Pretend the 223 had never been invented... what caliber for our armed forces?

[black_powder_Rob]

man i am not trying to be mean but when i first read your post MTMilitiaman, I instantly thought of COD j/j that does sound like a pretty good load out, not sure about the rifle men carrying something like an AT4 though.

 

[clem100]

We might still be using the .276 Pedersen had it been adopted. Same with the .280 British. Currently, the 7x46 UIAC would fill the bill nicely. In the future, you'll see caseless ammo and then directed energy weapons...

 

[Narwhal]

7.62x51mm

 

[amprecon]

FWIW I like the 6.8SPC II.

 

[68wj]

Interesting read on the subject (though, from 2006, maybe a little dated now). http://www.thedonovan.com/archives/gunstuff/12_fa02.pdf

And, a little (lot) longer, but more recent (2009). Alternate calibers starts on p35 if you want to skip. http://cgsc.cdmhost.com/cgi-bin/showfile.exe?CISOROOT=/p4013coll3&CISOPTR=2515&filename=2516.pdf#search=%22adopt%22

 

[Ghosty1]

9 mm.

since 1902, been burying ppl.

-G

 

[sappyg]

i just read Major Erhart's monograph conclusion. very interesting.
having never served i'll take his word at face value. what i mostly take away from it is the need to improve marksman training with and w/o optics and to consolidate designated marksman training and weapons. fair enough.
his gun room argument is compelling though opens up a logistics issue. i would think requiring units to inventory additional uppers, mags, ammo and who knows what else. though, i don't dispute that the 6.8 round may be a better solution in Afpac.
i don't see the 6.8 superceding the 5.56 anytime soon though it's easy to accept the point that it is more effective (at least in Afganistan). a miss with the 6.8 is the same as a miss with the 5.56 in the long run. again, having never served, wouldn't theater specific creative training overcome most of the issues raised against the 5.56? jusy asking

 

[Tirod]

Simply repeating the .308 chant ignores the the OP's point. The .308 was already in use, the Army decided to go to an intermediate round.

We were late to the party, but the assault rifle and a smaller cartridge was going to happen because combat studies showed a soldier would shoot it more often, more accurately. Larger bore battle rifles with more recoil were identified as a combat impediment. They weight more, the soldier then carries less ammo, and shoots them less.

We're discussing what would replace it other than .223 in the day. Make no mistake, the .308 and others are considered obsolete for individual soldiers use as a personal defense caliber. The Army looks at the end result - AR's get more rounds fired, which increases hit probabilty.

The Army also looks at the soldiers total loaded weight and it's composition. Lighter guns and more ammo don't take up any more than a heavy gun with a few rounds. The soldier still has water, NBC gear, armor, helmet, web gear to carry it, commo, team gear like extra ammo, grenades, or a piece of a crew served weapon.

Hikers attempting Everest actually carry less.

The soldier won't accurately fire the heavy gun any further, Afghanistan or not. As said, when you are shooting on a two way range, it's a bit harder to see someone hiding behind rocks at elevation who doesn't want to be seen. Why, they even cheat and pile rocks up so they can shoot from a little hole, no movement or flash visible at all. In fact, we teach our guys to do the same, too! It's completely as unfair as it can be.

Those who insist on recommending the .308 need to carry 300 rounds in loaded mags for two weeks, along with all the rest of the 100 pound plus load out. It won't change the Army's opinion, they already figured it out more than 50 years ago, the .308 battle rifle is dead, a third world relic for decades.

All those FNFAL and HK parts kits came from somewhere, right? It's this generations 98k surplus gun, no longer issue or in much in use.

 

[charlie echo]

Simply repeating the .308 chant ignores the the OP's point. The .308 was already in use, the Army decided to go to an intermediate round.

We were late to the party, but the assault rifle and a smaller cartridge was going to happen because combat studies showed a soldier would shoot it more often, more accurately. Larger bore battle rifles with more recoil were identified as a combat impediment. They weight more, the soldier then carries less ammo, and shoots them less.

We're discussing what would replace it other than .223 in the day. Make no mistake, the .308 and others are considered obsolete for individual soldiers use as a personal defense caliber. The Army looks at the end result - AR's get more rounds fired, which increases hit probabilty.

