I'm going to attempt to temper your enthusiasm a bit. While I agree that the rifle is not the wunderwaffe the Army wants it to be and their procurement practices are, in typical bureaucratic fashion, utter garbage, I think this article is overreaching for a clear cut conclusion. It would be nice and easy if the rifle was just terrible and we could dismiss it as another M-14, but I think the reality is not so simple.
Going point by point: the mud test he cites is, as stressed by it's creator, extremely intensive, and should not be taken as a standard measure of reliability. Notably, the HK-416 performs the same as the XM-5 did, but this has not stopped the 416 from being adopted by many of the world's largest armies, including the US Marines (though I admit the USMC plan make the M-17 standard issue is half baked at best). The author also mentions the issue of carcinogenic gas but dismisses it without properly addressing it; alarmingly, this could be interpreted as stating that giving soldiers cancer is worth a marginal increase in reliability. I don't think that was his intention, but the result of cherry picking evidence to over emphasize the rifle's worst qualities.
On the armor piercing capabilities, he acknowledges that defeating level IV plates "unassisted" (which I take to mean with lead core ball ammunition) is not in the spec, so from my perspective we should assume it doesn't exist. Criticizing the Army for saying otherwise is completely fair. A notable issue with citing civilian testing is that civilians do not have access to the high pressure ammunition, which is specified. Every commentator I've seen has raised their eyebrows at the promised 50k PSI (iirc) of this cartridge, so the feasibility is fair game for discussion and criticism. But if that was the author's intent then he should have addressed it directly, instead of deflecting to an Alabamian shooting the civilian loading.
I won't try to rebut issues with the supply chain, I am also concerned about how intertwined the military industrial complex is with the global supply chain (I have a personal conspiracy theory that government support for environmentalism is at least partially driven by a desire to preserve the natural resources of the USA for a potential war... but I digress). Again, the author glosses over a fix in the form of steel penetrators by simply stating that they are also hard to make, but wouldn't they be easier than tungsten? I assume the reason for tungsten he alludes to is because it has better penetration, but is it necessary for the 6.8 cartridge to achieve penetration or is steel sufficient? These are things I think would be worth investigating, but they are glossed over in service of snappy quotes for detractors to cite.
I'm not sure what point he is trying to make about the ballistics. I thought he was trying to say the high pressure as specified isn't possible, but then weakly praises the increased case pressure technology. If his criticism is that this is just higher pressure 7.62, then it's still an improvement. Competition shooters and hunters already benefit from cartridges like 6.5mm Creedmoor, another 7.62 case necked down to a 6mm-class bullet, achieving flatter trajectories with little loss of terminal performance. The even higher pressure of the military spec cartridge should push these benefits further.
The supply chain criticisms for the XM-157 sight are again valid, though I wonder if they also apply to existing sights like Aimpoints. I have never seen any claim that the XM-157 was supposed to be "auto aiming." Those "usable seconds" that the shooter needs to range the target would otherwise be spent wasting one or more shots missing as they walk in their fire, and if those seconds are critical then the shooter can still fire without ranging. The bigger benefit of the sight which is glossed over, in my opinion, is how it integrates the IR laser that every infantryman straps to his rifle anyway, saving space and weight. The rangefinder also has uses in target identification, for reporting positions and calling in fire support. I fail to see many downsides here.
This is a typical watered down hit piece, the same kind of thing that was leveled at the M-16 or the Maxim gun by curmudgeons who fail to see the benefits of technological progress. There are legitimate criticisms of the NGSW program: increased weight while shrinking ammunition capacity, introducing a new cartridge to the supply chain, and yes, terminal effectiveness of the cartridge. Only the latter is addressed here, and poorly. Notably he does not even mention the XM-250 machine gun, which by all accounts is f**king fantastic.
All of that said, I agree the XM-5 will not be the next standard service weapon. I think it has potential though, in a DMR or specialist role. The XM-157 should be mass issued now, and I hope the XM-250 also sees wide adoption, perhaps chambered for 7.62 or 5.56.
