Replies

You two are both right, but please look at it from the DoD budgeting angle. If you get a chance to read “The Black Rifle” about how the M-16 got into service, and if either of you have had the series misfortune to work inside the Washington D.C. “Beltway”, then please look at this caliber issue as one of budgeting combat effectiveness.

The more specialized a fighting unit, the greater the individual's ability to select his personal weapon. But also realize that elite force come with elite budgets. The SEALs had a budget the size of the entire US Marine Corps (in Marcinko’s day). That's why SEALs could pick their own hardware to match their own physical dimensions and shooting comfort. Every Marine Rifleman is forced into the standard issue mold whether their MOS is 03-hump-a-lot, or 01-staff-pog.

Getting a “standard” issue in the military is feat of miraculous proportions. It's bad enough to have Communist-for-civilian oversight committees neutering our nation's fighting force back before the pre-9/11 “didn't inhale” daze (days), but even the DoD has levels of comptrollers with budget scalpel knives and chainsaws looking to slice more than a circumcision when it comes to saving money. Why do they do that? Because that's their job description. Gov’t employees hired by the military make bonuses for the literally millions of dollars they cut from the budget. But to counter that, the military also hires “budget analysts” to protect every dollar requested! And when I mean every dollar...I mean EVERY BEAUTIFUL LINCOLN FACED PENNY!!!!

We can flame on each other about rifle/pistol calibers until we join a Counter-Strike or Battlefield 2 tournament and blow each other away (of course only in a virtual world), the reality is that the budget process for fielding a standard issue is an ugly ugly monster. The 5.56mm is good enough. Elite forces have budgets for a better fit per shooter.

Peace, God Bless, Semper Fi...and keep your powder dry.

I think you nailed it. The 5.56 is a "good rifle". It's not perfect for every situation. I'm currently working as a DoD Contractor doing logistics and T&E, so I know some of the process. When you look at the decision to replace a weapon, the managers are going to ask:

Is the current system performing adaquately?

How much is it going to cost to change systems?

Is there a better way to spend that money?

The truth is that the M-4/M-16 is adequate. I don't think it's the best thing out there, but the cost of replacing it for all branches of the service is huge. This doesn't even consider the fact that we strong-armed NATO into adopting it as the standard NATO caliber.

We're arguing the standard "Big Slow versus Small Fast" argument that has been unsettled for a hundred years.