My Vision For America

[a completely inoffensive name]

I agree with you ACIN, which is why the regular military would remain volunteer only. However it is everyone's duty to defend their country and state should it come under attack. That is why everyone would need to serve in the militia. It is a last defense, not America's fighting force. The problem with Europeans is the quality of their citizenry (I agree with that author you posted...in fact I posted something similar a few months ago in a thread on European military incompetency). Wisconsin citizens would be of a much higher quality because of the new education program. The Wisconsin militia would probably out perform most European armies if my reforms happened.

Well, there goes my troll. The quote was you Vuk, I copy pasta'd. I'm done till my finals are over, see you guys in mid december!

[Strike For The South]

Will there be mixed showering

underated post IMO.

The only thing I am gleaning from this thread is that VUK is a superhuman

Save us from ourselves, we beg of you

[Centurion1]

B) Military/Foreign Policy
1. The US would be removed from nearly foreign conflicts. Our new foreign policy would be that unless there is a clear and demonstrable gain for the US (material, monetary, diplomacy, etc) AND said country poses a direct military threat to the US, we would not interfere militarily.

2. The Army would need to adopt current Marine Corps standards (e.i., the "Every Man a Marine" policy) and the Marine Corps marksmanship standards would be raised.

3. Small Caliber assault rifles would be phased out for .308 and 30-06 battle rifles (either magazine fed variants of the M1 Garand with synthetic stocks or the M14 EBR).

4. Women would be allowed in combat roles in the military if they could meet military standards (e.i. the same ones for men). There would be all man and all woman units, not mixed gender units.

5. I would create 'war games' of a sort to test the combat readiness and performance of infantry. Both the Army and the Marine Corps would compete every year for a $50 million grant in addition to their regular spending that can be put toward any program of their choice.

This is all ridiculous. I still don't understand why you consider yourself such an expert on all things military.

1. personal preference but its absurd to maintain a large standing army with no war.

2. your marine corp fetish as mrd pointed out is adorable. I'm not goin to go into details on why it is ridiculous.

3. stupid theres a reason we use 5.56 the m-14 would be a crap alternative. i can see using a 7.62 bull pup design weapon or soemthing like a scar. but certainly not an m-14 thats essentially a dmr.

4. its not just about being able too...... women have different needs in the field compared to men and as it stands the combat filds women cannot serve in (they can serv ein some combat arms like aviation) such as infantry, armor, and artillery are logical and the limits should remain in place.

5. war games are already played so thats ridiculous to say. and you act like there is no more navy or air force.... finally 50 million is complete chump change.

[Papewaio]

More Beer

Less Clothes

Bondi?

[Vuk]

We use small caliber assault rifles for several reasons, and moving back to giant rounds as stnadard load makes us as bad as the monkeys we fight against.

Giant rounds? Since when is a .308 a giant round? And since when is using the most effective round in combat a bad thing? Would you not rather have the confidence of knowing that you can kill your enemy in 1-2 rounds instead of 3-5? I suppose though that you think the SAS are monkeys, as they deemed .223 too ineffective for their purposes and have purchased .308 rifles to replace most of their .223 rifles.

underated post IMO.

The only thing I am gleaning from this thread is that VUK is a superhuman

Save us from ourselves, we beg of you

Because I have an opinion that America could be improved I am saying I am superhuman? Ok, if it makes you happy...

This is all ridiculous. I still don't understand why you consider yourself such an expert on all things military.

1. personal preference but its absurd to maintain a large standing army with no war.

2. your marine corp fetish as mrd pointed out is adorable. I'm not goin to go into details on why it is ridiculous.

3. stupid theres a reason we use 5.56 the m-14 would be a crap alternative. i can see using a 7.62 bull pup design weapon or soemthing like a scar. but certainly not an m-14 thats essentially a dmr.

4. its not just about being able too...... women have different needs in the field compared to men and as it stands the combat filds women cannot serve in (they can serv ein some combat arms like aviation) such as infantry, armor, and artillery are logical and the limits should remain in place.

5. war games are already played so thats ridiculous to say. and you act like there is no more navy or air force.... finally 50 million is complete chump change.

First of all, I don't consider myself an expert on all thing military. I simply said that based on my knowledge, these are things I think would make the US better. I am also not an expert on all things economy, or on all things education (and neither are most members here), and I don't remember claiming to be.

1. Did I even say I would increase the size of the military or even maintain it? No, I didn't. You again seem to be arguing something that I never said (or even insinuated)

2. It has absolutely nothing to do with a love of the Marine Corps. It has to do with the fact that the Marine Corps simply has better discipline and higher standards than the Army. (I don't think most would argue with that)

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.

5. I know that we currently have war games, but I am talking about something to fuel competition. Of course 50 million is not an enormous amount of their budget, and it is not supposed to be. It is supposed to be added incentive to win. Heck, they could buy a lot of rifles with it.

[Papewaio]

I think the idea of a military is to A) stop a war happening in the first place
B) win it if it happens

Focusing on games will mean winning games not war. It is much like over focusing on discipline, boot polish and parades rather then combat readiness. One would have to be careful that proficiency at war games tracks into combat ability.

I think a focus on innovation in any sphere be it science, medicine, business or war would make a better economy. Too much of education is styled to past tests and create drones.

[Vuk]

I think the idea of a military is to A) stop a war happening in the first place
B) win it if it happens

Focusing on games will mean winning games not war. It is much like over focusing on discipline, boot polish and parades rather then combat readiness. One would have to be careful that proficiency at war games tracks into combat ability.

I think a focus on innovation in any sphere be it science, medicine, business or war would make a better economy. Too much of education is styled to past tests and create drones.

As I stated in my first post though, perhaps 'games' isn't the best description. They would be more tests of combat readiness. Accuracy tests, CQC room clearing tests, terrain navigation tests, etc. Those with the best scores win, and with it bring $50 mill to their branch of service.

[Veho Nex]

If you had the power to reshape American laws and institutions in any way that you wished (but only once), and exercised some kind of control over the next few decades, how would you do it?

I would split my reforms into several categories.


A) Economy/Business
1. The first thing I would do is attempt to create as strong as possible a separation between business and government. I believe that the close ties between business and government is and always has been the greatest threat to liberty. I would remove the right of corporations to make political donations, restrict as tightly as possible the Federal Government's ability to interfere with businesses, except where protecting individuals is concerned. While the details of such bills would define whether they succeed or not and a lot of thought would need to be put into them, I will leave it at that for now.

2. I would abolish the Federal Reserve and return the right to create and issue money to the legislature.

3. I would cut any Federal program that could be easily ran by the States and is not completely necessary to the defense of the nation and of the individual and his/her rights.

