Dangit!!! I was looking all over for that! That's the FN gun I was talking about.























Looks cool. Either way, it'll be years before we see this or any other option they are looking at.

By the way. I hate the .223. BUT!,I would never say that it does not have the ability to kill people. And they penetrate pretty good. 200 yards? Not a problem at all with the .223. I carried one for a while, and while I hated the weapon itself (M16A2, M4) and I hated the caliber, it did get the job done. And it continues to do so today. I'm just not a fan of it, that's all.

I have a buddy who is a Marine. He carries the full lenth M16 with the 20 inch barrel. He said the Marines don't issue the M4 except to special units or people who need a shorter weapon. When he was in Iraq he said they never had problems with the .223 out of the 20 in. barrel. He believed that the velocity lost out of a shorter barrel is the problem and the issue ball rounds. They need better rounds and that will solve alot of problems.

Just my opion thats all. Not trying to start any wars. I have seen topics on .223 and AR vs. AK's on other sites cause quite a stir.

Marines are now using the M16A4, it's replacing the M16A2 in the Marine Corps. I think the Army is converting to the M4.
I have mixed feelings about the M4. I'm sure its awesome for MOUT (urban combat) since it's a shorter barrel and a little lighter. But I just like the M16A4 better, you never know when that extra barrel length will come in handy.

Here's a pic of my friend's M16A4. He's in Cali now training, going to Iraq in Sept.

Yup. As long as we are bound by the geneva convention, the ammo is gonna suck, unless something like an EFMJ can be wiggled in there. I haven't seen the wording, and am not familiar with potential loop-holes that might help.

The short barrel velocity loss hass beenthe problem once you get out past about 200yds. Up close has not been a real problem to my knowledge.
The longer barrels (20s) are doing as well as they ever have. Ifthey try to make up for the speed loss by going with lighter bullets, they don't hold up, so heavier ones have been a good work-around. I hear they're doing OK by making up for slower bullets with more downrange momentum (weight).

Just thowing my .02 in here.

I have owned three AR's, an armalite, and 2 bushys. All have failed on me in some way. I have always maintained them clean by full disassembly and used good mags. Also only shoot Winchester white box ammo. The Armalite was the easily the worst one.

I'm kind of done with the AR phenom. As soon as I can get someone to give me a decent offer on the last one I've got I'm done with them.

No offense to the AR enthusiast just stating what I've experienced.

Tom

This one looks interesting (and it's in 308)...
Anybody got feedback on the DS-58 family?
I think I heard that the top of the reciever has to come off for cleaning and that blows the zero for your optics. Is that true?

[Deleted by Admins]

That sounds like this kind of stuff...
http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Chamber/2838/arms.html

For close quarters work, I can see the FN P90 machinepistol being an excellent choice. Fires a small hypervelocity round that does a lot of fragmentation damage, penetrates body armor well, and is easy to control. Like others said, I don't see the M-16 being replaced until a quantum leap in technology is developed. A gas piston powered rifle can almost be considered a step back from direct gas impingement operated rifles. You gain reliability but sacrifice some accuracy with the piston powered rifle and you also have more moving parts and higher manufacturing costs.

Forget the old stories of the 1970's A-1's, and the civilian testiments, current A-4 and M4 are well built and reliable. Step on the gas tube of an AK lightly one time and see how well it fires ! More is involved with thie decision than any of you or I can understand from the basic training of the troops to supply problems you name it. Better off sticking with something that is working just fine until that great revolution is developed. The public would have an outcry if we replaced all the M-16's at great expense to only turn around and dump then in 10 years for something new.

As for .308, I do not ever see our everyday ground pounders carrying .308 again. Consider the weight differance in ammo alone, now haul that weight around all day, I'll take the .223 any day until something as light that performs better arrives.