"Battle Rifle" still needed

[getitdone1]

Here's an interesting article about the "Battle Rifle."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_rifle

Note where they say the Army and Marines now have a Designated Squad Marksman armed with an M-14 or the like. He's to fill the gap between 300 yds and 600 yards--generally--while most with 5.56 handle out to 300 yds and the snipers 600 and over.

They also say the more advanced body amour has also caused a need for power beyond the 5.56. And, when in country that requires a lot of long shots the Battle Rifle again comes into play. Mountains of Afghanistan come to mind.

Don

[Old Ironsights]

Everybody needs a Main Battle Rifle... not just the Military.

[MrMurphy]

Most of the M14s are gone. The M110 (KAC SR-25) fills the role in some units, in others, it's just a scoped M16A4 with an ACOG.

5.56 was really only designed for out to about 300, it can effectively hit at 500, realistically outside Afghanistan, you don't see much need for it (the DMR program became big because of Afghanistan, where in Iraq most engagements were at much closer range).

The Soviets figured this out in the 60s, 1 Dragunov per squad, and that was with crappier accuracy standards and no optics. In Afghanistan they increased that to 2 per squad in most cases.

[Ysabel Kid]

Everybody needs a Main Battle Rifle... not just the Military.

+1

[Old Savage]

And just what do you anticipate battling?

[Old Ironsights]

And just what do you anticipate battling?

Does it matter?

Maybe the concept of a "home guard" or "Unorganized Militia" isn't important in (urban) Cali, but some of us still believe in the Founding Principles...

[AJMD429]

I find it interesting that more than a century after the 1911 Colt pistol and 1903 Springfield rifle were the official military gear, they are still perfectly suited to such tasks. Bring it up a half-century and swap the bolt-action for a Garand or M-1A, or even further, and swap out the single-stack for a double-stack, and what could really be 'better'...???

I would prefer not walking into Nastyville, but if I had to go there, I would feel well-equipped with a Para Ordnance or Rock Island 'double-stack' 1911 in 45 ACP, and a Springfield Scout Rifle in 308. If I had the option to swap the 308 out for a 223, I doubt I'd take it, although with decent (and more) ammo, the 223 could be a darn good alternative.

[1894c]

still waiting for the revolution to move up on I-5... :)

[Old Savage]

What does a "battle rifle" do that a hunting rifle won't. This a question, not a political statement.

[MrMurphy]

Lots more bangs before you get a click and cussing.

Depending on the rifle, more reliability (though most hunting rifles are pretty reliable, some are less tolerant of gunk in the action).

These days, most hunting rifles don't come with irons. I know optics are reliable, but I still want iron backups.


Armies figured out by 1915 that five rounds per magazine was insufficient in many cases, the Brits got it right with 10, everyone else tried to figure out ways to get more than five in there. Most of the 'trench magazines' weren't too great, but for fixed-position defense, better than nothing.

In a one man situation where shoot and run for it is the game, a bolt action doesn't hinder you too much except in close, where you might need multiple rounds in a hurry...but if you are indeed in close, semiautomatics and larger magazines rule the day. Current Army snipers have moved primarily to the M1110 (SR-25) away from the M40 (Remington 700) because in the current fighting, bad guys tend to come in groups, engagement times are short, even at long range, and at closer distances with a secondary optic or irons, you can actually (successfully) defend yourself with the 110, using a 10X scoped Remington bolt action at room to street distances doesn't work so well, and a pistol isn't the greatest either...

Accuracy-wise the 110's are sub minute guns with most shooters and good ammo.

[Griff]

What does a "battle rifle" do that a hunting rifle won't. This a question, not a political statement.

Do battle at close and distant ranges. And although I love my M-1, I'm starting to lean toward the AR-10 platform. I'm starting to think that just knockin' off badguys @300 yards with my .30-30 Trapper isn't really going to impress the rest of them. I really wanna lure 'em in close, as it's harder to flank someone when they can see you making those maneuvers.

[Canuck Bob]

My battle rifle is a Lee Enfield No.5. I own it as a piece of Canadian history. We are not allowed to carry semi-auto battle rifles or assault rifles generally except at approved ranges with restricted PAL certficates. They are also limited to 5 shot mags.

