I always thought the little .250 Savage loaded to 21st Century pressures would make a great AR round....
The reason we went to 5.56 was more ammo-per bag, and lighter weight. I still think those are important. The 6.8spc is a decent balance I think.
Roger the lighter weight, but I recall reading long, long ago that the 5.56 caliber and the M-16 itself were designed around the concept of jungle warfare and the containment mission, with recent experience in the Philippines and Malaya in mind. You might say the M-16 was designed for "one, two, many Vietnams", and not for the European or Korean theaters at all.
I always thought the little .250 Savage loaded to 21st Century pressures would make a great AR round....
Roger the lighter weight,
Negative on the lighter weight as a major reason. The small stature of the Vietnamese made shooting the M-14 in.308 (7.65x53) torture. They tended to point and close their eyes with the M-14, rather than aim. The light weight of the "16" was a plus for the Asians, as well as drafted city boys with little to zip firearms experience. The .223 round of the "16" is a varmint round. I knew that the day I was handed an early M-16 in basic combat training in 1967. After having shot my dad's hunting rifles, I knew I was under-gunned with the M-16. And so I was. And so were many of us. It's time to get rid of the M-16 and its variants, with its itty-bitty-bullet, and equip our troops with a modern .30 caliber combat weapon.