Gun Control Harming US Troops / "Varmint" rifle has got to go

[KG21]

Interesting article

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2004/5/24/171144.shtml

[M2 Carbine]

Not to get into the 22, 30 cal argument because I have almost as many 223's as I have 30.06's but I always thought it was strange that a bullet that most think is too small to hunt deer with, is powerful enough for a primary military weapon.


But what do I know, I'm from the 30.06 M1 Garand days.:)

[sundance43.5]

Originally posted by M2 Carbine
Not to get into the 22, 30 cal argument because I have almost as many 223's as I have 30.06's but I always thought it was strange that a bullet that most think is too small to hunt deer with, is powerful enough for a primary military weapon.


But what do I know, I'm from the 30.06 M1 Garand days.:)

What does it also say when we are the only major military to use .223/5.56? Countries that we've given the M16 to for free don't count either.

I can understand the use of the .223 in something like the SAW, but not as a primary battle weapon.

[litework]

Originally posted by sundance43.5
What does it also say when we are the only major military to use .223/5.56? Countries that we've given the M16 to for free don't count either.

I can understand the use of the .223 in something like the SAW, but not as a primary battle weapon.


Have the Russians gone away from the 5.45?

[engineer151515]

I still shake my head at the thought we were handing out Glock 17 like candy to Iraqi "police" (perhaps 17 rnd mags?)while our troops put up with the crap as stated in that article.


I'm really tired of bureaucrats putting others ahead of US troops in priority.



Oh... and this...

"During his 2000 presidential campaign, President Bush has said he would sign a reauthorization of the bill if it reached his desk. Gun rights advocates – as well as a number of U.S. soldiers – are hoping it doesn't get that far. "


IMO - this is Bush's single greatest failure in stated policy.

I expected better of a Texas grown President.

[AZ Jeff]

Originally posted by sundance43.5
What does it also say when we are the only major military to use .223/5.56?

How did you arrive at that conclusion?????

5.56x45 is a NATO STANDARD cartridge. That means most NATO MEMBERS have small arms chambered for it. I know for a fact that the UK, Spain, France, Germany, Italy, and Norway all have as their primary rifle something that fires the 5.56x45 round.

[dbrowne1]

The considerations of a deer hunter are not the same as those of a soldier. The deer hunter doesn't have to hump 300+ rounds of ammo around in all conditions for miles, jump it out of a plane, plus 80lbs of other gear. The deer hunter doesn't need a controllable full-auto rifle. The deer hunter also has different objectives. Military weapons are a compromise of many considerations.

The 5.56mm round is effective when used within its proper envelope and with long enough barrels. There are heavier (77gr) 5.56mm rounds that are VERY effective and in limited use by the military. A .30 bullet of similar construction and velocity is obviously going to be better - but it's also a lot heavier, has more recoil, and is more expensive.

[drstrangelove]

Well, why not split the difference and use a 105 grain 243? It's 40% less bullet weight of the 308 so will cut down on ammunition carry weight but increase impact deliverance through superior velocity.

The 223 was meant to wound; the 308, a shortened 06 to fit in modern machine guns, was meant to penetrate walls and kill. We need the compromise. The Russians did it with the 7.62x39 but it lacks long range potential.

The AR-15 is available in 243 - why is it not taking off?

[dbrowne1]

Originally posted by drstrangelove
Well, why not split the difference and use a 105 grain 243? It's 40% less bullet weight of the 308 so will cut down on ammunition carry weight but increase impact deliverance through superior velocity.

The 223 was meant to wound; the 308, a shortened 06 to fit in modern machine guns, was meant to penetrate walls and kill. We need the compromise. The Russians did it with the 7.62x39 but it lacks long range potential.

The AR-15 is available in 243 - why is it not taking off?

It's called the 6.8SPC, it's already in the works and available in limited quantities. Military is testing it, might even have it out there in the field for some limited use as well. You can use existing AR-15/M-16 lowers and just throw on a 6.8SPC upper.

[Zundfolge]

When people complain about the 5.56mm they forget that it is designed to be used by our military in full auto rifles ... not your bull barrel AR15 plinker.

Get hit with a 3 round burst of 5.56 or a single shot of .308 and you're going to be just as dead.


Remind me not to end up on the wrong end of an M249SAW


But like dbrowne1 said ... 6.8SPC is a nice middle ground round.

Originally posted by engineer151515
"During his 2000 presidential campaign, President Bush has said he would sign a reauthorization of the bill if it reached his desk. Gun rights advocates – as well as a number of U.S. soldiers – are hoping it doesn't get that far. "

IMO - this is Bush's single greatest failure in stated policy.

