UPDATE: New carbine

I’m traveling and haven’t had much time to look into this, but someone in the comments at Heartless Libertarian points out Colt Canada, and last night on the plane I was re-reading the solicitations and noticed that the carbine calls for the majority of production to be in the “United States/Canada”. Hmmmm.

I really wonder if this isn’t some attempt to get an M4-flavor carbine, though I don’t understand why they’d have to play games to buy more of the same. Unless this is being driven by those who cried about “open competition” when the XM8 was on the fast-track, and now they need to walk the talk just enough to get their program the green light. Say, for instance, the XM8 or another weapon comes in with far better specs, but a cheaper option which meets these dumbed-down requirements can make the “good enough” claim and wins the contract.

If we’re going to go through the pain of a change, we shouldn’t be settling for “good enough”.

The big drop in minimum requirements from the OICW1 spec and the vagueness of the whole thing really have me wondering what’s up. If they just want more M4s (which is the first thing that comes to mind when I read this solicitation), why not just buy more M4s? That’s what I think is so fishy.

Make sure to read Heartless Libertarian’s post.

If the XM8 works as advertised, it should be able to compete well and have the advantage of having gone so far in deveopment recently. Get rid of that stupid proprietary mounting system, add Picatinny rails, and they should be golden. (You’ll notice that the requirement calls for the rails to be “incorporated on each weapon”. When critics of the XM8 complained about the integrated system (a criticism with which I agreed), HK immediately rolled out M1913 rail add-ons. The next step is to ditch the propietary system and incorporate M1913s to begin with.

The HK416, too, might fit the bill. I’ve also wondered if the SCAR-L might not work, but I think it might be too heavy, and someone in my comments noted that it was. Not sure on that and no time to look right now. If someone could verify that, I’d be much obliged.

UPDATE Commenter Steve helpfully posted these numbers for our consumption:

G36C- 6.28 lb (HKpro)
G36 is 7.28 lb (from HKPRO)
HK416- 7.3-7.7 lb (10-14 inch barrel) (HK website)
HK53- 5.96 (~8 inch barrel) (HK pro)
Colt M4 Commando – 5.38 lb (Colt website)
Colt M4 – 5.9 lb (colt website)
Busmaster- Has a bunch from 5-7 lb’s
SCAR-l 7.7 lb (according Defense tech)
Steyr AUG A3 – 8.2 lb (Steyr-Man. website)
Sig 552 – 7.0 lb (8.9″) (Stg 90 page)
Sig 551 – 7.7 lb (16″) (Stg 90 page)

I honestly had no idea that the HK416 was so (relatively) heavy. When the OICW1 was shelved, I meant to do an in-depth post on the HK416 but never got to it. If I had made the time and done a little research, I’d have known. But MO readers once again save the day. Well done!

And, for what it’s worth, if this is a ploy to get more M4s, I’m not necessarily opposed to the plan. If we need more time to get the OICW program back on track and require a large number of weapons to hold us over (due to the delay and the heavy use in the combat zones the current inventory has seen) I have no problem with more of the same, or a incremental upgrade of the same. It wouldn’t make a lot of sense to swap out primary weapons in a large part of the military just to do it again in a few years when the OICW (or equivalent) comes online. For all the griping and all the debate over the 5.56, it’s not like our guys in the field have sub-par weapons. The M16/M4 system is definitely up to the task. It’s just that there might be something better out there. Plus, it seems to me that a carbine is just plain not going perform as well as the troops want in a lot of cases, due to the fact that it’s a carbine. A carbine is a weapon that compromises performance for size and weight.

Repeat: A carbine is a compromise. That’s why there is such a thing.

So if this is just to hold us over for a couple of years, let’s drop the theatrics and just get more of what we’ve got.

But if this is really and truly a bid to get us the next-generation standard weapons, someone needs to explain why the bar is so low.


