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?

[Vuk]

Pardon my nitpicking, but you don't think the study of foreign languages is important enough to American economic and security interests, nevermind general mental enhancement and enrichment, to warrant mandatory status and full subsidization?

*Re-enters lurker's corner.*

No, I don't. I also know from different Central European country's experiences with being forced to learn a secondary language that it generally does not work well. It is something that really requires motivation and lots of out-of-class work. I don't think it would work, and I don't think it would be worth it even if it would.

@PJ: I will respond to your quote by typing my text inside of your quotation, in bold letters.

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.

Money did have something to do with it. They wanted to give the average infantryman an automatic weapon, and they deemed that an automatic .308 would be too expensive. It was flawed thinking from the beginning. The realized that we suffered the most casualties when faced with the largest volume of fire, and that the larger volume of fire we sent downrange, the more kills we inflicted. A lot of this had to do with the fact that our soldiers were very poorly trained, and often did not aim or could not aim fast enough. It also had to do with the fact that they were being faced with a type of warfare they were not trained for (CQ battle). Bother are not problems of the gun, but of their training. Rather than changing and improving their training, our brilliant military decided to change the guns they used.

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 closer you are in combat, the less time to react, and therefore the more important to engage and neutralize an opponent in the smallest amount of time possible to move onto the second one before he shoots you. As such, the large calibers of sub-machine guns make them much more effective for their jobs.
Whether or not the M14 did well in replacing four different weapon systems, it still remains an excellent battle rifle (even if its auto fire is a joke).



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.

Let me ask you, why do hunters use 30-06 and .308 more than .223? It is basic physics PJ, the .308 has far greater KE than the .223. Look at the equation for KE: {KE = ½ mv2}
The most important factor here is speed (or to be more technical, velocity, as it has direction). The .223 round and .308 round have a nearly identical velocity. The second most important factor is mass, which the .308 has considerably more of. This results in the .308 having considerably more KE than the .223, resulting in a much larger temporary cavity (which modern ballistics test have determined is almost if not more important that the permanent cavity of many rounds, as the stretching of tissues and displacement of bone and connective tissues causes greatly increased bleeding as well as structural damage that can further hinder one's combat abilities. Someone can sustain a fairly small permanent cavity that will not kill them, never mind take them out of combat, but still die from bleeding caused by rupture organs and damage tissue resulting from the temporary cavity.)
To compare, a 69 grain .223 (the heaviest I know of) has 1,807 J out of the muzzle, while a 150 grain .308 (the lightest I know of) produces 3,590 J of KE.
It is pretty hard to argue with the facts PJ.


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.

Just as better rounds for different purposes are developed for the .223, the same thing can be done for the .308 (which in its current form is not as ideal as it could be for armoured troops.). Proving that one type of .223 is better than another though does nothing to prove that it is not inferior for our purposes to the .308.

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.

But I disagree with you there. Rather than giving ill-disciplined troops a high-recoil, inaccurate automatic weapon and telling them to spray as many rounds downrange as possible, we should be training our soldiers to aim, and to take out their opponents with single or double controlled shots from a powerful, accurate, reliable semi-auto weapon. The truth is that you can take out more targets, faster, and using less ammunition by quick, careful aiming with a semi auto than you can by spraying or using three-shot-burst (Heaven save us all) from an auto weapon.

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.

Yes, it depends on the location, the person, and a lot of other factors. The military however seems to like determining how many shots on average it takes in certain areas to kill someone. There is a reason our troops are trained to put three shots into their enemies. Anything lower and there is a large risk you may not have killed them; anything more and you are wasting time and ammo.

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.

Anything over 200 yards a full battle rifle will perform significantly better. If I am not mistaken, our grunts are trained to be able to engage targets up to ~400 yards. Is that not right?
An M4 loses a lot of accuracy past 200 yards, and its auto fire (the main reason behind developing an assault rifle in the beginning) cannot be practically used at that range, as you first shot may hit, but every shot after that will miss.
At close range a rifle with full powered ammunition (such as .308) will result in more sure kills with fewer rounds, and a much greater noise factor in buildings (which will have a much greater psychological impact on your enemies). A modern M14 with a synthetic stock does not weigh significantly more than an M4. Weight is not really a big issue. Also, you would need far fewer rounds when you can take down your enemy with fewer shots (esp at longer ranges where more shots will hit, therefore you will need less). Rate of fire really is not an issue since there are very few situations when automatic fire will be important for a well trained soldier, who would be much better off relying on semi-auto. Suppressing fire is the only thing I can think of, and again, because of the increased noise factor, it would partially make up for that disadvantage. As far as you thinking that they would not want the M14 if they had to use it, a Marine marksman of mine once told me that him and other Marines would fight over who got the M14. They seem to like it a lot.


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.

First of all, with better trained soldiers, targets would be engaged at much longer distances for at least part of an engagement, and having a rifle capable of it would lend a big advantage to your troops. Let's face it, your whole argument hinges around the fact that since WWII countries have relied on poorly trained conscripts or volunteers looking for a free education. Soldiers in America and most of Europe simply do not know how to aim. The only major military forces I know of that actually aim from what I have seen are the US Marines and the British Army. Many European armies and the US Army seem to be allergic to aiming. Volume of fire means jack-&$%$ if you do not hit and take your enemies out with as few rounds as possible. God is not on the side of the largest battalion (the one that can put out the largest volume of fire), but the one that aims to borrow from Voltaire. Guys with low powered inaccurate automatic weapons cannot beat well trained men who aim and use full-powered semi-auto rifles. The problem was not with the Garand or the M14, but the quality of our troops.



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.

lol, I have turned a squirrel inside out with an 8 mil once. :P (just had it on me and a squirrel was unlucky enough to be passing by)

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.

I believe that your conclusion is based on false assumptions. Number one being that rather than training our troops better with their battle rifles, the answer is to let them spray more. Also, you seem to completely ignore basic physics. Also, a .308 is much better for material penetration than a .223, which makes it much more useful in a variety of circumstances.

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.

As far as I know, none of these rifles are as reliable as the M14 in semi-auto operation. Also, are they not all much more expensive per unit (with the possible exception of the M416)?

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.

Sorry PJ, but if I had to take any rifle in existence into combat, it would be a Garand with a synthetic stock, slighty shortened barrel, and be modified to accept detachable magazines.

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.

Of course, as is made evident by the fact that different people in the military I have talked to have had very different views on issues. Still though, a lot are very knowledgeable, and they have the advantage of actually having used the guns and seen their effectiveness.

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

Of course, as it would be used primarily (if not completely) in semi-auto operation, the increased recoil would have minimal effect (and could be offset by a slip weight at the end of the barrel. It would not be as accurate at long ranges, but would still be accurate enough to hit reliably at any range a grunt is likely to be engaging a target and beyond. Its take-down power would still far exceed a .223.