Replies

Why? Everyone likes to be an expert

Umm... I am an expert

I've probably built more firearms of all kinds than most of the people here have shot, and many of them were done for the military, and I was involved in weapons testing for the military on small arms & crew served weapons, so I think that probably makes me an expert

The .223 never has functioned like it was supposed to as a military round, and we should look at replacing it

The word "expert" has come to be used in something of a pejorative way. For what it is worth I have seen enough postings by several people on FR that I would rate them as experts whatever that means.

The interesting thing to me is that two true experts will often disagree. I remember when I lived in Western Kansas, there was a great mehchanic who loved Chevy's and hated Fords. Yet in my hometown the best Mechanic around was a Ford man totally.

The .223 never has functioned like it was supposed to as a military round, and we should look at replacing it.

This is a different issue, or at least offers a wider range of solutions. Your original comment was that we definitely needed something bigger than the .223, and offered as an unsupported opinion. Even if the round did not function as it was supposed to - and that may indeed by the case - you have not explained why a bigger round is the required solution.

Bigger is heavier. Again, what would you give up in order to carry a bigger round? Or, if the size/weight is not the problem, then in what way did the .223 not function as intended?

Frankly, as long as it will penetrate body armor that can reasonably be worn, and out to ranges of a few hundred yards, my own opinion is that smaller/lighter bullets are better just because you can carry more of them, and fire them from a smaller/lighter rifle. In fact, much of the new ammunition development uses smaller projectiles with two or three in each cartridge. Pistol bullets won't penetrate a helmet or a flak vest at 200 yards, but .223s will (recognizing that no non-explosive round will penetrate typical body armor if the grazing angle gets shallow enough). The compelling argument for going to a larger round, for me, would be data that shows the .223 will not penetrate current or near-term proposed body armor at tactically significant ranges.

On the other hand, for various reasons the current bullets may not be stabilized correctly for accuracy. I don't think they 'fixed' all the problems when they changed the barrel twist. And the problems of powder fouling are well known. I'm not hard over on the .223, but I'm not convinced bigger is better when I have to carry it on my achin' back and tired feet.

The .223 never has functioned like it was supposed to as a military round, and we should look at replacing it

Be more specific as to what its functioning problems have been. I've hunted with the cartridge and it is basically all I need. I've seen a hole the size of a volleyball out the back of a deer shot by one of these things.

We won't see this weapon for a while. Imminent change, if any, will come in the flavor of the M-4.