4. I would instantly stop nearly all foreign aid which is not essential to the security of the US. We have plenty of our own problems at home right now. Leave charity up to corporations and individuals.

5. I would completely get rid of our current tax code and create a flat tax (income and corporate) at a rate that would bring in the necessary amounts of revenue to run the (now greatly reduced) Federal Government and to pay off all US debt within 30 years. After US debt is paid off in full, tax rates will be lowered. Exceptions to income tax will be made for people below a certain income level. Corporate tax and income tax will never be able to exceed 30%.

6. I would abolish and replace the EPA (and not hire anyone who has ever worked for the EPA) with a new (advisory) organization to help Congress come up with a set of laws designed to protect people and private and public property from environmental contamination and/or chemical and radiological exposure while placing a minimal burden on industry.

7. I would end all Federal agricultural subsidies.

B) Military/Foreign Policy
1. The US would be removed from nearly foreign conflicts. Our new foreign policy would be that unless there is a clear and demonstrable gain for the US (material, monetary, diplomacy, etc) AND said country poses a direct military threat to the US, we would not interfere militarily.

2. The Army would need to adopt current Marine Corps standards (e.i., the "Every Man a Marine" policy) and the Marine Corps marksmanship standards would be raised.

3. Small Caliber assault rifles would be phased out for .308 and 30-06 battle rifles (either magazine fed variants of the M1 Garand with synthetic stocks or the M14 EBR).

4. Women would be allowed in combat roles in the military if they could meet military standards (e.i. the same ones for men). There would be all man and all woman units, not mixed gender units.

5. I would create 'war games' of a sort to test the combat readiness and performance of infantry. Both the Army and the Marine Corps would compete every year for a $50 million grant in addition to their regular spending that can be put toward any program of their choice.

C) Social policy/Educational reform
1. "reverse discrimination", "affirmative action", and any such policies would be legally defined as discrimination.

2. I would remove the Federal Government as much as possible from education, and allow the States as much control as possible.

3. The right to keep and bear arms means you have the right not only to own a gun, but to carry it with you. You always need to respect other people's property (so a private individual, business, or government building could not allow firearms on their land or in their facilities). I would make the right to carry Federal Law.




If within this framework I could make a State match my Vision, it would be this: (and of course I would choose my very own Wisconsin )

Economy:
1. No State subsidies of anything.

2. No property tax for people who own 40 or less acres of land.

3. A house valued under $100k would not be taxed at all.

Education:
1. Standards would be raised enormously (esp in the areas of literacy, business writing, mathematics, etc.) and the focus of school would be to prepare people for jobs or future education. Math, English, Logic, Economics, Critical Thinking, Physics, Biology, Chemistry, History, and Basic Philosophy would all be required subjects. These and classes directly related to industrial and agricultural jobs would be State funded. Anything else would be partially State subsidized, but you would need to pay a fee to take the class. By time a student graduates high-school he/she would be required to get passing grades in calculus, High level (as in mid-to-high for a 4 year college now) Biology, Physics, Economics, and Chemistry classes, and upper-level History classes (e.i. They would every year of high-school have to pick one geographic area (in previous grades they will have studied world history in depth), either the Americas, Europe/Middle East, Asia, or Africa that they would need to pick a specific location, theme, time, group, religion, etc and write a 15-20 page research paper about it. They would have written a research paper about something from every major geographic group by time they graduate.

2. Classes would be offered over the summer that would allow high-school students to get certification in fields such as welding, so that they would be prepared for jobs when they graduate.

3. I would abolish sports completely. The entire reason for all the State funded sports programs at schools is military preparedness (they didn't like being called dough-boys in WWI). As such, I would take a more direct approach to military preparedness with mandatory (for those without physical disabilities that would make it impossible) military fitness classes, marksmanship classes, and for the last few years of schooling, combat tactics and field-craft courses. Sports would be replaced with competitive war games. Wisconsin would buy up all the ARs that the Military would no longer be needing and turn them into kiddie training guns. All the .223 rounds we already have produced would then not go to waste when the military switches to .308. Marksmanship classes twice a week, two 30 round mags. In order to graduate high-school, you would need to be able to quickly and reliably take out targets at 500 meters (by the time you are 16 you will be using an M14).


Military:
1. After graduating high-school (or at the age of 18), every able bodied and able-minded man and woman would be required to perform two years of mandatory military service in the State Militia (which they would remain in the militia till they are 50, as long as they continue to be able bodied and able-minded). Every year they would need to spend a month of militia training and testing. If they do not pass their physical fitness and marksmanship exams, they are then required to spend an additional four months of training.

2. State militia standards would match or exceed Marine Corps standards.



Children would be so incredibly busy with school and training that they would have no time for crime! They economy would boom, people would be much safer, and the Wisconsin militia would be as formidable as any military in the world!

So, perfect paradise or scary capitalist military state? Would you like to live in Vuk's Wisconsin?

Ok I have many things to say, but first... why Wisconsin?


And onto the real meat which could all be hot air.

On your economic/business:
1. I agree wholeheartedly. Businesses should stick to working towards their profits and politicians should stick to running our country. Too often do we see senators and the like bought out so they can vote in which ever way profits their beneficiaries.

2. I don't think getting rid of something like the Federal Reserve is possible since its claws are spread among so many different areas. I think it would be better to begin to refine and limit and focus its attentions on what it needs to do. To have it focus primarily on maintaining and creating jobs and maintaining banks would be the perfect limit to its power. If we had an organization the focused primarily on making sure big banks don't gamble with the money we allow them to keep and make sure our jobs stay ours then the federal reserve would be perfect for it. We could give the other task it does now, like maintaining interest rates, setting our monetary policies, or provide financial services to other countries, to other branches of our govt. and have each of those focused deeply into each of its assigned sections.

3. I agree that certain federal programs should be run by state, such as drug enforcement, energy, labor, or other aspects which can allow the state to change by how their population feels. Stuff like education or defense efforts should maintain their areas in the federal govt.

4. I don't think stopping foreign aid would be the best idea. Definitely limit it and only if we as a country can support it. Getting other countries up to speed and developing into industrial nations would benefit the united states in the long run. An advisory group should be made and run on the federal level that looks at the potential for each area that would receive aid and divide it based on its plausible industry.

5. No comment for now, my ideas don't even make sense to me.

6. The EPA would need to be like the foreign aid advisory group mention in #4. Instead of preventing all possible dangers they would need to look at what would be the most cost effective in both short and long term actions. Also, all members would be required to base all their findings off of scientific inquiry and fact, none will be allowed to be bought or bribed in anyway to sway what they will actually do.

