I am a fan of the M16/AR15, but I do not harbor any illusions about how effective the 5.56 cartridge is. Is it the BEST for combat? No way. Is it the best compromise? Quit possibly. And that is the only reason they went to the M16. Everybody that joins the Army are not shooters. As a matter of fact, a big chunk of them have never fired a gun at all. The M16 and its 5.56 round are pretty easy to train someone (man or woman) that have never shot a gun before, it is easy to hit with too. And, you can carry more ammo than you could with the .308 (M14) or 30/06 (M1 Garand). The gun itself is much lighter than it's predecessors. Now, I would prefer the good old M14 myself, IF you were in a conventional war, with two Armies facing each other across a battlefield. In some of the door to door house clearing our men are having to do in Iraq, I think the M4 with it's short barrel and rapid fire, easy to get on target and back on target after firing, may actually be the best weapon possible at this time. Yes, I think they should go to a more powerful cartridge (although I do love the .223/5.56, once again, I harbor no illusions about it being a great man stopper). And yes, they could "fix" the M16s direct impingement gas system to the AK, M14, M1 Garand type of gas system and eliminate many of the stoppages that happen in the dust bowl of Iraq. But, as slow as the government is about doing anything, I would say it is not high on their list of priorities. They would rather spend it on getting themselves re-elected.