The Army also looks at the soldiers total loaded weight and it's composition. Lighter guns and more ammo don't take up any more than a heavy gun with a few rounds. The soldier still has water, NBC gear, armor, helmet, web gear to carry it, commo, team gear like extra ammo, grenades, or a piece of a crew served weapon.

Hikers attempting Everest actually carry less.

The soldier won't accurately fire the heavy gun any further, Afghanistan or not. As said, when you are shooting on a two way range, it's a bit harder to see someone hiding behind rocks at elevation who doesn't want to be seen. Why, they even cheat and pile rocks up so they can shoot from a little hole, no movement or flash visible at all. In fact, we teach our guys to do the same, too! It's completely as unfair as it can be.

Those who insist on recommending the .308 need to carry 300 rounds in loaded mags for two weeks, along with all the rest of the 100 pound plus load out. It won't change the Army's opinion, they already figured it out more than 50 years ago, the .308 battle rifle is dead, a third world relic for decades.

All those FNFAL and HK parts kits came from somewhere, right? It's this generations 98k surplus gun, no longer issue or in much in use.

McNamara's Folly.

7.62x51mm was the answer after WWII, is the answer for the UK and the USA now, and for all our future battle rifle needs. The battle rifle shells, one that can stop at 6 yards or 600 yards and reliable under duress was already perfected before the Democratic Sec'ty of Defense McNamarra, a bureaucrat, forced the Army to accept.

The 308s are coming back. Hoooah.

http://www.defensereview.com/dr-pho...ne-for-british-military-marksmen-and-snipers/

http://www.fnhusa.com/le/products/firearms/model.asp?fid=fnf045&gid=fng007&mid=FNM0109

 

[kwelz]

7.62x51mm was the answer after WWII, is the answer for the UK and the USA now, and for all our future battle rifle needs. The battle rifle shells, one that can stop at 6 yards or 600 yards and reliable under duress was already perfected before the Democratic Sec'ty of Defense McNamarra, a bureaucrat, forced the Army to accept.

The 308s are coming back. Hoooah.

http://www.defensereview.com/dr-phot...n-and-snipers/

http://www.fnhusa.com/le/products/fi...07&mid=FNM0109

The 7.62x51 is not "coming back". Not as a common issue round at least. It has a use in specific purposes. Such as the designated marksman and in machine guns. As has been discussed by numerous people in this thread, it is ill suited to use for your average rifleman.

Even the link you provided talks about it being used in the sniper and DM role, not standard issue.

I will take the ability to carry 300+ rounds of ammo that can put a bad guy down over only 100 rounds of ammo that can also put the bad guy down. The only thing you gain with the 7.62x51 is slightly longer range. Range that is all but useless under combat conditions.

Think of it this way. BZO is 50 yards which is also effective at 200 yards. 5.56 and similar calibers are usable at double this but the BZO is set where it is because this is where the engagements happen most often. If most engagements happen between 0 and 200 yards why would you burden our soldiers with additional weight and less ammo?

 

[Jaws]

.308 was a huge mistake and the reason .223 exists. Had US gone for the .280 British when everyone else begged for it, none of the next two mistakes would have happened.

 

[henschman]

7.62x51 was designed to replicate the trajectory of the .30 06, which we should have gotten rid of in the 1920s for the .276 Pedersen. A rifle like the M-14 in .276 would have been a real killing machine.

 

[JustA19D]

In the spirit of this thread, i have often wondered what war would be like if we all just fought with handguns, like if every army just issued 9mils to their soldiers

This thread wasnt spose to be about .223 vs. .308, we have all heard the same arguments, its banal. but because i cannot resist i will join in.