To me the leveraction 94, 92, or 336 are the ideal civilian rifle if one was ever needed for martial purposes. I do not consider it a possibility but being prepared is not a mistake either.

As far as the current rifles issued to NATO I never was fond of issuing gopher rifles to combat soldiers. The AK was a better round as it approached a mid point between the 7.62 Nato and the 5.56 NATO. In my day we carried FN FALs and I consider it a fine rifle to trust ones life too.

[piller]

I consider the FN FAL a good rifle for all around work. It is in a caliber that is good for hunting almost anything you would need to hunt, it is accurate far beyond the ability of most people in field use, it is magazine fed, it is reliable, and it is durable. The old H&K G3 would be another good choice.

[Old Ironsights]

I consider the FN FAL a good rifle for all around work. It is in a caliber that is good for hunting almost anything you would need to hunt, it is accurate far beyond the ability of most people in field use, it is magazine fed, it is reliable, and it is durable. The old H&K G3 would be another good choice.

You can also get wood funiture and 5rd "hunting" magazines for an HK-91/clone for a pittance.

Also, FWIW, if you like the HK guns but think they are too long, PTR is releasing a wood furnished 16" barrel version - with welded flat-top rail (something lacking on a "traditional" G3) this year. Should MSRP for a little over $1000. Put an A3 "para" stock on it and you would have a tight package.

[wvfarrier]

I've carried everything from the M16 A2 to the newer M4 platform to the M1A in some of the nastiest environments this Country felt the need to send me too. I never had an issue with any of them and although 30 rds of 5.56 or 10 rds of 7.62 were great I still would rather have my Henry 44 mag or my Marlin 357 for close combat. The just feel better to me. Plus, unless the proverbial bad times when do I need more than that?

[firefuzz]

Several years ago, when I started dedicating my gun money to lever actions and single action revolvers, my son asked my why I was buying antiquated firearms instead of more modern firearms that could be better used for self defense. My reply to him was simple:

(pretty much verbatim) "Son, these are my fun guns. Between 3 AR15s, an FAL, an AK47, 3 scoped .30-06s, a Garand, a 1903 Springfield, a 1917 Enfield, a Garand, a carbine, a Benelli M1 riot gun, an 1100 riot gun, 2 870 riot guns, several Glocks and S&W revolvers, I pretty much think I've got the bad times stuff covered."

I still do.

Rob

[JB]

What does a "battle rifle" do that a hunting rifle won't. This a question, not a political statement.

Do battle at close and distant ranges. And although I love my M-1, I'm starting to lean toward the AR-10 platform. I'm starting to think that just knockin' off badguys @300 yards with my .30-30 Trapper isn't really going to impress the rest of them. I really wanna lure 'em in close, as it's harder to flank someone when they can see you making those maneuvers.

The ability to pop off 20 rounds of 308 rapid fire does make for a fun time.

[vancelw]

And just what do you anticipate battling?

Zombies Oh wait......wrong forum.

[TedH]

"Zombie" is a metaphor for an unprepared person who will kill you for food, water, and shelter. So it still applies here.

[Mescalero]

Ted H,
I always wondered about that, as a realistic person I could not take it seriously given the traditional meaning of the word.

[Old Ironsights]

Other "zombie" analogues:

Pasty-faced, blue helmeted "progressives" and UN Eurotrash mindlessly following orders to eliminate anything with a functional brain.

Shambling "swarms of Officers (sent out) to harras our people and eat out their substance"...

[QCI Winchesters]

My battle rifle is a Lee Enfield No.5. I own it as a piece of Canadian history. We are not allowed to carry semi-auto battle rifles or assault rifles generally except at approved ranges with restricted PAL certficates. They are also limited to 5 shot mags.

To me the leveraction 94, 92, or 336 are the ideal civilian rifle if one was ever needed for martial purposes. I do not consider it a possibility but being prepared is not a mistake either.

As far as the current rifles issued to NATO I never was fond of issuing gopher rifles to combat soldiers. The AK was a better round as it approached a mid point between the 7.62 Nato and the 5.56 NATO. In my day we carried FN FALs and I consider it a fine rifle to trust ones life too.