Notably, the HK-416 performs the same as the XM-5 did, but this has not stopped the 416 from being adopted by many of the world's largest armies
The 416 is basically an RPK equivalent. It's being adopted by nations that either want to cozy up to Germany and have no state arsenal (France) or want an excuse to replace clapped-out M16s with the same manual of arms (USMC), but most other nations are adopting slightly-overbuilt-for-5.56 can-become-a-light-automatic-rifle-if needed indigenous designs if they have them or modernized ARs if they don't.
Interestingly, it's also kind of junk; the way they did the piston conversion requires they mitigate the fact that the Stoner system is not designed to have force applied in that way; every time it fires, it applies a force to the receiver that isn't supposed to ever be there. SIG's design, as well as some of the East Asian conversions (Chinese and South Korean), mitigate this in a more intelligent way: in fact, the HK 417 (the AR-10 version) needs a steel upper receiver to not be worn out prematurely.
The 416 is actually under-built for 5.56 NATO. Granted, this is a problem the AR has in general- the bolt is undersized for how hot we load 5.56 NATO today (and the 416 is compatible with standard bolts).
This is part of the reason guns like the Bren 2 have significantly thicker bolt lugs- so that you can run the hottest possible ammunition through it (and if you're running a short barrel, loading it that hot is what you have to do to get the fragmentation you're looking for) and it'll never break. Battlefield Vegas' forum posts on Arfcom have nothing but praise for the SCAR-L's durability (another gun with a much beefier bolt), and if you're a small military force that wants your rifles to last a long time because your government really doesn't like the fact the military exists at all having what are essentially forever-rifles that can still do some light but sustained automatic fire it's a wise idea to sell them on the slightly-overbuilt models to avoid having to ask said government for money for new parts later.
What kind of stress does the receiver undergo here?
The Stoner design originally expects that driving force to come from the center of the BCG, so when that force is applied the carrier does not tilt into contact with the receiver (while there probably is some effect based on the gas key it's also going to be minimal relative to everything else).
Better piston conversions, like the SIG MCX (and derivatives; all AR-18s and most AKs do this too), have a steel guide rod in the upper that the bolt assembly rides on, so while there's still going to be a torque generated it's kept in line by a material that's far more resistant to wear.
The 416 (along with most of the early piston conversions) just blank off the gas key with no other modifications, so when the piston contacts the carrier to force it backwards, it also imparts a counterclockwise moment (view the gun from the side with the muzzle pointing to the right) about that blanked-off gas key (the fit isn't perfect; there's a bit of space between the receiver body and the carrier). The net effect of this is that normal use drives the bottom-rear of the carrier into contact with the receiver and wears on it over time if steps aren't taken to mitigate this (to their credit HK's BCG is tapered there, but they wouldn't have to taper it if they did more than just the bare minimum).
H&K making big bank on a gun that's not really that stellar and maybe even flawed
It's probably worth noting the context: the memes about AR-15s when the 416 was created were that standard "direct impingement" (even though it really isn't) were unreliable guns because "shits where it eats" with a side of "muh Vietnam". The AR was never not an excellent rifle, and I think the 416's success is mainly due to that and succeeded despite "fixing" a problem that didn't actually need fixing.
Ah, didn't know about all that, thank you. I think it's only relatively-recently that people have realized that the AR-15 might be the closest thing to a Platonic Ideal of firearms, though there are probably good reasons why First-World nations are adopting all new rifles that use more proprietary short-stroke systems (when they're not buying 416s), as you note.
there are probably good reasons why First-World nations are adopting all new rifles that use more proprietary short-stroke systems
It all ultimately comes down to unit cost.
Contrary to what US market prices might have you believe (and the worst import laws in the world help keep foreign gun prices high), AR-15s are one of the most expensive modern rifles to make- they require more machine time and labor than any other modern rifle. Sure, forging helps get the rough shape right and saves a good chunk of process time, but you still spend a lot of time drilling and tapping holes and milling into that final shape and that gets expensive fast.
