My Vision For America

[PanzerJaeger]

As far as assault rifles are concerned though, I believe that the rationale for moving to them was flawed from the start. They needed and wanted to spend less money on ammunition, and tried to find a high-velocity round that would still be effective. Unfortunately the .223 is not .308. They also wanted to fill in the gap between sub-machine gun and full battle rifle, so that troops would have a sort of 'jack-of-all-trades'.

Money had nothing to do with the shift to the 556. In fact, the concern over ammunition expenditure (a small part of which involved cost) was one of the main reasons why the US stubbornly held on to the 308 for as long as it did, despite the advancement in military thinking that led to the assault rifle concept.

And in fact, short barreled ARs have effectively replaced sub-machine guns. Agencies are dumping their MP-5s right and left in favor of them. If we are going to use the M14 for comparison, it was meant to replace four different weapons systems (main battle rifle, second-line carbine, sub-machine gun, and light machine gun) and was deemed a failure at each – even in replacing the Garand.

The problem is that the .223 round lacks the sufficient knock-down power of sub-machine guns (which generally are 9MM or 45; both significantly heavier than the .223), which is needed in close environments (the closer you get, the less time to react, and therefore the ability to kill with as few shots as possible and move to your next target is increasingly important).
They also lack the range and long-distance take-down power that the 30 cal weapons have.

This is, quite frankly, BS – oft-repeated BS, but BS all the same. The much maligned 556 is actually a pretty amazing round. It inflicts wounds many, many times more severe than the .308 if the bullet fragments as designed and inflicts essentially the same wound severity if it does not. The military has tested the ‘knock down’ claims repeatedly and found them to be more perception than reality.

All that being said, the standard M855 556 round that US forces went into Afghanistan and Iraq with in the early part of the last decade was sub optimal. (The US should have stuck with the M193, which was considered so devastating as to be inhumane.) The M855 was designed for maximum penetrative power against perceived Eastern Block enemies utilizing armor. Ironically, the enemies America is actually facing are so lightly dressed and emaciated that the M855 often passes right through them without fragmenting. That problem has been addressed in the Mk262 round in use with various special forces units which is heavier and fragments more violently than the M855. It just needs to be pushed to the normal combat units.

In any event, a real or perceived issue with an ammunition type does little to challenge the assault rifle concept. There are many different mid-sized assault rifle rounds, from the venerable 7.63X39 AK round to newer rounds developed specifically to improve upon the 556 such as the 6.5 Grendal, 6.8, and .300 Blackout.

A full-battle rifle would perform better in nearly every (if not every) situation. You cannot be pumping 3-5 rounds into your target before you move onto the next one. You should need 1-2 shots, and then move onto the next guy before he shoots you. Every Marine I have ever talked to, and most people from the Army who I have talked to about it all agree that they would prefer the M14 to the M4 or M16.

More BS. You cannot, with any certainty, make claims about the number of rounds it takes to put someone down beyond ‘≥ 1’. The outcome of a bullet strike is dependent on multiple factors including location, velocity, distance, extent of fragmentation, etc.

In any event, a full battle rifle performs worse than an assault rifle in nearly every combat situation. In fact, the only situation in which a full battle rifle excels against an assault rifle is in long range distance shooting – the kind of shooting your average grunt is not capable of anyway. Assault rifles excel (especially over legacy battle rifles like the M14) in weight, ammunition capacity (both in the total amount carried and the amount per mag), versatility, modularity, rate of controlled, accurate fire, volume of fire, suppressive capabilities, automatic fire, and a dozen other factors big and small. Give your military buddies an M14 to lug around on patrol for a few weeks and they will be singing a different tune. It was considered heavy and unweildy when soldiers were not using armor.