7. Agriculture subsidies are a must. I don't know how you grew up vuk but a lot of my family are ranchers. On slow years or years where meat consumption is down or there is a scare of some sort ranches get hit hard. I'm sure the same applies to farmers. Instead of getting rid of it all together turn it into a loan of sorts. If a farm or ranch loses money and can't afford to maintain its current land or production then the government can cover the difference so that the farmer and rancher can stay afloat. When the farm/ranch reports profits then a state or federal committee can go over what the ranch/farm received in subsidies and work out a plan to have it paid back.

Military/Foreign policy:

1. Again, like I stated in #4 under Econ/Bus. Current conflicts should be scrutinized by a committee run on the federal level. This committee would look at potential for future gain for the US and decide as to whether or not we should maintain or invest military forces.

2. Higher standards among US military branches should be enacted. Our guys in uniform should be on a higher level than civilians. A class system should enacted to a point where it almost copies the starship troopers universe. If we made it so the men and women in uniform received extra rights, such as the ability to hold certain offices or vote on certain laws, it would give incentive to enlisting in our armed forces.

2a. As well as given extra rights I believe anyone who joins the military would receive a mandatory 2 year college education before seeing combat. At the same as they go through training they are also taking classes in the Science fields (Math, Chemistry, etc...) while making additional classes for arts (English, art, etc...) available.

3. Why would we get rid of the small caliber assault rifles?

4. I agree on allowing women to serve in combat units but with the higher standards that we hold our armed forces to I don't think gender specific groups would be needed. As long as our soldiers remain combat effective at all times then let them fool around while they are in their bunks.

5. War games are ok.

Social/Educational reform:

1. Race is a subject that would be hard to approach. If we continually look at what happened in the past and treat someone different because of it then we are in the wrong. People should be judged by their own actions and not the actions of their ancestors.

2. Federal govt needs to run education. If states can choose to teach Evolution or Creationism it would further the divide between states. All subjects need to be taught and college education should be mandatory. Compulsory education should start in pre-school at age 4 and continue to 4 years college education at 20-22. After graduating from college you can choose to enter the work world or continue on to graduate school.

2a. As a further incentive to go to graduate school the federal Govt should offer aid for anyone who is taking a science course. Art degrees would be available but wouldn't receive aid. Furthermore when going to grad school every student must be employed by their field of study. They would attend classes for half a year then work for the second half.

3. I'm all for the second amendment and our right to carry arms.

As for your state stuff:

Sports:
1. They need to exist. We need to get rid of second place trophies. We should idolize the 1st place team every time. This level of competition would encourage others to strive to do their best. Also, competition is healthy. Also, dough-boy is thought to be from the mexican american war because our soldiers were always covered by chalky dust. Giving the impression that they were bakers or something, not because they were chunky.

Children:
1. Instead of making life miserable for children by removing all free time, we give them the choice as to what to do. Also, sex and drug educations should be a must. We need to remove this taboo that USA has towards sex and educate our youth as to what sex is all about earlier on. Kind of how what I think the EU does with sex. As for drugs we should follow Portugal's view on it. Educate our youth and decriminalize it. An informed population is one that is less likely to take risk.

[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?

[CaesarAugustus]

Education:
1. Standards would be raised enormously (esp in the areas of literacy, business writing, mathematics, etc.) and the focus of school would be to prepare people for jobs or future education. Math, English, Logic, Economics, Critical Thinking, Physics, Biology, Chemistry, History, and Basic Philosophy would all be required subjects. These and classes directly related to industrial and agricultural jobs would be State funded. Anything else would be partially State subsidized, but you would need to pay a fee to take the class. By time a student graduates high-school he/she would be required to get passing grades in calculus, High level (as in mid-to-high for a 4 year college now) Biology, Physics, Economics, and Chemistry classes, and upper-level History classes...

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.*

[Sasaki Kojiro]

Studying foreign languages is generally a waste of time if you already speak English. Making it mandatory is a terrible idea.

[Nowake]

While this thread oozes too much idiosyncrasy for me to dare touch it with a barge pole, on this particular point:

Studying foreign languages in school is always a waste of time. Making it mandatory is a terrible idea.

In this form, I can agree with it whole-heartedly.
Otherwise, I should remind you that coastal China is crawling with American graduates popping a vein in their hurry to master Mandarin and even Cantonese; nevermind that a smattering of Arabic is still something many over the pond would benefit from.
Plus, once you learn a couple of foreign languages, becoming fluent in two-three more becomes child’s play. All about correctly anticipating your parcourse.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

Yeah, that's what makes the way we do it here messed up...

At my high school, we had 3 years of latin. Then you had a choice between one more year of latin or 2 years of french, spanish, or german. Then in college a mandatory 1 year of any language. You know what that all adds up to? Zip!

We should spend twice as much time teaching people English and forget the other languages. One literature class and one writing class each year, instead of combining the two.

[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.

[Nowake]

We should spend twice as much time teaching people English and forget the other languages. One literature class and one writing class each year, instead of combining the two.

This I wouldn't modify in any way. It is very true.
Oh and, it is not the way over there only unfortunately. Echeloning the study of a foreign language over the course of eight to ten school years takes the prize for the most egregious worldwide curricula policy ever and it is solely maintained due to a mix of inertia and union pressure.

[a completely inoffensive name]

Ok, I am actually going to go through all of this properly.

A) Economy/Business
1. The first thing I would do is attempt to create as strong as possible a separation between business and government. I believe that the close ties between business and government is and always has been the greatest threat to liberty. I would remove the right of corporations to make political donations, restrict as tightly as possible the Federal Government's ability to interfere with businesses, except where protecting individuals is concerned. While the details of such bills would define whether they succeed or not and a lot of thought would need to be put into them, I will leave it at that for now.
2. I would abolish the Federal Reserve and return the right to create and issue money to the legislature.
3. I would cut any Federal program that could be easily ran by the States and is not completely necessary to the defense of the nation and of the individual and his/her rights.
4. I would instantly stop nearly all foreign aid which is not essential to the security of the US. We have plenty of our own problems at home right now. Leave charity up to corporations and individuals.
5. I would completely get rid of our current tax code and create a flat tax (income and corporate) at a rate that would bring in the necessary amounts of revenue to run the (now greatly reduced) Federal Government and to pay off all US debt within 30 years. After US debt is paid off in full, tax rates will be lowered. Exceptions to income tax will be made for people below a certain income level. Corporate tax and income tax will never be able to exceed 30%.
6. I would abolish and replace the EPA (and not hire anyone who has ever worked for the EPA) with a new (advisory) organization to help Congress come up with a set of laws designed to protect people and private and public property from environmental contamination and/or chemical and radiological exposure while placing a minimal burden on industry.
7. I would end all Federal agricultural subsidies.

