Sneak preview of the HK 417 rifle.

Its a prototype. Supposedly to fire the 7.62x51 mm rounds. Don't know much about it. This picture is not official. Looks like a G3 to me.

mod edit: original image source:
spaces.msn.com...

[edit on 2-2-2006 by UK Wizard]

It has nothing to do with G3, it clearly has a AR type breach system.. Only common part with G3 might be the magazine.

Well well, now HK has a SCAR proposal as well!

Looks good with much commonality with the AR-15 rifles.

The stock has a very large buttpad, i'm sure that helps quite a bit with absorbing the recoil of the 7.62x51mm round, it also seem to have the HK gas-system, piccitanny rails and probably a magnifying scope or a red dot scope (albeit a bit large for a red dot).

Thanks for sharing delta

That's a nice find, good job

The HK416/417 is a really nice rifle but 7.62x51 is REALLY going to thump out of an AR style carbine like that.

Originally posted by deltaboy

Its a prototype. Supposedly to fire the 7.62x51 mm rounds. Don't know much about it. This picture is not official. Looks like a G3 to me.

mod edit: original image source:
spaces.msn.com...

[edit on 2-2-2006 by UK Wizard]

another worthless overpriced rifle you might as well stick to the shortend version of the G3 with foldable/colapsabale stock if you want to use 7.62nato rounds becuase it will be much cheeper to get hold of and is battle tested and reliable.


also that gun just looks like a cut and paste of different guns m4 stock, h&k HK53A3 centre moded to fire 7.62 & front end cover for barell is just the piece thats used on the 6.8mm conversion for the m16. i cant belive they even bothered to make this gun they should of spent there money finishing the amazing caseless g11 that they started and never finished.

stock/butt:
world.guns.ru...

centre:
world.guns.ru...

barell cover:
www.thedonovan.com...

they look so similar to the pieces on the h&k417 its not even funny.

Originally posted by iqonx
....... they should of spent there money finishing the amazing caseless g11 that they started and never finished.....

Sorry, but I could be wrong about this.

G11 uses a totally different ammo. So, getting people from other countries to buy it, would be a turn off. Since they would have to buy the new ammo.

In terms of marketing value, it would be better to market a product, which is compatiable with the current available hardware, rather then, coming out with a product, which needs new hardware made for its own use only.

Originally posted by Humster

Originally posted by iqonx
....... they should of spent there money finishing the amazing caseless g11 that they started and never finished.....

Sorry, but I could be wrong about this.

G11 uses a totally different ammo. So, getting people from other countries to buy it, would be a turn off. Since they would have to buy the new ammo.

In terms of marketing value, it would be better to market a product, which is compatiable with the current available hardware, rather then, coming out with a product, which needs new hardware made for its own use only.

thats true mate. but i would have liked to see atleast something new on the market. all it seems is companies have run out of ideas and keep marketing the same stuff over and over again just with new outer packaging. but then again is there really a difference between this gun and a G3 i persoanlly dont see the need for this as the G3 is cheeper and already battle tested also it has shortend version available which is roughly the same size as this gun.

and about the ammo for the g11 you are right it uses a completly different ammo but thats no problem becuase if a product is good and then the product will sell even if it is new just like the FN P90 showed people will buy it if it is good. the G11 would work if it opened up its ammunition for anybody to be able to produce it rather then just give out contracts to certain companies becuase this would help to drive down the prices of the ammo and also make it more commercial and widely available.

IQ,

>>
And about the ammo for the g11 you are right it uses a completly different ammo but thats no problem becuase if a product is good and then the product will sell even if it is new just like the FN P90 showed people will buy it if it is good. the G11 would work if it opened up its ammunition for anybody to be able to produce it rather then just give out contracts to certain companies becuase this would help to drive down the prices of the ammo and also make it more commercial and widely available.
>>

6.8mm would also have to be new produced for inventory. Especially if it was 'green' for our services.

OTOH, I'm very MUCH against proliferating weapons technology which makes /the other guys/ rifle lighter or able to fire more rounds. No matter how much cheaper or widely supported it becomes.

Fact is, we may very well end up cursing Kalashnikov and his market saturating AK for another 20+ years thanks to the simplicity of a weapon which is so nominally 'indestructible'. What we don't need to be doing is competing with ourselves as to how to outrange this gun because the very operating system which makes it easy to maintain in a barbarian's hands also is too loose in all it's tolerances to be good for anything past 150-200m.

Ranges which don't require the mile per second mvs that we're heading towards.

Is the West preparing to fight itself? If so, why would we use varmint calibers for ranges beyond what the human eye can accurately see round splash? Throw out something explosive with a big dang sight and be done.

