? These are questions that the article ought to answer. Isaac Rabinovitch (talk) 01:08, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Because "Assault Rifle" and "Carbine" are not mutually exclusive terms. "Assault Rifle" refers to the type of round it fires and its select-fire capability, whereas "Carbine" refers to its length, and is a category that the 20" barrelled version at the very least doesn't fit into. LostCause231 (talk) 21:29, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
OK, that's clear enough. So this weapon has multiple versions, some of which are carbines, some of which are long rifles? Is there a word for such a weapon? --Isaac Rabinovitch (talk) 01:50, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
Yes, that term is rifle. All carbines are rifles but all rifles are not carbines.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 02:17, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

A suggested minor edit for the article

This in no way is a comment made after an comprehensive comparison of the articles, however one difference between the french Wikepedia article and this english one is that french version reports the following Canadian services using the HK416:

Canada : Le SWAT de la ville de Longueuil, ainsi que la Sûreté du Québec, de la ville de Québec(Québec)2 utilisent le HK416. Il semblerait que les HK 416 du GTI (Québec)soit équipé de deux viseurs : un red dot pour les engagements à courte distance et un viseur ACOG pour les engagements à plus longue distance. Une lampe Surefire est attaché sur le rail latéral droit."

Hence: Canadian users include the SWAT teams (actually known as 'groupes tactiques d’intervention' or literally, 'tactical intervention teams') of the City of Longueuil (Quebec), the Quebec Provincial Police (literally 'Quebec Security' often referred to even in English as the 'Sûreté') , as well as the City of Quebec. Note also references to technical differences of the weapons in use by these services regarding the sights and a lamp accessory mounted the rail. — Preceding comment added by JC (talk) 09:37, 26 January 2013 (UTC) (talk) 09:28, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

KSK use HK416?

As far as I konw, KSK do not use HK416, they use G36K, AWP, MP7, P12, G3, but they do not use HK416. I wonder why they refuse have a try. While G28 has been used as the DMrife in Germany Army, KSK still use G3; while HK416 has been used in SEALs, KSK still use G36K. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sunjinmeng (talkcontribs) 12:58, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Removal of "More Accurate"

I have removed the "More Accurate" section of the barrel description. As someone who has carried an M-16 in combat and experimented with an HK416, there is not a chance in hell it is more accurate. The addition of a piston and more moving parts, means more barrel stress and more moving parts. Adding the piston degrades accuracy, not by much but it does.

First off, you should always sign your comments using ~~~~. I can't find the edit you made, and have no clue when it was made. Secondly, I believe the comparison was made between the HK416 and the M4 it's an upgrade of and not in comparison to the M16. The barrel being free-floating might or might not compensate but regardless there has to be some way to verify your statements through reliable sources, even more so since there is no way to determine if you are an acknowledged weapons expert or a kid who played Call of Duty. BP OMowe (talk) 19:19, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Turkish use

How come it's back in the users section? IIRC, a few of us talked about removing it since the Turkish military is not looking into the rifle anymore? Ominae (talk) 04:39, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

If the Turks are no longer looking into the rifle, then it should not be in users. Maybe a sentence in history saying that it was considered though. (?)Grizzly chipmunk (talk) 16:08, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

No no the maroon berets use it. But in a small quantitiy of course. Note: see these [7], [8] KazekageTR (talk) 18:07, 2 April 2014 (UTC)


I have deleted a couple of citations to It is not a reliable source for Wikipedia articles because its articles are anonymously posted and there's no discernible editorial review process. See WP:V for general rules, and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Firearms#HKPRO/ for a specific discussion of this source. Rezin (talk) 22:48, 30 December 2014 (UTC)