I expected better of a Texas grown President.

I wouldn't be surprised if within minutes of Bush saying that he called up Trent Lott and said "Make sure that damn thing never makes it to my desk!".

As much as I'd love a politician to stand up in public and say what I believe, politicians still have to get elected in the first place.

[Decguns]

At the moment, more armies use the 5.56 than any other caliber, and the list is growing. In fact, the 5.56 is so deadly, the Russian's tried twice to get it banned as "inhumane". They weren't alone. The wounds caused by the old M193 round in Vietnam were so horrible that our own NATO allies would not adopt it unless the rifling twist rate was increased so that the bullet would not immediately tumble on impact. The resultant 1-7 twist with the SS109 penetrator round proved to be far more effective at defeating walls, car bodies and body armor than the 7.62 ball out to 1300 meters. The argument that we need the 7.62 to penetrate walls and such is pure BS. The SS109 will out-penetrate the old 7.62 ball on any medium. The SS109 is not as deadly as the old M193. A new generation of 5.56 ammo will be available soon which should bridge the gap between penetration and lethality.

The 5.56 is a compromise round. It's as small as you can get and still have enough power to take the bad guy out of the fight within normal combat ranges. A .243 round would prove to have too much recoil for accurate full auto fire. It even looks like the 6.8 SPC project will get shelved before it ever sees combat (The 6.8's exploits have been greatly exaggerated by the gun press).

[TED]

I generally refrain from ammo debates. However, the idea that the 5.56x45mm was deliberately designed to wound really bothers me because I used to believe that BS before I got to know better.

I am a big believer in the 5.56x45mm and would like to see increased development rather than a replacement.

TED

[RMTactical]

We use the 5.56 because we have women in the military.:(

[engineer151515]

Originally posted by Zundfolge
[B..As much as I'd love a politician to stand up in public and say what I believe, politicians still have to get elected in the first place. [/B]

Fair enough. :)

[AK_Stick]

the average infantry grunt doesn't need full auto, I humped with them for a little while and other than ambushes, my giggle switch never left semi auto.

I've heard nothing but good reports from guys that I know who have seen the 6.8 in action, or used it. They love the way it knocks the guys down.

[litework]

Originally posted by Decguns
At the moment, more armies use the 5.56 than any other caliber, and the list is growing. In fact, the 5.56 is so deadly, the Russian's tried twice to get it banned as "inhumane". They weren't alone. The wounds caused by the old M193 round in Vietnam were so horrible that our own NATO allies would not adopt it unless the rifling twist rate was increased so that the bullet would not immediately tumble on impact. The resultant 1-7 twist with the SS109 penetrator round proved to be far more effective at defeating walls, car bodies and body armor than the 7.62 ball out to 1300 meters. The argument that we need the 7.62 to penetrate walls and such is pure BS. The SS109 will out-penetrate the old 7.62 ball on any medium. The SS109 is not as deadly as the old M193. A new generation of 5.56 ammo will be available soon which should bridge the gap between penetration and lethality.

The 5.56 is a compromise round. It's as small as you can get and still have enough power to take the bad guy out of the fight within normal combat ranges. A .243 round would prove to have too much recoil for accurate full auto fire. It even looks like the 6.8 SPC project will get shelved before it ever sees combat (The 6.8's exploits have been greatly exaggerated by the gun press).

I've heard similar instances of inhumane wounding involving the smaller Russian caliber in their Afghanistan "campaign." I guess they incorporated the old "if you can't beat them, join 'em" policy.

As far as the article itself...it was one of the most craptacular articles I've ever read. I don't think I've ever seen one article cite so many unquantifiable sources (small arms experts/sources at the Penatagon, etc) in my life. Sometimes people mix a few valid statements and quotes in with exagerations/fabrications and present the entire document as fact. I think the article demonstrates this.

[Glockman1000]

A few years ago I shot a 150lb deer with a 30-30 from 25 yards, it was a perfect shot but he just took off, the deer ran over 400 yards before he died.

Not long ago I shot a 250lb deer from 100 yards with my AR 5.56x45, it knocked him off his feet with a plume of red mist, he then got up ran 15 yards and died, for every 5 feet the deer ran it looked like someone poured a gallon of red paint on the ground.

I know what I am saying is not a perfect example but my point is the 5.56x45 is not the pea shooter it is sometimes made out to be.

