The U.S. military is currently, as it always is, researching better weapons designs and calibers.

I'm not a fan of the M16 or M4, but they have not been as bad as a lot of people make them out to be. The last attempt at replacing the current weapon with a .308 FN/FAL lookalike failed reliability tests. Testing continues.

That being said, remeber that to replace a service weapon is no easy task. Even if they decided on one tomorrow, it would be 7 or 8 years before if became the standard. It took something like 9 years for the M16 to become the standard service rifle for all branches. In Vietnam, there were several Marine Units that never got them until the war ended.

I'm sure there's a lot more to it than one might think. I think we will see a replacement sometime soon,but I doubt it'll be a .243.

Actually the 6mm/.243 makes more sense for a new standard issue rifle than the .308 or larger caliber. Remember that it would be assigned/issued to all across services, different jobs from infantry to clerks and to men ans women. A 6mm/243. would be a big step-up from the .223 and would be a pretty good choice. Having more specialized rifles/firearms/weapon systems for more specialized job/MOS would also make sense.

This is the wave of the future in the carbine varient.

No not really!!

When it comes to shooting humans it would be a big step up from the .223.

I think the milatry should not try and reinvent the rifle when they did a perfectly goob of doing it in the late 50's with the M-14, or the FN/FAL would be great. An my choice for a pistol would be a 1911 with fixed sights... i grew up right by reading Col. Coopers great words, and i think i turned out all right.

[Deleted by Admins]

Cma, accuracy is the only one, and that doesn't represent all of them, since some are good and some are crappy. When I 'm trying to shoot to stay alive, as opposed to a small group, give me a real battle rifle. The M1A or the FAL have the M16 beat all to hell!

I like the look of it, but the Heckler & Koch XM-8 has way too short of a barrel IMO.

What caliber is the M-4 in?

I don't think the M-1 would be a good rifle now, because it has too much recoil, and you jam your finger when trying to reload it.
I think the M-2 Johnson rifle was cool. It had a good capacity, and it was a carbine.

No not really..... .223 = 5.56mm a 243 = 6mm, you do the math... with fmj ammo the 243 isnt gonna leave any bigger of a hole then a 223. besides the 5.56mm is known to tumble upon impact with flesh and bone I believe with the higher velocity and heavier bullet of the 243 makes for a much more stable projectile and it would just pass through causing far less tissue damage then what the 5.56mm is known to do.

something else to consider is with a service rifle the idea is to keep the lead flying. a 243 would over heat a barrel way to fast in a fire fight causing severe damage to the weapons barrel. I guarentee our armed forces really dont want to have to change the barrels of there service weapons after every fire fight.

IMO there is really nothing wrong with the 5.56mm. instead of worrying about the caliber our military should worry more about the platform it is fired from.