1. Seems fine. You want corporations out of politics but recognize that you can't take government completely out of the free market.
2. Ehh, Ron Paul has a few fine moments but End The Fed isn't one of them. 1800s wasn't exactly the hallmark of stability with a panic every 15 years. Since the Federal Reserve, the only major recessions have been the current one and the great depression. Pretty good considering it's been around for a century.
3. Very vague and open to interpretation but because of that I would agree with it.
4. Federal Aid isn't really expensive, but ok I wouldn't cry if that happened.
5. Terrible, terrible idea for reasons I already gave in this thread. Flat tax is anything but fair.
6. This is just stupid. You just basically said "I want to get rid of the EPA and replace it with the EPA." Considering what you want is what the EPA does.
7. Again, another terrible, terrible policy. Federal agricultural subsidies have undoubtedly made our country stronger and have improved our standard of living. Without subsidies, Florida would no longer grow oranges. A lot more of our food would be from other countries. This doesn't exactly make US security strong when suddenly an embargo leaves everyone without orange juice for their breakfast. The corn subsidies are part of why American food is cheap and plentiful for the american consumer who now spends less of his/her paycheck on food than ever before. It is literally a win-win for all parties.

B) Military/Foreign Policy
1. The US would be removed from nearly foreign conflicts. Our new foreign policy would be that unless there is a clear and demonstrable gain for the US (material, monetary, diplomacy, etc) AND said country poses a direct military threat to the US, we would not interfere militarily.
2. The Army would need to adopt current Marine Corps standards (e.i., the "Every Man a Marine" policy) and the Marine Corps marksmanship standards would be raised.
3. Small Caliber assault rifles would be phased out for .308 and 30-06 battle rifles (either magazine fed variants of the M1 Garand with synthetic stocks or the M14 EBR).
4. Women would be allowed in combat roles in the military if they could meet military standards (e.i. the same ones for men). There would be all man and all woman units, not mixed gender units.
5. I would create 'war games' of a sort to test the combat readiness and performance of infantry. Both the Army and the Marine Corps would compete every year for a $50 million grant in addition to their regular spending that can be put toward any program of their choice.

1. Awesome.
2. This doesn't concern me.
3. This doesn't concern me.
4. Don't really see why we need to segregate the sexes, I like the mixing because it reminds me of how professional my countries soldiers are.
5. This is basically no child left behind for the military and I am sure it would end the same way as that policy.

C) Social policy/Educational reform
1. "reverse discrimination", "affirmative action", and any such policies would be legally defined as discrimination.
2. I would remove the Federal Government as much as possible from education, and allow the States as much control as possible.
3. The right to keep and bear arms means you have the right not only to own a gun, but to carry it with you. You always need to respect other people's property (so a private individual, business, or government building could not allow firearms on their land or in their facilities). I would make the right to carry Federal Law.

1. This is too generalized and indicative of ignorance towards the purpose of affirmative action in the first place.
2. I support this completely. Education really should be a state matter and federal government shouldn't be involved or give money that states can use as a crutch.
3. This is fine as long as there is harsh penalties for those that don't properly watch their guns. Leaving it in the back of a car waiting for a gang banger to break in and steal it for a robbery should be punishable with jail time.

Economy:
1. No State subsidies of anything.
2. No property tax for people who own 40 or less acres of land.
3. A house valued under $100k would not be taxed at all.

1. Too general, you don't know the benefits that many subsidies have.
2. Yes, but only if the property taxes for those owning over 100 acres of land are very, very steep.
3. This is too inflexible considering the volatile nature of the housing market. If you change it to "A house valued under the median house price for the country/state" then that would be great.

Education:
1. Standards would be raised enormously (esp in the areas of literacy, business writing, mathematics, etc.) and the focus of school would be to prepare people for jobs or future education. Math, English, Logic, Economics, Critical Thinking, Physics, Biology, Chemistry, History, and Basic Philosophy would all be required subjects. These and classes directly related to industrial and agricultural jobs would be State funded. Anything else would be partially State subsidized, but you would need to pay a fee to take the class. By time a student graduates high-school he/she would be required to get passing grades in calculus, High level (as in mid-to-high for a 4 year college now) Biology, Physics, Economics, and Chemistry classes, and upper-level History classes (e.i. They would every year of high-school have to pick one geographic area (in previous grades they will have studied world history in depth), either the Americas, Europe/Middle East, Asia, or Africa that they would need to pick a specific location, theme, time, group, religion, etc and write a 15-20 page research paper about it. They would have written a research paper about something from every major geographic group by time they graduate.
2. Classes would be offered over the summer that would allow high-school students to get certification in fields such as welding, so that they would be prepared for jobs when they graduate.
3. I would abolish sports completely. The entire reason for all the State funded sports programs at schools is military preparedness (they didn't like being called dough-boys in WWI). As such, I would take a more direct approach to military preparedness with mandatory (for those without physical disabilities that would make it impossible) military fitness classes, marksmanship classes, and for the last few years of schooling, combat tactics and field-craft courses. Sports would be replaced with competitive war games. Wisconsin would buy up all the ARs that the Military would no longer be needing and turn them into kiddie training guns. All the .223 rounds we already have produced would then not go to waste when the military switches to .308. Marksmanship classes twice a week, two 30 round mags. In order to graduate high-school, you would need to be able to quickly and reliably take out targets at 500 meters (by the time you are 16 you will be using an M14).

1. Some of this is good, some of it is too specific. Requiring more subjects is great, making a specific assignment law is silly. Your problem is that with the increase in rigor and subjects, there literally isn't enough time to teach it all. Summer vacation needs to be abolished or drastically reduced and school hours need to be extended.
2. Awesome, gonna have to spend a looooooooooooooooot of money though.
3. Crap, crap, and more crap. Nationalistic nonsense. Sports are great for students to be athletic, healthy and make friends. That is the modern purpose of sports, military preparedness doesn't play any role nowadays because this isn't the 40s.

Military:
1. After graduating high-school (or at the age of 18), every able bodied and able-minded man and woman would be required to perform two years of mandatory military service in the State Militia (which they would remain in the militia till they are 50, as long as they continue to be able bodied and able-minded). Every year they would need to spend a month of militia training and testing. If they do not pass their physical fitness and marksmanship exams, they are then required to spend an additional four months of training.
2. State militia standards would match or exceed Marine Corps standards.
Children would be so incredibly busy with school and training that they would have no time for crime! They economy would boom, people would be much safer, and the Wisconsin militia would be as formidable as any military in the world!

