Quoted: Yeah, but this is a board dedicated to M-16 type weapons...

Oh, you mean like the AR10?

Quoted: Quoted: Yeah, but this is a board dedicated to M-16 type weapons... Oh, you mean like the AR10?

I really think the AR10 should have been our battle rifle. Going to war with a .22 seems more like squirrel hunting!

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Yeah, but this is a board dedicated to M-16 type weapons... Oh, you mean like the AR10? I really think the AR10 should have been our battle rifle. Going to war with a .22 seems more like squirrel hunting!

Just shows you dont have much practical experience in the matter...

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Yeah, but this is a board dedicated to M-16 type weapons... Oh, you mean like the AR10? I really think the AR10 should have been our battle rifle. Going to war with a .22 seems more like squirrel hunting! Just shows you dont have much practical experience in the matter...

No just shows that I have more faith in a larger caliber.

There is only ONE thing that can bring back the 7.62x51mm as a battle rifle cartridge.

That is the invention of a body armor that is strong enough to stop M995 AP from a 20" M16 while being light enough to be worn by a soldier under the rest of his crap and cheep enough to mass produce that even African warlords can buy it, or the means to make it, and provide it to their men on a large scale.

Otherwise there is no need for a cartridge that large and that powerful, with a coresponding increase in the size and weight of the rifle especally if full auto is required. Without the large high power optics, not just rifle scopes but also survailance systems, that sniper teams carry you will normally not be able to find the targets to use the 7.62's long range punch on.

It is not normally possible to equip all infantry like this both because of cost and because this is only effective when you are moving really really slowly, spending a lot of time looking while taking great care not to reveal themselves, and moving in very small groups of 2-3 persons. Large infantry units cannot move like that, either their enemy will just run away from them or they become a sitting duck for any artillery the enemy might possess. This should all be farirly obvious.

Using a smaller, lighter cartridge that has just enough oomph to reach out and kill what a infantryman can actually see allows you to carry more ammo. That is just simple physics. And untill something changes that makes bad guys difficult or impossible to kill with a cartidge of the 5.56's power level at the range a infantryman can reasonably expect to see his target-even with the adoption of low power optics-nothing would be gained by going back, while making the transport load worse and increasing the risk that soldiers will run out of ammo under fire.

Let me start by sayin I love the M-14,and since we are all taking here as enthusiasts,we can and should buy whatever we like or feel suits our needs.

But.Some things said here are absurd.People are saying in a "serious"situation they'd grab a 7.62 weapon over 5.56 anytime.That mean the US armed forces have yet to run into a serious situation?

Or,SHTF situation I'd like to be able to take a shot at 800+ yards?In that sorta situation the last thing I'm going to do is reveal my position  with zombies that far away.I'll evade and stay alive,but thats just me.

I think its pretty odvious that history and battlefield experience led to the adoption of the smaller caliber.Near the end of WW2 the Germans developed an intermediate cartridge,and high cap mag using rifle,to suit the needs of a modern urban battlefield.Individual firepower,fullauto capability and useability.

After the war it was dicovered that engagement rarly took place past 300 yards,and that more firepower was required.I've read on this board about the British designing a 2.80? cartridge for the original FAL(something I would like to read more about).We chose to try a,IMO,bastardized approach.Using a rifle very much like the one used in WW2 with a 20 rnd box mag attached,shooting a cartridge really not much different from the one used for the prevuios 50 years.Well id din't quite work out .It was a compromise that was as heavy and long as an M1,uncontrollable in full auto and did'nt allow the carry of any extra ammo.With the Soviets flooding the world with AK's there really wasn't much choice but to adopt something on par.

Even though he birth of the 5.56 M16 is a little precarious we ended up developing a superior assault type rifle with,IMO an equally revolutionary cartridge.Our rifle is lighter,more accurate,more versitile and more controllable.The 5.56 gives the soldier the lightest package with still effective power,hence more ammo.I think the ultimate example of this is the replacement of the M60 with the SAW.Tells me that 5.56 is pretty effective.

Course I could just be nuts?

