[Long Cut]

For three reasons, really: 1. The M-16 series is getting OLD and used up. Replacements are needed and there's no reason not to use the latest designs. 2. The new weapon will also function as the rifle "base" module for the OICW. The M-16 series cannot do this. 3.the 5.56 NATO round and the magazine it uses are standardized in NATO and used worldwide. THere are parts and ammo in the system now. Too much retooling would be required if a wholly new caliber were introduced(as desirable as that may be).

The M-14 was one of the finest rifles ever. However, the statements on this thread about weight and size, as well as ammo-carrying capacity, are excellent points.

However many hearts it would warm, we're not going back to full-powered battle rifles any time soon (or later!). We have to deal with what is, and that's the smaller calibers. Perhaps in the future, we might see the .243 or .260 as a replacement, but not just yet. We'd have to get all of NATO and most of the world onboard, too.

[Woahhs]

However many hearts it would warm, we're not going back to full-powered battle rifles any time soon (or later!). We have to deal with what is, and that's the smaller calibers.

Big bump there!

If you need a full size battle rifle, you should have called arty 15 minutes ago. Our soldiers don't take territory; the consolidate our hold on it. If you're not doing it that way...you're doing it wrong.