  1. Some weights of a a few rifles on the market as compared to 6.5 lb cutoff: G36- 6.28 lb (HKpro) HK416- 7.3-7.7 lb (10-14 inch barrel) (HK website) HK53- 5.96 (~8 inch barrel) (HK pro) Colt M4 Commando – 5.38 lb (Colt website) Colt M4 – 5.9 lb (colt website) Busmaster- Has a bunch from 5-7 lb’s SCAR-l 7.7 lb (according Defense tech) Steyr AUG A3 – 8.2 lb (Steyr-Man. website) Sig 552 – 7.0 lb (8.9′) (Stg 90 page) Sig 551 – 7.7 lb (16′) (Stg 90 page)

  2. Who knows what they are doing. I suspect it has more to do with politics than ‘best choice’ for the grunts.

  3. The XM8 weights quoted elsewhere are typically from the earliest brochures and are outdated. While the initial weight of the XM8 was quoted at 6.2 lbs, HK claimed that they would be able to trim the weight down to 5.7 lbs. Instead, the XM8 bulked up over time from 6.2 to 6.4 to 7.0 lbs. By 10/13/04, the standard carbine weighed in at 7.5 lbs. This is not a dyslexic misprint. At the same time, the special compact variant weighed in at 7.1 lbs. Check the HK brochure that General Dynamics posted on their site when they announced their joint venture for the XM8. This is the latest brochure that I’ve seen online. http://www.generaldynamics.com/news/press_releases/2005/H&K%20XM8%20Overview.pdf

  4. Murdoc, I rarely disagree with you but I do here on two points. 1. Yes, a carbine is a compromise That doesn’t mean it’s a compromise we should make. Truck drivers and tankers should get carbines – not front-line RIFLEmen. 2. I am adamantly opposed to a plan to get more M4’s. The M-16 was a piece of crap 40 years ago. Now it’s a laughably obsolete piece of crap. Compared to a quality rifle (a full barreled G-36 or Aug) the M4 is both inaccurate and unreliable. The problems with the direct gas system are well documented. The barrel is too short for medium range accuracy and is also less lethal round due to lower muzzle velocity. Hence the dumbed down requirements. Since we seem to be in a cycle of fighting small wars in the Middle East, it would be in our interests to buy a rifle that is reliable in the sand. The M4/16 is at it’s worst is sand. When (not if) we face an enemy with high quality body armor, the M4 will be completely useless. My unit shared several check points during Desert Shield with the Saudi Army. I have no idea how competent they were as Soldiers but it was galling to see how much better armed the were. The grunts carried Nato 7.62mm H&K G3’s – a big manly rifle, ideal for the desert where reliability and long range accuracy were the keys. Their senior NCO’s and officers carried MP5’s – far more effective short range weapons than our pistols. We went to a range in Saudi just before the air-war started. Nearly every M-16 had a serious stoppage. There were some very shaken Marines that day. Not the way we should be sending our troops into battle. The nannies in Congress and the Pentagon keep loading us up with additional layers of body armor (I believe we are up to 25lbs now), then arbitrarily decide our rifle (by far the most important piece of equipment for a RIFLEman) can’t weigh more than 6.5 lbs. Maybe they should start calling us Armormen. While we are buying $100 million planes and $1 billion boats, we can’t afford an accurate and reliable rifle? How many of those planes and boats saw combat last year or will this year? Nice to know where the Grunt stands in terms of priorities. Sorry for the rant.

  5. The bottomline issue is that if Colt does not get the contract, Colt goes out of business. Thus, they raised holy hell when XM-8 appeared to win the contract. Thus enters Senator Dodd. He plus a few pals, got the army to recind the contract. Yet Colt needs more, Colt being strapped for cash and having outdated manufacturing processes cannot produce a weapon that can compete. So now you see the lowered requirements. We would be better off, to pay Colt 250 million to go away. XM-8 may not be the best weapon out there, but its far better then the M-4.

  6. Agreed. I dont’t recall seeing the Senator on patrol with one of his hometown pieces of shit. Pay Colt to make H&K’s design, or the new LMG design, whatever.

  7. Pro/Con of M4 and M16 familiy is a debate I will leave for the ages, but Colt Defense has been doing fine for the last few years. http://www.hoovers.com/colt-defense/–ID__138571,period__A–/free-co-fin-income.xhtml They have been earning 5-10 percent net profit on sales of 30-50 million dollars. They are pretty diverisfied to boot. As DE Watters points out, don’t be to quick blame the end of the XM8 on other arms companies and senators bitching about buying from the germans (though it was partnered with GD by that point). The XM8 program wasn’t meeting its technical goals for a rifle system it never had to compete with other arms companies with. Granted HK had been part of the winning team to work on the OICW- but that was not only very different from the XM8 system but it, too did meet technical goals. Criticism of the M4/M16..fine, but lets get real about Colts finances and problems with the XM8 program.

  8. re: 1913 rails vs. xm8 system. As I understand it the whole point in this regard was to try something new, and not to be beholden to a legacy technology. The goal of the ‘new’ was to be able to add to the weapon new factory zeroed doodads quickly and easily, with no tools or special training. No Armorer needed. The only thing here I can object to is the proprietary nature of the technology, which could be easily resolved by buying the patent off HK, and making it Open Sourse (so to speak). why the alergic reaction?

