@abgemacht The issue of jamming was largely resolved with plating of the firing chamber(as was done in the test models) plus using cleaner burning powder. Other causes have largly been fixed with the newer A2 - A4 models. But any gun can jam given the conditions of combat.

@Baskineli I stand corrected. I typed that part before thinking.

@warspite

Sure. In addition, from my own personal experience - M16 jams a lot compared to some other assault rifles. This is one of the reasons the Israelis are replacing it with the Tavor (TAR 21).

Ok but still not as bad as it was at first (It's been a while since I've fired one). What assault rifle would you suggest.

For what purpose? :)

As a good general purpose standard issue. I know that means compromising different aspects.

Also, keep in mind that a factory M14 weighs 12 pounds and is 44 inches long. Modified variants are much smaller and lighter, yet still retain the phenomenal power of the 7.62 millimeter round. What should we be issuing our troops?

To answer your question, warsprite, I would say a modified M14 with adjustable stock, Weaver rails (for optics and other accessories), vertical foregrip, pistol grip, carbine-length barrel, and (depending on the specific unit) a bipod. Some proponents of switching back to 7.62 want to make the SCAR-H standard, but I disagree on budget grounds. Modifying a factory M14 is a lot cheaper than buying a brand-new SCAR-H.

I wondered how long it would take for this debate to become about size.

After playing Battlefield Vietnam for about 5 hours last night I'm going with the M14.

And I wondered how long it would take for someone to reference a video game.

You can carry more 5.56 ammunition than 7.62. As for body armor, how many of the enemies we have fought with the M16 were equipped with body armor? It's a short list.

Praetorian Type III body armor will even stop the 7.62 and the 5.56 will penatrate most of the lower grades anyway. So your choice is good even against most body armor.

abgemacht + 1. I was wondering that myself.

@ Praetorian -- Yeah. But like I said, you can carry twice the amount of ammunition of an M14. But what's that point of that if it takes three times the amount of ammunition to kill someone?

@ warsprite -- Yeah, but those religious fanatics that we're fighting will get back up after being hit by an M16. If you shoot someone with an M14, they will not get up. Even if they want to.

what's *the* point

I was suprised it took that long before I did it

Let's enter another variable. What do you guys think of 6.8 millimeter? Is that the answer for the assault rifle question? See this Future Weapons video for the LWRC PSD (a carbine based on the M16/M4/AR-15 but chambering 6.8 mm)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dHreIMu1d6M

I recommend watching from 2:04 onward. Skip the shitty intro.

Nice for up close fighting, do they have an longer version?

@TMW

You are quite annoying. I don't usually get upset, but you have no experience in combat, and you are talking bullshit. If you are looking for a firepower, equip your soldiers with MAG. Then let them march 40 kilometers and see how many of them will be ready to use this MAG efficiently. You are ignoring the fact that soldier only fights 1% of his time at most, and that most time is used to get from one point to another. I've pointed it out already, and you are just ignoring it.

See, you made the cardinal mistake of even assuming that he's worth engaging with. If you look up any of the threads where he spouts off his "knowledge", you'll see you're not the first one to make this mistake.

@Jack_Klein

Yeah, I am new to the forum. You are right.

@Bask. It's best not to feed the troll. TMDiplofool gets off on frustrating people.

M16 is cooler than the M14.
End of conversation.

@ Baskineli -- You are ignoring the fact that modified M14s are easily as light as an M16. 12 pounds is the weight for a factory M14 with a walnut stock and full-length barrel.

@ Iceray0 -- It's not cool if you shoot someone and they get back up.

I don't think a guy will get back up if you empty half of your clip into them. It's not like the US is running low on ammo.

Aim for the head. Best kill shot. At least that is what they taught us in the Corps.

@ largeham

Yeah, but that's the point. Listen up, liberals!

A) That's not economical. It takes three 5.56 bullets to do the work of one 7.62 bullet.

B) That logic also reflects a change in philosophy within the military. Our soldiers are slowly becoming undertrained spary-and-prayers. If that's the case, we might as well give them AK-47s. We need to reemphasize marksmanship and one-shot-one-kill thinking. The M14 is designed around values that the military (and especially the Marine Corps) once held, like marksmanship.

Just because someone is a liberal doesn't mean they are unknowledgable about war/weapons/etc.

AK-47s are less accurate than M16s, but not to the extent you imply, made with good materials and with good ammo, they can be quite accurate. Or so I hear, don't take my word on this, as it is as reliable as TMW's (as we both are still in school).
The reason for inaccuracy is because of suppressing fire. Not every shot is aimed to kill, but to keep the enemy pinned down.
And less economical? Christ, you're retarded. Since when have soldiers cared about economical with ammunition in combat.

@ largeham

If we're talking about saving money on the military (which I am), than any liberal worth his salt will listen. Sorry if I implied that ALL liberals are idiots when it comes to military matters. (a lot are, although there are a handful of exceptions, like John Kerry)

AK-47s are sufficiently accurate at close and medium ranges. Combined with superb power, reliability, and low production/ammunition costs, AK-47 is a great choice for armies on a tight budget for both training and equipment.

As for suppressing fire, it would be more economical, and would make more sense, to deploy an M240 team to each squad. Leave the suppressing fire for weapons designed to do just that.

An added bonus of switching back to 7.62: You could make ordinance a lot simpler. It's a lot easier to stock two types of ammunition than it is to stock three types. Right now, machine guns and sniper rifles use 7.62. Our main weapon system (M16) uses 5.56. And, of course, 9 millimeter for the pistols and submachine guns. But what if we could eliminate 5.56 in general? Wouldn't it be great if the military had one common rifle round again? Sharing ammo is a good thing. Liberals love sharing.

The only thing you've made clear is that you're a prisoner of your own warped ideology.

I'm fairly sure you embarrass the hell out of any principled conservative with your quarter-baked ideas. I know I'm embarrassed that I share a country with you.