Firstly let me state, I'm no soilder or LEO nor do I ever have any wish to be. If it came to that I would do what it takes to defend my country, but that doesnt mean I have to want it to come to that. My information comes from my uncle, who went into the sandbox the firsttime and is back over there again right now.
His opinion, was as follows:
He likes the M16, he has an AR-15 at home he pops coyotes with but he does have his reservations. He loves that its lightweight, and its high rate of fire. However his example of why he didnt like it went something like this, He appreciated everyone nomatter their occupation within the services needs to keep their issued weapon as clean as possible. However at times thats not always possible, if your a mechanic or a surgeon you could feasibly spend 18 hours straight without stop. No time to clean your weapon. The M16 doesnt have much tolerence for the gnitty gritty so when you get 'bushed and you have to fight. Your useless because your rifle has jammed. The M16 is accurate, light and very comfortable but at the expense of reliability and confidence. He expressed a good bit've worry over the reliability of his M4. He's an MP and said he gets to around to cleaning it whenever as soon as he can but there are times where he is doing something that requires his full attention without his rifle doing anything that concerns him.
His solution? He wants to see other 5.56 platforms before he decides if the M16 is really all that bad or if its just an issue with 'modern' rifles. He expressed interest in the SA80, the FNC and some South African bullpup whos name I cannot recollect. As for the 5.56's effectiveness, he didnt think so.
The issue there wasnt so much if the guy he shot was going to die, put any sized bullet into somone's torso and sooner or later they will be rendered combat ineffective. He felt confident with the .308's ability not just to kill somone, but to knock them on their ass and cause massive tissue damage there and then.
Personally, I say we should investigate something between a .308 and a .223. I know it'll never happen but I wonder in my own delusions about something like a .223WSSM, or a .243, or a .270. Why? Why not. I fail to see how a good hunting caliber doesnt make a good killing caliber. In Missouri your not allowed to hunt with anything below a .243. In addition, what about perhaps something like the Dragunov for our guys? A Squad issued sniper weapon thats -very- widely distributed. Wouldnt a .308 Bushmaster with something like a low glare 3-9x42 low light, with an illuminate recticle be effective or am I just being way off base? I'm not advocating replacing snipers at all, merely extending the range a squad can enguage at aswell as offering more flexibility.
On a side note: Why dont we issue M9s widely sorta like the Germans did with their pistols in WW2? I dont see why every soilder shouldnt have a sidearm(9mm vrs .45 wars can wait for another thread so lets just keep it too pistol or no pistol irrespective of caliber.)
God bless Uncle Jimmy.