  9. That is a great post over at hl. I agree it is interesting that about ‘canada/us’ source. I would point a couple other things though: There was a xm8 variant that had integrated mil 1913 rails rather than PCAP. There is a small mention of in this h&k pdf on the xm8: http://hkdefense.us/corporate/media/pdf/xm8inside.pdf Also given the talk about the 416 competing I looked up its specs- which seems to be to heavy for the carbine. (7.3 (10 inch barrel) -7.7 pounds (14 inch barrel) http://www.hkdefense.us/pages/military-le/rifles-carbines/hk416.html So if the 416 is going to compete its going to half to drop almost a pound.

  10. Bram: I don’t disagree one bit about carbines for non-frontline troops and real rifles for frontline sorts. But that’s not the decision that’s been made. At least the M4 is better compared to the ‘regular’ rifle (M16) than the M1 carbine was compared to the M1 Garand in WW2. Some might whine about the 5.56 NATO, but it sure ain’t no .30 Carbine. Many of the range/accuracy/power concerns about the M4 will also apply to other carbines, as the problem is due to the fact that it’s a 5.56 carbine, not because the M4 is a bad 5.56 carbine. And I don’t particularly like the idea of getting more M4s, but I like it more than getting a new carbine that’s basically an M4 equivalent. Because it will cost more to field and debug and because there will then be a number of reasons to stick with the new crappy weapon because it’s ‘new’. At least with the old crappy weapon (the M4) no one can argue that we just went through the pain of a switch so why do it again so soon.

  11. This whole process will be much like sitting on a hillside and watching a train wreck…. you know it’s coming but there is nothing you can do about it. Unfortunately the combined opinion of the ‘grunts’ will not play into it. Bring on the new ‘poodle shooter’.

  12. Yeah. Sorry I sound bitter. Jim B. is right – no one who will be walking into harm’s way with the selected rifle / carbine has a say on what weapon is picked.

  13. How this competition will be conducted cannot be known before hand, but if the past is any judge your just not right about troops not being involved. In the presentations on sa, they point they want MORE m4s. Among the reasons are its easier to handle inside vehicles. The M4 has drawbacks too- maintiance and reliability. So for the Miltiarty to go and try to get a new M4 like firearm, that improves on its flaws seems quite smart. Furthermore, in past tests, having real troops uses and test fire the weapon is done. This was even done for the XM8- normal troops got to check them out and fire them. It was also true for past firearms tests like the advance combat rifle program. Obviously this is carbine, but thats what been asked for. Its not replacing the M16, its going to be alongside it.

  14. Well like I said, the M16/M4 debate is one for ages. What is certain is that the troops want more M4’s over M16 for the kind of operations they are doing right now- at least this is what is appearing in the presentaions on small arms. Given that, getting more M4 like firearms, but with higher barrel life/reliability is a good choice. If down the road, troops are asking for something different, the so be it. The high amount of MOUT operations means that compact CCQB firearms, especially newer easy to maintain ones, are not going to go amiss. If down the roud we are getting a actual M16 replacement to be procured in much larger numbers than this Carbine, then that, I think is bigger debate. The new LMG is also going to be interesting to watch. One thing about that, is that there is no requirement to use magazine as well as belt feed. So, the next LMG might just be pure belt feed. Also, there is no weight limit. The market there seems much smaller- my guess is a face off between a updated M249 from FN, the Hk23E, and maybe a belt fed M16 derivative such as the ares shrike.

  15. I’m with you Murdoc. This seems like a half-measure that can’t possibly turn out right. If they want something to bridge the period until something like XM8 rolls out, why not just manufacture more of the existing models. If they really want a next-gen weapon system to roll out across the whole force structure, a program like XM8 is the way to go. Parts commonality, updated materials and technology, long development process to iron out the kinks, etc. (As an aside, I don’t have a problem with a accessory connection system to replace 1913 rails — as long as it provides some provable benefit over the rails. I guarantee that accessories will quickly become available for any system the military develops. If it really does work better, I’d even imagine you’d see the industry move in that direction for non-military arms as well.) Is it possible that announcing the OICW I program put a kink in the procurement process? Maybe they simply are not allowed to single-source M4 and M249 contracts after soliciting open competition for similar weapons. There might be a regulation that open competition can not be discontinued once annouced. If that’s the case, then this is simply the formality they have to go through to buy a couple hundred thousand replacement weapons, and this is not really meaningful to the next-generation system at all. I would expect that the real next generation system involves a longer lead time and will be a joint development project among the branches.

