make up your mind!
Should've kept the M14s
http://www.armyupress.army.mil/Portals/7/military-review/Archives/English/MilitaryReview_20120831_art004.pdf

make up your mind!
Should've kept the M14s
http://www.armyupress.army.mil/Portals/7/military-review/Archives/English/MilitaryReview_20120831_art004.pdf

Exactly! Second on to the M1

Not going to happen anytime soon because 5.56 is a good cartridge and they still have to fix the weakest link, the shooter.  5.56 is a great all around cartridge especially with the new M855A1 rounds.  It's cheaper, lightweight, less recoil, plentiful worldwide (NATO), and a good compromise for close quarters and long range engagements.  Going with something more powerful like a 123gr results in more recoil, less control in full auto, and reduces your ammo loadout by almost half.

Better thing to do is give better marksmanship training to the troops for longer ranges and shot placement for CQB.  Things like CCOs and ACOGS have improved marksmanship and Ithey'll issue out some sort of electronic gizmo to make accurate shots even easier in the future.  Maximize what we got now before we switch to something else.  I'm talking about the basic rifleman issue stuff.  There's some instances where a new round would be good to have for special circumstances.  Squad designated marksman, special ops, etc. 

Time a caliber change when they come out with a revolutionary change in guns.  Electronic ignition, caseless ammo, etc.

The article in the OP was dated 2012, but I recall seeing somewhere on the news (can't recall now) over the weekend something about transitioning to .308.  Can't seem to find that article now. 

I recall discussion about 6.5 and other similar calibers and the article in the OP discusses that as well, but I didn't read the entire article.  I occasionally read about or watch shows about historical accounts of past wars/conflicts and sometimes were amazed at the variety of ammo used, many times by the same side. 

First thing that comes to mind when I think of transitioning to .308 is the weight of ammo.  Hell, even the weight difference between a 30 round mag of 5.56 to 7.62x39 is quite a bit. 

Wouldn't it be cool to bring in your personal service rifle for qualification?
I'd love to bring an M1 to qualify on Army pop-up qual range

I am certainly no expert in this field. I have only limited personal testing and seat of the pants experience with different caliber cartridges. I do have some thoughts on this subject.

I am a big fan of the 5.56/.223 cartridge as a varmint and target round. Based on my seat of the pants experience I think in short range 100-150 yard engagements this cartridge is probably only barely adequate. Compared to the cartridge our military faces, the 7.62x39 AK round, I would think at those ranges we are at a disadvantage in some respects. I am a big fan of the 300 Blackout cartridge as it has similar ballistics to the AK cartridge. And our platform is much more accurate than the AK is. And from my experience it hits much harder than our current cartridge. However, I don't want our military to have just an adequate or something similar to what our enemies have. I want them to have something better. Something that has an advantage over our enemies. Why not give them every advantage possible?

Based on what little I know of the requirements expected of our military today I think the 7.62x51/.308 cartridge has the power and range with stopping power needed for whatever is asked of our infantry. But based on the weight of the weapon and ammo that is required to be carried I think a compromise is in order. Based on my limited experience with 6.5mm and 7mm cartridges of various sorts I think new testing and updated requirements for a minimum basic infantry cartridge is in order for something not quite 7.62 but in the 6.5-7mm range.

Difficult to imagine our current soldiers shooting a 308 for quals. They'd need quite some time to get accustomed to a larger caliber. Since the start of the Army we have been on a trend of going towards smaller calibers which obviously leads to lower recoil. I had a female in basic cry her ass off because it was her first time shooting an M16. She obviously hated it. They threatened to pull her off the line because of the drama and safety issues it presented. She was one foxhole over from me and I was ducking deeper into it the more she wailed.

I was ducking deeper into it the more she wailed.

you obviously needed more inclusiveness training...

Surplus ammo sale!!!!!!!!!!!!!

IMHO and non military opinion, they ought to look at 6.5 creed for sniper and designated marksman use.... 

For general use I'd say stick with 5.56.  Maybe play with projectiles more to increase effectiveness. 

From what I've heard, from a friend of mine, charged with attempting to train shooters to even pass a qual, even 5.56 is difficult, for many, to get a grip on.....

For full auto or burst fire, I wonder if a bullpup rifle would offer more control for 7.62 or other rounds stronger than a 5.56.  Anyone fired one and can compare the difference between a full auto M4?

M4's in 5.56 seem to be at the limits of controlability with full auto fire with a conventional rifle.

From what I've heard, from a friend of mine, charged with attempting to train shooters to even pass a qual, even 5.56 is difficult, for many, to get a grip on.....

"get a grip on"? 

Recoil?  Proper operation of the firearm? 

"get a grip on"? 

Recoil?  Proper operation of the firearm? 

Everything.  Lol.  But it's just like anything else, unless a person is at least a little interested, it is difficult to teach them anything...

It pretty amusing some of the stories...  hope they never need to use the skill.. 

I think these two things will improve effectiveness far more than a caliber change.