Quoted: Let me start by sayin I love the M-14,and since we are all taking here as enthusiasts,we can and should buy whatever we like or feel suits our needs. But.Some things said here are absurd.People are saying in a "serious"situation they'd grab a 7.62 weapon over 5.56 anytime.That mean the US armed forces have yet to run into a serious situation? Or,SHTF situation I'd like to be able to take a shot at 800+ yards?In that sorta situation the last thing I'm going to do is reveal my position  with zombies that far away.I'll evade and stay alive,but thats just me. I think its pretty odvious that history and battlefield experience led to the adoption of the smaller caliber.Near the end of WW2 the Germans developed an intermediate cartridge,and high cap mag using rifle,to suit the needs of a modern urban battlefield.Individual firepower,fullauto capability and useability. After the war it was dicovered that engagement rarly took place past 300 yards,and that more firepower was required.I've read on this board about the British designing a 2.80? cartridge for the original FAL(something I would like to read more about).We chose to try a,IMO,bastardized approach.Using a rifle very much like the one used in WW2 with a 20 rnd box mag attached,shooting a cartridge really not much different from the one used for the prevuios 50 years.Well id din't quite work out .It was a compromise that was as heavy and long as an M1,uncontrollable in full auto and did'nt allow the carry of any extra ammo.With the Soviets flooding the world with AK's there really wasn't much choice but to adopt something on par. Even though he birth of the 5.56 M16 is a little precarious we ended up developing a superior assault type rifle with,IMO an equally revolutionary cartridge.Our rifle is lighter,more accurate,more versitile and more controllable.The 5.56 gives the soldier the lightest package with still effective power,hence more ammo.I think the ultimate example of this is the replacement of the M60 with the SAW.Tells me that 5.56 is pretty effective. Course I could just be nuts?hr

I vote for nuts! :)

If you believe that the US adopted the  5.56 beacause it was the most effective choice then you also believe in the $200 dollar toilet seat. The infantryman doesnt always get what works. Also the controllable full auto assault rifle doesnt work either, remember that little police action? That is why the 3 round burst came about and why semi-auto is the preferred mode of shooting. Otherwise you waste ammo, like they did in Nam. Controlled sustained fire is not a myth. I have read pro and con ballistic reports on the 5.56. One discussion involved the notion that with the 5.56 wounding was preferrable in order to take 3 men out of the fight, the wounded and two to take him to safety/medical treatment. That doesnt work in the more "fanatical" parts of the world where wounded are not valued as much as civilized warfare would dictate. Recent discussion have hinted that the 5.56 is not as effective as it should be after the Afghani thing but that may or may not be substantiated but it wouldnt be the first time it has been brought up. If it were as effective as .30 projectiles then we would hunt moose with them up here in the north but that WOULD be absurd. I like the AR15/M16 but I put it in the same category as some of my smaller caliber weapons, they are fun but thats about all.

Yeah, the Brits made a bullpup rifle in .280, the EM2. But after being rejected by the US for a NATO Standard, they pretty much dropped the idea in 1951. So we can up with our own cartridge. "As the United Sates was determining what typeof service rifle should be considered to replace the M1, the issue of the optimum service cartridge was also being closely evaluated. As early as 1945, shortened versions of teh standard ".30-'06" cartridge were being designed and tested at Frankford Arsenal. A cartridge of that type would enabel the reciever and bolt of a rifle to be shorter and more compact while retaining the range and power of the longer .30-'06 Aprg. round. After a great deal of testing an development, the United States settled on the .30-cal "T65" cartridge." - Bruce N. Canfield. "The M14: John Garand's Final Legacy." American Rifleman Aug 02.

i wonder if i got any of that citing correct...oh well, schools out!!!


edit-we went with M14 becuase we already had the tooling set up from the M1 garand. It was thought that only very little changes would be needed to produce the M14.

Quoted: If you believe that the US adopted the  5.56 beacause it was the most effective choice then you also believe in the $200 dollar toilet seat. The infantryman doesnt always get what works. Also the controllable full auto assault rifle doesnt work either, remember that little police action? That is why the 3 round burst came about and why semi-auto is the preferred mode of shooting. Otherwise you waste ammo, like they did in Nam.

Erm...the only reason they made it a 3 round burst was because of the wasted ammo, like you said. But how does your phrase Also the controllable full auto assault rifle doesnt work either, remember that little police action?  fit in there? The original AR-10 was controllable in full-auto, no problems. Same with the M16. They have the same recoil paths; STRAIGHT BACK, unlike with your normal FAL or M14, where the stock is curved slightly down. Controllable fully automatic arms is not a myth. The waste of ammo part is also not a myth. If the M14 were as controllable as an AR10, it probably would not have been replaced.

