It's official: HK416 and 417 on civilian market in late 2009

[John_Wayne777]

Getting out of my lane when we talk about guns that are supposed to fit into your shoulder when you shoot them. As best I recall from SHOT, though, the lower seemed pretty conventional and I'm fairly certain it uses a standard 90-degree selector movement.

While on the topic of 416 safeties....My experience with the 416 is limited to ogling LAV's 416 and playing with KevinB's 416 upper, but IIRC they have a firing pin safety as well....I would assume that's going to be on the civvy model 416, right?

[Army Chief]

The pin issue is a big deal for folks who think they're entitled to an upper-only solution.

I'm with you in principle Todd, but this comment does invite some scrutiny. I don't get the sense that anyone feels that they are "owed" anything, but a thinking man has to consider the implications of our ever-changing laws. Their marketing assertions to the contrary, HK could have given us a semi-416, rather than the MR556: the relevant legal restrictions are ours -- not theirs -- and are easily circumnavigated. As an economy-of-scale or production efficiency measure, their decision makes perfect sense -- I just don't care for the rationale that they chose to provide.

You rightly deduce that HK will sell plenty of these as complete rifles. In truth, I'm sure that legions of buyers would buy a complete rifle, even if all they really wanted was the upper; so I don't take issue with the fact that HK didn't offer an "upper only" option. That's just good business sense on their part. What I do have a problem with is that fact that HK needlessly made it harder for us to deal with our laws if some of our intentions were tactical or defensive in nature, as well as sporting.

For example, the guy that might have wanted to match a 416 upper to a registered full-auto lower doesn't have that option with the MR556. Closer to home, the guy that might have preferred to mate a rebarreled 416 upper to an existing SBR lower (vice registering and engraving his valuable HK lower) is pretty much out of Schlitz. Yes, we gained a great rifle, but we lost some flexibility in the process, and that probably would have stung a lot less had we not been introduced to the MR's fully-AR-pattern-compliant predecessor from the very beginning. If anything, they went out of their way to not give us a choice.

The topic has been run into the ground for weeks now, and it isn't my purpose to bemoan that which can no longer be influenced. Frankly, I'm glad that we're getting the MR556; still, no matter how much we may try to cut them some slack, there is no getting around the fact that HK compromised.

AC

[ToddG]

Army Chief -- Thanks for taking the time to explain all of that in detail. It makes sense and I can see how it would definitely affect those people (ones with FA lowers or SBR-legal lowers). From HK's standpoint, the question must come down to what percentage of the population falls into those categories. I think the numbers are fairly skewed here on M4C.

As for the justification, my understanding echos IG's: it's got nothing to do with US law but rather some limitation imposed upon manufacturers in Germany. So obviously some major component (the upper or lower?) is being made in Germany and by German law cannot be compatible with a standard AR lower.

Folks have been clamoring for a commercial 416 for years, and HK finally accelerated the project to meet the growing demand. Based on my experience in the industry and my knowledge of mass manufacturing of firearms, I'd guess that the decision to make it happen ASAP meant using as many German parts as they legally could which in turn put them in this bind. If at some point in the future the MR556 is popular enough to justify expanding the US production to include whichever of those German parts induced this pin change, then HK (USA) would be free to produce M4-compatible uppers. Of course, that then leads to a problem with legacy compatibility for existing MR556 owners ...

[Dave L.]

People could email HK and tell them how they feel... cs@hk-usa.com

[Army Chief]

... From HK's standpoint, the question must come down to what percentage of the population falls into those categories. I think the numbers are fairly skewed here on M4C.

As for the justification, my understanding echos IG's: it's got nothing to do with US law but rather some limitation imposed upon manufacturers in Germany. So obviously some major component (the upper or lower?) is being made in Germany and by German law cannot be compatible with a standard AR lower.

Fully agree with you on the first point, and as to the latter, well, I probably should have issued an advance disclaimer: I live in Germany, have been here -- excluding "field trips" -- for nine years, am a registered German hunter and am in possession of a German weapons card (Waffensbesitzkarte). As such, I am reasonably familiar with the laws that HK is citing as justification for their actions.

It's entirely true that the 416 would be unsuitable for marketing in the EU, even in semi-auto trim, because the laws here do not allow such a weapon to possess major components which are readily interchangeable with military specification weapons. German companies like Oberland Arms have marketed modified AR pattern rifles for many years, but in order to get around this restriction, none of these are cross-compatible with our MILSPEC ARs.

Naturally, when HK GmbH decided to release a 416-type weapon in Germany they were forced to make a number of changes from the original 416 design: they gave it a different name (MR223, to tie-it to a sporting, non-military caliber), a non-standard AR pin configuration, 10-round magazines, and the omission of certain other military features, such as a standard pistol grip or flash supressor. Again, this was done to make the rifle permissible for sporting sales as a "self-loading" (semi-auto) sporting rifle under German type certification requirements. This is, of course, the same rifle that they have released to every other market here in the European Union of which I am aware.

As a practical matter, HK has adapted the MR223 to our tastes a bit, and has re-released it as the MR556. The flash suppressor and military cartridge designations are back, and some of the hardware is different, but we're effectively talking about the same MR223 pattern rifle. That is why I cited production efficiencies in my earlier post, rather than legal limitations. German export laws aren't really a relevant point of distinction here, as the rifle could have easily been produced according to a US-market standard -- even if it required a more active role by Wilcox or another subcontractor. It wasn't.

Again, it isn't my purpose to cry over spilled milk, nor even to grouse about the missed opportunities so much; I just would have respected HK's stance a lot more if they had said "look, it made a lot more business sense to bring a modified MR223 to the USA," rather than to hide behind German export laws that have only indirect applicability at best. We didn't exactly get screwed, but had they really wanted to, HK could have given us true semi-auto 416 "Law Enforcement" carbines in much the same way that Colt has allowed distributors to deal with the broader marketing issues associated with their "restricted" LE6920s. At the end of the day, I can take the realities of what we're being offered; I just don't care for the smoke-and-mirrors explanations.

AC

[ToddG]

AC -- Thanks for the further details!

So I think the question comes down to, why the MR223 upper instead of a 416 upper?

This leads to lots of other questions, of course.

• Is the MR556 lower being made in NH or Germany?
• Is the MR556 upper being made in NH or Germany?
• Are there German laws that would affect the export of either a mil-spec upper or mil-spec lower to the United States for non-LE/mil use?

Since HK clearly has the ability (both in terms of drawings and production) to manufacture "mil-spec" uppers and lowers, and since they already make them for mil/LE purposes, what would be the point of using the non-mil versions for the US market unless there was some restriction coming from Germany? In other words, if people are correct and HK isn't really forced to do it this way, what is the benefit to HK?

[scottryan]

Alaskapopo,

Yes, I understand that. But, that isn't the real issue. The MR556 was neutered according to the statements made thus far, to be in compliance with German export laws. It would be safe to say that an MR556 wouldn't pass the sporting purposes test, regardless of where the pin is located. Since the MR556 still accepts 30+ round mags, has a pistol grip and a telescoping stock how does that meet the criteria?

These are the questions that nobody seems to know the answer to because if the truth came out, I think it would show we are getting screwed for no reason on the pin location.