Every modern rifle is made this way. They're not nearly as outwardly blatant about it as the Bushmaster M17s is, but aluminum and plastic extrusions require vanishingly little post-processing time: the tubes need to be cut to length and have a few holes cut into them, and the plastic lower assembly needs nothing else (if it needs to be made in 2 halves, like the KE15 does, it can be automatically welded closed). Install the other parts (doesn't require trained labor, even for the barrels most of the time) and the gun's out the door. The upper half doesn't even need to be aluminum if you're smart about it (Beretta was, HK was not) which means even less cost and weight (for the cost of significantly less sustained fire capability and slightly less durability, like the AR).
So why's the AR not made that way too? Because you can't make an AR any other way without losing its unique advantages. The BCG and buffer has to sit where it does mainly for balance reasons- all piston guns except for the AR are front-heavy, and because they usually pack on a pound and a half for reasons related to that aluminum extrusion the balance is worse than a similarly-equipped AR. The Perun X16 is a really good try, but I think most reviewers are confusing more weight with better overall handling. This isn't even something the KE15/WWSD solves, being that it requires more reinforcement material because the stock and lower are one unit and, if you're not using the thinnest barrel and lightest forend you can manage, compromises the balance just the same.
This website is a place for people who want to move past shady thinking and test their ideas in a
court of people who don't all share the same biases. Our goal is to
optimize for light, not heat; this is a group effort, and all commentators are asked to do their part.
The weekly Culture War threads host the most
controversial topics and are the most visible aspect of The Motte. However, many other topics are
appropriate here. We encourage people to post anything related to science, politics, or philosophy;
if in doubt, post!
Check out The Vault for an archive of old quality posts.
You are encouraged to crosspost these elsewhere.
Why are you called The Motte?
A motte is a stone keep on a raised earthwork common in early medieval fortifications. More pertinently,
it's an element in a rhetorical move called a "Motte-and-Bailey",
originally identified by
philosopher Nicholas Shackel. It describes the tendency in discourse for people to move from a controversial
but high value claim to a defensible but less exciting one upon any resistance to the former. He likens
this to the medieval fortification, where a desirable land (the bailey) is abandoned when in danger for
the more easily defended motte. In Shackel's words, "The Motte represents the defensible but undesired
propositions to which one retreats when hard pressed."
On The Motte, always attempt to remain inside your defensible territory, even if you are not being pressed.
New post guidelines
If you're posting something that isn't related to the culture war, we encourage you to post a thread for it.
A submission statement is highly appreciated, but isn't necessary for text posts or links to largely-text posts
such as blogs or news articles; if we're unsure of the value of your post, we might remove it until you add a
submission statement. A submission statement is required for non-text sources (videos, podcasts, images).
Culture war posts go in the culture war thread; all links must either include a submission statement or
significant commentary. Bare links without those will be removed.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
I'm going to attempt to temper your enthusiasm a bit. While I agree that the rifle is not the wunderwaffe the Army wants it to be and their procurement practices are, in typical bureaucratic fashion, utter garbage, I think this article is overreaching for a clear cut conclusion. It would be nice and easy if the rifle was just terrible and we could dismiss it as another M-14, but I think the reality is not so simple.
Going point by point: the mud test he cites is, as stressed by it's creator, extremely intensive, and should not be taken as a standard measure of reliability. Notably, the HK-416 performs the same as the XM-5 did, but this has not stopped the 416 from being adopted by many of the world's largest armies, including the US Marines (though I admit the USMC plan make the M-17 standard issue is half baked at best). The author also mentions the issue of carcinogenic gas but dismisses it without properly addressing it; alarmingly, this could be interpreted as stating that giving soldiers cancer is worth a marginal increase in reliability. I don't think that was his intention, but the result of cherry picking evidence to over emphasize the rifle's worst qualities.
