Our bullet (for the M4) is on the left. The enemy's bullet (the for the AK-47) is on the right...

Zombie Insurgents are harder to put down.

M 14s are the hot item I hear.

I'd like to own one as well but that's besides the point.

Cagey B: I've always wondered why we don't just issue AK-47s to all of our personnel.

My dad tested rifles for the Army in the 60s. The AK-47 is his favorite. He wondered the same thing over 40 years ago.

It's all about defense contracting. If nobody can make an obscene amount of money from it, well that's just un-Amurkan.

itazurakko: Cagey B: I've always wondered why we don't just issue AK-47s to all of our personnel.

Yeah.

Though you'd think they wouldn't be too hard to find in the markets in Baghdad or Kabul, really.

It's a trade-off. The .223 has less blowback power, but it's easier to control. If you're firing in burst or on full auto, the M4 is much easier to keep on target than an AK-47. But with all the CQB (Close-Quarter Battle) in Iraq, the ability to plink off a guy at 200 yards isn't as valuable as being able to knock back the guy who just came charging at you from around a corner.

A good option would to make a transition to the M4 chambered in .308. The soldiers would still be familiar with the weapon (how to strip one, clean one, etc.) but it would give them a round that's arguably more powerful than that of the enemy's, and will stop a horse in its tracks: The .308 is just to the left of the steel-jacketed AK47 round in this pic (and the bullet they use now, the 5.56/.223, is just to the right:

approves

F=M*A

KaponoFor3: KaponoFor3: Dispicable.

Or its cousin, despicable.

BravadoGT:
It's a trade-off. The .223 has less blowback power, but it's easier to control. If you're firing in burst or on full auto, the M4 is much easier to keep on target than an AK-47. But with all the CQB (Close-Quarter Battle) in Iraq, the ability to plink off a guy at 200 yards isn't as valuable as being able to knock back the guy who just came charging at you from around a corner.

A good option would to make a transition to the M4 chambered in .308. The soldiers would still be familiar with the weapon (how to strip one, clean one, etc.) but it would give them a round that's arguably more powerful than that of the enemy's, and will stop a horse in its tracks

/From reading Wiki (pops), the .223 round is outdated. It was spec'd to pierce a Soviet steel helmet from 100-200 yards away. It does that well. But it often will just blow right through someone at close quarters, wounding them but potentially leaving them still able to continue attacking.

//More importantly, if they started carrying those massive .308 rounds, they'd be able to carry perhaps 30% of the ammo for the weight. Considering their armor and supplies, every ounce counts, and I'd think that in close quarters, mobility is at a premium.

///Don't know the answer, but after seeing the reasoning for their original choice, it seems changes should be made to accomodate different types of combat. Some have been, but not for the general soldiers, apparently.

BravadoGT: itazurakko: Cagey B: I've always wondered why we don't just issue AK-47s to all of our personnel.

Yeah.

Though you'd think they wouldn't be too hard to find in the markets in Baghdad or Kabul, really.

It's a trade-off. The .223 has less blowback power, but it's easier to control. If you're firing in burst or on full auto, the M4 is much easier to keep on target than an AK-47. But with all the CQB (Close-Quarter Battle) in Iraq, the ability to plink off a guy at 200 yards isn't as valuable as being able to knock back the guy who just came charging at you from around a corner.

A good option would to make a transition to the M4 chambered in .308. The soldiers would still be familiar with the weapon (how to strip one, clean one, etc.) but it would give them a round that's arguably more powerful than that of the enemy's, and will stop a horse in its tracks: The .308 is just to the left of the steel-jacketed AK47 round in this pic (and the bullet they use now, the 5.56/.223, is just to the right:

they did, its called the mk.12 but it has issues with the gas-piston getting too much gas and jamming....thats why they are about to field the SCAR in 5.56 and 7.62 NATO, the Mk14 EBR was gonna re-field the M14 recievers with rails to mount all your high-speed shiats, but the SCAR came in and wiped it, the XM8, the HK416 and the M4 off the table

Coolhaus: mushrooming of bullets through your enemies

Well, we've got that Geneva Convention thingie, too. You have to use solid ball or full jacketed ammo.

Cagey B: Soldiers need ammo that has more stopping power at close range, eh?

Let me forward this request to the Pentagon. Give me about ten years, bring in a crackerjack contractor, and we'll deliver your new Deathbringer 8000 Automated Anti-Civilian Artillery Fling-a-ma-jig (with Smart Technology™!) to the field forthwith.

You did order 10,000 of them, right? Good. We thought so.


They have, and if you want stopping power my I suggest the AA-12



And

Hot girl shooting a machine gun

I falafel about that.

Let's get ride of the 7.62mm rifle because the bullets are too heavy they said.

Guess who's wishing for an FN-C1A1 now biatches! Yeah! That's right! Today's soldiers will also never know the thrill of pretending to be a Imperial Stormtrooper by carrying a Sterling SMG with the stock folded. Oh but they've got their fancy schmancy digital camoflage with the epaulets on the front and back. I guess the shoulders weren't good enough for you. Digital camouflage, FEH! In my days as a soldier you wanted to be camouflaged you did it analogue by sticking twigs and leaves in your trousers.

/you punk kids get off my parade square.

Soldiers in Iraq are complaining that their bullets aren't killing people dead enough

Do you mean our soldiers, or their soldiers?

/because it could be a good thing