Replies

Money, this is why the 5.56 will stay around and why the M-16 type rifle will too. The Army is spending lots of money on new electronics and other weapon systems (Striker, etc.). Also we are in the middle of a war, doing a change would require shutting down the current 5.56 production and producing enough 6.5, 6.8 or whatever to fully supply the troops. The Army is contracting out ammo production now, where will they get the needed production without facing a shortage of 5.56?

Also new developments and requirements made the XM-8 dated. The Israelis are going to a bull-pup rifle, the Tavor, for their basic weapon. DARPA is developing thermoplastic cases for small arms ammunition (50+% of the weight of a round is in the case). The need for a rifle capable of long range fire (i.e.: a longer barrel) and a short rifle for close/urban combat (see the Tavor) made the XM-8 obsolete.

With the possible exception of the Stoner, no Infantry rifle has been field convertible into light machine gun.
The Johnson came close and did have many common parts.

The article is right in that the troops are dissatisfied with the performance of the 5.56 and 9 mm. Multiple accounts from Afghanistan and Iraq detail their shortcomings. The 6.8 SPC is a good compromise. As is the .40 S&W or the venerable .45.

But as I said, there is no money to pay for a conversion at this time.

IMHO nothing will change in the near future unless SOCOM or the USMC force a change. Neither are happy with the status quo. The Army is not either, but they have more generals who are not combat arms making these decisions.

What I would like is a M-1/14 in a bull-pup configuration. New design trigger group and would require the Knight pic-rail to mount any sights. Just a thought.