  16. I doubt there will be Army / USMC cooperation on this. The two services have very different ideas about what a standard issue rifle should be. The Corps has not bought the M4 in quantity and has decided the stick with the M-16A4 with a 20′ barrel for the near future. Marines still fire on the 500 yard-line during qualification (and expect to hit every time). The Army is asking for a weapon that can hit a target at 300 meters half the time. If the Army did adopt the XM-8 or similar carbine, the Corps would eventually go with a full-length barrel version built to their specs – maybe even look at a heavier caliber. ‘…My rifle and myself know that what counts in this war is not the rounds we fire, the noise of our burst, nor the smoke we make. We know that it is the hits that count. We will hit…’

  17. Colt doing well?? Bankrupt in 1992, reorganized in 2002. Its current incarnation has 54% of its sales dependent on the US army. Read M-4. If the M-4 is not selected…there goes the company. They have not produced a successfull new weapon in 15 years. Its major source of market action has been in the courts – trying to hang on to its M-4 business. Wiki has a nice summary of the company. A telling line – ‘Colt today is a shadow of its former self. It survives primarily on the manufacturing of military weapons based on other companies’ designs, and on the continuing production of classic Colt designs which are sold primarily in the limited collector’s market.’

  18. That is a great quote bram. I think you make a good point there about the range of this firearm- its probably not going to be a heavy hitter. I doubt anyone is going manage a 20 inch barrel at 6.5 pounds. I would point out though that it says ‘…..reflexive fire at close ranges, and with precision fire out to the maximum effective range of 500m.’ To achieve that with 5.56mm it can’t have a super-short barrel, its not clear what ‘effective’ is going to be. As far as how many would be bought ..’up to 200,000 total weapon systems if the total number of options are exercised’ – Anyone know how many M4s have been bought?

  19. If the expected suspense weren’t so short, maybe having a weight standard, but no max/min barrel length would result in at least one bullpup submission. Although both the FN2000 and FAMAS don’t make the weight standard, nevermind the rails and 203.

  20. James- Im not going to doubt the importance of the M4 to their product line, but there balance sheet does not deserve this level of cynicism. With the purchase of diemeco, and split off as colt defense, it is free to focus on defense related weapons. Obviously, historically the company has its ups and downs, but that doesn’t mean its in bad shape now. Keep in mind, the 1990s were tough on a lot of arms companies (end of the cold war etc)- after all H&K was in the red then too, which is why it got bought by the british (though sold back to germans now). The new Carbine is an open competition – while Im not holding my breath that Colt will win it, they don’t deserve undue criticism. Its not the ‘next M16’, its a chance for a better Carbine than the M4.

  21. Steve – The purchase of Diemeco, does not impress. It really does not give Colt access to any new technology or expand their product line. With respect to their financials, its not me that is saying that Colt will go under if they do not get the contract. Its senator Dodd. ‘The Army’s decision to replace the M16/M4/M203 with a program exclusively produced by the foreign based H&K may have a devastating effect on Colt,’ the letter said. ‘The company’s business is now predominantly government based and the termination of the M4 carbine would most likely result in the end of Colt. This outcome would have detrimental effects on the Connecticut employees and the US Army, which will need Colt to provide replacement parts for the M4 until it can be completely phased out around the end of this decade.’ http://dodd.senate.gov/index.php?q=node/3270&pr=press/Releases/04/0709_b.htm If you note, this contract bid, is limited to carbines and clearly not intended to roll this weapon into the Army’s transformation project. This is a stop gap bid, designed to appease Dodd and steer money to Colt. The real contract will most likely not come out for another 18 to 24 months.

  22. Well it would not the first time I disagree with what a senator says, though in this case I will concede it has some truth. Im not entirely convinced though- as shutting down a couple plants does not mean the company is going to end as he suggests. (just the Connecticut employess…) The new carbine is far less of a ‘freebie’ for colt than the XM8 was for H&K. HK not only never had to compete for the XM8 system), it was not meeting its weight goals! If it had been Colt, I suspect people be screaming bloody murder. The Carbine requirment is a open competition though, so if a M4 derivative by Colt is going to win it, its going to have to be better. Also, the LMG requirment is even less of freebie, as Colt doesn’t even offer any belt-fed mgs. I guess what I was disagree with, is being over critical of Colt, when the Army has not been offering a level playing field.If the XM8 carbine had actually met its technical goals (maybe they have now?), it should be able to easily win this Carbine contract. I would agree though that more contracts are in the pipline, as these two contracts don’t cover the role of the M16A4.