[CIAHitman]

Originally posted by dbrowne1
It's called the 6.8SPC, it's already in the works and available in limited quantities. Military is testing it, might even have it out there in the field for some limited use as well. You can use existing AR-15/M-16 lowers and just throw on a 6.8SPC upper.

The Military has not chosen this round yet. Their is still a battle between the 6.5 Grendal and the Remington 6.8 SPC. Both look promising. The ammo is not yet fully developed with the 6.8 and still has feeing problems with the PRI mags.
Their is nothing wrong with the 5.56, its the 14.5" barrel combined with the SS109 ammo that the problem. Regular 62 or 77 grain ammo out of a 16" or 20" barrel would do the job just fine. Now, if we could just get the Army more used to cleaning and shooting.....

[WDN]

Originally posted by M2 Carbine
I always thought it was strange that a bullet that most think is too small to hunt deer with, is powerful enough for a primary military weapon.








Lets justs say that I know you can drop a deer with the wee little .22 mag to the head. One shot, every time.

I handgun hunt with .357 mag.

[Glockguy]

Decguns is correct . . . The 5.56 X 45 is a very devastating round! However, as CIAHitman indicates the shorted barrel length is a velocity altering problem (Basically we all know shorter barrel lengths lead to lower velocities) as an approximated velocity of 2700 f.p.s. plus is necessary to allow this round to do what it does best "tumble with extreme severity shortly after the point of impact".

The shorter barrels of the M4 likely enhance Close Quarters Combat manueverability (and look neat) but shots beyond 150 yards are likely to zip straight through enemy targets (requiring vital organ hit accuracy for target elimination).

Regards,
Glockguy

[Gary42141]

"The small arms maker and expert said a government official recently met with a group of manufacturers. The official said the Pentagon wanted to build some M-4 carbines chambered for a Russian caliber – 7.62 X 39 mm – noting that the smaller .223 caliber "has never met our military requirements."

It's good to know that something which has never met the requirements of the military.....is the military's standard weapon.

I wonder how much kickback was made in this decision. ;Q

[AZ Jeff]

Originally posted by Gary42141
"The small arms maker and expert said a government official recently met with a group of manufacturers. The official said the Pentagon wanted to build some M-4 carbines chambered for a Russian caliber – 7.62 X 39 mm – noting that the smaller .223 caliber "has never met our military requirements."

It's good to know that something which has never met the requirements of the military.....is the military's standard weapon.

I wonder how much kickback was made in this decision. ;Q
Kickback? For the .223, or for the 7.62x39? Either way, you need to study some history, my friend. You are woefully ignorant, with your suggestion.

[Jodevilgod1]

I have the answer.

Look at the veeery end of that weapons bunker. In the right corner, you see that rifle? The one with the wood stock and flash hider? Thats an m-14. It perfomns xellect in any condition, shoots straght, and has proven stopping power. Its fought in the worst conditions, and now our SF guys are digging them up.

That rifle, that artwork of iron and wood and THATS your answer.......

[Justin1584]

I'm with Decguns, I don't see anything wrong with the 5.56mm

In fact, the army generally uses very low-quality ammunition. They use BALL AMMO for their 9mm's, that'll give you about a 60% stop with any handgun (even the ultimate .45 ACP supercannon). How can you expect their rifle ammo to be any better?

[AK_Stick]

I've been a 223 basher for a long time, but it works, its a hell of a round, they just need to get the act straightened out, M193 ball with the old twist, and you'll stop hearing reports of people soaking up rounds and staying in the fight

[Gary42141]

Originally posted by AZ Jeff
Kickback?

Yes. Kickback.

[WalterGA]

Originally posted by Gary42141
Yes. Kickback.

Yes, "Kickback", or another clue that somebody's been visiting www.justabunchajohnbirchcrap.com

[Gary42141]

Originally posted by WalterGA
"Kickback"

There ya go.

[dbrowne1]

Originally posted by Gary42141
"The small arms maker and expert said a government official recently met with a group of manufacturers. The official said the Pentagon wanted to build some M-4 carbines chambered for a Russian caliber – 7.62 X 39 mm – noting that the smaller .223 caliber "has never met our military requirements."

It's good to know that something which has never met the requirements of the military.....is the military's standard weapon.

I wonder how much kickback was made in this decision. ;Q

Even if this is true, did you ever stop and think that maybe these guns are going to operators in places like Afghanistan, where 7.62x39 is readily available but 5.56x45 is not?

The 7.62x39, in its commonly available military loadings, has inferior wound ballistics to the 5.56x45 in its common military loadings. The Penatagon knows this, they aren't THAT stupid.

