I've made no secret my lack of love for the M16/AR-15 as a "fun" gun to shoot. As an effective, wildly modular, extremely capable weapon of war? It has no equal in the realm of currently available, affordable, mass produce-able, capable, and easy to learn service rifles. The M16 https://twitter.com/TomHeartsTanks/status/1259654617274580993

of 2020 is not the M16 of the 1960s. It exists as both the M4 (in its modern form), the M27 IAR (a piston variant based on the HK416), and in smaller numbers as the M16A4. It is a wildly capable rifle, that supersedes its Russian and Chinese counterparts, is extremely reliable,

capable of accepting loads of upgrades in terms of optics, greater accuracy (see free floating barrels), accessories, and the most modern 5.56 ammunition available. It's as varied as the AKM/AK74 in terms of sizes available and mission types, while exceeding each in terms of

range, accuracy, ballistics upon impact. Most arguments made for adopting a new round center on being heavier/higher velocity (to penetrate more armor), and capable of greater range. These fail on two basic points: our primary enemies are still wearing armor 5.56 can penetrate

and only one branch (the Marine Corps) is even attempting to use hte full range of 5.56 (roughly 500-600m) and even the Corps is realistic that combat engagements at that range are extremely unrealistic. The Army, and this is not a dig, has lower standards for marksmanship and

does not take advantage of even the M16/M4s service range, with most quals at 300m or less. And this isn't stupid. Most combat occurs at 200m or less. You should still train beyond that because the enemy gets a vote too and sometimes chooses to engage further out. But until the

training (and optics) catch up to longer range engagements (which will historically [and for ALL time thus far] fall far more into intermediate & short range), and consistently keep up with that training, the idea of adopting a round or rifle that can engage beyond the range the

average US trained combatantat can engage is simply not worth the HUMONGOUS costs associated with adopting a new caliber (and rifle), which necessitates our (less defense oriented) allies doing the same. 5.56 has been killing opponents of America since the 60s and just because

something has worked for a long time is not a reason to keep it. But the threat has not advanced beyon the capability of 5.56 and continued advancements in both the round and its host rifle and accessories has ensured 5.56 remains a potent and valuable round today.

Tags: I'm too gone for this. Tag people you think should read this.