  23. If Colt really wanted to stay in business they would be designing and producing rifles, pistols, and shotguns that law enforcement, militaries, and civilians around the world are willing to pay for. That is how they became a profitable company in the nineteenth century. Who in Law Enforcement buys a Colt weapon when they have alternatives? They produce junk these days. How about spending some money on innovation and quality – instead of lobbyists? If Senator Dodd really wants to help Colt, he could start by protecting our Second Amendment rights.

  24. They have made a lot of coll stuff, except the army tends to snub them. They have had many innovative projects- colt scamp, the CAR-15 family, and several 5.56mm mgs to name a few. Everytime they army doesn’t even want to look at the stuff. We could have had a 5.56mm belt-fed machine gun in the 1960s instead of waiting 15 years for the pos 249. The US 6 mm round they were working on would IMO have been much better than another 5.56 round. The colt entry for the SOCOM pistol was decent as well. I think colt bashing would be more fair, if the miltary had not snubbed most of their innovative products. In fact with exception limited number of colt commando’s, and the M4, colt has been treated like crap. Im just as interested as you guys as not giving out ‘freebies’ to US companies and screwing the taxpayer. However, the reverse situation is also bad, and has also been happened. Its not fair to US companies when the Army doesn’t give the a open chance (such as happened with the XM8). I certainly agree about the second amendment rights. The army would have a much easier time buying firearms, if civilians could buy the exact same products.

  25. Forget the M16/M4 family (the original design of which they bought). When was the last time you saw a cop carrying a Colt pistol? Their big revolvers are fun range guns but their automatics have been complete failures.

  26. I would be more than happy to see the m16/m4 go. IMO it should (could?) have been out replaced years ago- IMO especially at the time we were getting the M16A2, which was not nearly a big enough ‘improvement’ (if it was one at all). The thing is it needs to be done in a fair and open competition. I don’t mind people being hard on Colt, but lets be hard on everyone. Colt has had some cool military projects- they were the first to have a complete 5.56mm system, the CAR-15, they came up with more than one 5.56 mm saw in the 60s and 70s. If I had my dithers, the Army never would have cancelled the other 6 mm saws, which IMO have been a much better than staying with 5.56mm. A rifle chambered for 6 mm would have been much better IMO than the SAW standarized to 5.56.

  27. I’ve used both – the A2 was a very big improvement. Much better sights, better barrel able to fire heavier ammo. 3 round burst instead of full-auto that was too hard to control.

  28. Opinions on the A2 vary- I think we could have done better. 3-round burst is a nice idea, but it results in a different trigger pulls. It also makes it harder to be used for suppresive fire in a emergency. I can buy the argument its was improvement, but there are enough other issues that stop me from agreeing it was a very big one. Either way, I think we could of have had a bigger improvement at that time then what did happen.

  29. We could have done much better – replacing the direct gas system with a sealed piston. But… The A1 did not have a windage dial on the sights. Pure suckery trying to shoot at distance in the wind.

  30. pure suckery’ LOL. That about sums it up the M-16 family itself sucks soooooooo bad you can get hickies on your fingers just firing one.

  31. I am not up on the details on the issue between the Army and Colt, but eye rolls, and words ‘never again’ come up. Something about a small company, law suits, patent rights…. the end result is the army getting bent over and forced to buy weapons its did not want from a vendor who would not work and play well with other vendors, while failing to meet performance targets.

  32. Given how popular the AR-15 family of weapons is on the civilian side, one would think that Colt would be doing quite well. After all, they were the original producer of the design, and by all accounts, they do make quality products. But they have two problems: 1) The increase in quality is a good deal less than the increase in price over other manufacturers such as Bushmaster, Armalite, etc. 2) They make their uppers and lowers so they use retaining pins of a different size than everyone else, meaning you have to buy adapters to join a Colt upper or lower to a non-Colt one. Not good planning. Overall, I think Colt doesn’t care much about the civilian market (for that matter, FN and HK don’t much, either), which I think is a mistake. Oh, and Colt could probably also do better if they moved production to a lower cost location, like anywhere in the old CSA, or maybe Idaho, Montana, Wyoming, or the Dakotas.