[engineer151515]

I was young at the time but I remember when the M16 came out in Vietnam. Maybe it was just a sell job, but I remember stories of our soldiers hitting an enemy in the thigh and the bullet exiting the shoulder. I always heard that the 5.56 was very effective antipersonnel. Not only because of its high velocity, but the rifle's full auto controllability greatly increased the probablility of a hit. A lot of that AK fast semi / full auto fire ends up in the air over the heads of the intended receiver.

The M16/AR15 biggest complaint I've heard has been jamming due to tight rifle tolerances. Not reallly an ammo round complaint.



Gary42141 - if kickbacks are involved, somebody's been collecting for quite a while now. Military adoption of the M16 goes back 20+ years as you know.

[Gary42141]

Originally posted by engineer151515
if kickbacks are involved, somebody's been collecting for quite a while now. Military adoption of the M16 goes back 20+ years as you know.

Yes, I know how far back it goes.

I'll post this again, from the article.

"The official said the Pentagon wanted to build some M-4 carbines chambered for a Russian caliber – 7.62 X 39 mm – noting that the smaller .223 caliber "has never met our military requirements."

The important point here isn't necessarily the caliber that they're looking into, but rather the fact that a caliber which is standard issue for the military has never met the requirements of the military.

If true...how'd that happen? How is it that the world's preeminant military is saddled with a caliber that never met their requirements?

Possibly the same way certain weapons systems that the military doesn't want receives funding? How's that happen? Because there's a lot of money to be made in military contracts, whether the military wants and needs it or not.

Our government is full of graft, corruption, greed, and under the table deals. To believe that the military would be immune from those who'd take advantage of them for personal gain is, IMO, a bit naive.

[Gary42141]

Originally posted by dbrowne1
Even if this is true, did you ever stop and think that maybe these guns are going to operators in places like Afghanistan, where 7.62x39 is readily available but 5.56x45 is not?


What part of "has never met our military requirements" is unclear?

[Fast Shadow]

A wifebeating burnout five time loser and a brainwashed, half-retarded punk kid terrorized the Beltway area for three weeks, killing 10 people with single shots with a .223. If these two mutts can do that then what can the a squad's worth of .223 rifles do in the hands of our well-trained military? Don't sell it short. If you think the .223/5.56 sucks, then why not take one in the chest and tell us all how it didn't hurt? ;Q

PS - Why the hell do you even care, Osama? You're an America basher, I'd figure you as the type that roots for dead US soldiers. Maybe THAT'S why you have such a problem with the .223, because it's too effective when used on your AQ pals. ;z

I always wonder why it is gungrabbing libs find their ways to places like Glocktalk.. not enough attention when they were kids I suppose. ;Q ;Q ;Q

[litework]

What official at the Pentagon? I'll see if I can interview a janitor at the Pentagon, and determine his "official" take on the military's decision to go with the 5.56. The article is filled with half truths. If the caliber was so bad, why did the Russians all but abandon their tried and true 7.62x39 in favor of the 5.45? They made the switch and emulated the American 5.56 after hearing (and complaining) about the wounding characteristics of the smaller caliber.

[CIAHitman]

Originally posted by Gary42141
What part of "has never met our military requirements" is unclear?

Gary, you need to understand our Govt a bit more. Everyone "knows" what's best for our military but really doesn't. I have read the history of the procurement of the 5.56 round and it was a few people who wanted to keep the 7.62, a few people who wanted to chose something else, and the vast majority were in favor of the 5.56. Its wasn't a kickback as others have suggested. Their is nothing "wrong" with the 5.56 round and it serves its intended purpose, WITH the proper barrel twist, length of barrel and type of ammo used. The 77 grain ammo has helped with the ultra stupid idea of using a 14.5" barrel and with the development of either the 6.5 Grendal or the Remington 6.8 it should shut most of the naysayers up....for awhile.
With HK's and Barret's new gas piston upper, accuracy will suffer a bit, but will lead to less cleaning of the bolt assy.

[dbrowne1]

Originally posted by Gary42141
What part of "has never met our military requirements" is unclear?

Please cite a (credible) source, or at least a name, for this statement.

[CIAHitman]

I just saw this posted at AR15.com and thought I'd share it with the rest of you.
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/report/2003/oif_lessons_peo.doc

[dbrowne1]

Originally posted by Gary42141
Yes, I know how far back it goes.

I'll post this again, from the article.

