Topic: I am the ONE

Dump the silly ass foregrip, and go with a more "prone-fire" friendly magazine. A full 20 .308 gets the job done.

And semi-auto only.

BTW - I lose that DSA. I featured it in my second ever published novel, Hard Pursuit.

I'll take a full length medium contour DSA in 260 Rem thanks!

Tom, you beat me to it... G-Man's Shorty FAL in .260? Hell Yes. With an underslung - ahem - Flare Launching Emergency Signal Device... I would be all over that.

.260 FAL? If that became popular, smart people would look at the M-16 and hurl it into the junk pile...

Oh wait, that's what we want...

I and most of the Marines are served with are in the minority here. We felt that the M4s/Ar15/M16A4 platform worked. Also, there's been quite a few reports by Pat Rogers no less about the problems with the SOCOM. I'd rather have a FAL or M4 myself. I just don't get the attachment to the M14/M1 series.

I would say the HK G-3 is a good choice, but it wins "most awkward charging handle ever" award.

http://www.janes.com/news/defence/land/jdw/jdw080801_1_n.shtml
Looks like the Army wants the M-14. Wants it bad.

I like the G-3 a lot. Even the charging handle. I like the handle on the left side.

The G3 is extremely efficient at transferring all recoil energy straight to your shoulder. I'd rather have a FAL.

Screw all that...gimme something in 45/70.

So, a G-3 with a 16 inch barrel and a stock that WON'T transfer recoil pain into your shoulder would be ideal for all around combat.

(SCAR-H)

re: the .45-70...

Yes. We'll need revolvers as sidearms.

So, a G-3 with a 16 inch barrel and a stock that WON'T transfer recoil pain into your shoulder would be ideal for all around combat.
(SCAR-H)

You're saying the two are alike?

No. The SCAR-H has a better shoulder stock (that folds).

However, it does fill the same role as the G3 in a full-powered rifle in a handier package.

The G3 with the A3 collapsing stock would be ideal for the kind of APC/Hummer travel that our soldiers are doing now.

The M-14 is great, but we'd seriously need to invest in some replacement furniture to get them to optimal fighting condition for modern combat.

Why not just think out the box just a hair bit and have a piston AR variant in 6.5 or 6.8?

I think 6.8 is getting more traction overall than the 6.5 Grendel. Probably because the 6.5 has the name of a giant monster and the cartridge is rather small. Now if it was a 7.5mm, you could name it Grendel. Maybe they should have called the the 6.5GRL... and we could have joked about it being the girl cartridge while fans called it the Growl or something. Either way, you get more people talking about you have more people trying it... and they could have won this short race for a small intermediate cartridge.
There is a lot of resistance in DC and aroudn the firearms community to move to anything away from the .223. Too many reputations at stake to admit they were wrong.
I do like the .223. It's great for rodents.... fantastic even. On coyotes it shows weakness, but can get the job done... .22-250 outshines it by huge margins. But if you are using that fat case, might as well be using a bigger bullet too.
Best use of the .223 case is JDJ's .300 Whisper.
I'm going to wait patiently for a SIG 556 upper in 6.8SPC.

This crossed my mind. In the 51 years since it was designed, how many times has the AR-15 design been licensed for any use other than AR platform rifles? None i can think of (not that I'm positive). Yet EVERY other battle rifle designing company has put forth a gas piston/ op rod design. If it isn't an ar-15 or ar-10, Its pretty much gonna be a piston design. If the ar direct gas system is so awesome, why doesn't FN or HK license it for any of their platforms they've put forward for military testing? Since op rod guns are more $$ than AR's it can't be cost effectiveness.

I understand there pretty much is no licensing to be had for the AK mechanism, but the cost can't be prohibitive to license the AR design or there wouldn't be a dozen manufacturers of them (some for as low as 600 washingtons).

Maybe I'm missing something about the awesomeness that is AR-15...but if I wanted to kill squirrels, I have a bolt .22lr.

If they made an AK in .243/7mm-08, or even 9x23 or 10mm, I'd be in heaven.

If they made an AK in .243, an AR in .243 would still outshoot it.

There's thousands of dead haji that would disagree with you guys about the 5.56/.223's effectiveness.

I'm pro-5.56mm. Haji, Charlie, Provos, they all dropped to the M-16.

But lil, the AK in .243 would still work with the wrong powder, without a chrome lined chamber, and would still work with mud caked in the action.