  33. I don’t know where anybody gets off calling the M16 a piece of crap. Have you actually handled the thing? First off, maintaining its zero is easier than almost any weapon in the standard U.S. armory. Most of the stories of it jamming are from early Vietnam before the barrels were chrome-lined and before a forward assist was added. Does the M16 take more time to clean and maintain than, say, the AK-47? Yes, but then again, so does the G36, as well as all the earlier HK weapons. Does the M16 still jam? Yes, but find me a weapon that doesn’t, and I include the AK-47 and the FAL in that. Keep your weapon clean it will be just fine. The XM8 program has been cancelled. Right now, the only things in line to replace the current M16 in the conventional forces are newer M16 variants. The SCAR rifles are another story. Based on a system that combines the best of the FNC, AK, and AR, the rifle is supposed to be very versitile and light. There is talk about the SCAR-H replacing all sniper systems, but that is unlikely. Everyone is groaning about sending our special op guys in with such a clunkly looking weapon, but remember, these are just prototypes. I’m sure it’ll look a lot better once the A1 version is deployed.

  34. Yes I have some experience with the M-16. I am entitled to my opinion based on experience of my own and troops around me. It sucks. However I think we may be overlooking a very basic part of a new weapon. It looks like me we (they whoever ‘they’ are … and I think ‘they’ keep changing) are working this thing bassackwards. I think that a search for a new weapon should start with finding the right cartridge, and bullet. Then build the launcher around it. Is a 30 cal better, a .25, or a .22 (5.56)? Do the research, select a bullet for capabilities and characteristics, then assemble an acceptable launcher. In short we are putting the cart before the horse here.

  35. New to the MO sight, but I found this on the web. It sheds some light the whole OICW/XM8 story http://www.dodig.mil/Audit/reports/fy06/06-004.pdf

  36. The HK416 isn’t ‘relatively heavy’. My sources and proof are at the end. I am comparing it to what it has been made to replace: The Colt M16A4. HK416 20′ vs. M16A4: The HK416 with a 20′ barrel weighs 0.79 lb more than the Colt M16 A4 with a 20′ barrel. Hk416 14.5′ vs. Colt M4 carbine: HK416 14.5′ weighs 3.5kg/7.71 lb, Colt M4 carbine weighs 2.68kg/5.9 lb. Difference=0.82kg/1.92 lb. HK416 10.5′ vs. Colt M4 Commando: The HK416 10.5′ barrel weighs 3.31kg/7.30 lb, M4 weighs 2.44kg/5.38 lb = 1.92 lb difference. While if the HK416 came with a 11.5′ barrel instead of 10.5′ it would weigh 7.4 lb’s. That is 2.02 lb more than the Colt M4 commando. In this case it is a bit too heavy to compete with the M4. From the source about the weights for the 11.5′ barrel and 20′ barrel, I calculated these from using what is known. you can find what the weight per millimeter of barrel is. Calculations: 368mm-267mm=101mm (difference between two known lengths), 3.5kg-3.31kg=019kg (difference in corresponding weights). Weight per mm of barrel: 0.19/101=0.0018811kg (1mm of barrel length is 0.0018811kg) 20’=508mm. Weight of HK416 with 14.5′ barrel=3.5kg 14.5’=368mm 508mm-368mm=140mm (difference between known and unknown) 140×0.0018811=0.263354kg 3.5+0.263354=3.76kg 3.76kg=8.29 lb. Therefore,M16 A4 weight= 7.5 lb. Difference: 8.29-7.5=0.79 lb I won’t go through the other calculations, but feel free to test these results: HK416 16.6’=3.6kg/7.9 lb. The HK416 in 20′ barrel triumphs over the Colt M16A4. HK need to make two more variants of its HK416 so that they can beat the M4 carbine and commando. They don’t necessarily have to but they can. The only downside of the HK416 20′ is that it has a bit more recoil than the M16A4, due to more moving parts, which the m16 avoids due to the Eugine stoner direct gas system. But the direct system seems to be the problem in the first place. So the HK416 wins. I have completely backed up my sources and specified everything, if you disagree with me, you are wrong. Man I rule. My sources are: -http://www.world.guns.ru/assault/as75-e.htm -http://www.world.guns.ru/assault/as18-e.htm -http://www.colt.com/mil/M16_2.asp -http://www.colt.com/mil/M4Com_2.asp Once again, The weights of the HK416 are: – 10,5’/277mm = 3.31kg/7.30 lb – 14.5’/368mm = 3.5kg/7.72 lb – 16.5’/419mm = 3.6kg/7.94 lb – 20’/508mm = 3.76kg/8.29 lb