Had the AR10 been adopted, we'd probably still be using it today.

Personally, I own an M1A. I think it's the smoothest, slickest thing I own. I own plenty of things, from an AUG to an L1A1 to an M1 Carbine, to an M4 and another shorty AR15. (Ok, so M4gery, as it's not NFA, and it has a phantom to bring it to 16"...but it is a real Colt M4 upper, numbered RAS on the top and all).

About the only other thing I own that is near it's quality is an M1 Garand, and between the two, it's a tossup as to which I'd take out with me if TSHTF. The M1A I have is a SuperMatch; it has NM sights and all that. Very accurate rifle, but it's not really something you can do snapshots with due to it's sights.

If I REALLY had to jet, or fight? No question.

I'd pick up my Norinco underfolder, or my SAR-2. Light, reliable to a fault.

If I had more than 15 minutes to get my crap together and run? The M1A slung, it's scope/mount in a pouch, and the AK (either one, probably the Norinco as finding ammo will be easier if I ever run out) in my hands.

YMMV, and it's just my opinion.

I'd consider the AR, but it's maintaince would ruin it after a while. After all,if you're on the run big-time....which would you pick up, if you gotta subject your rifle(s) to seriously bad conditions and not have time to bivouac and clean things? An AR, or an M14 and/or AK? No bolt lugs to majorly scrub, no gas key to worry about, no internal parts that can seriously screw up with some fouling like an AR's...just a piston to soak in water or whatever, wipe down as best as you can, and dry.

*shrug*

Ed

AKADave,

I'm with you,I never really bought into the wound origins of the 5.56 cartridge.IMO you shoot to kill.Anything else is a waste of time.Infact there are many "stories"around the development of that cartridge,I guess I choose too believe what makes sense,weight, controllability....ect.

I don't believe I said the 5.56 was the "perfect"caliber.I just think its superior in its intended perposes to the 7.62x39 and 7.62 NATO.

I would be curious to know why the Soviets eventually downsized to the 5.54?

Intended perposes IMO being a ltwt rifle thats easy for regular troops to carry and shoot accuratley(women too, like it or not)that fires a cartridge effective and accurate to realistic (3-400 yards)combat ranges,that also allows for the maximun combat ammo load to be carried.Aswell as being capable of controlled full auto fire when the need arises.

Maybe the alltime best cartridge for this purpose has not yet been adopted by a significant armed force in the world.Perhaps a compromise between 7.62 and 5.56?Maybe 2.43?I don't know.What do you think?

Again, opinions are flying, so I am going to get my only opinion out here in my first paragraph. I think the M-14 (M1A) rifle is just a more reliable rifle than the M-16/AR-15 type rifle. It uses the tried and true Garand type action which is more simple and less prone to problems. The M-14 can get damn near filthy and still function. It will feed damn near any type of ammo you put in it. An M-16 won't do either of those things. They are finicky guns and must be kept squeaky clean to work properly. That isn't always possible in combat. For that reason I prefer the M-14. Of course that's my opinion and I'm sure other folks have different opinions. As long as we are satisfied based on our own personal requirements, that's all that really matters anyway. The M-14 would suit my needs just fine.

Now, the other part of the argument here seems to be which is the best rifle for military service. My opinion is both. Neither gun alone is going to be the perfect all around choice because there is no such thing. If we are talking terrain such as plains, open desert or forested areas where the penetrating ability of the .308 is needed, then the M-14 wins hands down. There isn't even any argument here. For territory such as urban areas, thick jungles and any other area where CQB might take place, the smaller, lighter M-16 and M4 win out. Here you need a light, short weapon that's easily maneuverable, easy to get on target fast and IMO, the only time you will need full auto. Here the M4 wins. But the M1A Bush and Scout rifles with their lighter weight and shorter barrels wouldn't be slouches either, especially considering the added power of their rounds. Using a 155 gr polymer tipped bullet such as the Hornady TAP or Winchester Supreme Ballistic Tip would be hard to beat. That's why law enforcement is flocking to the Springfield M1A like stink on, well you know! LOL.