the answer isnt a new round, it is more training with the weapn systems we have. deploying soldiers 3 weeks after they get out of OSUT or AIT is the answer. a us army brigade combat team isnt just 5000 people wandering around aimlessly with m4's, we have TCPs and most times they work. 223 cant penetrate 1ft of concrete, sweet, call in arty, call in close air support, roll up the gun truck wih the M2 on it, last case scenario, break contact, yes breaking contact is a good answer some of the time. have a sniper puttin the squeez on you at 1000 yards, get your DMR, get a crew serve, get a gunship. a large group of the people trying to force a battle rifle on to me have never shot another human being in their life, never taken or returned fire. on the average day my kit weight 70-80 lbs, thats 40% of my body weight, its not comfortable, in someways it decreses combat effectiveness, more wieght for larger guns and rounds is not something i want. also, battle rifles are themselves large, ever tried to squeez off a few rounds while jumping out of a truck, trying to untangle your camelback from the seatbelt, and listen to whatever traffic is coming over the net, its not an east task with a weapon as small and light as the M4, now try it with a battle rifle. also, i had a friend when he was in his last unit, who got his forearm shattered by an ak, he could still lay down support fire with one hand, try that with a .308. "OH MY GAWD, you cant kill at 1000m" i can count on one hand the number of times where a round capable of 1000m shots would have been worth their weight, and of thoes few situations, my m4 carried me out just fine. "gotta have a big round to put the BG on his rump" big rounds dont always put people on their rump, thats why you shoot them a bunch of times, i know all the video game players think combat is like "well just get a head shot" sorry real life isnt like that, go ahead and try to make a clean shot when you cant see the target, your waddeling around in gear that weighs half what you do, so on so forth, you get the idea, in the army we are taught controlled pairs, sometimes they work, but sometimes less controlled string of 5-7 shots works, some times you spray and pray.

Moral of the story: i use an M4 for a living, im glad i dont us a battle rifle, more training less high speed low drag cool guy gear

 

[HorseSoldier]

McNarma's Folly.

7.62x51mm was the answer after WWII, is the answer for the UK and the USA now, and for all our future battle rifle needs. The battle rifle shells, one that can stop at 6 yards or 600 yards and reliable under duress was already perfected before the Democratic Sec'ty of Defense McNamarra, a bureaucrat, forced the Army to accept.

The 308s are coming back. Hoooah.

7.62x51 wasn't the answer after WW2. What so many armchair types can't seem to process is the fact that the US military had been trying to ditch 0.30" caliber, full powered rifle rounds since just after WW1. People who actually took a hard look at how soldiers kill one another on the battlefield had already figured out by the 1920s or so that 30-06, .303, 7.92 Mauser, and similar cartridges had already been the wrong answer by 1916 or so and they remained the wrong answer in WW2, persevering only because Depression era nations lacked the resources to get rid of them.

Sadly, for both the US and the rest of the Free World, in the aftermath of WW2 when money was there for R&D and all sorts of very relevant statistical data and technical intelligence was available, at that very moment, we managed to find the wrong man in the wrong place at the wrong time in the form of Col. Rene Studler. Studler's chief claim to fame, besides designing the M3 grease gun, was to decide he knew better than everyone who'd been studying battlefield performance for the last 40 years and conclude that a very modestly improved revamp of 30-06 was all the evolution that was needed to make a go of things.

The resulting "answer" was completely on par with the comparable idiots in the American Civil War in Army Ordnance who, being shown the brass cased cartridge, concluded that muzzle loaders were the "right answer." The incompetence that led to 7.62x51 being adopted as a general service round was appalling and not the "right answer" for anything that a fighting rifle cartridge needed to do in 1918, much less 1958.

 

[R.W.Dale]

Great insights HorseSoldier.


Perhaps a better thread would be "what if the 308 had never been invented" What would our MG's, sniper rifles and DM rifles shoot today?

 

[kwelz]

While it is true that this has turned into a 5.56 vz. 7.62 discussion, there is a reason.

Whatever the exact caliber we are talking about, the argument is the same. Bullet size and velocity. replace 5.56x45 with 5.45x39 and you have the same discussion. Large bullets are not needed to kill in war. They are a detriment if anything to your average infantryman.

 

[sansone]

.243, same magazines as .308, less recoil, flatter shooting, less weight

 

[coug]

I think we should have .338 lapuas on an AR frame.

