I can agree to the unwieldyness of the M16 in anything but long range shooting. Trying to carry a stretcher loaded with a 200lb casualty and all his gear in an urban setting with that M16 dangling around getting caught in my legs, in between my arms, and in door ways was absolute hell.
I like the "Kentucky Long Rifles" reference, that's clever
As far as the 5.56 NATO, I agree completely. I reiterate a post I made earlier this week about that subject:
Quote:
A few points here before this thread flies off into la-la land:
1) The 7.62x39, in any configuration, will NEVER be considered. The fundemental shape of the cartridge will not allow it to be utilized correctly in an AR type magazine. The magazine well of a standard AR is too straight to accept the curved 7.62 mags.
2) This whole thread is based on the premise that failure to stop with 5.56 is a problem so big that is has become a threat to infantry tactics and Army strategy. While there has been a few documented instances, for the most part I remain unconvinced that failures to stop happen enough that it is imperative to switch to a bigger cartridge.
3) The US Army will continue to use 5.56 for the very same reason the M1 Garand was chambered for 30-06; we have assloads of it. The M1 was originally designed for a cartridges called the .276 Pedersen. It had ballistics similar to the 6.8mm SPC and would have been closer to a true intermediate/assault rifle cartridge. But a decision was made by the Brass with the Ass to take advantage of the huge piles of 30-06 laying around in warehouses and the M1 was subsequently chambered for that round. The 276 might have been a better cartridges for the purpose, but logistics over machismo.
4) For decades, the doctorine of infantry tactics has been to overwhelm the enemy with superior firepower. That means those that can get the most bullets in the air usually wins. The 5.56 mm was designed to meet logistical, strategic, and practical needs. It doubled the infantryman's payload of ammo; so while there are failures to stop, 99% of the time it kills folks just fine; it is easier to train soldiers to shoot it effectively; you can make that much more because it requires less lead than a 115gr bullet or a 150gr bullet. The size of the bullet is much less important than how much fire you can lay on the enemy. While a bigger bullet may very well have more barrier penetration or knockdown power per shot, you get more shots with 5.56 and most kill with one center mass shot.
All of this doesn't mean there isn't a place for 6.8 SPC or 45 ACP. For the average joe, the 5.56 and 9mm are good enough and it gives him the highest probability of hitting something per combat load. But it seems that professionals who have for the most part better firearms training seem to lean towards bigger more powerful cartridges. So while smaller bullets have a better strategic advantage, the bigger ones have a more immediate tactical advantage. Though that advantage is not so great to warrant the need for Big Army to switch as supply and logistics is any army's greatest asset.
The M16 is the quintessential "McNamara" rifle and the 5.56 the consummate "bean counter" cartridge.
|
Lastly, what I was talking about the violence was the pressure the direct impingement gas system works at in an M4 compared to an M16. While the recoil may feel the same, the pressure coming back to cycle the bolt in an m4 will be higher because it had less distance to cover.