Thanks, to those who cleared up the buffalo poo. Nothing wrong with people sharing there opinions or observations, but to spread untruths about history is just unessacary.
I have to coment on the thought that the US military only selects the best for our troops. That is just illogical (idealogical yes). First of all, what we think is best may not be what the military, thinks is. One of major concerns they have with soldiers is wieght. This was the main reason for switching from 7.62x51mm to 5.56x45mm. Soldiers could theoretically carry much more ammunition for the 5.56. Or they could carry slightly more than they did when they carried the 7.62x51mm and not be overly fatigued by the weight of carrying all of there other equipment.
Also the doctrine of fire changed greatly during from WW2 to Vietnam. For example in WW2 a Rifle sqaud was mostly made up of 10 soldiers carrying the M1 rifle ,1 carrying the BAR automatic rifle (he was called the Automatic rifleman) and one carrying a 1903 springfield with grenade launcher ,for firing rifle grenades for anti tank purposes. Most units did not have a radio to call in fire support, so the rifle was there basic form of defense and offense.
The Automatic rifleman was there to keep suppresive fire on firing positions like bunkers to cover the rifle man so that they could fire and move. The rifleman covered the automatic rifleman. The Soldier armed with the springfield was in case the rifle sqaud was attacked by light armored vehicles like half track, armored cars. Though this formation was effective, over time they found other combinations where more powerful by adding submachine gunners and more powerful anti tank soldiers (bazooka) and other weapon made the rifle sqaud more versatile.
Thier enemies where largely armed with bolt action rifles, submachine guns and machine guns. During ww2 the machine gun and submachine gun made its impact felt in close range combat, such as urban and heavily forested enviroments. This help to develope the assualt rifle, which went on to make an even greater impact on all of the sides that fought in the war.
So the concept that a rifleman should also be able to become an automatic rifleman if need was adopted. America toyed with the idea of making select fire M1's at the end of the war and this project developed into the M14. It was supposed to replace both the M1 and the BAR. It performed as well as the M1 as a Battle rifle. Though it was soon found out to be difficult to cotrol when fired in full auto and it had the same vices as the BAR, 20 round magazine capacity, and it overheated quickly. So it didn't effectively replace the BAR, which was considered obsolete at the time of ww2.
All the while the American Military was still enthralled with the idea of the Assualt rifle/ full-automatic doctrine of fire. Perhaps the Korean war had something to do with this. Though no true assualt rifle was developed during the Korean war, unless you consider the m2 carbine. Soliders liked the M1 alot better even if it had limited capacity. So they where going on what they knew when they developed the M14.
That and they where trying to reduce the varios varietys of weapons systems by Korea we had, the M1 rifle, M1 carbine,M2 carbine, M1 Thompson, M3 Greasegun, BAR, Browning 1919 machinegun, 1911 pistol.
Once Vietnam rolled around most of the previously mentioned arms where still in Inventories and where used in the early war. Then the M14 appeared on the scene, particulary used by the Marine corps. Who favored this firearm greatly due to the old docrine of every marine a rifleman. Though the M14 is an excellent rifle (particulary if used in semi-auto) it wasn't the best for jungle fighting mostly because of its wieght and length.
Even soldiers in the pacific during ww2 where looking for something handier than the M1 in the jungle and the M14 wasn't much different. All of these combined with new Invention by Eugene stoner for a new modern light weight rifles (6.5 lbs) vs. the 9.8lbs M14, not to mention the M16 sucess as an Fully automatic rifle. It filled a niche the M14 could not and overall it was supposed to make it easier for the soldiers to carry all of his ever increasing load through the jungle.
In this time Warfare became more mobile than it was, even in WW2 particulary with the use of the Helicopter. Also we where fighting against an army armed greatly with Semi-automatic and select fire rifles and submachine guns. Not to mentiond of course Politics had a hand to play in all of this and we ended up with the M16 as a combat rifle to the present.
Still today the M16 gets shorter for use in vehicles ( I.E. the M4) as our army again mobilizes inside of armored vehicles for mobility in different terrain, mobility which was impossible in a jungle. Its actually more like ww2, but there are more artillery, more aircraft, more gunships than ever before!
So it all boils down to what your army is doing. That doesn't make the M16 the most deadly rifle ever, or the most long range rifle ever, or the best rifle ever, . But it is relatively light, handy, relatively effective and it has low recoil which makes it easier to train new recruits and make rapid,burst or automatic fire more effective. In a way it harkens back the the original concept of the m1 carbine as a light and easy rifle for support units to use. Instead of having a battle rifle for frontline troops and a carbine for support troops they armed everyone with a carbine. part of this was combat ranges, being shorter, standardization ect.
However it can be noted that Machineguns, M60, M240 and hordes of others are still chambered for 7.62x51mm as they penetrate barriers and destroy harder targets than can the 5.56. Of course there is the SAW though it is trying the fill the role of a sqaud machinegun, the role the BAR could not fill in its day.
Snipers also continue to use the 7.62x51 and even larger calibers for there work. They are selecting individual targets at longer ranges and thus a largers caliber suits there needs better. Now designated marksmen are among the ranks of infantry units and are more like Rifleman of WW2. Or even more similiar to the Russians, which had at least one SVD in every moterized rifle company.
Basickly no one firearm is perfect for everything the U.S. Army selected the M16 because it pretty acurate, easy to use and carry. My opinion is if you are in a modern army with alot artillery, aircraft, armor, support, Machine guns grenade launchers ect. Its a decent weapon.
But if you have no support, such as if you where in a Militia. Or something like that, where you basicly have Rifleman for regular soldiers, and snipers(the best rifleman). Than it makes sense to have the more powerful battle rifle for your soldiers. You can hit target far away, 500+ where you enemy likely can't see (you though they can still kill you with there support) You won't be taking as many shots you would if you had machine guns or assualt rifles, you would want to engage and disapear. In other words you have less tools at your disposal, the rifle has to be more powerful and effective at longer ranges because its doing more of the work that is done by other weapons in a modern military with a more varied arsenal.
That being said,even though the 7.62x51mm only served our country as the standard rifle caliber for less than decade.It has served admirably as the Standard caliber for much of the rest of the world for decades and still serves in machine guns and sniper/Dm rifles and for that matter the m14 is still in active service with the US Navy.
That is why I think the US miltary arms it soldiers the way it does!
WOW that got long! Im sorry about that, I got carried away.
Brother in Arms
