You have to decide which is the issue here, is it the 5.56mm Nato bullet that is the problem or is it the platform? the debate for the 5.56 is as old as eugene stoners first version of the ar-15 so I will not get into that.

The platform that the M-16/ar-15 is built on has alot of potential. A properly maintainenced AR will function great and be accurate out past 700 yds. In competition shooting matches with match ammo the AR-15 can make a good grouping at 1000 yards. Now keep in mind that those AR's are kept in better care and have better parts than those issued by the military. Remember that those M-16s are made by the lowest bidder. While the military does want to spend less money i dont buy the arguement over cost in replacing the existing system. The Fact is that the US military and the DoD have spent millions on searching for alternative rifles. For years the goal has been to achieve the OFW (objective force warrior system) in this the military has tested the xm-8, the xm-25 and the xm-29. Each had prblems and to my knowledge each has been almost entirely rejected by the US military. So the question I ask is does this sound like a government interested on only saving money? granted there are calls to be frugal but what do you expect with all the cuts in the defense budget? but still i refuse to believe that the m-16 remains only for that reason. Consider... the original M16 was the A1 variant. Since the A1'a have been replacedwith A2's by 1989 and have A3's and A4's today. Not to mention all the carbine and compact variants. They have replaced most if not all of their weapons with newer models so in that i feel that the Cost arguement is busted.

If you are agrueing against the 5.56 cartrage then you have to consider that it was a round developed back in the 1960's. Also remember that the first stoner rifle was 7.62 but was changed later to 5.56. The primary reason was that the 5.56/.223bullet had a flatter trajectory and have less recoil allowing it to be a more effective weapon in the hands of inexperienced privates. This also allowed them to maintain high rates of fire more accurately. Granted the round has always and will always have its critics, there is currently no caliber rifle on the market that does what the bullet was designed to do better. The 308/7.62 nato round is heavy, loud and has a harder recoil with can intimidate many soldiers and potential soldiers. On of the things that the instructors do when you first get introduced to the m-16 is fire it from several positions. On his neck, chin and crotch. He does this to show them that the recoil in minimal and will not hurt them. Try that with a 7.62... As far as it goes consider that the round is reaching the end of its life. If you look back on history the average life for a service cartrage in this country is about 40 years. Since 2002 the United States SOCOM has been experimenting with new weapon platforms (such as the rifles mentioned about) as well as new calibers like the 6.5mm grendel and the 6.8mm SPC. The problems with them come from not only cost but availability and logistics. The rounds did not exist priot to there military service so they would have to be built in great numbers by the few munition factories in this country.

with all this said, every combat rifle in our history has had some controversy. The M1 garand initially had gripes about its canadian origin. the rifle also had issues with the mechanismjamming and only carried 8 rounds with other rifles had 10-30 rounds. The M1 carbine was designed as PDW and was issuedin the front lines and the complaints existed overits range and lethality. The M-14 was a great weapon but if you look back at it, it too wasout of date considering that it was not an assualt rifle. (assualt rifle requires a pistol grip) ALSO consider that its length made CQB a problem. That is why it is only used by snipers today.

Bottom line. The AR-15designwill be with us for decades to comewith the new barretversion of the ar-15 that works in all conditions like a ak-47. The 5.56 nato round is also on its way out but it will take to time to finalize all the paper work and store large enough quantiites of a new round to make it feasible to switch all the weapons. But that is another benefit of the AR design. You and drop in a new upper reciever and in minutes have updated the rifle to any caliber thus proving its versatility. No other rifle can say that... But at all arguments aside at least we can still say that our rifles are american made. Choosing a foriegn rifle would present all kinds of logistical problems.