 

[farson135]

Ok I will start out with I support the .308 round for various reasons but I think there is a bigger problem with all military rounds that I didn’t see anyone address. What is the difference between a .223 and .308 round at 10 yards? Hole size and nothing else. Why is that? The answer is that virtually all militaries around the world use full metal jacket rounds. Now with those rounds the bigger the better because the only way to damage someone is to hit something vital and the bigger round makes a bigger hole. See CPT Steele’s report on the Battle of the Black Sea where he states that he empties half a clip of .223 ammo into an enemy and while he was looking in another direction the man crawled away. The fact is that FMJ rounds are not anti-personnel they are anti-material rounds and until that is changed it really doesn’t matter in a close range fight which round you are using.

Second for all of those people who are putting down the m14 vs the m16 a buddy of mine was a ranger in Vietnam and he was issued a m16 that he carried for 3 months. The problem was that during a firefight he was basically on top of somebody and when he tried to hit him with his rifle the butt shattered and he had to pull out his knife and fight with that and his pistol. After that he demanded to be issued an m14 and he kept that same rifle for the rest of his service. Plus the fact is that even the modern m16 is not a long-term rifle. Parts are constantly breaking and being replaced just through general wear and tear. So if you are honestly going to tell me that the m16 that can’t even survive 3 months in active combat is superior to the m14 that survived for I think 9 years then I have to call bs.

Also to mljdeckard I know plenty of females who can shoot a .308 round perfectly well so I have to wonder what kind of people are you training? Beyond that the fact is that females are not on the front lines (yet) but even if they were you must remember the theory of combined arms (soldiers need to have varying levels of ordinance to be effective: see any well equipped squad). So if your females are having that much trouble simply issue them a lighter round. The fact is that modern military firearms are becoming not just a firearm but an entire system where various parts can be replaced and adjusted for various purposes (see XM8, FN SCAR, HK416, etc).

Now I do support the .308 because I use this round (along with the 30.06 and 303) on a regular basis and find the .223 lacking. However I do recognize that is not perfect for every mission but again no weapon is perfect for every mission. You would never bring an mp5 or p90 to a ranged fight nor would you bring a tac 50 to clear a room. Each weapon has a particular purpose. Now I have heard good things about the 6.8 and similar rounds but from my experience I would prefer to carry the .308 round in a platform like the HK 417. However I am open to a round between the .223 and .308 because the only detractor I can think of for the .308 is weight but in case someone thinks to ask I have had to carry quite a bit of weight. I hike quite a bit and have carried up to 60 pounds of gear over 50 miles in 2-3 days depending on what I am doing. Plus I am a hunter and I don’t use a dear stand (I have my own land out in central Texas) so I have had to carry cleaned deer, pig, bird, and various other game across my land to get back to my truck. Although this still doesn’t qualify me to unequivocally say that weight isn’t a problem I know several soldiers and former soldiers who state that they would like a little more power in their firearms even at the cost of a few sore muscles.

 

[coug]

why don't we put a .338 lapua on an AR frame.

 

[HorseSoldier]

Also to mljdeckard I know plenty of females who can shoot a .308 round perfectly well so I have to wonder what kind of people are you training?

Nope. Tell you what -- let's take 10 female soldiers representing the 10th to the 90th percentile of size, and then let's run them through a realistic combat marksmanship course requiring shooting on the move, shooting in non-standard firing positions to utilize cover, engaging multiple targets, etc. And let's have them run the course with carbine sized AR-10s and M4s, and then let's track hits and engagement times.

Know what the results will be? I'll give you a hint -- they'll be the same if you do the same with male soldiers from 10th-90th percentile. The runs with 7.62x51 weapons will clock slower engagement times and lower hit probabilities.

In short, 7.62x51 weapons make soldiers of either gender less efficient killers in the general service rifle/carbine role.

Beyond that the fact is that females are not on the front lines (yet) but even if they were you must remember the theory of combined arms (soldiers need to have varying levels of ordinance to be effective: see any well equipped squad).

When I was on active duty I dated a female soldier for a while who did chemical recon in 3rd ID. She was on one of the first dozen or so vehicles over the border into Iraq and spent most of the march up to Baghdad sitting on screen lines with scouts in front of everyone else in. When it's all said and done, she and the other female troops in her platoon probably deserved CIBs more than any number of staff officers and senior NCOs who happened to hold 11 series MOS's and spent the invasion in a TOC or M577 with the main body of their battalions.