1. NOPE
2. This doesn't concern me.

[Vuk]

What's with all the Marine Corps love any way? They're overrated as all hell. Make for awful Tankers, too.

What Marine Corps love? The Marine Corps is an elite branch of the military. They do what Army grunts cannot do, as well as what they can do, and they do it better.
They are much better disciplined, have higher fitness, marksmanship, etc. standards, and are indoctrinated with an attitude much better suited to a fighter. They focus less on avoiding risk and injury than the Army, and more on completing an objective, solving a problem, and killing their enemies.
Are they Navy Seals? No. Are they mythical Spartans? No. Are they Gods on earth? No.
They are, rather what the Army should be, but with a specialization in amphibious assault.
My dad was a Marine and a lot of my friends are Marines, so yeah, I have a bias, but so do most people. That does not mean that I am incapable of looking at things in a fairly objective manner.

[Major Robert Dump]

2 Gel Cube: 240B is a lot of great things, "quick and light" not amongst them. Having a 7.62 MG that can trade range with AKs is good for any line unit, but most squads on foot will not have more than one, and often times they trade the 1 240B for 2 SAWS. A 240B can operate w/o an asst gunner, but it makes tear down and set up and reload take longer because the gun cannot be feasibly fired from the hip or shoulder like the 249. Again, good gun, but not a gun for all occasions. not really optimal for quick, close assaults, and the piercing power of the 240 does not make it the best choice when civilians are around. Still better in that regards than an M2, though.

@Vuk: I am tempted to ignore you because you say things that offend military people, even more so in the fact that you are not military, and I see this reducing to another one of your "the army doesnt have bayonet training because they are too fat" arguments, during which your true ignornce of matters at hand came to light.

Nonetheless, you are entitled to your opinions, so I will hmor you.

Penetration does not = killing power. Deer do not wear clothes, mollie gear and body armor. Sheer velocity does not equal killing power.

the 5.56 is a NATO round is meant to kill. It does not have piercing power. Whereas if I get shot in the stomach with a 7.62 it will go clean through me. If I get shot in the stomach with a 5.56 ball, it will bounce around off my ribs and sternum and turn my insides into goo. There are a lot of politics behind this round, the idea being that it was more humane to kill people than to leave them limbless and bleeding out from a large, high velocity round

I am not some undying fan of the 5.56. We are outranged by AK47s, but in our defense someone firing from that distance has a very low chance of hit as the fire is not as effective with AK47s, so it is really irrelevant to me as in most cases you will have other weapons that can compensate. In fact, we are sometimes hard pressed to make soldiers remember that firing their M4 at a certain distance will not accomplish anything at all, but Joe will be Joe and likes to hear is gun go pop. In September when they attacked the US Embassy from well out of M4 range, from a sniper nest on top of a building. The Taliban shots were not hitting anyone, they were pot shots, harassing shot, but that didnt stop a dozen US and Afghan forces from going to the roof and firing tens of thousands of rounds at assailants who probably never even ducked. This is war.

Your talk about volume of fire vs effectiveness of fire shows you have no basic grasp of infantry tactics and what soldiers are taught, nor the psychology of a firefight. Our people are taught how to be marksmen. Our modern infantry tactics are based upon closing on the enemy while supressing him, and killing at short range. We are not taught to spray and pray, we are not taught that volume is good. You are confusing suppressive fire with volume fire. we are not going to save money in the war by firing less rounds, and all this crap about cost effectiveness of bullets is a total waste of breath as the day we nitpick over ammo costs of small rifles we are done as a modern military. there are millions of ways to save money that do no include rationing bullets.

You talk about how american soldiers "simply do not know how to aim" and I am curious how you back up such a claim, and even more so, you make such a statement in the pretext of combat, which you have never seen, oh except for shooting squirrels I forgot.

FYI to all involved we have a new 5.56 round. I won't be discusiing this, do your own research.

[Major Robert Dump]

What Marine Corps love? The Marine Corps is an elite branch of the military. They do what Army grunts cannot do, as well as what they can do, and they do it better.
They are much better disciplined, have higher fitness, marksmanship, etc. standards, and are indoctrinated with an attitude much better suited to a fighter. They focus less on avoiding risk and injury than the Army, and more on completing an objective, solving a problem, and killing their enemies.
Are they Navy Seals? No. Are they mythical Spartans? No. Are they Gods on earth? No.
They are, rather what the Army should be, but with a specialization in amphibious assault.
My dad was a Marine and a lot of my friends are Marines, so yeah, I have a bias, but so do most people. That does not mean that I am incapable of looking at things in a fairly objective manner.

I love the marines, too, but Last I checked, the Army wasn't using Marine logicitcal hubs, the air force wasn't using marine transit centers and the navy wasnt floating around on marine corps destroyers. Comparing marines to army is like comparing apples to oranges. both have their uses, both operate independently of one another. Both have good ideas that thje other side could use. But the Marines are incapable of fighting a war on their own because of the very fact that they are specialized and small in number.

[Vuk]

2 Gel Cube: 240B is a lot of great things, "quick and light" not amongst them. Having a 7.62 MG that can trade range with AKs is good for any line unit, but most squads on foot will not have more than one, and often times they trade the 1 240B for 2 SAWS. A 240B can operate w/o an asst gunner, but it makes tear down and set up and reload take longer because the gun cannot be feasibly fired from the hip or shoulder like the 249. Again, good gun, but not a gun for all occasions. not really optimal for quick, close assaults, and the piercing power of the 240 does not make it the best choice when civilians are around. Still better in that regards than an M2, though.

@Vuk: I am tempted to ignore you because you say things that offend military people, even more so in the fact that you are not military, and I see this reducing to another one of your "the army doesn't have bayonet training because they are too fat" arguments, during which your true ignornce of matters at hand came to light.

Nonetheless, you are entitled to your opinions, so I will humor you.

Penetration does not = killing power. Deer do not wear clothes, Mollie gear and body armor. Sheer velocity does not equal killing power.

the 5.56 is a NATO round is meant to kill. It does not have piercing power. Whereas if I get shot in the stomach with a 7.62 it will go clean through me. If I get shot in the stomach with a 5.56 ball, it will bounce around off my ribs and sternum and turn my insides into goo. There are a lot of politics behind this round, the idea being that it was more humane to kill people than to leave them limbless and bleeding out from a large, high velocity round

I am not some undying fan of the 5.56. We are out-ranged by AK47s, but in our defense someone firing from that distance has a very low chance of hit as the fire is not as effective with AK47s, so it is really irrelevant to me as in most cases you will have other weapons that can compensate. In fact, we are sometimes hard pressed to make soldiers remember that firing their M4 at a certain distance will not accomplish anything at all, but Joe will be Joe and likes to hear is gun go pop. In September when they attacked the US Embassy from well out of M4 range, from a sniper nest on top of a building. The Taliban shots were not hitting anyone, they were pot shots, harassing shot, but that didn't stop a dozen US and Afghan forces from going to the roof and firing tens of thousands of rounds at assailants who probably never even ducked. This is war.

