which is the best combat weapon for the infantry man?

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.

I think it depends...

The M-16 is really a fine weapon...yes the ak-47 platform will fire even when filled with sand, but can they hit anything at even a little longer distances. The M-16 takes the prizes for accuracy over every rifle except for maybe the Garand. And lets face it the .30-06 of the Garand is just to much for the avarge GI when your clearing houses and runnin through urban centers.

Now the 5.56 Nato as a cartridge...In todays style of warfare, terrible. The idea was that when two armies face off, if a soilder is shot with a 5.56 round he would we be wounded and not killed. This would require two of his buddies to carry him to medical attention. But in Iraq, do the suicide bombers have freinds who are going to carry the bits and pieces lefts to the hospital? NOPE...There are only two solutions to putting down the hardcore guarilla fighters our modern army is facing. One, change the damn bullet. Make the 55 grain JHP the round of choice and watch how leathal the the 5.56 can be. Shoot a woodchuck with a full metal jacketed round and see if it makes it back to its hole...Now shoot it with a hollow point and watch the pieces fall. Bullet design matters...The geneva convetion got it wrong on that one. The only other quick and dirty fix is to rechamer the M-16 to shoot the new 6.8SPC that works in the standard mag. It requires minium retooling and will do a better job putting the enemy down permamently.

And one last thing, the best battle rifle isn't a rifle, it's a shotgun...in every modern war we have fought, the weapon our soilders ask for the most is the good ole 12 gauge. Screw the geniva convention, if your going to do it, do it fast, do it dirty. Sure the distance isn't there, and your always going to need the ability to put ammo on target at 1-200 yards, but damn give them boys and girls some close up and personal firepower, and get the job over fast. JMHO.

I also believe that the 5.56 is not suitble as a combat round in today's world. As pointed out, the wounding capability is no longer desirable in a jihad type world where there is no value on life.

To make the 5.56 work would require a change in bullet type to something along the order of the nosler partition or trophy bonded bear claw for expansion, damage, and penetration.

someone here while back made a post about the failure rate of the m16 with jam issues in iraq and it was along the lines of what 15 to 20% ??? Believe it was a study of the m-4 in combat and that high of a failure rate can not be strictly attributed to maintance. If there is a problem with the m-4 shorty---go back to the m16 full size as the Marines don't seem to be having near as muc trouble with theirs as the Army is having with the m-4 shorties............and i don't think it is a maintaince issue....

They can not improve the basic m16 format unless they make major revisions.

they have already changed the 5.56 round to a heavier weight----big whoopie.........

it's time to change the bullet type and to he** with the geneva convention as our enemies don't folow the rules or respect life.

If they are goin' to stay with the m16 format, then every soldier had best be issued a quality handgun with quality ammo and quality magazines. The beretta pistol has ben a nighmare from what i've heard------not really the gun tself---it's the after-market magazines "cheapest bid" that are failing. Our troops deserive the best.............but the military seems to have been always resistant to change as unfortunately body bags are cheaper than new rifles.............

the cost of changing out all m-16's to a new upper in a different caliber or a new rifle entirely would cover what---billions?????

Change the dang bullet style if you are not going to change weapons------