Female MPs may as well be combat troops, and have booted their share of doors.

Etc.

I hike quite a bit and have carried up to 60 pounds of gear over 50 miles in 2-3 days depending on what I am doing. Plus I am a hunter and I don’t use a dear stand (I have my own land out in central Texas) so I have had to carry cleaned deer, pig, bird, and various other game across my land to get back to my truck. Although this still doesn’t qualify me to unequivocally say that weight isn’t a problem I know several soldiers and former soldiers who state that they would like a little more power in their firearms even at the cost of a few sore muscles.

Yeah -- it's not really the same. At all.

As for soldiers wanting more power in their weapons -- pretty much the last word in this issue is that the super cool kids in CAG can carry whatever they want. They even went ahead and bought HK416s to replace their M4A1s . . . and they kept them chambered in 5.56mm. The lesson there -- people who train to gunfight every day and who know they can hit their targets don't have any issues with 5.56mm getting the job done. This makes me tend to think that guys who complain that the bullet didn't get the job done quite possibly didn't get the bullet anywhere it mattered in the first place.

 

[farson135]

Nope. Tell you what -- let's take 10 female soldiers representing the 10th to the 90th percentile of size, and then let's run them through a realistic combat marksmanship course requiring shooting on the move, shooting in non-standard firing positions to utilize cover, engaging multiple targets, etc. And let's have them run the course with carbine sized AR-10s and M4s, and then let's track hits and engagement times.

Know what the results will be? I'll give you a hint -- they'll be the same if you do the same with male soldiers from 10th-90th percentile. The runs with 7.62x51 weapons will clock slower engagement times and lower hit probabilities.

In short, 7.62x51 weapons make soldiers of either gender less efficient killers in the general service rifle/carbine role.

The idea that the caliber of a weapon (outside of extreme calibers) would totally change a person’s ability is wrong. If you know how to shoot the caliber (once again outside of extreme cases) of the round is irrelevant for close to medium ranges. Have you run any tac courses before because the only real problem most .308 rifles have is that their barrels are too long and the weapons cyclical rate is too slow for most tac situations. Which comes from the fact that .308 tends to be for the designated marksman but the .308 doesn’t need that long a barrel and the cyclical rate could be faster. Point of fact the .223 round needs more barrel to be just as accurate as the .308. So (once again we are working under a hypothetical situation) if the military decided to stick with the .308 round then what would happen with room clearance? Perhaps bullpups would become more common or a shorter barrel. Also less efficient killers? As it stands our soldiers aren’t particularly efficient (look at my initial argument).

When I was on active duty I dated a female soldier for a while who did chemical recon in 3rd ID. She was on one of the first dozen or so vehicles over the border into Iraq and spent most of the march up to Baghdad sitting on screen lines with scouts in front of everyone else in. When it's all said and done, she and the other female troops in her platoon probably deserved CIBs more than any number of staff officers and senior NCOs who happened to hold 11 series MOS's and spent the invasion in a TOC or M577 with the main body of their battalions.

Female MPs may as well be combat troops, and have booted their share of doors.

True, I know a girl who is a MP and I know she saw plenty of combat so yes I was mistaken but my overall point stands that combined arms means that a female in a combat infantry role (if she is truly having problems) she does not have to have the same firearm as others.

Yeah -- it's not really the same. At all.

As I stated I can’t say it unequivocally but the fact is that I have carried loads before and I know the value of saving a few pounds after the 20th mile. Although I find the at all comment interesting, what does walking change or do pounds weigh more when your in the military. Yes I know it’s a smarta— comment but it is an odd statement for you to make.

As for soldiers wanting more power in their weapons -- pretty much the last word in this issue is that the super cool kids in CAG can carry whatever they want. They even went ahead and bought HK416s to replace their M4A1s . . . and they kept them chambered in 5.56mm. The lesson there -- people who train to gunfight every day and who know they can hit their targets don't have any issues with 5.56mm getting the job done. This makes me tend to think that guys who complain that the bullet didn't get the job done quite possibly didn't get the bullet anywhere it mattered in the first place.