"The official said the Pentagon wanted to build some M-4 carbines chambered for a Russian caliber – 7.62 X 39 mm – noting that the smaller .223 caliber "has never met our military requirements."

The important point here isn't necessarily the caliber that they're looking into, but rather the fact that a caliber which is standard issue for the military has never met the requirements of the military.

If true...how'd that happen? How is it that the world's preeminant military is saddled with a caliber that never met their requirements?

Possibly the same way certain weapons systems that the military doesn't want receives funding? How's that happen? Because there's a lot of money to be made in military contracts, whether the military wants and needs it or not.

Our government is full of graft, corruption, greed, and under the table deals. To believe that the military would be immune from those who'd take advantage of them for personal gain is, IMO, a bit naive.

Armalite/Fairchild and Colt didn't have the contract for the M1 Garand, the M14, or any of other recent, previous rifles. So there was no follow-on imperative here for the contract, there was no "good old boy" network that led to this. If anything, the old boys HATED the M16 and the .222 and .223 cartridges. Or maybe you're blaming the Kennedy whiz kids? I'm not really sure what you're saying here.

[true believer]

i'm putting this in the black rifle club...
bob

[Alexit]

I think having NATO switch to a Com-Bloc caliber is a wonderful idea! Lets all write DARPA and suggest they contact IZHMASH about acquiring a reliable MBR...

[CarlosDJackal]

Originally posted by sundance43.5
What does it also say when we are the only major military to use .223/5.56? Countries that we've given the M16 to for free don't count either.

I can understand the use of the .223 in something like the SAW, but not as a primary battle weapon.

Isn't Britain, France, and Germany still using the 5.56 mm NATO round?

I've gotten into quite a bit of discussions with so-called experts about how "ineffective" the 5.56mm/.223 round is. But I have yet to get any of these "experts" to volunteer to get shot with either the 5.56mm or .223 round. I wonder why? ;f

[evlbruce]

.223 is a good round out of a 20" barrel, however the performance out of the 14" barrel leaves much to be desired, especially with AP rounds.

The Russian had a similar problems with the AK-SU 206.5 mm v. 455mm for the Regular 74.

The carbine versions of both the M16 and the AK74 where critizied by soldiers for being less accurate, havinge less range, and doing less damage than their full size counterparts.

So why is the DoD switching over to the 14" M4?

I would be happy seeing the new firearms in .50AE.

[python1340]

.308 and .30-06 aren't good full auto rounds. 7.62x39 is, but isn't a whole lot better than .223.

[CIAHitman]

Originally posted by CarlosDJackal
Isn't Britain, France, and Germany still using the 5.56 mm NATO round?


Britian, and Germany are using the 5.56 in their weapon systems. Not sure about the French. Isreal uses the 5.56 in their weapons, and they choose to pick the M16 over their own because they work. They also don't get them free.

[Gary42141]

Originally posted by dbrowne1
Please cite a (credible) source, or at least a name, for this statement.

I believe we both read the same article at the beginning of this thread.

[Gary42141]

Originally posted by dbrowne1
I'm not really sure what you're saying here.

Thought it was pretty clear, actually.

If the statement in the article about the caliber never meeting the requirements of the military is correct, then it was forced on the military rather than being something which was wanted.

[Gary42141]

Originally posted by Fast Shadow
Why the hell do you even care, Osama? You're an America basher, I'd figure you as the type that roots for dead US soldiers. Maybe THAT'S why you have such a problem with the .223, because it's too effective when used on your AQ pals. ;z

I always wonder why it is gungrabbing libs find their ways to places like Glocktalk.. not enough attention when they were kids I suppose.

You mean you're not going to call me a "fag" as you did in the political forum? ;f

[Fast Shadow]

Originally posted by Gary42141
You mean you're not going to call me a "fag" as you did in the political forum? ;f

haha, you or one of your pals played tattletale to the moderators because your fragile feelings were damaged by the big bad man. ;Q They asked me to refrain, and I agreed out of respect since it's their site and their rules.

Now back to the topic at hand. What is more credible: An un-named source in an unverified article or the cold hard fact that thousands and thousands of weapons chambered in 5.56 have been and continue to be in deployment for decades. Furthermore the ballistics of the .223 are extremely effective at short and intermediate ranges with standard length barrels and continue to be effective at longer ranges with 20"+ barrels.

Like I already said, it's more likely your disdain for .223 comes from its effectiveness given your slant.

[AZ Jeff]

Originally posted by Gary42141
Yes. Kickback.
OK, I'll bite. Please elaborate on exactly WHO got "kickback", WHEN they got it, for EXACTLY WHAT they received it.

