[xsrdx]

Arguments in favor of other calibers (Lesse here, I've seen 6mm PPC, 243, 308, 30-06, 7mm-08, 762x39, blah blah blah) are completely NOT the issue. The transition to 5.56x45 is complete, and we're not going back. Every western nation has adopted 5.56, and guess what -people are killed EVERY DAY at considerable range with this caliber. Russia has abandoned 7.62x39 in favor of an even SMALLER bullet, 5.45mm. Ask the IDF why they haven't "re-adopted" the friggin' M14 - maybe because it's OBSOLETE as an issue individual weapon?

While all the big bullet Bear hunters on this thread can no doubt master all aspects of shooting full power rifles in belted magnum calibers at 800 yards and beyond, the only thing that matters is CAN THE TROOPS HIT WITH THE RIFLE??? The answer, with the M14, was NOT USUALLY. With more training, a few strong and dedicated shooters will emerge as marksman, having mastered the skills necessary to engage small targets at extended range with big recoil and reduced inherent accuracy.

Or, you can start with 5.56mm, and EVERYBODY can shoot reasonably well, even the skinny guys and my goodness, the GIRLS!

Would you rather have 10 Marines that can enage targets to 1000m with the mighty M14, and 490 that can't shoot it past 10ft and hit anything , or 400 Marines that can engage targets to 500m with the M16, and 100 that can shoot it competently to 200m?

The issue surrounding service rifles and calibers are usually NOT related to "which is the best rifle for SGT York" - but which is best for the majority of soldiers, and to paraphrase the pistol shooters, a hit with a 5.56 is a lot better than a loud miss with a 7.62.

"MORE TRAINING" is not the answer, either. Training resources are limited, and the bottom line is you get more hits for your training dollar with 5.56 than with 7.62.

[Shooter 2.5]

I'm sure that if the IDF asked for all of our M-14's and Garands, Uncle Sugar would be happy to oblige.
I wish I had old copies of the NRA magazine. I would like to go back and see if there were any complainers lamenting the loss of their '03's to the Garand. Especially after a few recruits slammed their thumbs in the receiver.
I think the short version of what you wrote is: Only hits count.

[Redleg Duke]

Your response can be distilled into the mantra of the feminazis regarding women as firemen. "Lower the standards and everyone can qualify."

We are no longer a nation of riflemen.

[The KG9 Kid]

"... The issue surrounding service rifles and calibers are usually NOT related to "which is the best rifle for SGT York" - but which is best for the majority of soldiers..."

Can't argue with you here. Anyone who's been watching that real-life US Army 'Boot Camp' show on the History channel should know immediately that a 7.62x51 rifle is just too much gun for the dorks and dweebs that the Army is recruiting and calling a 'soldier' after eight weeks. The M-14 is a fine rifle for riflemen, though -- namely, Marines. No, we're not going back; I agree entirely.

I also think that most of these 'what's the proper caliber?' discussions also blur the distinction between the military and civilian riflemen.

Civilian riflemen need accuracy and power at long range first and foremost. That's nearly a bygone in the US military.