The idea that simply because the soldiers choose to use the .223 ignores the reality that everyone else uses the .223. Because of that resupply is easier and more guarantied. Plus in a bad situation if all your men carry the same ammo and magazines then if you run out (or if the rounds/magazines fail) you can scrounge. As for you questioning my accuracy because you don’t know me I will ignore that particular comment but ask you to refrain from such assumptions. Also can you as without fail that you can put your rounds in the exact right place in every situation and every time you pull the trigger. If not my initial point about FMJs is true.

Perhaps I did not make this clear I LIKE THE .308. I took this as a matter of I can use the .308 quite well and I think it is a good round. My real point was covered in my first paragraph and the point on .308 is opinion. The fact is that in all shooting situations people need to feel comfortable and I feel comfortable with the .308 whether using a m1 Garand, ar10, or a full auto g3 (a buddy of mine has a permit). So if you like the .223 fine but I believe that the .308 is superior.

 

[HorseSoldier]

The idea that the caliber of a weapon (outside of extreme calibers) would totally change a person’s ability is wrong.

Well, no, it's not actually. Weapons in 7.62x51 have to be inherently heavier because of the heavier round. They recoil harder. Again, put shooters on a clock and the truth that 7.62x51 weapons make for slower engagements and lower hit probability proves itself.

Have you run any tac courses before because the only real problem most .308 rifles have is that their barrels are too long and the weapons cyclical rate is too slow for most tac situations.

Special Forces Basic Combat Course, Special Forces Advanced Urban Combat Course, a 40 hour block of instruction on patrol carbine use while in the police academy, two classes with Larry Vickers and a couple other tactical rifle/carbine courses I paid for out of my own pocket along the way. I feel like I've got a very good handle on the subject matter we're talking about.

Also less efficient killers? As it stands our soldiers aren’t particularly efficient (look at my initial argument).

And 7.62x51 makes for less efficient killers -- slower engagement times, lower probability of a hit (especially multiple target indexing) and only about 30-40% of the potential successful engagements even being possible because of the grossly reduced basic load of ammo carried. In short, a whole lot of flaws that are effectively addressed by adopting a true assault rifle more optimized to the ranges and ways firefights actually happen. Hence 5.56mm, or some other intermediate round. A return to battle rifle calibers is completely non-adaptive for general use.

As I stated I can’t say it unequivocally but the fact is that I have carried loads before and I know the value of saving a few pounds after the 20th mile. Although I find the at all comment interesting, what does walking change or do pounds weigh more when your in the military. Yes I know it’s a smarta— comment but it is an odd statement for you to make.

Hiking with a backpack or a deer carcass on your back has zero to do with wearing 50+ pounds of kit (before an assault pack or rucksack or whatever other mission essential stuff you have to lug above and beyond your own stuff) and, say, jumping (or falling) out of an up-armor humvee and scrambling to start maneuvering against some bad guy you're trying to kill and who's trying to kill you.

It's about as related as shooting the abovementioned deer has anything to do with what works and doesn't work in a firefight.

The idea that simply because the soldiers choose to use the .223 ignores the reality that everyone else uses the .223. Because of that resupply is easier and more guarantied.

While CAG opted to stay with 5.56mm carbines for doing their thing, they did opt to switch to 40S&W caliber pistols -- a caliber no one else in DOD uses and which can't be found anywhere in theater outside their own supply chains. So they will cut their strings and do their own thing if they think it's a better solution. They just don't seem to think there are problems with 5.56mm -- and they kill people for a living with it on a very regular basis.

 

[farson135]

Well, no, it's not actually. Weapons in 7.62x51 have to be inherently heavier because of the heavier round. They recoil harder. Again, put shooters on a clock and the truth that 7.62x51 weapons make for slower engagements and lower hit probability proves itself.