On the armor piercing capabilities, he acknowledges that defeating level IV plates "unassisted" (which I take to mean with lead core ball ammunition) is not in the spec, so from my perspective we should assume it doesn't exist. Criticizing the Army for saying otherwise is completely fair. A notable issue with citing civilian testing is that civilians do not have access to the high pressure ammunition, which is specified. Every commentator I've seen has raised their eyebrows at the promised 50k PSI (iirc) of this cartridge, so the feasibility is fair game for discussion and criticism. But if that was the author's intent then he should have addressed it directly, instead of deflecting to an Alabamian shooting the civilian loading.
I won't try to rebut issues with the supply chain, I am also concerned about how intertwined the military industrial complex is with the global supply chain (I have a personal conspiracy theory that government support for environmentalism is at least partially driven by a desire to preserve the natural resources of the USA for a potential war... but I digress). Again, the author glosses over a fix in the form of steel penetrators by simply stating that they are also hard to make, but wouldn't they be easier than tungsten? I assume the reason for tungsten he alludes to is because it has better penetration, but is it necessary for the 6.8 cartridge to achieve penetration or is steel sufficient? These are things I think would be worth investigating, but they are glossed over in service of snappy quotes for detractors to cite.
I'm not sure what point he is trying to make about the ballistics. I thought he was trying to say the high pressure as specified isn't possible, but then weakly praises the increased case pressure technology. If his criticism is that this is just higher pressure 7.62, then it's still an improvement. Competition shooters and hunters already benefit from cartridges like 6.5mm Creedmoor, another 7.62 case necked down to a 6mm-class bullet, achieving flatter trajectories with little loss of terminal performance. The even higher pressure of the military spec cartridge should push these benefits further.
The supply chain criticisms for the XM-157 sight are again valid, though I wonder if they also apply to existing sights like Aimpoints. I have never seen any claim that the XM-157 was supposed to be "auto aiming." Those "usable seconds" that the shooter needs to range the target would otherwise be spent wasting one or more shots missing as they walk in their fire, and if those seconds are critical then the shooter can still fire without ranging. The bigger benefit of the sight which is glossed over, in my opinion, is how it integrates the IR laser that every infantryman straps to his rifle anyway, saving space and weight. The rangefinder also has uses in target identification, for reporting positions and calling in fire support. I fail to see many downsides here.
This is a typical watered down hit piece, the same kind of thing that was leveled at the M-16 or the Maxim gun by curmudgeons who fail to see the benefits of technological progress. There are legitimate criticisms of the NGSW program: increased weight while shrinking ammunition capacity, introducing a new cartridge to the supply chain, and yes, terminal effectiveness of the cartridge. Only the latter is addressed here, and poorly. Notably he does not even mention the XM-250 machine gun, which by all accounts is f**king fantastic.
All of that said, I agree the XM-5 will not be the next standard service weapon. I think it has potential though, in a DMR or specialist role. The XM-157 should be mass issued now, and I hope the XM-250 also sees wide adoption, perhaps chambered for 7.62 or 5.56.
Edit: I do like the memes though https://ifunny.co/picture/bApDQZJa9
The 416 is basically an RPK equivalent. It's being adopted by nations that either want to cozy up to Germany and have no state arsenal (France) or want an excuse to replace clapped-out M16s with the same manual of arms (USMC), but most other nations are adopting slightly-overbuilt-for-5.56 can-become-a-light-automatic-rifle-if needed indigenous designs if they have them or modernized ARs if they don't.
Interestingly, it's also kind of junk; the way they did the piston conversion requires they mitigate the fact that the Stoner system is not designed to have force applied in that way; every time it fires, it applies a force to the receiver that isn't supposed to ever be there. SIG's design, as well as some of the East Asian conversions (Chinese and South Korean), mitigate this in a more intelligent way: in fact, the HK 417 (the AR-10 version) needs a steel upper receiver to not be worn out prematurely.
So the 416 is overbuilt for 5.56 NATO, but underbuilt for an AR? What kind of stress does the receiver undergo here? Is the 416 overgassed?
Though, yes, "H&K making big bank on a gun that's not really that stellar and maybe even flawed" is nothing new.
The 416 is actually under-built for 5.56 NATO. Granted, this is a problem the AR has in general- the bolt is undersized for how hot we load 5.56 NATO today (and the 416 is compatible with standard bolts).