Ditto on the No.5, but I keep an M1, too. Still, were the zombies to rise or whatever, I'd hide the M1 and my other guns in a safe place and stick with my old '92 .38WCF. Or possibly my '94. I always figured the Rangers here were armed with a FAR more practical rifle when they had '94 carbines, than the heavy, clubby No. 4 Lee-Enfield.

Battle rifles are great if you are part of an army, but for us, the rifle is mainly for defense. We are not going to be running around like Rambo shooting everything that moves. Something reliable, reasonably accurate, and easy to carry is far more valuable than something with a big magazine.

[Streetstar]

What does a "battle rifle" do that a hunting rifle won't. This a question, not a political statement.

Nothing --- they are both remote hole punching devices when it all comes down to it . And all of us here realize that a $300 Savage chambered in 7mm Mag , .300 WM, or anything similar packs far more downrange horsepower than a $2500 FN SCAR for one or two shots

-- others here have already adequately answered the differences in capacity and durability though

[mikld]

Although I know better, Old Savage sounds kinda like one of them California anti-gun liberals (no offence O.S.! ). Having to justify the ownership of any gun is just plain silly. I have an M1 Garand that just tickles the heck outta me each time I take it out and run a hundred or so rounds through it. Ain't hunting with it, and there ain't no Commies coming over the ridge in the hills of Coastal Oregon. As a "plinker" or "just for fun" gun it may be over kill, but who's to say, and why must I give reasons, justify, the reason for my choice of guns? How many shooters out there have a 416 Rigby and never will get to Africa? Is a 30-06 with a skinny stock and 'scope more politically correct than a "battle rifle"?

[Ravenman]

What does a "battle rifle" do that a hunting rifle won't. This a question, not a political statement.

That's my thinking too! It is not the gun - it is the man behind the gun that makes the difference.

[Grizz]

Everybody needs a Main Battle Rifle... not just the Military.

a particularly rude and obnoxious teutonic model comes to mind

[nemhed]

"the gap between 300 and 600 yards" Isn't that what mortars are for?

[FWiedner]

AR type weapons in the MBR class are OK as shooters, but I'm not sure a human can be beaten to death with one.

I'm not even certain that an M14 qualifies.

A Garand or a version of Springfield 1903. Full length wood, baby. A functioning bayonet.

Battle is more than shootin'.

If I'm outta ammo I ought to have options to be able to beat you into a 'puddle' or turn you into a screamin' hors dourve.

[Ratpacker]

Currently SOCOM units are using the Scar 17H. Not widely adopted, BECAUSE IT WAS NOT TWICE AS RELIABLE AS THE CURRENT M-4 & M-14.
WHAT A FIXED AND CORRUPTED SET OF REQUIREMENTS FOR A WEAPONS TEST.
The Armed forces will not widely switch over to another battle rifle....... they have too much invested in the old platform & the vendors who produce and supply repair parts.
Have we truely won any major long lasting Foreign conflict ? since trying AR-16's in NAM? I can't recall any!!

I BOUGHT THE LIGHTEST, TOUGHEST,BATLE RIFLE I COULD FIND IN A "L.G.S."

I have a SCAR 17s (not an H) CLOSE ENOUGH..... TO THE BATTLE RIFLE ALL OUR DEPLOYED FORCES SHOULD BE USING.

[2ndovc]

Everybody needs a Main Battle Rifle... not just the Military.

Have two M1As, M1, 03-A3, Several No1 MKIII's , No2MK 4's, MN 91, Sako M39 and an SVT 40.
Pretty well covered there.
Medium range, Colt Sporter Light Weight, Yugo Underfolder, Radom PP43, several SKS's. Etc.
It's all good!

jb

[Streetstar]

Have we truely won any major long lasting Foreign conflict ? since trying AR-16's in NAM? I can't recall any!!

.

