Study after study have shown that there is no combat need for a rifle beyond 300 Meters. This is one of the main reasons they went to the .223 round in the M16. Most soldiers don't need to shoot out to 600+ meters. What they do need is the ability to carry more ammo, which the smaller round allows.
Who ever is doing these studies has not been to Afghanistan or Iraq. Urban counter sniper missions where they are dropping targets out past 500m on a regular basis in Iraq.
Ridge line to ridge line fighting where the M16 cant even inagine hitting targets at those ranges. If they would bother to go to A-stan they would see a significant amount of Soldiers and Marines carrying M14's. More would be carrying them if they could get them.
That study may have been true for jungle fighting a few decades ago, but I can tell you it is grossly incorrect for todays desert and mountain battlefields.
As for the H&K, you can keep it. 40mm is where it is at. I guess since the XM8 has proven to be a lemon in the hands of the testers at Benning they had to do something to try and get into the game.
As for airburst rounds that they are doing final developement on for the MK-47, they are programed thru the optical sight attached to the weapon. It lases the target, figures trajectory and when the round is fired it is programmed into the round as it passes three small pins inside the barrel. The pins will be user replaceable after 3,000rds and the barrel can only be used with those rounds. But it takes a few seconds to change barrels so it is not a big deal for the shooter to configure the weapon for the mission.
And with the new thermobaric rounds (much more deadly in buildings than a bunch of shrapnel from an HE round, you can hid behind heavy wood from shrapnel...) as well as other new munitions, the M203 has joined the new generations of weapons systems. Better barrel systems and new ammo has brought this weapon up to speed.
The M3 Carl Gustav now has nearly a dozen rounds available for it in the Army system. The Ranger Batts have them and they are being fielded to SF units. They do have anti tank rounds that will defeat most tanks on the battle field (remember that the PG-7VM round has defeated a good number of tanks in Iraq, so it doesn't take that much with good shot placement).
With most walls being made from sun baked bricks, or factory made bricks that can be as thick as 24 inches, anything shorts of a MBT is not going to cut it. The LAW, AT-4 and Gustav were ineffective or moderately effective in A-stan. But most doors are made of thin sheet steel over a poorly welded steel frame and they come off really easy with either a small breeching charge or by being hooked up to your Toyota and pulled off the hinges.
Being reusable isn't all that great a virtue -- there is nothing heavier than a weapon that's out of ammunition.
Most of us think it is a great virtue in this case. Flexability of use, a wide variety of ammo and since it is a mission specific weapon and not a soldiers primary weapon, weight is not a great issue most of the time. We dont usually hump into out objectives anymore. Helos and ground vehicles get us on target much quicker than humping in, keep soldiers in a higher state of readiness and help add the element of suprise. It also provides a place to resupply from, or to drop resupply to us when needed. Yeah carrying it sucks, but is worth the pain when you need it.
perhaps a step backwards would be more cost effective in that instance.