Your talk about volume of fire vs effectiveness of fire shows you have no basic grasp of infantry tactics and what soldiers are taught, nor the psychology of a firefight. Our people are taught how to be marksmen. Our modern infantry tactics are based upon closing on the enemy while suppressing him, and killing at short range. We are not taught to spray and pray, we are not taught that volume is good. You are confusing suppressive fire with volume fire. we are not going to save money in the war by firing less rounds, and all this crap about cost effectiveness of bullets is a total waste of breath as the day we nitpick over ammo costs of small rifles we are done as a modern military. there are millions of ways to save money that do no include rationing bullets.

You talk about how American soldiers "simply do not know how to aim" and I am curious how you back up such a claim, and even more so, you make such a statement in the pretext of combat, which you have never seen, oh except for shooting squirrels I forgot.

FYI to all involved we have a new 5.56 round. I won't be discussing this, do your own research.

I will respond to your post fully later (I have a test tomorrow morning that I need to study for), but I would like address one thing now. I know understand that some of the things that I say could offend military personnel, just as things you and other have said in this and previous threads could. I know guys who would freak out if they saw a non-military person wearing a shirt with the Eagle, Globe, and Anchor, and other who would be glad for the support. Anything you say on the subject of the military will always offend somebody. It is not my intent to offend you or anyone else on this forum, so please don't take what I say that way. I know I have talked about the Army's lack of discipline and poorer-than-could-be-hoped-for training, but understand that I am not saying that to insult you or anyone from the Army. Heck, I know guys from the Army who believe this!
I respect that you don't take something about the military as seriously coming from someone who has not been in it, but that doesn't mean that I am not entitled to my opinion, or that I have no idea what I am talking about. Also, as someone who has never experienced combat, I base any opinion I have listening to and reading texts by those who have, and trying to evaluate what they say to the best of my ability. I know a lot of guys from the military have the attitude that if you have not served you have no right to talk about the military, but everyone has the right to have and express an opinion.

[Vuk]

I love the marines, too, but Last I checked, the Army wasn't using Marine logistical hubs, the air force wasn't using marine transit centers and the navy wasn't floating around on marine corps destroyers. Comparing marines to army is like comparing apples to oranges. both have their uses, both operate independently of one another. Both have good ideas that the other side could use. But the Marines are incapable of fighting a war on their own because of the very fact that they are specialized and small in number.

True, but the Marines and parts of the Army also do a lot of the same things and fill a lot of the same combat roles, do they not? I am not saying that the Marines should replace the Army or the Navy or the Air Force, but simply that I think the Army would greatly benefit from their infantry adopting the higher standards of Marine Corps infantry.

[Vuk]

What higher standard!? They have snazzier uniforms and movie directors love them. That's it. Nothing special. They're just the Navy's alternative to the Army. And there's really not very many of them.. wherever Marines have gone praised, many more Army troops doing the same thing go unnoticed. But that is a topic for another thread.



I suppose that's why I don't have the blue cord. Me tanker. Me need biggest rock possible to smash coconut.

What higher standards? How about the fact that Army marksmanship standards require you to be able to accurately engage targets with your rifle at 300 m, whereas Marines require you to be able to have greater accuracy at 500 m. That is a significant difference.
EDIT: And the targets Marines need to hit are actually smaller as well.

[Vuk]

Oh, lord..really?

In the Army, your expertise is limited only by your enthusiasm and the availability of open school slots. The individual infantryman in the US Army has a colorful collection of combat skills that most Marines could only dream of.

The Marines have led the way in some fields, because of their remarkable ability to adapt to bad funding and not enough personnel. But it is always the Army that breaks new ground. And you haven't seen the definition of "Poor Maintenance" until you've seen a Marine Tank Platoon.

The Army definitely has its advantages over the Marines, but when it comes to individual riflemen, the Marines are unmatched by all but Special Forces.

Here is an article you may find interesting.

The Department of Defense recently conducted a capabilities-based assessment (CBA) to establish the combat effectiveness requirements for rifle marksmanship. The standards for target engagement were defined in terms of “probability of incapacitation given a shot,” “range,” and “time.”3 Given that the specified target surface areas on the Marine Corps course are considerably smaller, hits recorded by Marine recruits should represent incapacitating hits. For the task “Engage Threat Personnel With Small Arms Fire, From 201 to 500m [Meters],” the requirement established was greater than or equal to 50 percent probability of incapacitation per shot. Marine recruits achieved 62.86 percent incapacitating hits from 200 to 500 yards, all unsupported and with iron sights. The CBA further determined that “[U.S. Army soldiers] lack the ability to achieve desired accuracy and incapacitating effects against personnel targets at ranges from 0 to 500m.” Based on postcombat surveys, 10 percent of the cumulative distribution of personnel targets engaged across all types of terrain are at ranges of 400m or greater. In Afghanistan there have been units that have completed very kinetic deployments whose direct fire engagements were all at distances of 500m or greater. The Marine Corps is the only Service that conducts marksmanship training beyond 300m for all personnel.

Source
The fact that 10% of enemies engaged are engaged at ranges of 400m or greater I think is a pretty strong argument for using the .308 over the 5.56. Also, the 5.56 is affected a lot by wind, which can significantly reduce accuracy even at medium distances.

[Vuk]

What a shame the actual combat data has been the opposite? I'm going to bed now, but don't worry Vuk.. every Soldier has an itch that can only be satisfied by proving why Marines aren't as good, and I'm no exception! Just need some sleep first.

lol, ok. I too got to get the heck of my computer tonight. :P (I gotta stay up all night and read 340 pages for an exam tomorrow morning. :P)
I'll try to respond to whatever you and MRD write in the following days, but please understand that this is the time of the semester when everything is coming due, and I am way behind (on account of missing four weeks at the beginning of the semester, and being seriously hampered by an injury, related therapy, and medication :P) on everything. lol

[PanzerJaeger]

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.

No, they realized from experience with the M14 that the 308 was not suitable for automatic fire from a battle rifle (read: uncontrollable). Further, ammunition capacity, both in what the average soldier could carry and what the standard box magazine could reliably hold (20 rounds versus 30+ for 5.56) severely limited the suppressive capability of the .308 battle rifles. The cost savings realized from moving from 308 to 556 were most likely minimal at best, and probably did not manifest at all considering more 556 is carried than 308. I have never heard that this was a major factor in the decision to switch.

