[Otter]

The Navy SEALs did use the Stoner Model 63 in Vietnam, 5.56X45 linked, they had trouble getting linked 5.56 and resorted to picking up the used links to re-use. Even the 63 had some problems with cracking. I heard that due to defence spending cutbacks the 6.8X43mm round is on the back burner for awhile. The 5.56X45mm round causes massive wounds due to the energy loss in the tissue, where the 7.62X51mm will punch through concrete blocks and 3/8 inch thick steel. It would seem that they each have thier place. Those of us who own both would have to consider the application and threat when we go in our armoury for a weapon.

"Life is too important to be taken seriously."

[Copper]

One theory is that military ammo (FMJ) is designed to wound and not kill. The logic behind it is that it takes more man power to care for troops that are wounded in action than it does for those that are killed in action. I think that the stats are that it takes 4 soldiers to care for 1 wounded soldier.

[BattleRifleG3]

That presumption is of course correct for civilized countries who care for their wounded. Doesn't apply as well to jihadist insurgents who are eager to die.

[Copper]

One misunderstood fact is that most of the insurgents are not Iraqi's. They are Jordanians, Iranians, Egyptians, Syrians, and even some Iseralies. In one of our first of many engagments, some of he enemy KIA's were very well dressed and had Syrian pass ports. Sounds like terrorists to me.

If Johnny Jihad wants to go to Paradise, that' s between him and Allah, we were just there to set up the meeting.

[AR-tim]

Quote:       Originally Posted by Mr. Pink

That's about it. Two points is enough, especially when they're: Accuracy, and Reliability, pretty much the two things a soldier looks for. Here is a list of firearms I would be content to have with the US soldiers other than the M16/M4: M14 AR10 G3A3 G36 FAL CETME M1 Garand

Accuracy? I personally do not feel there is a problem with the M16 and accuracy. 'Power' I will agree with (could be better). As for our military going back to the 7.62X51, I never see it happening. I know it is a great round, but I think it would come off as a 'step backwards'... Not as going back to when we 'had it right'. Didn't the U.S. play a big role in ( the U.N. ?) getting rid of the 7.62 for the 5.56? I think whatever round we move to next will be in the middle of those two. As for a lot of the rifles that are listed, I don't think we will ever see the issue of robust full sized battle rifles again. The M1 is long gone, and I think the M14 will stick around seeing its very limited service that it has now. Some plastic 'no marksmanship needed' cause of some electronic gizmo will come into service before you know it.

[Mr. Pink]

Quote:       Originally Posted by AR-tim

Accuracy? I personally do not feel there is a problem with the M16 and accuracy. 'Power' I will agree with (could be better).

Yeah, the accuracy part was a typo.

Quote:      

As for our military going back to the 7.62X51, I never see it happening. I know it is a great round, but I think it would come off as a 'step backwards'... Not as going back to when we 'had it right'. Didn't the U.S. play a big role in ( the U.N. ?) getting rid of the 7.62 for the 5.56? I think whatever round we move to next will be in the middle of those two. As for a lot of the rifles that are listed, I don't think we will ever see the issue of robust full sized battle rifles again. The M1 is long gone, and I think the M14 will stick around seeing its very limited service that it has now. Some plastic 'no marksmanship needed' cause of some electronic gizmo will come into into service before you know it.

I concur, fine sir. Hey that rhimes, I should write a song.

[RodneyKSig]

The question is then how many lives must be lost then before the US government realizes that Some plastic " 'no marksmanship needed' electronic gizmo" must be adopted into service to limit the numbers of lives potentially lost considering the United States' commitment to the war with Iraq?

[Outriderdark]

The H&K XM8 in 5.56 is supposed to be the replacement for the M16a2. With FN making the SCAR-L and SCAR-H in various calibers for special forces.

[Copper]

The "no marksmanship needed electronic gizmo" has tried to come forth in the form of the XM-29 OICW (Objective Individual Combat Weapon) but has had problems getting down to the weight that the Army wants it at. The XM-29 is essentialy one part compact assault rifle in, yep, you guessed it, 5.56 and one part 20mm magazine fed grenade launcher. The 20mm grenade launcher fires a HEAB (high explosive air burst) round. The grenade will detonate over a target, i.e. a fox hole, at a preset range. The sighting system is part video camera, 6X scope, and a laser rangefider. The video camera is directly linked to a HUD in the helmet, thusly allowing the operator to acurately shoot from behind cover with exposing himself. A technologically updated version of the "Beruit off hand" so to speak. As any grunt knows, the more electronic bells and whistles you have on a weapon system, the more things there are that can go wrong.

The 5.56 assault rifle portion of the XM-29, however, utilizes a 10 inch barrel. This only aggrevates the velocity problems of the SS-109 5.56 round, which was designed to be fired out of 20 inch barrel at over 3000 fps. This of course has brought to light the problems of the current 5.56 loading. The SS-109 needs to hit the target (soft tissue) at around 2700 FPS for it to yaw and fragment at the cannelure, which is limited to about 100 meters for the M4 and its 14.5 inch barrel and about 200 meters for the M16A2.

[AR-tim]

Quote:       Originally Posted by Copper

The 5.56 assault rifle portion of the XM-29, however, utilizes a 10 inch barrel.

Who ok's this stuff, honestly? That is just plain stupid. I have heard a little about OICW, but I didn't know that. Well, I thought it was too space gun for my tastes anyways.

[ash]

The XM-8 got s@)t canned