I found this informative and very interesting.

I watched (almost) the entire video. I didn't watch the shooting clips at the end.

Is a rifle "overgassed" if it's gassed to meet the reliability requirements of it's users? If someone says a commercially-sold 16" AR15 with a carbine-length gas system and no attention paid to proper porting is "overgassed", I'd have to agree. That's not the case here though. I don't think he ever did specifically state why he thought it was overgassed, and what contributing factors led to that condition. He does mention the high cyclic rate being the main issue. Outside the context of controllability in F/A, I suppose a higher cyclic rate means increased parts wear and increased potential for mag-related failures due to the gun outrunning the mag? Why would HK do this? What performance deficiency were they, or the customer, trying to overcome, that led to the introduction of deficiencies related to the high cyclic rate? Ah, he did say it beats itself up, and the high cyclic rate necessitates the firing pin safety (around 29min); still begs the question why HK did it in the first place. And, in defense of the firing pin safety (so long as it didn't break), I think most would consider that a feature; whether it "needed it" or not.

The 416 takedown pins on the version he's using in the video remind me of Sig 55X pins. The 55X pins can be aggravating, as you need to apply pressure in opposing directions to remove them. They are certainly secure (until the small detent components begin to wear out), but I am not sure it's worth the aggravation. On the 55X, the roll pins holding the detent mechanism together can walk out as well, making it impossible to install the pin fully, until the roll pin is repaired.

Another 55X comparison; this one more of a direct influence, in regard to the 516: the expansion chamber and valve assembly in the 516 is an only slightly modified copy of the assembly in a 55X. The modification in length and pressurized duration is presumably to offset the smaller diameter piston head.

The Caracal doesn't seem like anything special to me, when compared to the Sig. No ambi controls, the charging handle he touts as an improvement is a copy of a PRI gasbuster, and the upper assembly is more-or-less the same as the 516. I think it's likely the Sig would perform similarly, in those sandy test conditions.

The tungsten powder in the buffer seems to be a big deal across the board; the G36 and 416 had it, and the Sig and Caracal borrowed it. The gas system is seemingly superior, on the Sig and Caracal; there's no need to remove the handguard, and the system is adjustable and vents under the handguard. The extractor support in the locking area is also a big deal, IMO; that's another thing that HK pioneered, in this lineage.

Cool video.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: KSGM,

There's a fourth; the Haenel CR223.

I don't know if the Haenel would actually belong in the "lineage", as I am unsure who was instrumental in it's design. The theme of the video was the involvement of an HK engineer and, starting with the 516, a Sig engineer. If neither of those men had anything to do with the CR223, it wouldn't necessarily be in the "lineage".

The CR223 is more-or-less a copy of the 416, right? Does it retain the neat features like the tungsten powder buffer and extractor support? I see it retains the firing pin safety (good), unadjustable gas system (bad), and handguard removal requirement (bad). I say "bad" in the context of the video commenting on these items, and how the Sig and Caracal improved them.

Yeah, I guess "copy of" doesn't meet the intent. Fair point.

Does your CR223 example have an extractor support and tungsten powder buffer?

Caracal owns Haenel. I’d put the Haenel in the same lineage as the 416, 516, 816.

Ah, well that does create a connection. I'd still argue that the Haenel isn't in the lineage in the same way as the others, because it's not representing a progression. It's a 416 copy; and, until design aspects like the tungsten powder and extractor support are proven, it's questionable as to whether it's a good copy. I can't find mention online, concerning either of these features.

It is weird to me, how many little articles, forum posts, and videos have been made about the CR223, and none of them mention anything about whether or not the Haenel has the two design aspects I am curious about. The whole big deal about the damn gun is it's a 416 copy, yet no one talks about anything except the gas system, the firing pin safety, and the drain holes in the buffer tube. The gas system is hardly worth a mention, IMO, as it was already a copy of the G36, when the 416 employed it.

PGT! Can you solve the mystery for me? Shake your buffer and peek at your locking area!

Lots of pics comparing bolt carriers here

https://www.ar15.com/forums/AR...5/126-760713/?page=1

It's a copy...has the extractor support lug

So, you're confirming it has the extractor support inside the barrel extension? There weren't any photos of that, in the photo-heavy posts in that linked thread. The poster did say Both systems have the OTB barrel tab; is that what he's referring to? Haenel does say that the gun is OTB certified, which would imply the presence of the extractor support stud, but they don't go into detail about OTB-enabling features. Also,as was the case as detailed in the video, where the 516 was concerned, the features of the original design don't always make it to the commercial version, due no doubt to penny pinching. So, confirmation of the support piece in the B&T-imported version is important, as is confirmation of the tungsten buffer.