Slower engagements and lower hit probability because the weapons are too heavy, too long, and have a slower cyclical rate, all of which can be fixed. You are working under the assumption that I am talking about a current rifle but remember we are talking about a hypothetical situation where the militaries decided to change calibers. Do you honestly think that if the .308 round was made into the primary round for NATO that we would suddenly just start using m14s or HK417s? That is ridiculous we would adjust our rifles so that they would be general purpose.

And 7.62x51 makes for less efficient killers -- slower engagement times, lower probability of a hit (especially multiple target indexing) and only about 30-40% of the potential successful engagements even being possible because of the grossly reduced basic load of ammo carried. In short, a whole lot of flaws that are effectively addressed by adopting a true assault rifle more optimized to the ranges and ways firefights actually happen. Hence 5.56mm, or some other intermediate round. A return to battle rifle calibers is completely non-adaptive for general use.

Similar to above however I would be more careful throwing around the term “true assault rifle” because I know many people who would swear their lives by the AK47 including a former Spetsnaz operative who despite being issued an AK74 still prefers the AK47. As for optimized for ranges how is an FMJ round optimized for close range combat. You have yet to address the glaring problem with using a high velocity round in such a way. Not to mention the collateral damage that results in an urban environment. Once again I am fine with using a lighter round that the .308 but I do not trust the .223.

Hiking with a backpack or a deer carcass on your back has zero to do with wearing 50+ pounds of kit (before an assault pack or rucksack or whatever other mission essential stuff you have to lug above and beyond your own stuff) and, say, jumping (or falling) out of an up-armor humvee and scrambling to start maneuvering against some bad guy you're trying to kill and who's trying to kill you.

It's about as related as shooting the abovementioned deer has anything to do with what works and doesn't work in a firefight.

I have stated this twice now and I am not sure how to make it any clearer than this. I am not equating the two situations I was simply stating that I am not some couch potato who talks about guns I have been out hiking and carrying heavy loads. In other words I understand the problems with weight. However there are some parallels such as the fact is that deer are not in season that often. So I normally go out and hunt wild pig. Now wild pigs are a pest in central Texas and while I do hunt them on my own land people pay me to go out and hunt them and wild pigs are mean SOB (once again not equating) so much so that last year I was out hunting and had laid down in the prone position with most of my gear on (probably about 30-40 pounds) when a pig jumped out of the bushes and I had to jump up and yank myself up a tree to keep the thing from attacking me. Though that didn’t stop it from grabbing my rifle (my arm was twisted into the sling) and nearly pulling me off the tree. In addition to that I have had to run to save my kills from various animals (coyote, occasional wolves, etc) because sometimes I take shots out to 300 yards and through dense brush or steep cliffs that can be long way. Plus in case you missed it in the last sentence there are some nice cliffs and mountains in this area so I do a little falling and jumping. But of course I don’t do it in armor which in my mind is the sticking point not the weight because I hope you will at least concede that although weight can be bad you get used to it over time but the armor wrapped around your chest is a huge impediment.

While CAG opted to stay with 5.56mm carbines for doing their thing, they did opt to switch to 40S&W caliber pistols -- a caliber no one else in DOD uses and which can't be found anywhere in theater outside their own supply chains. So they will cut their strings and do their own thing if they think it's a better solution. They just don't seem to think there are problems with 5.56mm -- and they kill people for a living with it on a very regular basis.

Let me ask you something. How often did you go to supply to get more rounds for your pistol? Point of fact how often did you use your pistol as your main combat weapon. I have spoken to soldiers who used it during room clearance or if their rifle failed in some way but they tended not to use it as much as their rifle. So as long as supply lines for their rifles don’t fail who cares about their secondary. Besides you are talking about a unit who is not suppose to get caught in long firefights (nevertheless with a pistol) so barring an incident like the Battle of the Black Sea they are not going to have to use their pistol as a primary (it didn’t even happen in that battle because they were able to scrounge ammo). Second I am pretty sure that Operators prefer the M1911 and similar variants like the HK45. I will take your word for it but I am going to check on that.

 

[GCBurner]

I'd like to see "a phased plasma rifle in the 40watt range."
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zcCJ24MozOg

Or, if a .22 with 55gr. projectiles is too small, maybe a 6mm or .25 with 100gr. projectiles from the same size case (or caseless) would fill the bill.