This does not have anything to do with the M-16A1, A2, or various M-4 variants (but I like the SCAR myself )

[Nazgul]

I find it interesting that more than a century after the 1911 Colt pistol and 1903 Springfield rifle were the official military gear, they are still perfectly suited to such tasks. Bring it up a half-century and swap the bolt-action for a Garand or M-1A, or even further, and swap out the single-stack for a double-stack, and what could really be 'better'...???

I would prefer not walking into Nastyville, but if I had to go there, I would feel well-equipped with a Para Ordnance or Rock Island 'double-stack' 1911 in 45 ACP, and a Springfield Scout Rifle in 308. If I had the option to swap the 308 out for a 223, I doubt I'd take it, although with decent (and more) ammo, the 223 could be a darn good alternative.

My M1A Socom is my "Precious" Carried the long barreled version in the Marines and love this one now.

Right on AJMD.

Don

[GonnePhishin]

Ratpacker, I like your tag line at the bottom of the page

Here, hold this drink for me, and watch this !!! General Custer.........wore the first arrow shirt.

[MrMurphy]

The SCAR 16 and 17 were both adopted, the 17 stuck around due to budgeting. They can get M4's (which work fine) far cheaper than SCAR 16's, basically free, from the Army. The SOCOM guy pay out of their own budget for the 17s and appear to love them.

The SCAR is more reliable than anything else pretty much on the planet after years of testing and modification until the SF guys got exactly what they asked for, or as close as humanly possible. Having shot a few, they're pretty nice. If we did a mass-switchover of weapons, the SCAR would make sense, since ammo and magazines for the 5.56 version, as well as all the loadbearing gear that go with it, would not change, only the rifles would. The 7.62 versions already have similar gear in the system for the M110.

[7.62 Precision]

Currently SOCOM units are using the Scar 17H. Not widely adopted, BECAUSE IT WAS NOT TWICE AS RELIABLE AS THE CURRENT M-4 & M-14.
WHAT A FIXED AND CORRUPTED SET OF REQUIREMENTS FOR A WEAPONS TEST.

Relax

The M16/M4 platform is a great platform. It is very reliable, simple, has great accuracy potential, great balance, and a lot of other attributes that make it an excellent platform for combat rifles/carbines. The things just work.

There were problems early with the way the military forst utilized them and some of the training, and there have been issues with magazines that are fixed by the latest magazine designs (self-leveling followers).

There have been claims that these weapons have failed in desert conditions in our current war, but it is due to soldiers improperly maintaining their weapons. I have seen a lot more failures from AKs.

No soldier armed with an M16 or and M4 is being sent into combat at a disadvantage. There are reasons it is the longest-used long arm in US history, and it has nothing to do with politics. In fact, there is a lot of political pressure to change, since so many people and companies stand to gain from a platform change.

As far as the SCAR goes, it is popular with SOCOM, especially the Navy, for a couple main reasons:
First, the thermal cycling of optics. An M4 does not get hot enough to hurt the bolt or anything else people whine about. You can melt the barrel (people have) and you won't heat the bolt too much. On the other hand, if you shoot a lot, fast, you heat the aluminum upper. It does not hurt the upper, but it heats the expensive optics that you have on top. Now the optic manufacture will have a temperature rating that the optic can withstand. Some of the better ones are very high. You can heat the optic up to that temp, and it will still function. But heat the same optic to 1/3 of that temp and then cool hundreds of times, and the thermal cycling can destroy the optic. Certain Special Ops units do a lot of training firing a lot of rounds in very short times. Did I mention often? So for these units, the thermal cycling can be an issue, where it is not an issue for normal combat units that do not train as much and do not fire as many rounds in such short bursts of action during training.
So for these specific units, the SCAR is an advantage because it saves money by keeping the optics cool.

IDF solved this with an optic that isn't harmed by thermal cycling - the M21.

Second, the charging handle is fixed and reciprocating - this is an advantage for units that will submerge the weapon. They can easily clear water from the barrel by drawing the bolt back slightly, then reseating the bolt in battery. The M4 is a little more awkward.

In my opinion, the charging handle is in a better place.

On the other hand, the M4 is so reliable and effective, there is no need to replace it with another weapon that has no real advantage for the troops.