Marksmanship training aims to make more lethal Soldiers
https://www.army.mil/article/161430/marksmanship_training_aims_to_make_more_lethal_soldiers

Mattis: Get unnecessary training off warfighters’ backs
https://www.militarytimes.com/news/your-military/2017/07/25/mattis-get-unnecessary-training-off-warfighters-backs/

Everything.  Lol.  But it's just like anything else, unless a person is at least a little interested, it is difficult to teach them anything...

It pretty amusing some of the stories...  hope they never need to use the skill..

Ahh.  Gotcha.  "Get a grip" isn't a phrase that I hear often when it comes to firearm training.   

I am friends with numerous folks who do training (firearms, security, etc) for the military.  Occasionally I get to meet the students/trainees as well, but yeah, they often have the "you're not gonna believe what happened" stories.  I'm sure the same can be said for any occupation/vocation, but seems like when you combine military and firearms training, you get more of them. 

Kinda sorta related.  I had a SeaBee (Navy construction battalion) guy calling me as to why their epoxy wouldn't set.  The cure time said and hour but after something like three days, the epoxy was still "fluid".  Ok.  What type of epoxy?  Brand X, type Y.  Ok, good there.  How did you apply?  As the directions said.  Ok, good there.  So I go out and see how they were applying.  Well, the guy was separating the resin from the hardener and only applying one.  Not sure why or how as the packaging has the nozzles intertwined to facilitate the mixing in proper proportion.  No guess work.  The guy said he was trying not to waste. . . 

Just to hate on the guys saying we should go back to the M14,
The M14 is a dated design and will fail when you test it against debris, and unnecessarily heavy when the soldier is already lugging body armor and his rucksack. Going back to 7.62x51 for the standard rifleman is a terrible idea, you're basically giving soldiers more weight to carry than volume of fire. We don't need 7.62x51 for the standard rifleman. I say the 5.56 is good as it is because have you ever noticed after our military introduced the 5.56, the Russians started developing and adopting the 5.45? Sure M855 was a crap show (and it IS crap), but the M855A1 seems to be a good performer and what the M855 was supposed to be.
You've gotta think about logistics and infantry training and ease of shooting. 762x51 requires more materials than a 556.
556 is easy to shoot and train with compared to handing a fresh recruit a 30-06, and much lighter to carry while still packing adequate firepower.

As for 556 recoil, the stock M4A1 doesn't use any muzzle device besides the A2 flash hider which provides pretty much no recoil/muzzle rise reduction. So why not have someone to design a simple muzzle device that serves fine as a flash hider but reduces felt recoil without severely blasting your battle buddy standing next to you?

Just to hate on the guys saying we should go back to the M14,
The M14 is a dated design and will fail when you test it against debris, and unnecessarily heavy when the soldier is already lugging body armor and his rucksack. Going back to 7.62x51 for the standard rifleman is a terrible idea, you're basically giving soldiers more weight to carry than volume of fire. We don't need 7.62x51 for the standard rifleman. I say the 5.56 is good as it is because have you ever noticed after our military introduced the 5.56, the Russians started developing and adopting the 5.45? Sure M855 was a crap show (and it IS crap), but the M855A1 seems to be a good performer and what the M855 was supposed to be.
You've gotta think about logistics and infantry training and ease of shooting. 762x51 requires more materials than a 556.
556 is easy to shoot and train with compared to handing a fresh recruit a 30-06, and much lighter to carry while still packing adequate firepower.

As for 556 recoil, the stock M4A1 doesn't use any muzzle device besides the A2 flash hider which provides pretty much no recoil/muzzle rise reduction. So why not have someone to design a simple muzzle device that serves fine as a flash hider but reduces felt recoil without severely blasting your battle buddy standing next to you?

I surmise your advice comes from your experience being an 11B or other equivalent to an infantryman / rifleman?
The M14 was still being used on my 1st deployment to the sandbox circa 2005.

Even better, a civvie. A POG as you may say.
Hey I think I remember you, the guy who never really agrees with my opinions!

Well I was just saying, I don't think the M14 is a good option for the standard infantry. In other words I don't think the M14 will stand a chance in replacing the M4/M16 in this century as the standard issue rifle.
If I recall correctly, the M14 (or variant) was used as a DMR during that time, and still being used in some numbers as the Army never really phase out all the guns but primarily used by designated marksmen (or whatever like the M110 or a modified M16 optimized for long range shooting)

Even better, a civvie. A POG as you may say.
Hey I think I remember you, the guy who never really agrees with my opinions!

Well I was just saying, I don't think the M14 is a good option for the standard infantry. In other words I don't think the M14 will stand a chance in replacing the M4/M16 in this century as the standard issue rifle.
If I recall correctly, the M14 (or variant) was used as a DMR during that time, and still being used in limited numbers but primarily for designated marksmen.

How about a SCAR heavy?  Or the Colt (whatever is the one that can be configured to .308)? 

Other options for .308. 

I haven't played in the sandbox, but I've shot the SCAR heavy, FAL and other battle rifles.  To ME, .308 seems quite heavy, but I think adding .308 into the mix wouldn't necessarily be a bad thing.