This is part of the reason guns like the Bren 2 have significantly thicker bolt lugs- so that you can run the hottest possible ammunition through it (and if you're running a short barrel, loading it that hot is what you have to do to get the fragmentation you're looking for) and it'll never break. Battlefield Vegas' forum posts on Arfcom have nothing but praise for the SCAR-L's durability (another gun with a much beefier bolt), and if you're a small military force that wants your rifles to last a long time because your government really doesn't like the fact the military exists at all having what are essentially forever-rifles that can still do some light but sustained automatic fire it's a wise idea to sell them on the slightly-overbuilt models to avoid having to ask said government for money for new parts later.
The Stoner design originally expects that driving force to come from the center of the BCG, so when that force is applied the carrier does not tilt into contact with the receiver (while there probably is some effect based on the gas key it's also going to be minimal relative to everything else).
Better piston conversions, like the SIG MCX (and derivatives; all AR-18s and most AKs do this too), have a steel guide rod in the upper that the bolt assembly rides on, so while there's still going to be a torque generated it's kept in line by a material that's far more resistant to wear.
The 416 (along with most of the early piston conversions) just blank off the gas key with no other modifications, so when the piston contacts the carrier to force it backwards, it also imparts a counterclockwise moment (view the gun from the side with the muzzle pointing to the right) about that blanked-off gas key (the fit isn't perfect; there's a bit of space between the receiver body and the carrier). The net effect of this is that normal use drives the bottom-rear of the carrier into contact with the receiver and wears on it over time if steps aren't taken to mitigate this (to their credit HK's BCG is tapered there, but they wouldn't have to taper it if they did more than just the bare minimum).
It's probably worth noting the context: the memes about AR-15s when the 416 was created were that standard "direct impingement" (even though it really isn't) were unreliable guns because "shits where it eats" with a side of "muh Vietnam". The AR was never not an excellent rifle, and I think the 416's success is mainly due to that and succeeded despite "fixing" a problem that didn't actually need fixing.
Ah, didn't know about all that, thank you. I think it's only relatively-recently that people have realized that the AR-15 might be the closest thing to a Platonic Ideal of firearms, though there are probably good reasons why First-World nations are adopting all new rifles that use more proprietary short-stroke systems (when they're not buying 416s), as you note.
It all ultimately comes down to unit cost.
Contrary to what US market prices might have you believe (and the worst import laws in the world help keep foreign gun prices high), AR-15s are one of the most expensive modern rifles to make- they require more machine time and labor than any other modern rifle. Sure, forging helps get the rough shape right and saves a good chunk of process time, but you still spend a lot of time drilling and tapping holes and milling into that final shape and that gets expensive fast.
You know what's dirt cheap by contrast? Aluminum and plastic extrusions.
Every modern rifle is made this way. They're not nearly as outwardly blatant about it as the Bushmaster M17s is, but aluminum and plastic extrusions require vanishingly little post-processing time: the tubes need to be cut to length and have a few holes cut into them, and the plastic lower assembly needs nothing else (if it needs to be made in 2 halves, like the KE15 does, it can be automatically welded closed). Install the other parts (doesn't require trained labor, even for the barrels most of the time) and the gun's out the door. The upper half doesn't even need to be aluminum if you're smart about it (Beretta was, HK was not) which means even less cost and weight (for the cost of significantly less sustained fire capability and slightly less durability, like the AR).
So why's the AR not made that way too? Because you can't make an AR any other way without losing its unique advantages. The BCG and buffer has to sit where it does mainly for balance reasons- all piston guns except for the AR are front-heavy, and because they usually pack on a pound and a half for reasons related to that aluminum extrusion the balance is worse than a similarly-equipped AR. The Perun X16 is a really good try, but I think most reviewers are confusing more weight with better overall handling. This isn't even something the KE15/WWSD solves, being that it requires more reinforcement material because the stock and lower are one unit and, if you're not using the thinnest barrel and lightest forend you can manage, compromises the balance just the same.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link