Don't let the fact that you like and own a particular weapon (I really like them too) cloud the bigger picture. If the government is going to go through the major expense of replacing all of the rifles and carbines in inventory, it better be with something that gives the troops a huge advantage over the existing system, and nothing has yet.

[7.62 Precision]

We have a battle rifle today. It is the M16, and its carbine version - the M4 carbine. They replaced the older battle rifles, and as much as I love the rifles my grandfathers' and great grandfathers' carried, the change to the M16 was a good one, eventually.

The M21s and M14s reconfigured and issued today are not being issued as battle rifles. They are being issued as designated marksman rifles. We finaly got our head around the DM thing, and the M21s and M14s not only gave us a ready supply of rifles, but also rifles that do abit more damage at longer ranges and punch trough barriers better.

Also, we are using snipers in greater concentrations than before. These M21 and M14 rifles were there ready to be issued to snipers as well. The M110 now gives snipers the advantage of semi-auto fire in a more modern platform.

When we consider defense of our homes and communities in an economic or natural disaster, or in event of a foreign invasion (it seems an impossibility, but history is a volatile thing and the face of the world can change very quickly) a DM type rifle makes a lot of sense. Accurate aimed fire is a scary thing to face, and history is full of examples of the few that held of the many, not through superior firepower, but through superior marksmanship.

[MrMurphy]

The problem with DM rifles is usually ammunition. Having spoken (at length, for years now) to a wide variety of guys who packed M14s at various times across Afghanistan and Iraq, most of them ended up using delinked M80 ball since it was the only thing supply could get. Accurize the rifle, throw a decent optic on it, put it in a better stock, and then feed it machine gun ammo.

Yeah, that didn't work as well as they planned. Some got the actual sniper loads, then halfway through the tour ran out, so back to M80 again.....etc etc etc.

Better than nothing, but not nearly as accurate. Also, finding (any) magazines or parts was a major issue. A friend now medically retired (between the Gulf War, OIF 1-3, etc it all added up) ended up having several of us ship him a bagful of M14 magazines from home and various small parts because one of his younger troops running an M14 didn't have access to any from supply, he got issued a (stock) M14 and two mags, no ammo, no cleaning kit. Eventually, it ended up scoped, bipod-ed and with about six mags and a cleaning kit.....all through donations except the scope.


Personally, i stick with a civilian M4-equivalent. I've spent most of my adult life with the AR in one form or another and 3 years straight with an M4 in hand (as did my wife with the M16 for 8 years) so we're highly familiar with it. Inside 200m, it's fast and accurate, past that, it still hits, i just have to slow down a little...and I have a pile of heavier caliber stuff that can reach out that far or farther without any problems either.

[7.62 Precision]

Yeah, the ammo has been a problem, even if it is available, it is often hard for both snipers and DMs to get it. Units are often resistant to ordering any special equipment and ammunition for snipers or DMs, with and attitude of, "Why do these guys get special stuff that we don't?" Many snipers do not have equipment that is there and available in the system, but there units won't order.

I think the mag situation might be a little better now, but it was bad before. We were issued two M21s once, and no magazines. We couldn't find the things for sale, except the Taiwanese mags. They worked, but the spot welds on the rear lug were not good, so occasionally a magazine would just drop out of the rifle as you walked down the street.

I had an SPR and an XM107 once, and ordered Mk 262 Mod 1 through supply. The ammo came and they issued it to one of the platoons. I heard about it when soldiers were talking about getting issued "hollow-point" ammunition. I quickly went to the tents where that platoon to try to recover my ammo. The platoon SGT said, "It's hollow-point ammo, we will be arrested if we use it. I went above him to no avail; they would not give me the ammo. They dumped a couple thousand rounds of the stuff (at a time that supply was limited) in amnesty boxes. So I designed a logo for the 10th Special Forces Group and traded the work for a can of Mk 262 Mod 0. At the same time, the unit we were attached to had a commander who was a liberal and was anti-gun. This was one of the times there was a big push in some states to ban .50 BMG rifles and it was in the news. He told us that if it were at all possible, we were to use a 240b machine gun to engage targets instead of the XM107, because the .50 BMG rifle was too devastating. We tried to explain that on a busy street at 800m, one precisely aimed .50 BMG was much less devastating to civilians than the beaten zone of the machine gun, but he couldn't get it.
Then he said he would give an Article 15 to anyone found with the API ammo (what we used for match ammo) since it was to devastating. So we kept one mag loaded with M33 Ball to show anyone who asked, and still used the API, just kept it hidden.