I hope you can shed light on both of these points, PGT.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: KSGM,

This whole discussion also begs the question: how much "enhancement" or "improvement" is OK? He talks about the Sig and Caracal using more milspec parts; he views it as an advantage. It seems we're willing to forego the versatility of milspec parts in some places though, but not others. Obviously, some of the parts in these rifles are still quite proprietary.

I don't recall from the video; do the Sig and/or Caracal have improved extractors, as seen on things like the LMT enhanced bolt? People generally favor the LMT. Is that over the line, when it comes to utilizing parts not as readily accessible as milspec components?

Much like the engineers, the gun nerds among us like new and enhanced designs. The pragmatic shooters among us cry foul when something is too uncommon or proprietary. Some of us are in both camps. I am typically of the opinion that something improved/enhanced ought to have eliminated potential failure points of previous designs, and therefore not friggen break. Of course anything's possible, and a pragmatic user of a proprietary firearm ought to stock up on spare components.

The KAC SR15 is perhaps the best example of this. It is highly proprietary, but of extreme quality, and made by a highly reputable outfit. It specifically addresses every AR15 point of failure learned since it's inception. Folks cry foul of it's high price and proprietary nature.

Didn't the same designer of the Sig 516 and Caracal 816 also design the original Sig MCX?

The tab or extractor support is in the barrel extension so not crazy proprietary though you'd lose it with a barrel swap unless you had a caracal barrel. Atleast that's how it is with the 816 which is the DI version.

The extractor support seems to be strictly a piston rifle feature. In considering these guns, I began to wonder why that feature isn't seen in "high-end" AR15s. It seems that the internal piston design of the Ar15 proper renders the support more-or-less irrelevant, due to the fact that the gas tube and bolt carrier chamber(s) will become full of water. Because the gas system isn't isolated to barrel and gas black, like a short-stroke piston system, the dangerous conditions can't be contained within the strong barrel. A "DI" weapon is potentially impossible to make over-the-beach capable.

quote:

Originally posted by KSGM:
The extractor support seems to be strictly a piston rifle feature. In considering these guns, I began to wonder why that feature isn't seen in "high-end" AR15s. It seems that the internal piston design of the Ar15 proper renders the support more-or-less irrelevant, due to the fact that the gas tube and bolt carrier chamber(s) will become full of water. Because the gas system isn't isolated to barrel and gas black, like a short-stroke piston system, the dangerous conditions can't be contained within the strong barrel. A "DI" weapon is potentially impossible to make over-the-beach capable.

Oh my, so the Piston might outdo the DI in this instance? Not being that guy but I know that I preach designed for piston as superior vs making DI piston. I wonder if this is the one time its better?

Haenel has tungsten powder buffers. Just popped mine out and confirmed.

Also, here’s a pic of the barrel extension.

https://imgur.com/a/TFRzdpW

quote:

Oh my, so the Piston might outdo the DI in this instance

HAHA. My thoughts exactly. This is certainly one of the undeniable advantages of piston operating systems.

Thank you for that confirmation, PGT. It's a shame Sig opted not to include the tungsten buffer in the 516/716 rifles.

quote:

Originally posted by KSGM:
Ah, well that does create a connection. I'd still argue that the Haenel isn't in the lineage in the same way as the others, because it's not representing a progression. It's a 416 copy; and, until design aspects like the tungsten powder and extractor support are proven, it's questionable as to whether it's a good copy. I can't find mention online, concerning either of these features.

It is weird to me, how many little articles, forum posts, and videos have been made about the CR223, and none of them mention anything about whether or not the Haenel has the two design aspects I am curious about. The whole big deal about the damn gun is it's a 416 copy, yet no one talks about anything except the gas system, the firing pin safety, and the drain holes in the buffer tube. The gas system is hardly worth a mention, IMO, as it was already a copy of the G36, when the 416 employed it.

PGT! Can you solve the mystery for me? Shake your buffer and peek at your locking area!

The Haenel also incorporates a replaceable steel cam pin bearing surface behind the cam pin pocket in the upper. And adds a QD locking mech for the handguard. It’s a product improved 416 design.

The more I considered OTB performance, I realized a silencer evens the playing field a bit. A piston rifle with the appropriate features would be able to come out of the water and immediately fire, without a silencer attached. If it had a silencer attached, the silencer and bore would need to be thoroughly drained, prior to firing. If it didn't have a silencer attached, and the user wanted to attach it, the time required to mount the can pulls double duty as drain time. So, if a silencer is in play, a DI is not at quite the same disadvantage, provided it has the requisite receiver extension drain holes, and the action is cycled a couple times. Food for thought.

OTB is an option on the 416, not standard