Both the M-14 and M-16 serve important functions. But neither will perform all roles they are asked to do. One allows you to carry more ammo, while the other allows you to carry more effective ammo. Either way you are making a trade-off. One rifle is lighter and more maneuverable...while the other reaches out farther and hits harder. Again, either pick you make, you are making a trade-off. The military loves having everything standardized and the same. That's great. But when you do that you are making sacrifices. I think that in battlefield situations, you need a battle rifle. If you are operating in an environment that favors the M-16, then use it. But neither will serve all roles and if you think they can, you are making a mistake.

If you look at the Navy SEAL's, it's easy to see they have their act together. These people can use basically what they want and they know what they are doing. Unlike folks in Washington that have no clue what our troops need. They use both the M4 and the M14 as their standard service rifle. The one they pick depends on the mission at hand. IMO, that's the best way to operate. Would this be problematic for the average infantry units? To some degree. But logistics problems could be reduced if they were issued weapons based on the theater they are operating in. If we have units operating in hot, humid, tropical Latin American jungles, then issue them M-16's. If they are operating in the deserts of the Middle East, then give them M-14's. It's just common sense. But to say that the M-16 can fulfill all missions, in all terrain is just stupidity. And that's what our senior military people and our government has been saying since the adoption of the M-16 and demise of the M-14. We need both to have the best of both worlds. But I suppose we can't have our cake and eat it too. Which is why I am choosing to split the difference and purchase an M1A Scout rifle as my next gun. It is smaller and lighter than the full size. But it fires a round that penetrates better, is more effective at longer ranges, and is a better stopper at least in many minds than the 5.56mm.

That's my take on the situation at least. I know others will disagree with me and that's fine. But when looking at the comparisons, I tried to be fair and objective. I really am not a dedicated one rifle type person, so I am not biased toward one or the other. I do own a 16" Colt AR carbine and like it. But I realize it can't do everything as well as the M1A. And I realize that the M1A can't do everything as well as the AR. Again, common sense. But because I feel the M1A is the more reliable of the two, if I could only have one rifle, I would make it the M1A Bush or Scout rifles. I feel that for my personal requirements, that's about the best trade-off I can make.

Well said CH,

I agree ,different problems require different solutions.

Whether a large armed force could realistically be trained on, issued and supplied reliably and economically with two differnt MBR's is a good issue to debate.A great idea,but maybe too good to ever come true?

Also whether there exists a TRUE all around,do exerything cartridge out there-who knows?

Anyhow,well said.

Oh yeah!

Forgot to say that I also LOVE the idea of the M1A scout rifle.As far as spendy rifles go, I too am thinking of making one of these my next purchase.

Just trying to talk myself into the idea of spending lots of dollars on a new rifle with a different caliber and expensive mags.

Byron,

Isn't it fun to have so many choices? LOL. I guess this is the fun part of being a gun nut. There are just so many nice choices out there and each seems better suited to certain tasks than others. Just makes you wanna rush out and buy whatever it is that you don't already have one of. Man, if there was only one caliber and type of pistol, rifle and shotgun, I bet we would only own 3 guns! But I suppose it wouldn't be as much fun then would it? But it can dang well sure turn into an expensive hobby!

Got cover?

Damn Paul, that's cool! What is it, the M25? The reason I ask is the color of the stock. Haven't seen one like that before.

Quoted: Oh yeah! Forgot to say that I also LOVE the idea of the M1A scout rifle.As far as spendy rifles go, I too am thinking of making one of these my next purchase. Just trying to talk myself into the idea of spending lots of dollars on a new rifle with a different caliber and expensive mags.

I just got one with the black stock. I love it, it feels like it weighs the same as a Colt H-Bar and I put an Aimpoint on it. Sweet. I wont give up my AR shorty but but other than the ammo weight I cant see where its even close which to choose to carry. The scout handles and points very well IMO and the fact that its a .308 makes me feel more secure.

I bet most of you guys poo-pooing the M14 have never fired one.
It's a wonderfull rifle and along with the Garand, a part of our history.

Read the newest issue of the NRA's American Rifleman.
I think there is still room for a few M14's in every platoon.

Quoted: I bet most of you guys poo-pooing the M14 have never fired one.

Have YOU ever fired an M14, or just a semi-auto only knockoff with a cast receiver?