If it had not been for American Snipers, we would have had rifles with no optics and none of the equipment we needed on that deployment. The unit we were attached to wouldn't support us. After the end of the deployment, I was able to ship three boxes of supplies on to snipers who were just arriving.

I also stick with the AR platform. The 5.56 is far more effective than people give it credit for, especially with the right ammo, it can be accurized easily for DM or sniping roles (I used an SPR as a sniper weapon system). If you want something that performs better than a 5.56, 6.5 Grendel is a great option and ammo is not expensive. The Grendel will do everything that I would want a .308 to do, for the most part.

[KiwiKev]

There is a site called "Pimp my Gun" hours of family fun developing your perfect "battle rifle"

Google image "Pimp my gun" to see how creative people get.

No doubt the major arms manufacturers keep an eye of the creative ideas.
The best thing to have in battle is good armour and an exit route when you run out out of ammo.

Also some luck, pray you can see them before they see you.

[7.62 Precision]

The best thing to have in battle is good armour and an exit route when you run out out of ammo.

Best thing is good planing and good strategy, followed by intelligence, fast thinking, audacity, and creativity (for when the plan falls apart). I'll take that over armour any day.

. . . you can see them before they see you.

That was my job - to see them and put out their eyes.

[Old Ironsights]

You ran a GLTD? Or an LLDR?

Paint with Light....

[loader]

I've owned and enjoyed several " battle rifles" including a Garand, M1A1 and a CETMA. I have finally come to the conclusion that the best one for me is my Marlin 336 .30-30 with a Luepold 2.5 compact. Also known as an Applacian Battle Rifle. Any social or antisocial situation I can't solve by myself with this is most likely not going to be solved by me with anything else either.I doubt anyone is going to object if I show up to assist them carrying this. Besides it is what I really enjoy owning shooting and practicing with.

[loader]

I've owned and enjoyed several " battle rifles" including a Garand, M1A1 and a CETMA. I have finally come to the conclusion that the best one for me is my Marlin 336 .30-30 with a Luepold 2.5 compact. Also known as an Applacian Battle Rifle. Any social or antisocial situation I can't solve by myself with this is most likely not going to be solved by me with anything else either.I doubt anyone is going to object if I show up to assist them carrying this. Besides it is what I really enjoy owning shooting and practicing with.

[jeepnik]

Here's what I know. Eldest went to Afghanistan as a Marine fire team leader. The M-4's weren't cutting it, as the bad guys knew the range. He had been to the sniper school. After one bad incident, he "found" an M-14. His team consisted of a SAW, two riflemen and himself. Once he had the M-14 he found it gave the team a boost with regards to range, and the lack of full auto from his weapon didn't adversely impact their efficiency.

Seems like he and I understand several others figured out that there was a better way for the given circumstances. Then again, GI's have been out thinking chair borne commandos since time immortal.

[Mike Hunter]

Lot of “Chairborne Rangers”

I’ve personally seen 5.56 ricochet off auto glass.

I have also seen a 7.62 disable a car immediately with one round to the engine block, don’t think I’ve seen a 5.56 do that.

You want to reach out and touch a bad guy hiding behind a cinderblock wall at 300 m. Lot better chance at doing that with a 7.62 than 5.56.

But do we really need our soldiers standing guard at a check point to disable vehicles quickly? How about ground troops fighting in an urban environment to be able to punch thru cider block walls?

Do we really need to engage an enemy out past 300m? Heck all the books say most engagements are 200 m or less, Really??? The only recent conflict I can think of where most engagements were less than 300 m was Somalia.

SOF has pushig for a better round for years, 90% of SOFs small arms requirements are the same as a normal line units.

[Paladin]

What does a "battle rifle" do that a hunting rifle won't. This a question, not a political statement.