Further, I am not sure what kind of training would overcome the deficiencies of the M14 platform in close quarters combat. Compared to an AR, less ammunition is carried by the soldier, less ammunition is available between mag changes, ergonomics are slow and outdated (specifically mag changes), it is hard to keep multiple shots on target, and it is heavier and more unwieldy.

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).

But that is the problem. It was and is not an excellent battle rifle. Not only was it found to be inferior to the AR platform, it was deemed 'completely inferior' to the Garand it replaced by the comptroller of the Department of Defense.

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.

A) Plenty of hunters use .223. Also, the reasons hunters choose the types of ammunition that they do often has far more to do with tradition and perception than an accurate understanding of ballistics.

B) Your understanding of the ballistics involved is not accurate, specifically in regards to velocity and fragmentation. If you can find this article at your local library or get it transferred, it is worth the read. From the abstract:

'The wounding effects of 5.56 and 7.62 mm calibre bullets, hitting on soft tissues of 130 dogs at various velocities ranging from 513 to 933 m/s have been studied. The injury caused by 5.56 mm bullet was more severe than that caused by 7.62 mm bullet. This is due to the difference in ballistic behavior between the two types of bullets. The wound caused by 5.56 mm bullet was characterized by a trumpet-shaped channel with large defect. The skin around the exit was torn away and its shape was irregular, which, however, occurred only when the tumbling and the breaking of the bullet existed. High-speed X-ray photograph demonstrated that in 5.56 mm bullet group, temporary cavity was much larger and lasted longer. Splashing phenomenon could be seen at the exist and the fragments of the bullet could be found somewhere. Based on the comparisons the amount of absorbed energy, the volume of wound channel, the frequency of developing complex wound and the ratio of dimensions between the entrance and the exit, it proved that the injury caused by 5.56 mm bullet was several to dozens of time as severe as that caused by 7.62 mm bullet. Nevertheless, wound extents by both types of bullet would be similar if the inflicting bullet did not show any significant tumbling, breaking or deformation.'

C) As I mentioned before, special forces have been using a 77 grain 556 with great effect. Now you know of a heavier 556.

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.

I have already done that. You have only discussed 'knock down power', seemingly ceding every other advantage I noted in favor of the 556. As I have pointed out, 'knock down power' is deceptive. Fragmentation makes the 556 more destructive at normal combat ranges. New 308 rounds developed to fragment can bring that round up to 556 levels (TSWG 155 OTW), but you are still left with a bigger, heavier round and all the associated issues that come along with it.

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.

You have constructed a false choice. You can make very accurate, controlled shots with the AR platform. The AR is inherently more more accurate than the M14 platform. That's the beauty of the system, and one of the major reasons it is superior to the M14. Not only is it more accurate than the M14, it can also be utilized as a controllable fully automatic.

The idea that you can replace suppression on the battlefield with accurate, single shots is very 'Marine' but not at all realistic. The ability to lay down a volume of suppressive fire to allow maneuver is a critical tool in the modern commander's toolbox, and returning to the M14, much less the Garand, would rob him of that.

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.

Actually, modern TTPs calls for controlled pairs, not three shots. That has nothing to do with the lethality of the 556, but rather increasing the likelihood of a hit to the vitals.

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?

No, that is not accurate. The M4's effective range is 500 meters and the M16's is 550. The M14's with battle sights is 460 meters. All are point-target accurate to their effective ranges.

Where the M14 and 308 shine are at distances beyond those ranges. The M14 with modern optics and its heavier bullet can reach out and touch targets at 850 meters reliably. That is why it was brought back as a stopgap designated rifleman weapon.

That is all well and good in that limited role. However, line infantrymen cannot be equipped with long range optics (as CQB would be impossible) and they do not have the necessary skills to use them even if it was possible. Not every soldier can be a sniper, despite the Marine Corps ideology. Thus, the M14 with normal battle optics (red dots) is no more accurate than the AR system.

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.

Fully automatic fire is not meant to score kills, it is meant to suppress.

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.

A) There is no real issue with 556 at close range. At medium, 'normal' ranges, the 556 is superior to the 308. Only at longer ranges does the 308 present advantages.
From the Project Manager Soldier Weapons 'Soldier Weapons Assessment Team Report 6-03' on Iraqi Freedom:

'Lethality:
It is apparent that the close range lethality deficiency of the 5.56mm (M855) is more a
matter of perception rather than fact, but there were some exceptions. The
majority of the soldiers interviewed that voiced or desired “better knock-down power” or
a larger caliber bullet did not have actual close engagements. Those that had close
engagements and applied Close Quarters Battle (CQB) tactics, techniques, and
procedures (TTPs) – controlled pairs in the lethal areas: chest and head and good shot
placement, defeated the target without issue. Most that had to engage a target
repeatedly remarked that they hit the target in non-vital areas such as the extremities.
Some targets were reportedly hit in the chest numerous times, but required at least one
shot to the head to defeat it. No lethality issues were voiced with targets engaged at 200
meters and beyond. It is apparent that with proper shot placement and marksmanship
training, the M855 ammunition is lethal in close and long range. '

B) Weight is a huge issue.

C) Of course your Marine friend wanted an M14. He was a designated marksman. We are talking about battle rifles not sniper systems.

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.

No, my whole argument hinges on real battlefield experiences where terrain is very rarely flat and wide open, where the wind blows, where enemies use cover extensively, where stabilized rests are not easy to come by, and where enemies that can be seen are usually running.

You vastly overestimate the ranges at which effective fire can be brought to bear on an enemy in combat conditions with combat optics. This was one of the lessons learned after WW2 - that the guns and ammunition types had far greater effective ranges than their operators could utilize. This is not a training issue, it is simply the nature of combat. As unbelievable as it sounds, rifle training in Army combat units is fine. There just are not that many occasions when taking pot shots at 500+ meters is the appropriate course of action for non-marksman/sniper type soldiers. Engagements within 500 meters are far, far more common.

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.

1) I did not say that spraying is superior to training. I said that having the option is better than not. The AR is a superior system because it allows the single shot accuracy of the M14 within average combat distances while also being able to generate much better suppressive fire.
2) I have not ignored basic physics.
3) Eh, not really. I can think of few circumstances where the marginally better barrier penetration would be useful. There are some new rounds that would make a huge difference in, say, stopping suicide car bombers before they reach thier target (6.8) - but the 308 is not one of them.

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)?