I must be misinformed, and need to know.

Actually, I will also go one step further, and ask you to tell me HOW, based on your knowledge, the US Mil. wound up with the 5.56x45 cartridge. Do you know the FULL history? There are a lot of strange tracks in the path of this cartridge to where it is today, but NOWHERE have I EVER heard ANYONE suggest that KICKBACKS were involved.

Unless you can elaborate as I started in this message, I suggest you do some serious historical reading.......

[Gary42141]

Originally posted by Fast Shadow
Like I already said, it's more likely your disdain for .223 comes from its effectiveness given your slant.

Might it be your love for the round that makes you refuse to believe something that doesn't fit your preconceived notions?

To be honest, I was always under the assumption that the 5.56 was something the military wanted. Even though I personally never cared for it, I figured if it's what the military wants...so be it.

Additionally, the source of the article is NewsMax, a decidely conservative media outlet. I find it a bit hard to believe that they'd publish something like this which is untrue, since doing so wouldn't do much to support the administration or the Defense Department.

As for the effectiveness of the round.....I'm just glad there are other alternatives. ;f

[Gary42141]

Originally posted by AZ Jeff
NOWHERE have I EVER heard ANYONE suggest that KICKBACKS were involved.

Neither have I.

My comment was based on a comment in the article which quoted an official as saying that the round never met their military requirements.

If true, then the military had this forced upon them.

If it's not true, then Newsmax published a false article which is damaging to their typically conservative agenda.

[AZ Jeff]

Originally posted by Gary42141
If true, then the military had this forced upon them.

If it's not true, then Newsmax published a false article which is damaging to their typically conservative agenda.

Actually, from the history I have read on the cartridge, the 5.56mm round WAS forced on the military, at least on the then-existant Ordnance Corps. (Read "The Black Rifle" by Stevens and Ezell for more details.)

If Newsmax actually DID find evidence of "kickbacks", it would be something everyone else who has investigated this rifle & cartridge's history for the past 40+ years has missed. I find that HARD to believe. Hence, I think Newsmax is INFERRING something, and NOT reporting HARD PROVEN FACT.

[Gary42141]

Originally posted by AZ Jeff
Actually, from the history I have read on the cartridge, the 5.56mm round WAS forced on the military

Thanks.

Personally, I see it as a problem to force weapon systems upon the military which don't meet their requirements.

But that's just me.

And when I hear of this occuring, I can't help but wonder who got paid off in order to make this decision.

[AZ Jeff]

Read the book I mentioned in my previous post, or any of a bunch of others on the same topic, and you will find out that, when the 5.56x45 M193 cartridge and the M16 rifle was pushed on the Ordnance Corps, something much more insidious than "kickbacks" was involved.

POLITICAL POWER in the military selection/procurement system was what was at stake, and in the end, THE TAXPAYERS LOST, not McNamara's guys, and not the Ordnance Corps.

Huge amounts of money were pissed away by each group, both trying to prove they knew better on how to design/develop/manufacture weapons systems.

In the end, both sides were proven wrong, but we still have the M16 and it's controversial cartridge, but it's not 'cuz of kickbacks.

[DJ Niner]

The M16 series weapons are rarely the best choice for any single task, but they are BY FAR the best compromise for any combination of tasks which our armed forces might require. If sent to the wide-open desert, I'd choose a scope-sighted M14 too; but it would be a darn poor choice for clearing buildings room-to-room like some of our folks are doing in Iraqi cities right now. With an M4, you can slap a dot sight on top (pre-zeroed), clear those rooms, and when you pop out the other side of the building, still be able to engage a BG 200-300 yards away in a field behind the building. The best choice for building-clearing MIGHT be a pistol-caliber subgun; the best choice for the BG in the field MIGHT be an M14. But the best choice when you don't know which one might threaten you next is an M4.

We have accurate short/medium range support weapons they didn't have in past wars (MK-19, CAS with Hellfire, etc.) that can take care of those "BGs-hunkered-down-in-a-bunker" problems; we don't use a rifle to solve those problems any more. Our rifles and carbines, in the hands of our more highly trained personnel, easily out-range and out-snipe our enemies' similar weapons even under their choice of time and place. Results: we win most clashes hands-down, and the ones we lose AREN'T because of hardware problems.

The firearm is but a tool; the WEAPON is between your ears. Dangerous folks are dangerous no matter WHAT they are carrying, and less-effective folks will still be less effective no matter what they are armed with.