Replies

If that were true the Marines and special forces wouldn't be pulling surplus M-14s back into service and the Army wouldn't be looking at the 6.8.

The Army isn't "looking" at 6.8 with any seriousness, and those M14's have largely been replaced by 762 and 556mm AR variant heavy barreled "designated marksmen" rifles.

762 NATO has a place, but not as a general issue rifle caliber.

There is no warfighter requirement for a larger caliber?? And believe me, they aren't shy about asking for more and better stuff.

If 556 wasn't working, we'd have already fielded AR10's army wide three years ago.

If 556 wasn't working, we'd have already fielded AR10's army wide three years ago. Trying to get the army to change weapons is almost impossible. The loggies have as much say as the front line commanders and they prefer to keep the status quo.

My experience is based on Desert Storm and I haven't really talked that much to guys over there now. I did see a recent photo taken in Iraq with a Marine with an M-14, so at least some are still using them.

All I can tell you is that based on my experience, I would prefer to carry a larger caliber than the 5.56. We didn't have to carry them for extended periods, so the weight of the ammo and the rifle didn't really make a lot of difference. I'm used to firing 12 guage shotguns and a 30-06, so the recoil on the 7.62 didn't bother me. Also, there's a lot of new technology on recoil reduction that could be applied to a new combat rifle.