I gots my M4gery here locked and loaded.

ANyone wanna head down range and test your ".223 is a wimpy cartridge" theory???



Not to say I don't love my M1A, but....come on guys.

I'm not an M-14 fanatic, but that's only because I haven't gotten around to it yet.  I still have to get some Garands first.  Here's a pic of another rifle chambered for 7.62x51 to get upset about:


ak.ar15.com/forums/topic.html?id=52296

Quoted: I think there is still room for a few M14's in every platoon.

Depending on where and who we're fighting, I agree.

But, we'll probably continue to shorten the barrels on the M16 and kill velocity (if not much else)for a while.  
Takes a lot of dead military personnel before anything most of us call 'common sense' can occur.

Quoted: I gots my M4gery here locked and loaded. ANyone wanna head down range and test your ".223 is a wimpy cartridge" theory??? Not to say I don't love my M1A, but....come on guys.

You ignorant bastard! IF I HAVE AN M14GERY DOWN RANGE AND YOU HAVE YOUR WIMPY RAT GUN I WILL WIN!!
AND YOU KNO IT.

Look at this way the caliber you carry depends on your role on the battlefield. If you put a lot of rounds downrange it nice if they are lighter and easier to carry. If you are a sniper, you don't carry as much ammo so the rounds can be heavier.

Approximate Stats:

Small arms rounds expended per kill

World War II = 25,000 per kill
Korea = 50,000 per kill
Vietnam = 200,000 per kill

Army and Marine Corp Sniper/Scout (Vietnam) 1.7 round per kill

Snipers can afford to carry a heavier rifle with a smaller ammo load.

Quoted: You ignorant bastard! IF I HAVE AN M14GERY DOWN RANGE AND YOU HAVE YOUR WIMPY RAT GUN I WILL WIN!! AND YOU KNO IT.

EASY THERE, concrete boy.

And when your 20 rounder is empty, and I've still got 10 more rounds to go before reloading, you better keep your ass hid.

Quoted: You ignorant bastard! AND YOU KNO IT.

Civility ??

Quoted: Look at this way the caliber you carry depends on your role on the battlefield. If you put a lot of rounds downrange it nice if they are lighter and easier to carry. If you are a sniper, you don't carry as much ammo so the rounds can be heavier. Approximate Stats: Small arms rounds expended per kill World War II = 25,000 per kill Korea = 50,000 per kill Vietnam = 200,000 per kill Army and Marine Corp Sniper/Scout (Vietnam) 1.7 round per kill Snipers can afford to carry a heavier rifle with a smaller ammo load.

Wonder what the stats in the Afghan will look like ??  How many killed by aircraft carried weapons, artillery, etc., vs. small arms fire  ??

Quoted: Quoted: You ignorant bastard! IF I HAVE AN M14GERY DOWN RANGE AND YOU HAVE YOUR WIMPY RAT GUN I WILL WIN!! AND YOU KNO IT. EASY THERE, concrete boy. And when your 20 rounder is empty, and I've still got 10 more rounds to go before reloading, you better keep your ass hid.

I COULD HID BEHIND A FVCKING SAPLING WHIL YOU ARE SHOOTING. YOU? yOU BETTER BE BEHIND A FVCKING AIRCRAF CARRIEER.

There is recent reporting detailing the M4 performance in Afghanistan.  While the individual soldier has "high confidence" in the M4, the recommendation in the end is for a more powerful cartridge.  

Can't post more detail.  Sorry.

Oh come on now! Everyone here owns at least
one M14!!!

edited to add

Quoted: There is recent reporting detailing the M4 performance in Afghanistan.  While the individual soldier has "high confidence" in the M4, the recommendation in the end is for a more powerful cartridge.   Can't post more detail.  Sorry.

omar,
for about the first 4 months of the Afghan war, I was privileged to read a few emails direct from those guys doing the fighting and dying.  (The emails had been sanitized to remove individual identifiers and units.)

These guys were using the M4 and their "confidence" was anything but high.  The M16 was always designed to be an SCHV weapon.

Quoted: Oh come on now! Everyone here owns at least one M14!!!

Damn Straight!