They are all just as reliable and each has a longer service life. The ergonomics, modularity, and versatility of each is also superior to the M14.

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.

No need to apologize, I would feel sorry for you!

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.

Certainly. My only point in this exchange has been that a lot of thought went into the 556 and the assault rifle concept, particularly the AR. Ironically, the pining for the M14 is largely a result of the M16 being rushed into service before it was ready due to the M14 failing in Vietnam and souring a whole generation's opinion of it.

That being said, the AR and 556 is certainly not a perfect system. The gun has recently been failing reliability tests against new (piston driven) competitors and the cartridge has been eclipsed in performance by new designs. What is interesting in relation to this conversation is that none of those new guns or rounds are a return to the legacy battle rifle formula. They are all improved assault rifles.

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.

Well we have already dealt with 'take-down' power, so by cutting its maximum range, you are taking away the only real advantage the 308 has.

FYI to all involved we have a new 5.56 round. I won't be discussing this, do your own research.

The M855A1 EPR?

[Major Robert Dump]

@Gel Cube: Hey man, the Bravo is great, and it's an awesome fat kid gun to make fatty lose weight. But I much prefer it mounted. Dismounted requires so much effort, and then if it jams due to dirty rounds, you have to expose yourself to fix it. I am curious if you had any automated ones on your tanks. Some of our ASVs have a CROWS variant, they are not fully automated like a CROWS is in regards to looking like a video game, but the trigger assembly has been replaced with some sort of pnuematic doohicky, so you operate it with a joystick but still use iron sights. Two of these in a turret at a 45 degree angle (well, usually 2 different platforms, like a 240 and mk19 mix) means you can essentially overwatch twice as much area without having to pivot nearly as much. all in all though, I am still jury out on automated systems because of the reliance on, ya know, a car battery


@Vuk You must understand that the military is modular now. why do the Marines use Navy Corpsmen as medics? why do the Marines run their networks off of Army JNN trucks? This is because they do not have those specialties. While I understand your desire to make every soldier a super soldier, it is not needed nor is it viable, because you lose talent that way. It's just like running a business, you are not going to give every employee a key to the dorr and the cash register.

There are always going to be people who are bad shots. I will tell you right now that I have qualified people in training who could not shoot to save their life, because these people happened to hold a job that no one else could do, like diesal mechanic or linguisst. And when I say I qualified them, I mean I laid down on the next lane and shot their freaking targets because if they don't get it after the 30th try they aren't going to get it that day. It can also be blamed on poor sights and accessories, as there is a huge disconnect on ranges when it comes to zeroing thanks to changes in m16 vs M4 and CCOs vs ACOGs. I don't feel guilty about this because everyone who goes to war has to rezero -- done by professionals -- and has to qualify in various scenarios. There is no gaming that system.

But back to my point: If you expect your linguists, your IT nerds and your nurses to score perfect PT Scores and score Expert on the rifle, you will be woefully shorthanded. I want my people to exceed expectations, I dont want them to barely squeek out a passing PT score, and I want them to shoot like the devil, but I really don't have a problem if Jimmy-The-Quartermaster barely quals with a weapon as long as he is a damn good quartermaster. If my FOBS and COPS were being overrun on a daily basis and my admin clerks and finance geeks were getting into firefights, I might feel different. but that isn't happeniong, it hasnt been happening, and it wont be happening.

The #1 killer of those of us in Afghanistan are IEDs. The #1 killer of Taliban, Haqqani and other insurgent scum are small arms fire from US forces, not bombs, not missles, not helicopter gunships. I am talking vast majority in both cases. this means 2 things: (1) The bad guys are not outshooting us, they are blowing us up and 2) we are killing the badguys primarily in combat under 200 meters.

I think excessive M4 training at 300+ meters is unnecessary with exception to certain units. Hell, when I qual iron sights I dont even shoot at the 300s, I save the rounds in case I miss another closer target. ACOGS make a huge difference, but firing at a 500m target with an M4? Maybe to supress, but without perfect firing position and sight assistance (like an ACOG), forget it, and give me the MK19

@ Panzer: Hey man, all I know is they gave me new shiny bullets :) Oddly enough, they are fail with certain versions of the M4 bolt, so we have been doing hasty recalls of certain bolt assemblies, we found this out the hard way of course, but to my knowledge no one has been hurt as a result. I might also inform you that our super duper under barrell grenade launchers that were set to phase out the 203s have been deemed fail, in Afghanistan at least, due to a steeplearning curve and too much splash damage, amongst other things. too bad, because they looked really cool and we detachable for pistol-type fire.

[Tellos Athenaios]

Studying foreign languages is generally a waste of time if you already speak English.

I sort of see your point, especially considering the rest of the world by and large will accommodate English to some degree. But later on you proceed to declare that the time currently taken to learn other languages should be spent on learning better English instead.

While I won't argue the merits of teaching kids proper English, my question is: what about those kids on whom language education is not entirely wasted? You have people who do have some aptitude for language, and you would be doing them a big disservice by requiring them to sit through twice as much English -- given how classes tend to gravitate towards the lowest common denominator. By contrast a second language at least gives them some worthwhile skills, and might in fact improve their own English as they become more aware of it through having been taught a different perspective if you will.

Though this view might be somewhat skewed due to my recollections of playing Tic Tac Toe to while away those English classes, much to the chagrin of the teacher; compared to the rather revealing insights gained from classic Greek. <_<

[Sasaki Kojiro]

I sort of see your point, especially considering the rest of the world by and large will accommodate English to some degree. But later on you proceed to declare that the time currently taken to learn other languages should be spent on learning better English instead.

While I won't argue the merits of teaching kids proper English, my question is: what about those kids on whom language education is not entirely wasted? You have people who do have some aptitude for language, and you would be doing them a big disservice by requiring them to sit through twice as much English -- given how classes tend to gravitate towards the lowest common denominator. By contrast a second language at least gives them some worthwhile skills, and might in fact improve their own English as they become more aware of it through having been taught a different perspective if you will.

Though this view might be somewhat skewed due to my recollections of playing Tic Tac Toe to while away those English classes, much to the chagrin of the teacher; compared to the rather revealing insights gained from classic Greek. <_<

Yes, you're right. I chose "double english" because it makes a nice contrast with the foreign language. I would actually say extra history would be more worthwhile.

[Devastatin Dave]

Vuk has my vote....
Not sure if that's considered a good thing...

[Vuk]

Vuk has my vote....
Not sure if that's considered a good thing...

Sweet, maybe I should start up a campaign!

@PJ: Give me a day or so to respond please. I have been up for the last 34 hours (had to pull an all-nighter) and need to get some sleep and pull my head together. :P