ORIGINAL: Bulzeye
It seems to me that Chuck's article did indeedmake the case for his .243 choice in regards to
external ballistics, (meaning how the thing flies between the muzzle and the point of impact), as well as retained energy downrange. More energy further out there is a good thing, and shooting flat, and being less affected by wind are also good. However...
I would like to see a similar comparison in the
terminal ballistics (both the shock effect and permanentdamage it does when it strikes flesh)of the 5.56, .243, .308, 6.8, and a few others that have been suggested as possible replacements. The magic bullet wouldhaveto be accurate and effectiveat extended ranges from standard issue long barrelled rifles, while still being effective from short barrelled carbine length guns.
I think money would be better spent buying ACOGs for every soldier
Amen. Iron sights belong on handguns and other PDW's.
No batteries, has fiber, tritium, and with the chevron reticule it can be plenty accurate withoutcumbersome magnification.
Definitely need a better sidearm cartridge than a 9mm, especially if we are to continue being restricted to ball ammo. When your bullet can't expand, it better be big to start with.