Quoted: If you look at the Navy SEAL's, it's easy to see they have their act together. These people can use basically what they want and they know what they are doing. Unlike folks in Washington that have no clue what our troops need. They use both the M4 and the M14 as their standard service rifle. The one they pick depends on the mission at hand. IMO, that's the best way to operate. Would this be problematic for the average infantry units? To some degree. But logistics problems could be reduced if they were issued weapons based on the theater they are operating in. If we have units operating in hot, humid, tropical Latin American jungles, then issue them M-16's. If they are operating in the deserts of the Middle East, then give them M-14's. It's just common sense. But to say that the M-16 can fulfill all missions, in all terrain is just stupidity. And that's what our senior military people and our government has been saying since the adoption of the M-16 and demise of the M-14. We need both to have the best of both worlds. But I suppose we can't have our cake and eat it too. Which is why I am choosing to split the difference and purchase an M1A Scout rifle as my next gun. It is smaller and lighter than the full size. But it fires a round that penetrates better, is more effective at longer ranges, and is a better stopper at least in many minds than the 5.56mm. That's my take on the situation at least. I know others will disagree with me and that's fine. But when looking at the comparisons, I tried to be fair and objective. I really am not a dedicated one rifle type person, so I am not biased toward one or the other. I do own a 16" Colt AR carbine and like it. But I realize it can't do everything as well as the M1A. And I realize that the M1A can't do everything as well as the AR. Again, common sense. But because I feel the M1A is the more reliable of the two, if I could only have one rifle, I would make it the M1A Bush or Scout rifles. I feel that for my personal requirements, that's about the best trade-off I can make.

From a logistical sense having a battle ready AR10 with select fire capability would make sense due to a limited parts interchangability with the M16.  Also training requirements would be less, as it is really the same platform.

AR10A2 carbines for everyone :)  Now all we need is a lightweight profiled AR10 to reduce the weight a bit.

Quoted: Yeah, but this is a board dedicated to M-16 type weapons...I stay away from big bore sites as I have nothing good to say about them.

Hmmmm...... Last time I checked, this forum is called GENERAL FIREARM DISCUSSION. Does someone need to explain this to you, just incase I will.

It means you are allowed to discuss ANYTHING firearm related. If you don't like to discuss the M1A/M-14 don't but, don't try to enforce your beliefs on others or curtail thier right to discuss them freely in here or maybe you just have BIG BORE ENVY because you can't afford to purchase these or other expenssive rifles.

Quoted: Quoted: If you look at the Navy SEAL's, it's easy to see they have their act together. These people can use basically what they want and they know what they are doing. Unlike folks in Washington that have no clue what our troops need. They use both the M4 and the M14 as their standard service rifle. The one they pick depends on the mission at hand. IMO, that's the best way to operate. Would this be problematic for the average infantry units? To some degree. But logistics problems could be reduced if they were issued weapons based on the theater they are operating in. If we have units operating in hot, humid, tropical Latin American jungles, then issue them M-16's. If they are operating in the deserts of the Middle East, then give them M-14's. It's just common sense. But to say that the M-16 can fulfill all missions, in all terrain is just stupidity. And that's what our senior military people and our government has been saying since the adoption of the M-16 and demise of the M-14. We need both to have the best of both worlds. But I suppose we can't have our cake and eat it too. Which is why I am choosing to split the difference and purchase an M1A Scout rifle as my next gun. It is smaller and lighter than the full size. But it fires a round that penetrates better, is more effective at longer ranges, and is a better stopper at least in many minds than the 5.56mm. That's my take on the situation at least. I know others will disagree with me and that's fine. But when looking at the comparisons, I tried to be fair and objective. I really am not a dedicated one rifle type person, so I am not biased toward one or the other. I do own a 16" Colt AR carbine and like it. But I realize it can't do everything as well as the M1A. And I realize that the M1A can't do everything as well as the AR. Again, common sense. But because I feel the M1A is the more reliable of the two, if I could only have one rifle, I would make it the M1A Bush or Scout rifles. I feel that for my personal requirements, that's about the best trade-off I can make. From a logistical sense having a battle ready AR10 with select fire capability would make sense due to a limited parts interchangability with the M16.  Also training requirements would be less, as it is really the same platform. AR10A2 carbines for everyone :)  Now all we need is a lightweight profiled AR10 to reduce the weight a bit.

