Isaac742 (July 26, 2008 at 4:04 am)

They never say that the 7.62 is a failure. But for full auto assault rifles it is not good at all. Next your little statement about the sniper thing. The reason a sniper uses the 7.62 is for its extended range and acuracy. But do yuo see how its a sniper rifle? You dont us full auto on a sniper rifle and you dont use an assault rifle at 1000 meters! So your reason of saying th3 7.62 is great because it is used in a sniper is a failure. do you see how almost every modern army uses the 5.56

zackairsoft (July 25, 2008 at 11:39 pm)

i like how they called the m14 a "failure" but its still being used in combat today. If they really wanted to look at failures then the first gen M16's used in vietnam would be a good example. i also like how they preach about how powerful the .223 is and that its superior to the .308 cartridge that the m14 uses. show me a bolt action rifle in Iraq that is .223 and can do the same amount of damage as a .308 at 1000 meters. this test was only done to show people the m16 not an actual comparison

Isaac742 (July 25, 2008 at 10:36 pm)

it is refering to the m14 as a standard issue rifle. And the m16 is still very acurate. And for the last time the ak-74 (not ak-47) has a round (5.45x39) smaller than the m16's round (5.56x45)

DontBeAfraidToCare (July 25, 2008 at 8:53 pm)

I dont like this test. It's obvious that theM14 is not going to hit the helmet in automatic bursts at that distance. It would have hit it in semi auto. I just dislike how they make the M16 appear superior in all aspects compared to the M14.

AxelofBavaria (July 25, 2008 at 7:36 pm)

The M14 is still the weapon of choice for sharp-shooters, cause it is way more accurate than an M16, and its rounds got way more punch as well. It's not built for auto-fire, but 5,56mm instead of 7,62mm is no solution: The smaller round lacks knock-down and breakthru-power. The Russians got a perfectly working 7,62mm-full-auto weapon: The AK47 nad its modern successor, the AK-74. Shouldn't the US be able to design something similar, or even better, in the 7,62mm-category ?

Wilsonj992000 (July 23, 2008 at 5:18 pm)

meaning i would rather hae safe semi auta and a 3 round burst and full auto selector. The famas has it tucked away where it cant be bumped

Wilsonj992000 (July 23, 2008 at 5:15 pm)

the famas has Handeled it well. And im not a fan of 2

ThaddeusCorn (July 23, 2008 at 3:09 am)

So you want to double the number of fire selectors? While it would give infantry more choices it would be at the cost of reliability (more parts, more breakages) and simplicity of operation (does a two round burst have any major advantages over the three)?Which is all stuff you don't want in a standard issue rifle.

Wilsonj992000 (July 23, 2008 at 1:01 am)

the 6.8 is only a bit larger than a 5.56 you could get the same 30 rounds you just need a wider mag. We should have a system like the famas. There is a selector where you can choose between 3 round burst and full auto. And another selector that the safe semi auto. We should have one selector that has safe semi and auto and another with 2 round burst, 3 round burst, and full auto (or 5 round burst)(You can probably tell i love the famas)

TempestDust (July 22, 2008 at 11:37 pm)

6,8mm sounds like a good hybrid between the two cartridges, but how many could possibly fit in an average magazine? 25? As for 7,62mm assault/"battle" rifles such as the M14 and G3, I think a 2-round burst would be optimal. It gives more firepower and controllability than semi/auto respectively and provides 10 consequetive trigger pulls, just like an M16 on burst, before leaving the magazine empty.