.308 would be my caliber of choice.
Bring back the M-14 with 3 round fire capability! 7.62 will put them down to stay!
History often repeats itself when fighting Muslims or fanatics.
The .45 round was created to put down people like that.
The M-16 ammo has the advantage of being light weight and easier to carry, but I'd still rather weigh myself down a little more and use .308 in combat, assuming my rifle is good.
Most likely high on drugs; bring back the dum-dum bullet.
Good grief! This has been an issue since Vietnam and CBS just discovered our troops are undergunned? Somehow I doubt the seriousness of their concern.
The M16 can be chambered to handle much more powerful cartridges. They've tested the new Remmington 6.8 SPC and several others. The problem is that it's taking far too long to make a decision.
Wow, I am surprised he admitted that. He's right, if you are going to give rifles to people who aren't well trained they should be light, etc. However, the real issue is not what rifle is being carried, but rather why the soldiers aren't properly trained.
It's just goofy to send our guys over there with Phasers on stun.
.223 is an excellent varmint round, but illegal to use on deer sized game in most states. I have often wondered about that.
These guys crack me up. The media HATES the war- they detest the military and look at them as though they're from another planet...and YET- they are concerned that combat soldiers may or may not have adequate firepower?
This is the Haditha one-two. If the holes in the victims are from AK-47's, the press is laying the groudwork to say the Marines did it anyway. Plain and simple, folks.
This is just more media buzz to undermine confidence in our equipment. The 5.56 will kill a raghead just as dead as dropping an anvil on him.
When I was in the Army I remember hearing a story about how we got the M16. Don't know if it's true, but basically some general who was buddies with an arms manufacturer signed a deal for the M16s without the approval of Congress. The government, wanting to avoid embarrassment, simply went along with it seeing as how thousands of them had already been ordered and paid for.
On another note, the M16 would be the perfect weapon for our enemies to use against us. The premise is that the M16 will not kill, but rather wound and incapacitate a combatant. The result is that you take out two soldiers for every one hit - the second one being taken out of the fray to attend to his wounded comrade. Like I said, it would be a perfect tactic to use against us since those in the US military do all they can to never leave a wounded man behind. However, the enemies we face today have no problems purposely blowing themselves up. Frankly, the two for one tactic will not work against people who don't care for human life and are eager to die.
The time for the M16 has passed. We desperately need something with much more stopping power.
the small-caliber 5.56, essentially a .22-caliber civilian bullet, is far better suited for shooting squirrels than the enemy
I presume the Major doesn't care to eat his squirrels.
There is no doubt that, given the same circumstances, a 7.62 round will have more stopping power than a 5.56 round. I've seen wounds cause by an AK-47 round - 7.62 - and an M-16 - 5.56 - and in both instances the subjects were just a dead. In the heat, over a long distance, with all the body armor used in Iraq, I'd take the M-16 where I could carry more ammo. It was the same in Nam.
Why do we go through this again and again? This seems more appropriate over a few beers with old soldiers and foggy memories.