I got this link from a friend the other day, and I thought ya'll would like to read it. It's a soldiers view on our equipment used in Iraq.

http://mypetjawa.mu.nu/archives/133585.php

Fascinating reading. I spent over an hour. Thanks for posting.

Really nice LINK !!!! Thanks for sharing the great info. I liked the simplicity of the "thumbs up/thumbs down" rating system on all the topics.

If I recall correctly, Deer Slayer and others have been big advocates of the .308 NATO round in past debates of caliber selection on the FORUM. So this post was no surprise,coming from you !!!!

One thing we all can agree on, is that our troops need to have the best availible weapons to serve and protect. And when I say "protect", I mean themselves as well as our great country.

Sounds like the new caliber prospects of a 6.8mm Rem. SPC cartridge being introduced to the military is definately a step in the right direction!!

Here is a LINK comparing the .223 Rem. and 6.8mm Rem. SPC cartridge ballistics:

http://www.remington.com/products/ammuni...ta=R223R3*R68R2

The main difference is in measused Energy (ft./lbs.), and the more energy a cartridge offers equates to more knock-down power. And that's a good thing when you are shooting things that try to shoot back!!!!!

Very informative read. Thanks for sharing.

Last February i was fortunate enough to attend a hog hunt with a group of soldiers from the 4th ID, all wounded and recovering combat vets. In the 3 days i got to spend around them, there was some very interesting conversations. One in particular was there dislike for the 5.56 and their love for the 7.62. Every one of these men carried 5.56, everyone of them would have gladly given them up for a M-14 in 7.62. The major complaint they had with the 5.56, was lack of penetration on even the thinnest of walls.

In college I wrote a paper about the change from the M14 to M16. It had a lot more to do with politics of the day than quality of the weapon system.

When it was first introduced, it was intended to be for security personnel, and fast engagements in open or thin vegatation. The Kennedy administration pushed it hard, for a Lighter, faster military.

European troops were the last to change to the M16. Their commands resisted due to the type of warfare and thicker vegatation and buildings.

The M16's that we are using today are a LOT better than the ones from the 60's. But I can sure understand why someone would want a 7.62 round over the 5.56. I still think the HK G3 (Model 91) is one of the premier rifles in the world, and it was introduced in the 50's!

One last thing to remember is that the military wants enemy victims to be wounded, not killed.

As sig226fan said wounded is what the military wants. It takes the wounded and at least another combatant out of the fight. If half of a combat unit is seriously wounded the whole unit is basically disabled. If you kill half of the combat unit the other half is left to fight. And when the wounded individual returns to the unit he won't be as gungho and brave as he was before.

Now the M16, M14 and AK47 opinion. I carried the M16 in Vietnam, carried 32 magazines with 18 rounds each with the M16, you would have had to carry a lot less magazines with the M14 because the increase in size and weght of the ammo. And I am talking about walking in the boonies for weeks at a time, not riding around in a jeep or APC. As far as malfunctions M16 was right on top if you did not clean it, it happened to me once, after that I kept it clean, and I mean real CLEAN! AK47, not as good as a M14, but you could drag it through a mudhole for a mile pick it up and it would fire, try that with a M16 and you would get a malfunction. M14 was designed for field combat where there were buildings, although I doubt if the round would have been lethal after gong through a cinder block. The M16 is a open field rifle, the AK47 was an all purpose weapon.

In our unit we carried a couple of AK47s for "recons by fire" that we had captured, fun to shoot and the strange "crack" sound instead of the M16 pop sound would get the NVA excited and run to help out their little buddies in a "firefight" Only problem no firefight, just us doing a "recon by fire"

Thats my pennys worth on the M16, M14, and the AK47, used all 3 of them in combat. Also used an M79, a Colt 45, and a pissant 38 And think they are all good weapons, but I think the M16 has gotten a bad reputation that it does not really deserve. And this is from a SSGT US Army vet.

You have to remember that sand factor in our new battle field theatre and quite possible future if Iran doesn't simmer down. Down you put the M16 in Korea and you probably won't here as many gripes since it and its ammo are ligter. I think we should have multiply choices as a military depending on where the fight is and not have to wait on the phasing out of one and going to another. Those specops guys always get the good toys. I know this is an unreal way of thinking but I guess in a perfect world. Al

What he said, and the 240B

The idiots in Washington will never think of that as being realistic because of cost. But they never think of the cost of lives either in a perfect war we would have the perfect weapon, but I sure would like to see Washington and the Pentagon figure that one out. You are right the military needs to be able to match the weapon to the war, not just get an "all purpose one fits all" We don't do it as hunters, so why should the military use an all purpose weapon for the ultimate hunt. But if things were pefect there would be no war.

The Russians didn't have a problem finding the "one size fits all military".

The 60 year old AK47 comes to mind, and still going strong, lightweight, packs a punch, jungle or no jungle, sand or no sand, mud or no mud, shake it off and shoot it!

Seems like the U.S. with our technology could come up with a comparable, but drastically superior weapon?

I have to say the AK47 is not the perfect all around "one size fits all military" The effective range has its short comings, ballistics are not as good as the M14's NATO round (308), accuaracy leaves a little bit to be desired. Good yes, perfect no, superior no. No weapon can fit all combat situations that is why the military will have to come up with a range of weapons to best cover the general combat situations. Will they? I doubt it.

The X-M8 has been cancelled for a while now. The Russians still like the 7.62x39 and just like western forces some of there special ops people prefer that 7.62 round to their 5.45 caliber AK-74. IMO the issue with the M-16 in terms of reliability is it's operating system. Many manufactures are building uppers with AK type gas systems. The 6.8 looks good but I don’t see them buying another caliber when they have tons of 5.56 even if it’s a better round stupid government logic .

Really, one of the best weapons platforms available today are the Sig 550 and 551's. Great reliability, super accurate, and easy to maintain. Just that they cost about as much as 5 M16's....

Lot of great replys so far on the topic. I'm glad ya'll are enjoying the post. Yeah, I don't think the U.S. will change from the .223 as their main ground soldier caliber anytime in the near future. I would like our government to provide our soldiers with a superior firearm than our enemies one day soon.

I can't believe that out of all the gun nuts on here no one has noticed that the SAW is NOT a M243 it is a M249 and it isn't (Squad Assault Weapon) it is a (SQUAD AUTOMATIC WEAPON). This was my carry weapon during my time in the sand box. So this guy writting all of this stuff may not be all that he is cracked up to be.

If you go down to the bottom of the article and read the reader comments, there are several people who take issue with several parts of the report. In addition to the one you listed, the information about the sniper rifle is also wrong according to comments #33 and #36.

Thanks I didn't read it all. I seem to do that some times.