OTOH, my big problem with the G-11 is simply that its three round burst mode has a total kick similar to that of the 7.62X51. While its 4.7mm round just _will not_ do the trick on IBA or long shots. Especially in winds.

Better to drop the high MV except for specialist weapons and go with a median pistol-carbine cartridge that gives you close range knockdown (10mm) at half the recoil impulse and _more rounds onboard_.

IMO, the only way to achieve this with fixed volume (i.e. no LP or EML) ammunition, even CT-caseless, is to have dual-well receiver technology that lets you double the magazine size as 'twin sticks' feeding the revolver cylnder from each side.

That in turn means a lighter, shorter, weapon anyway. Because you are now carrying 90rds well out over the barrel.


KPl.

have you played too much BF 2...

Originally posted by ch1466Better to drop the high MV except for specialist weapons and go with a median pistol-carbine cartridge that gives you close range knockdown (10mm) at half the recoil impulse and _more rounds onboard_.

Combat troops are complaining about the terminal ballistics of the 5.56mm round and you want to issue them with a pistol caliber as their primary weapon. Real smart idea.

Well Heckler & Koch I guess they all can't be winners like the MP-5 and G36.

This is clearly just a rehash of their HK416 chambered for the 308 NATO instead of the 5.56. Nothing really new or inovative in either of these guns. With a base model M-16 and a few hundred buck anyone can build pretty much the same thing.

Originally posted by ch1466
...
OTOH, my big problem with the G-11 is simply that its three round burst mode has a total kick similar to that of the 7.62X51. While its 4.7mm round just _will not_ do the trick on IBA or long shots. Especially in winds.

Better to drop the high MV except for specialist weapons and go with a median pistol-carbine cartridge that gives you close range knockdown (10mm) at half the recoil impulse and _more rounds onboard_....

The emphasis of the G11 is to increase the hit percentage. Although a singular 4.7mm caseless round cannot compete with the knockdown power of a 10mm pistol/rifle hybrid with increased load or a 7.62mm NATO in its AP capability I´d guess it is still better to hit the target with at least 1 of your 3 rounds than either hit or miss completely with your more "masculine" caliber... And that while being ballistically optimized for the average 300m range. After all the multiple hit theory is what the whole rifle was built around, and not because boxy rifles and caseless ammunition were en vogue in the 80s

And 600 rounds of 4.7mm caseless on the man vs. 300 5.56mm or 120 7.62mm at the same weight definately IS an argument. And the slow ~450RPM cyclic rate on sustained fire WITH recoil dampener could also prove more effective in a military context than a huge 7.62mm rifle that loses aim after the first shot. After all a military engagement is more a "fire and movement" situation than a "hit and run" police-like engagement. With all the "urbanization" that takes place in the US infantry right now it shouldnt be forgotten that they still have to be able to fight a war, and not become a proto-SWAT in desert camo.

Originally posted by ShadowXIX
Well Heckler & Koch I guess they all can't be winners like the MP-5 and G36.

This is clearly just a rehash of their HK416 chambered for the 308 NATO instead of the 5.56. Nothing really new or inovative in either of these guns. With a base model M-16 and a few hundred buck anyone can build pretty much the same thing.

I wouldnt say its THAT easy to rechamber the HK416. Basically the 417 barrel in the shown configuration is about 13 inches long and the whole weapon has a low weight. It should have a tremendous kick, so the 417 is likely to have several sorts of recoil dampeners in-built - optical proof is the buttplate.

And the whole HK416 project isnt aimed at being "new", its a concession to the american LE/Mil (and possibly the civvie) market that obviously favors (C-)AR-15 layout weapons. Basically the US customers are so accustomed to the M4/M16 ergonomics that a simple differing handling alone is enough argumentation NOT to buy a different rifle. So thats the simple reason why the HK416 was made. But its not soo easy as you say to make a successful adaption in the current package.

1. They had to integrate a gas piston system which naturally makes the weapon heavier, and still in a way that its weight doesnt go far beyond the baseline M4. The rails also contribute to the weight.
   
2. Another point is that it has to have a definitive edge over the the current M4/M16 reliability- and maintenance-wise. That includes high-tech materials and an extremely high manufacturing quality - without inhibiting mass production.
   
3. So overall you have a rifle that has a more complicated and more precisely manufactured interiour to have an edge over the M4/M16 and that still has a low enough price that it wouldnt be a hurting factor in a procurement. Quite a task I would say, and nothing you could do with "a baseline M16 and a few hundred Dollars". Basically they have to make a rifle that works better, has less negative aspects and enough selling points from the FIRST day than a rifle that had a 45 year evolution as of now.
   