Cold War era legacy battle rifles such as the M14 were a holdover from a time when military thinkers envisioned engagement distances across trenches thousands of meters apart. Then WW2 happened. The Germans demonstrated an evolved understanding of the nature of modern combat first with the StG 44 and the Russians quickly followed post-war with the AK-47. Ironically the US, which fielded some of the most advanced small arms of WW2, failed to learn those lessons and forced its NATO allies, many of which had been working on their own assault rifle concepts, to remain tied to full sized battle rifles. Then Vietnam happened. There was a reason the M16 was rushed into service before all its teething issues were worked out. I strongly encourage you to read up on the early after action reports from units employing the M14 in the early years of Vietnam. American combat units operating with M14s simply could not contend with the volume of fire put out by the AKs employed by the Vietcong and NVA forces. Long range accuracy was not worth much in the jungles of South Vietnam. Hell, read up on the StG 44 in the Battle of Bulge when Garands were freezing shut and in the final years of the war – the merits of the assault rifle concept were understood long before the M14 even came into existence.

The truth is that assault rifles are a failed experiment. I will use a .223 if I want to hunt squirrels, but not if I want to hunt a deer. Why? Because I want the confidence of knowing that I can kill a large animal with 1 shot, not 3-5. Deer don't shoot back, but humans do. If I am having to pump a bunch of rounds into one guy to make sure he is dead, his buddy may just shoot me. As I said above, ARs would become kiddie training rifles, and when they turned 16, they would get a real gun.

Please, for the love of God, do not hunt squirrel with .223. Beyond the fact that there would be nothing left of the animal, employing that round in that capacity presents a serious safety issue.

Anyway, your conclusion is based on a number of false assumptions, and most of those assumptions are based on the simplistic notion that the bigger size of the 308 must translate into more damage than the smaller 556. That simply is not true. With the 556, the military has a round that delivers far more devastating results in a far smaller package at normal combat distances. This allows them to field a smaller, lighter weapon with more ammunition that also has more controllability, all of which translates into greater combat effectiveness. This has been known since the early ‘60s, when the military determined that an 8 man team with ARs was equivalent in firepower to an 11 man team with M14s while being able to carry twice the ammunition. You need to stop thinking of modern combat in terms of a man versus man samauri style activity. The benefits of a smaller, lighter weapon and more ammunition to the unit far exceed the benefits such a weapons offers to the individual shooter over a traditional battle rifle. They allow more weight to be shifted to other things such as weapons systems (an M4 can easily be humped with, say, a heavy machine gun) or supplies and allow the unit to lay down a far greater volume of fire for a longer period of time - which is critical to the suppress and flank tactics that define modern combat.

Could you name some?

Sure. The M14 was not even the best of the legacy battle rifles. The FAL and G3 were much more suitable for military use. Hell, even the AR-10 offered a better overall package, not to mention its modularity advantages that have only manifested themselves recently. These days, there are many .308 options far superior to the M14 including the FN SCAR, LMT LM308MWS, HK417, and LWRCI R.E.P.R. I just picked up a R.E.P.R. the other day, and it is a much better weapon system than any of my M14 variants.

Also, if I had my way (and this I think you could never achieve) we would be using 30-06. Modify the M1 Garand to have a synthetic stock and detachable box mag, and you would have the best rifle in the world. From 1900 to 1950 the effectiveness and quality of firearms increased at an astronomical rate. From 1950 till 2000 however, the effectiveness of guns has significantly decreased. As sad as it is to say, the M1 Garand (assuming basic modifications to update it with modern tech) has never been outdone as an infantry weapon. (the Vector will change that though, don't worry )

This is not at all accurate. The Garand did well when it was up against bolt guns. Its limitations were made clear when it faced more modern weapons systems, and the resulting M14 represented an evolutionary dead end. Modern combat units armed with assault rifles are far more combat effective than their counterparts in the '40s.

3. There is a reason we use the 556? I would certainly hope so (in fact, I there is more than just one reason)! The fact is though, that does not make it a good decision. Almost every infantry man I have ever talked to about it (literally every Marine I have ever talked to about it) has told me they prefer the 308. The M14 would be a crap alternative? Why? From what I have gathered talking to military personnel, a carbine version of the M14 would have every advantage over the AR other than mag capacity. (something that could easily be solved) This small advantage of the AR though hardly makes it worth taking over a .308.

With all due respect to military personnel everywhere, military service does not impart any particular special knowledge of firearms or the physics involved in different types of ammunition. The same myths, misconceptions, and biases exist in the military as do in the civilian world.

Also, you are aware that cutting the barrel on a .308 has dramatic negative impacts on the round's effectiveness downrange, right?