I was always ambivalent about the M16/AR15 series for two reasons:
1) I never warmed to the cartridge. Yes, it was extremely accurate, but it was not as effective in anything in ideal environments as far older and far more hard hitting rounds fielded by the U.S. Military.
2) I never warmed to the gas impingement system of the AR given the other design aspects of the platform. C'mon, even the most ardent AR fans should admit that you do have to keep these weapons very clean and that breakage of many parts is common, and while this may be fine for a range 'queen,' it's not exactly the best set of attributes for what is need as a grunt's primary rifle. The M1, M14 best the AR in reliability and cartridge, and the AK47 absolutely bests it in reliability and robustness (and the newer Russian made RPK receiver AKs close the gap somewhat on accuracy).
Before you flame me for beating what is a very dead horse, consider a few things.
My opinions are just that, but no one can legitimately deny that the AR series has shortcomings that are definitive, as does the 5.56 cartridge. Obviously, every cartridge designed and used is by definition a set of compromises from the concept stage forward, but in terms of its intended purpose, the 5.56 was not anywhere near the best we've fielded, let alone ideal.
Also, the 6.8 SPC is probably has the best chance of being adopted by the U.S. Military sooner rather than later, as its ballistics are outstanding, and this is backed up by the fact that early adopters of the cartridge such as the L.A. SWAT Unit attest that the test result don't lie in terms of real world performance.
Now, as to point 2 above, does anyone think that the universal adopted standard for the 6.8 SPC may be a piston driven one?
So, if one accepts these premises, and doesn't need to get a rifle chambered in 5.56 now, why not wait and get what's most likely to be a superior performer?
1) I never warmed to the cartridge. Yes, it was extremely accurate, but it was not as effective in anything in ideal environments as far older and far more hard hitting rounds fielded by the U.S. Military.
2) I never warmed to the gas impingement system of the AR given the other design aspects of the platform. C'mon, even the most ardent AR fans should admit that you do have to keep these weapons very clean and that breakage of many parts is common, and while this may be fine for a range 'queen,' it's not exactly the best set of attributes for what is need as a grunt's primary rifle. The M1, M14 best the AR in reliability and cartridge, and the AK47 absolutely bests it in reliability and robustness (and the newer Russian made RPK receiver AKs close the gap somewhat on accuracy).
Before you flame me for beating what is a very dead horse, consider a few things.
My opinions are just that, but no one can legitimately deny that the AR series has shortcomings that are definitive, as does the 5.56 cartridge. Obviously, every cartridge designed and used is by definition a set of compromises from the concept stage forward, but in terms of its intended purpose, the 5.56 was not anywhere near the best we've fielded, let alone ideal.
Also, the 6.8 SPC is probably has the best chance of being adopted by the U.S. Military sooner rather than later, as its ballistics are outstanding, and this is backed up by the fact that early adopters of the cartridge such as the L.A. SWAT Unit attest that the test result don't lie in terms of real world performance.
Now, as to point 2 above, does anyone think that the universal adopted standard for the 6.8 SPC may be a piston driven one?
So, if one accepts these premises, and doesn't need to get a rifle chambered in 5.56 now, why not wait and get what's most likely to be a superior performer?
And yes, it really expands your effectiveness with an AR. It will not make a bad shooter better, but rounds on target do more. The 5.56 has gotten a lot better lately, but so has the 6.8 (in less than 50 years too). 