Sorry if some points are unclear, I blame it on my lacking English vocabulary

[edit on 10/2/2006 by Lonestar24]

Originally posted by Lonestar24

And the whole HK416 project isnt aimed at being "new", its a concession to the american LE/Mil (and possibly the civvie) market that obviously favors (C-)AR-15 layout weapons. Basically the US customers are so accustomed to the M4/M16 ergonomics that a simple differing handling alone is enough argumentation NOT to buy a different rifle. So thats the simple reason why the HK416 was made. But its not soo easy as you say to make a successful adaption in the current package.

Its really isnt that hard to rechamber a gun like the M16 they have kits anyone can do the same thing. Go to www.Barrettrifles.com and you can buy a conversion kit for any AR-16 to make it fire a truely innovative round the 6.8 Remington SPC for like a $1000 bucks.

Too bad for HK the US military is not looking for a simple rehash of the M-16 the cost on adopting a new service rifle is not really warranted without some major benefits over current designs which the HK416 doesn't have. When one of your biggest selling points is a "innovative free-floating 4-quadrant rail system designed by HK allows all current standard " thats not very innovative these rail systems have pretty much been available for years through mail order catalog.

As for the civilian market HK has a pretty bad record when it comes to Rifles and SMG for civilians. If you want a bastard watered down MP-5 with a 16.5 inch barrel and 10 shot clip no pistol grip your all set Their civilain model of a actual innovative gun the G36 the SL8 is just as lame. It loses really all of its innovation that made the G-36 so great (no great ergonomics bye bye things like pistol grip) and is way overpriced for what you get.

Originally posted by ShadowXIX
Its really isnt that hard to rechamber a gun like the M16 they have kits anyone can do the same thing. Go to www.Barrettrifles.com and you can buy a conversion kit for any AR-16 to make it fire a truely innovative round the 6.8 Remington SPC for like a $1000 bucks.

I didnt say that a simple rechambering is not possible. I said that an improvement program like the HK416 or the Leitner-Wise gas piston uppers is not as easy you put it ("an M16 and a couple hundred Dollars) in your first post, and that there are more things to consider than just the caliber and the barrel. And just because the Barret upper uses a different caliber that doesnt make it any more "innovative" than any other improved AR-15 upper - if anything then the CARTRIDGE is innovative, not the boomstick around it. In general both HK and FN Herstal undoubtly have been the most innovative and progressive firearm manufaturers of the last decades - but if you are progressive, some projects WILL fail.

Too bad for HK the US military is not looking for a simple rehash of the M-16 the cost on adopting a new service rifle is not really warranted without some major benefits over current designs which the HK416 doesn't have. When one of your biggest selling points is a "innovative free-floating 4-quadrant rail system designed by HK allows all current standard " thats not very innovative these rail systems have pretty much been available for years through mail order catalog.

Actually their newest Document SAYS that they want nothing too fancy for a future carbine - compared to the OICW-1 some of the requirements are notably tuned down (for example 600 MRBF vs. 2300 MRBF in the OICW-1 solicitation). They even want to keep the 5.56mm. SOCOM has also set a date for phasing out the M4 (something like 2012), and when that point has arrived and we do NOT yet have man portable Gauss rifles and Laser Blasters the new weapon WILL not be too different.

And you missed the whole point: Its not only the military contract they want (the wet dream of every firearms manufacturer), the LE market is also what they are aiming at. Several HKUSA persons have also stated inofficially that the HK416 will be released to public. Given the overall market presence of Ar-15 clones its not a stupid idea to launch your own contender. The new SIG 556 is nothing else than a SIG/AR-15 inbred to get right into that market.

And yes, free-floating rails ARE a selling point, because a good deal of rails on the market are only to be attached to existing handguards or at non-optimized attachment points. But its by not one of the biggest selling points as can be seen on this list. The BIGGEST selling point however is that HK tactical firearms USUALLY have worked like a charm once they reached production stage - and didnt need extensive rework like some of the other known Mil/LE firearms out there. Lets just say that there are people who say that they wouldnt take any other rifle than a M16 in a war, there are people that say they would go with ANY weapon that is NOT an M16, and many in-between. I personally however have never heard anyone from the armed forces say that they would NOT want a HK in combat.

As for the civilian market HK has a pretty bad record when it comes to Rifles and SMG for civilians. If you want a bastard watered down MP-5 with a 16.5 inch barrel and 10 shot clip no pistol grip your all set

Their civilain model of a actual innovative gun the G36 the SL8 is just as lame. It loses really all of its innovation that made the G-36 so great (no great ergonomics bye bye things like pistol grip) and is way overpriced for what you get.

