Re: Marksmen issued better rifles in Afghanistan
Ultimately, any service rifle is going to be a compromise, based on the political realities of the day... it has been known for over 100 years that the optimal caliber for a battle rifle, considering max effective range, trajectory, ballistic coefficient, and kinetic energy, is somwhere between a 6.5 and 7mm. The Brits were about to transition to a high-velocity .276 cartridge before WWI, but then war broke out and they didn't want to switch horses in the middle of a stream. Our military was all set to adopt the .276 Pedersen back in the 1920s, which was what the M-1 Garand was originally designed for, but the Great Depression happened and they couldn't justify spending money on that when they had such a large stockpile of '06, so they quickly redesigned the M1 for the older round. And then after WWII, instead of going to a more advanced caliber, we adopted the 7.62x51 because it was designed to have the same trajectory as a .30 '06, so we wouldn't have to change our training on full distance shooting. The British were once again going to adopt such a caliber after WWII with the .280, but NATO standardization won out and they went with the 7.62. Then thoughts about the role of infantry arms changed, and everyone started designing rifles to be effective at close range with a high potential to wound, rather than to kill, anticipating a large conventional land war with the Soviets, and the 5.56 was born. Now we find ourselves in a war in which half of the fights happen out past 500 yards, and when we would rather kill the enemy than wound him, and we have to rush our old battle rifles back into service... which are themselves shooting a caliber that is designed to mimic the ballistics of a round that should have been replaced in our arsenals in the 1920s.
So I'm definitely not saying the M-14 is perfect... it's just the best we've got right now. The perfect battle rifle wouldn't be a 7.62x51, and it sure as hell wouldn't be a 5.56. Once again there have been tests done with calibers like the 6.8 SPC and 6.5 Grendel, but it looks like the military is going to try to patch up the situation by adopting a heavier 77 grain 5.56mm bullet, instead of adopting a tool that would be better suited for the job.
As far as what I think the perfect battle rifle would be, I think it might be a bullpup... something like the Kel Tec RFB... in a caliber something like the .260 Remington. The RFB actually shows a lot of promise as a design. You could have a 22" barreled bullpup that would be about the same size and nearly the same weight as an M-4 carbine, which coulde be used in close quarters, but would be much harder hitting with better penetration than a 5.56; yet it would also have a flatter trajectory and longer max effective range than the 7.62 NATO, for long-range work. It ought to have a flat-top design, like the RFB, for ease of mounting optics. But unlike the RFB, it should have a front sight base way out on the end of the barrel, like a proper rifle should, so you could have some halfway decent iron sights (a must for any battle rifle). It should also be a modular design, with both a barrel and action that is easy to swap out for different lengths/calibers.
Have any of you read Major Thomas Ehrhart's recent essay on Taking Back the Infantryman's Half-Kilometer? It is a very informative write-up on this subject. His suggestion for a quick yet economical fix is to adopt upper receivers for the M-16 series in a more capable caliber, such as 6.5 Grendel. He also addresses the woeful state of our military's marksmanship training. Here is a link.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/26645298/Incre...-Half-Kilometer