Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 6/16/07 12:13 PM, HighlyIllogical wrote:

At 6/12/07 11:11 PM, cellardoor6 wrote:

I can shoot an AK-47 very well within it's envelope of accuracy.

When are our soldiers dealing with ranges outside the accuracy envelope, except for designated marksmen...?

All the time. Maybe you should read up a little bit more. Read about what is happening in Afghanistan, basically all engagements are in open country. Iraq is a little different, but SO FEW of casualties on both sides are inflicted by small arms, it would make little difference.

We should be going to larger rounds for some soldiers and start adopting things like the MP7 too.

Thus complicating logistics... negatively affecting overall combat effectiveness. Yeah that's a grand idea, maybe we should also let each soldier/marine buy whatever rifle they want on the open market, in any caliber they want and then find some magical way of supplying several different rounds to all of them, supplying maintenance equipment, training etc..

And I find it funny that you propose adopting the MP7 or something similar... even though it is an extreme example of small, high velocity rounds, fired through a short weapon... which is supposedly the negative of the M4/5.56 system.

The MP7's merits are well known. The stopping power is not the issue, after all. Compared to a 9mm Parabellum M9 pistol, the MP7 has more stopping power AND better penetration. Hell, the 4.6x30mm is designed to tumble.

Replacing the M4 with the MP7 would be a mistake. Yes, it would, but replacing the M9 with a 4.6mm or 5.7mm weapon would be good. Replacing the M4 and M16 family with an HK416 or switching the entire military's ARs to the SCAR family would be good...

You are probably right about the 5.56. I just worry about stopping power for close ranges, so I would err on the side of a larger round. Though, to be fair, we could issue the XM-26 LSS and keep the 5.56.