I hope you realize that HK isnt responsible for the US american regulations on Assault/import rifles of the past 2 decades, as well as the german laws regarding firearms. When the Bush administration says that pistol grips are what makes a rifle "evil", then HK simply has to use another grip, else they couldnt import and sell their stuff. If they may not sell their G36, then they have to sell the SL8, its as simple as that.

In the course of this process HK has decided not to invest too much time into the civvie sector anymore which I can understand. I guess its rather tiring for a non-US manufacturer to rework their weapons every time a new government invents new laws RE firearms. With all the countries using G36, G3, MP5, MP7, a whole bunch of pistols etc. thats definately a sign that HK can pretty much hold its ground without caring for US civilian sales too much.

I think the decision whether HKs are overpriced should be left to the customers, and there are enough factors that play into this decision. Some prefer to buy a M1911 clone for $500 and give their pistol to a gunsmith who customizes and reworks the pistol for another $500; some others might prefer buying a $800 USP45, take it out of the box when it arrives and go onto the range to shoot it exactly in the condition they have received it from the factory.

[edit on 10/2/2006 by Lonestar24]

Originally posted by Lonestar24
In general both HK and FN Herstal undoubtly have been the most innovative and progressive firearm manufaturers of the last decades - but if you are progressive, some projects WILL fail.

I cant agree more HK and FN have made some very innovative guns the like the MP-5 & FN-P0 for example Heck Im even getting a civilian PS90 (SBR) every one cant be a winner IMHO I wouldn't bet on the HK416 nor would I purchase a civilain version.

Originally posted by Lonestar24
I hope you realize that HK isnt responsible for the US american regulations on Assault/import rifles of the past 2 decades, as well as the german laws regarding firearms. When the Bush administration says that pistol grips are what makes a rifle "evil", then HK simply has to use another grip, else they couldnt import and sell their stuff. If they may not sell their G36, then they have to sell the SL8, its as simple as that.

I agree but HK has to deal with those regulations. No pistol grip AWB regulation which was a child of Clinton not Bush BTW exist anymore. There was always ways around that during the AWB ways HK never used.

The AWB is long dead and still HK produces these watered down version of their rifles. While a company like FN produces 2 civilian version of their P90 one with exception of the select fire mode is indentical to the military P90 the other even with a 16in barrel is still smaller then a AK-74su with stock extended which are already selling very well. HK never did that with their MP-5 after all these years.

im going to have to say it again this gun is nothing special when the G3 can do everything this can for cheep. you can pick up G3 from pakistan or iran for cheep and that will do anything this can and is battle proven.

not that i have anything against this gun. but knowing H&K like we all do this gun is going to be ridiculusly expensive for something thats not uniqe or even innovative.

Its basically an M-16/M-4 with an FN FAL/G3 magazine

H&K has also brought factories in the US and has made M-16 type rifles and FN Minimi clones too

Originally posted by Browno
Its basically an M-16/M-4 with an FN FAL/G3 magazine

No, the HK416 is quite different internally from the M16 technology - thats whole point of that thing. And the magazine is a G3 one, they are not the same as FAL mags.

H&K has also brought factories in the US and has made M-16 type rifles and FN Minimi clones too

HK has one subsidiary in Sterling, Virginia. There is no full production vacility in the USA as of now. It was intended to set up a factory in Georgia following the acceptance of the XM8 rifle - which didnt happen.

And HK has not made any clones of M16 or FN Minimis - if anything they made inofficial reproductions of those weapons strictly for internal studies of manufacturing processes and technical solutions.

Maybe I'm missing something, but why not just chop down an AR10 if you want a 7.62mm rifle on this frame? Easy enough to modernise the design, people have been doing it with the AR15 series for years.

If the idea was only to have an up-to-date 7.62 rifle, yes they could just as well remodernize the AR-10. But there are 4 basic problems:

1. It has the same direct gas system like the M16 resulting in carbon buildup (the "dirty rifle")
   
2. The direct gas system is sensitive to barrel/gas tube length (the M4 has several problems resulting from the higher pressure and increasd ROF). The gas piston however can be made with virtually any reasonable barrel length - be it in 5.56mm or 7.62mm.
   
3. The AR15 series has also shown to be ammunition sensible - a problem the AR-10 MIGHT have, too.
   
4. finally, the HK416 was done anyway, and only then they decided to build a 7.62 version. So in the end it most probably is cheaper to go up from the 416 to 417 than to completely rework the AR-10.
   

[edit on 13/2/2006 by Lonestar24]