sighhh...if only

i am not an "expert" marksman...i am however a decent shot. i have shot my "share" of groups that are hard to rival, by any stretch of the imagination...but that was the exception, not the rule...in my case anyway. i qualified as "expert" with the M-1's. as many of you know, military qualifications tend to be a little different than out here in the civilian shooting world.

i received army marksmanship training as a soldier back in the early 60's. i trained with the legendary M-1 Garand and M-1 carbine and later the M-14. there were still some of the water cooled browning machine guns in use and the BAR was still AR of the infantry squad. if having to make a choice of having to go to combat again and having a selection of weapons i would probably select any of the above named weapons over the current M-16/M-4.

I'm certain the m-16/m4 has it's place, but, in my opinion, not on the battle field in the 5.56 cartridge configuration. the 5.56 is a short range, limited capacity cartridge and has proven to be ineffective at ranges over 300 yards under many battlefield conditions. i would not want to go into a gunfight thinking i was "under-gunned".

i find it odd that many states prohibit the use of the 5.56/.223 to hunt big game with and the military and law enforcement bow at the altar of the 5.56; the average deer is about the same size and weight as an average man in many cases and it's been deemed the 5.56/.223 and even the bigger cousin of the 5.56, the 22-250 is not adequate to harvest the deer with. the 22-250 approaches 4,000 fps with select hand loaded cartridges...

i, myself, have not used the 5.56 in combat...i used the .30 cals.

i do have friends and relatives who have used the 5.56 in combat and have nothing good to say about it. in fact, most them them "lost" their M-16's at the first opportunity to get an M-14, or even an AK. my closest friend was a marine squad leader in Nam and elected to carry the legendary M-60 over the M-16. to me, at least, that says something. i personally know a young marine who is NOT enamored with the performance of the 5.56, too; he used the M-4 in Iraq.

further evidence of it's question-ability lies in the fact that military groups such as special operations forces are requesting the M-14 back...and are getting it. maybe not in the same configuration as when i was "in", but never the less...the same basic operational system of the 7.62/M-14 platform. it now wears different stocks and optics are normally mounted and the barrel length and magazine capacity are different but you still have gained the superiority of the 7.62/.308 firepower.

the M-1 Carbine is another matter, though.

the M-1 Carbine cartridge is still in use today but as a 'varmint/plinker' cartridge. it's available in a few commercial carbine variations, and as a revolver cartridge; some of the military pieces fetch some serious cash when purchasing (mostly by collectors, though. i recently saw one at a Big 5 Sporting goods store with a hefty $1,000.00 price tag on it.) at one time many police/law enforcement used surplus M-1 Carbines as back up arms...no more. even thought the M-1 Carbine saw action, and was proven to be deadly, accurate and very reliable under all battle conditions, from WWII, up to, and including Vietnam, it's now not considered as being an effective combat cartridge or even as as an effective big game cartridge...go figure. i would believe it would stagger one if we knew how many were actually slain with/by it during those conflicts. it was used extensively by the paratroops as it was light, compact, accurate and one could carry much ammo to feed it with.

one MUST keep in mind, when thinking of the M-1 Carbine...it was designed and intended as a CLOSE RANGE weapon. i, in fact, qualified with it at 100 yards on the island of Okinawa. i think the M-16/M-4 fits this category, too.

when all the modern optics and accessories are fitted to the M-4 military version...it's weight is significant; i have handled one and was astonished at how much it weighed. there is in fact one version of a civilian model that weighs in at a hefty 11 pounds sans sighting devices/BUIS or a bi-pod and sling (if the latter two are selected as options) it would probably be at, or near, the 13 pound mark once all options and ammo is on board.

my question is: why have all that weight in a 5.56? why not have some real "knock down power and use a larger more capable cartridge if you're going to have to carry the weight"?

evidently, the military is waking up to that fact and now is adopting the 6.8MM SPC and/or 6.9MM Creedmoor cartridges for the M-16/M-4 platform.

i personally own two 5.56/.223 rifles and i dearly like them. they, in fact, fall into the "tack driver" category but are single shot rifles; i use them to shoot target and to hunt 'varmints' with.

i also owned an AR rifle (not of the M-16 variation, though) at one time and elected to get rid of it because of the stock...it felt too insecure and flexible, the mechanism was proven, safe and reliable, to a point, but it still had some "bugs" to work out. it was in the 5.56 and i felt it was not sufficient but for VERY close engagement.

some day in the future, i may decide to purchase an AR but not with intentions as utilizing in a defensory mode, but rather as a 'plinker/varminter' with the ability of upgrading to a HIGHLY capable defensory/offensive cartridge such as the 7.62x51 or even 30-06 if it ever comes available in an AR configuration. right now, for SD/defensory roles, i choose the 9mm, semi-automatic carbine and the 870 Remington shotgun...

that's my story and I'm stickin' to it...