Well, a couple of foreign militaries have purchased the AR-10........although I don't know for sure, I'm assuming they will be used in some sort of integrated role including sniper work.

Wow. I wish I had gotten in on this thread earlier...
Anyway, without variance, you will find that "hardcore" .223 AR enthusiasts are recoil sensative.
You have to remember that the AR was designed for ease of fire during full-auto strings, and by potential women combatants (Not to mention combatants of "smaller stature", i.e- Asians)

And SURE! The AR has a place... If I were fighting in a jungle where I couldn't see more than 30 yds to actually hit something, I would love to have a M16...
But it is limited in it's utility.

1) For most of us who are limited to semi-auto only fire, there is no reason to go with the smaller round. Since the 5.56 only exists for it's controability in FA, it makes sense to go with the larger round in a semi.

2) Making the long shot. I find that most gun enthusiasts I know have never shot beyond 1-200 yards. They think that making long shots is difficult, and call anyone a liar who tells them they can make them.
LR is my thing. And while the .223 can hit out that far, it isn't delivering much steam. And it gets tossed by wind a LOT eaiser...
At the BRC, I spotted for NewARGuy who was able to take a 14.5 Barreled AR w/ ACOG, and hit the steel target at 350 from the offhand position.
So, the .223 can do it... But it is VERY weak at those ranges...
The 308 gives better range, and better KDP at the other end...

3) Punching through improvised cover.
I am of the school that believes that if they are behind cover, shoot through the cover.
Trees, bushes, shrubs, vines, leaves...
The .308 can make it through and maintain it's integrity, while the .22 can't.

I think others have already stated this but the current battlefield conditions are desert and longer range than the past battlefields. The military is already evaluating larger calibers and rumor is that it will appear as .284 which was darn close to the British research decades ago. Also, the rumor states that they are evaluating cartridges designs that for two bullet sizes: lighter for close combat and less recoil, longer w/greater VLD for distance (for the same rifle). They are said to be interested in a patent of some guy regarding magazine for varying OALs. I guess that they discovered that the average infantryman doesn't engage targets at the same distance from jungle or dense vegetation to desert.

Me, I believe in the British tactics and that is not to go into battle without one's howitzers. US is pretty stupid regarding this in Afganistan but perhaps the Army's request for continued funding for the new cannon has something to do with this.

Quoted: Oh come on now! Everyone here owns at least one M14!!!

HELL YES!


coyote3

Well I will first admit that i didn't read all the posts but scan through them.  2nd I will say that when i read the title of this tread I was thinking, yeah I wish the people with the M1A/M14/M1 would go away also.  But my thinking was for something totally different... I don't want to hear about them because I don't have one but want one bad but have no money.  Hopefully my next purchase will be a M1 from CMP after we buy a new car for the wife.  After that I want to find a M1A.

Say that shit to a Marine and then write back.  Marines trained with M14s.  MARINES ARE EXPERT SHOOTERS OF THE USA.

I don't own a M14/M1A yet, but I've shot them before.

For the M4/M16 hardcore people.  
.223 doesn't have the stopping power of a .308

I love my M4 and soon I'll love my M14

I forgot to add that Carlos Hathcock(Marine)is the Master of the rifle.  M16,M14, and 50cals.  He killed a man over a mile out with a 50cal and it was a head shot.  Marines are way above AVERAGE.

Quoted: You "big bore nuts" either have short memories or choose to ignore history...the big-bore so-called "Battle Rifle" was found to be obsolete as soon as it was introduced in WW2! The frontline troops (especially in the Pacific Theater)were clamoring for a lightweight rifle capable of automatic fire at the short ranges encountered in real combat...in other words the M-16! Shoot at a target 800 yards away? Sure, the M-1/M-14 can do it, but that kind of shooting is IRRELEVANT for the average trooper...what do you think, the Enemy is just going to stand there while you manly men adjust your precious little windage knobs on your hairy-chested big bore monstrosities? Or are they going to be bobbing and weaving, like they want to stay alive, rather than fulfilling your macho fantasies by standing still at known ranges like your big white paper targets? The troops who shoot at those ranges are specialists called SNIPERS who are issued special pieces...Combat in reality is random chaos, and it has been proven that the vast majority of casualties have been caused by random projectiles...AIMED FIRE IS IRRELEVANT FOR THE AVERAGE INFANTRYMAN!

