The M-8 uses the AR-18 operating mechanism, not the AR-15 gas system.
#1 the XM8 is subtley different from the AR-18.
#2 the HKM4 is NOT an M4, it does not use the M4's direct gas system, rather it is an upper that functions almost identically to the XM8:
http://www.tacticalforums.com/cgi-bin/tacticalubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=56;t=000724#000000
The OICW *does* suck. This is not debated, but the army there chose the H&K for their "kinetic" portion, why? They could have used a Colt for that, but decided not to, why? Maybe cause they were considering it anyway? Nah, couldn't be.
The G36 is: more reliable, and lighter in weight than the M16 and its derivatives. The M16 is more reliable than it is given credit for, but is still not as reliable as the G36 and its derivatives, perhaps we're splitting hairs here, 1 jam per 10,000 rounds versus 1 jam per 25,000 rounds may not win wars, but it'd sure make me feel better.
The G36 is NOT the AR-18. Close, but not quite.
5.56 is more effective than 7.62 at ranges less than 500m, which is to say, 98% of combat conditions.
This is rather irrelevent, as no one was discussing going back to the 7.62, but the cause is mostly the result of bullets used. Using similar bullets, the 7.62 is significantly superior in terminal effects to the 5.56: take a 7.62 that fragments like the original 55gr 5.56 (such as the W. German load), and compare them; the 7.62 is more deadly. Take a 7.62 that is designed identically to the SS109 bullet, and compare them; the 7.62 will be more deadly. Take a 7.62 ballistic tip, and a 5.56 ballistic tip, and compare them; the 7.62 is more deadly. Further, in all cases the 7.62 will penetrate more intermediate barriers.
Comparing a FMJ non-fragmenting 7.62 to a fragmenting 5.56 is an unfair comparison that is inappropriate in comparisons of *cartridges* as opposed to the bulets that they fire. For a fair comparison you should use similarly designed bullets.
To say that the only way that the 7.62 can compare to the 5.56 is if we allow soft-pointed bullets is yet another incorrect statement that falsely places the advantage to the 5.56. In the two cases where similar bullet designs exist (fragmenting FMJ, and ballistic tips) the 7.62 is superior, in one of those cases, the 7.62 is military legal. In the third hypothetical case the 7.62 is very, very likely to be superior if a similarly designed bullet were used, and it would also be military legal, though the lefties would still wine about it.
But it isn't *about* the 7.62, the 6.8 has less recoil than the 7.62, and more potential for wounding than the 5.56 In the heavier loadings (75, 77gr) the 5.56 does work *much* better than it does in current loadings, but these heavier loadings are maxing out the available performance in this cartridge, to get better performance one has to move to a more powerful cartrdige.
EVERY weapon is criticized from inception.
Granted, but I said "since" inception, there's a difference. The criticism of the M16 has not ceased, it has abated, but it has not ceased.
Sorry, but in 19 years I have had ONE failure to feed from a bad magazine, ONE case fail to extract for unknown reasons. I've used some of the oldest, filthiest weapons out there. I've fixed some of the oldest, filthiest weapons out there. I've put hundreds of thousands of live and carbony blank ammo through M-16s and ARs.
There are others who feel similarly, indeed the M16 is more reliable than it is given credit for according to many persons who have used it in harms way. The point I sited was that the M16 had been criticized. The problem is a lack of confidence in the weapon system, rather than whether that criticism, or lack of confidence is justified.
I actually have a rather solid background in physics and wound ballistics. The .223 with good loads is adequate, but the 6.8, and the 7.62 with the same bullet design, are both better. Incidentially, the Russian 5.45 sucks due to their failure to design a bullet which was weak at the cannelure. Which has nothing to do with the cartridge sucking per se, just the bullet.
There is little debate that the Army's insistance on the .30 Caliber rifle in both the 1930's and the 1950's was a mistake.
I fail to see the problem with the 1:7 twist. It is my understanding that a problem only exists in the case of having too slow a twist, as opposed to one that is too fast. From a military standpoint, I'd want a little bit of extra insurance in my barrel twist as I am more likely to encounter a wide variety of atmospheric densities. Further the faster twist would let me make use of the heavier 75gr, and 100gr loads which perform better.
Finally, I fail to see the relevance of the 5.56 having more retained energy than the 9mm and the .357, these are both pistol rounds and neither I, nor anyone I know, has ever advocated their replacing the 5.56
-Morgan