That's my thinking too! It is not the gun - it is the man behind the gun that makes the difference.

With that in mind, it is how fast I can do targets at distance or when murphy gets involved and a few show (they tend to be in groups) up close in a vehicle.
I like my Styer SSG for non-combat work (police sharpshooter) and have used it for that a couple times but in combat my M-14 Match, SR-25, AR-10, or even a FN LAR. Every time I have gone into combat I have been lucky enough to have a 7.62 x 51 mm caliber combat rifle with either a M-4 ot MP-5 as a back up.

[Old Ironsights]

... Every time I have gone into combat I have been lucky enough to have a 7.62 x 51 mm caliber combat rifle with either a M-4 ot MP-5 as a back up. [/color]

Lucky or Prepared...

I prefer Prepared.

My HK-91 Clone isn't Sniper accurate, but I can KZ a man sized target at 400m with Irons all day.

My M4 was at least as accurate too... but I wouldn't be using it at 400... or expecting it to be useful at 400...

[7.62 Precision]

Lot of “Chairborne Rangers”

Don't make assumptions.

[7.62 Precision]

My HK-91 Clone isn't Sniper accurate, but I can KZ a man sized target at 400m with Irons all day.

My M4 was at least as accurate too... but I wouldn't be using it at 400... or expecting it to be useful at 400...

Your M4 can be very useful at 400m, with the right ammo.

The right ammo is a limitation to the 5.56. In some cases, a 5.56 can be as effective for a certain engagement as a .308. In other cases, a 5.56 can be just as effective with the right ammo as a .308 with any ammo.

Still, any discussion of rifles and calibers has to consider tradeoffs, because everything has tradeoffs. I am fully confident in the M4 chambered in 5.56 as a combat weapon. It has many advantages. When people talk about stopping cars and punching through walls, M2s and M240s usually are available and work well for that. The SDM concept the the modern US military was late in adopting has brought a large number of 7.62x51 and 5.56 rifles into play as well, to support the 5.56 carbines.

On the other hand, the world is never perfect, and sometimes all you have available is an M4 for a target that is too hard for it. Everything has tradeoffs.

I still think the M4 is a fine weapon for military use and is ideal for self-defense. That does not mean there is no place for larger caliber weapons.

If I were a member of a unit that was tasked with the confiscation of firearms from US civilians, or with the subjugation of the US population, I would not be too concerned with the 20-year-old basement-dwelling big-talking rarely-training internet commandos and their AR-15 carbines. I could maneuver my forces on those guys and take them out with few casualties.

The guys that would scare me would be the guys in the mountains of Montana and Idaho with their deer rifles. I can take those guys out too - and lose a couple soldiers or more for each one I kill. In any kind of non-conventional warfare, killing from a distance is usually preferred.

As far as the M4 goes, I still think something like a 6.5 Grendel is the way to go for increasing both the effectiveness and the range of the weapon. In a number of ways, the 6.5 Grendel is better than a .308. Tradeoffs again.

[Mike Hunter]

In a perfect world the rifle in PV2 Smith’s hands would able to engage the enemy before he can effective engage PV2 Smith. And PV2 Smith would be able to neutralize targets behind barriers that stop the enemy’s rounds.

A prime example is the M1 tank, where US M1s engaged and destroyed Iraqi tanks at nearly twice the Iraqi tanks effective range. They couldn’t even see the US tanks before they were destroyed by them.

You are absolutely correct, the world is not perfect. We can’t tell the enemy not to shoot at us past 300m because we can’t effectively engage them, or tell them not to hide behind cover until we get an M2 or 240.

We cannot dictate the geographical environment of our next conflict; so we need a rifle that will work well in all, from house clearing in an urban environment to engaging targets at extreme distances in open terrain.
In my limited opinion, the 7.62 certainly meets those requirements better than the 5.56.

Am I saying that the 7.62 is the perfect round? Certainly not. It’s heavy, weapon platforms are heavy, and it has recoil that some of the smaller troops may not be able to handle, but it’s been a US standard issue round for the past 50-60 years. My guess is that there is an optimal compromise between effectiveness and weight/recoil in a 6mm chambering.