Let me guess...your first beer right? And you're what...maybe 12 or 13 years old? Dry your ears, get a few stripes on your sleeve and come back when you move out of your parents house. And stop reading "Couch Commando Magazine".

There is a tool for every job. I don't want a M14 for clearing buildings (12 ga. would be nice) and sure as hell wouldn't want a M4 in the deserts of Iraq.

Oh, do your parent know you're using their computer?

We can discuss any weapon atwww.proshooter.org/ubb/ultimatebb.php?ubb=forum;f=26  We call them Sport Utility Rifles...  SURs

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: You ignorant bastard! IF I HAVE AN M14GERY DOWN RANGE AND YOU HAVE YOUR WIMPY RAT GUN I WILL WIN!! AND YOU KNO IT. EASY THERE, concrete boy. And when your 20 rounder is empty, and I've still got 10 more rounds to go before reloading, you better keep your ass hid. I COULD HID BEHIND A FVCKING SAPLING WHIL YOU ARE SHOOTING. YOU? yOU BETTER BE BEHIND A FVCKING AIRCRAF CARRIEER.

Perhaps, but if we had a Spelling Bee, I think the shoe would be on the other foot!  

he

I like both the AR and the M1A. I own and shoot a Bushy M4 Carbine (perfect for close up engagements where you still need firepower), and my father shoots a SA M1A with NM barrel and sights(good for forest areas found throughout Europe and the USA, and where longer ranges are seen, like the deserts)... I like hearing diehard AR guys say how they have 10 more rounds... but it's because they need those extra rounds to do the same thing an M1A will do with 20.. herSure you can carry more rounds with an M-16, but if marksmanship was taught successfully, the amount of ammo they carried wouldn't be as big of a problem, because it'd last longer! h
The original poster was pretty pathetic in his statements.. won't even bother with him.. he

7.62 is a better man stopper but the Army wants a small arm system that can be used effectively in mechanized infantry action, when war was still envisioned to be fighting in Europe against the com Bloc.  The rifle needs to shoot fast and penetrate body armour within 300m(when Russkies are dismount out of BMPs), and can be put away in APC and bring into action quickly.

After saying that, a 5.56 rifle will probably put more enemies out of combat effectiveness than a MBR within a 30 seconds period. It's better to break their advance and clean them up, than killing half and  let  the remaing half to shoot back at 100% efficiency.

Let's do some math: ( these are just assumptions)

Within 30 seconds:

5.56mm = 10 accurate shots = 4 dead, 4 wounded, 2 lightly wounded

7.62= 7 accurate shots = 5 dead, 2 wounded

Overall, the 5.56 system will still reduce the overall enemies combat effectiveless more than the 7.62.  The point is, more shots will be fired accurately and therefore more enemies will be hit.  Less individual soldiers might die from 5.56, but OVERALL, less people on the opposite side, on average will work at 100% efficiency.  This makes killing them a second priority while the next wave can be dealt with.  While all the immediate threats are dealt with, the wounded enemies can be left to rot or cleaned up easily.

ArmdLbel,
----------------------------------------------------------------------
But the first time they got caught in over their heads by the NVA and got into a real serious fight for survival they were screwed. When they ran out of ammo and had to call for emergency resupply what they always got was 5.56 in bandos or preloaded M16 mags and 7.62 belts.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

I had the above mentioned problem the night the Tet Offensive started and my only two magazines of 7.62 ran out very quickly and was re-supplied with 7.62 belts for my M-14.  I would have given anything for an M-16 that night.

Quoted: Quoted: Bigger bullets make bigger holes. Cant argue with physics! I felt that the M16 was the best battle rifle in the world until I read an Army armorers rant on another board. Basically he said that the M16 was proving inadequate in Afghanistan because it took 3 or more solid hits on Taliban to end their fighting career. They also had problems with the 9mm and he said that there were a lot of guys getting ahold of old 1911 .45's and that they were getting the job done a lot better. I still like the .223 round for plinking, varmminting and paper punching but I wouldnt stake my life on one.

How come no one complained or had problems with the 9mm before?  The 9mm round has been around since like 1905, it is probably the most widely used pistol round of the 20th century, used by the most number of militaries and the problems didn't start to show up until Afghanistan?  The Germans never complained about it.