the ultimate round for the military would be the 300 Jamison because of its short action and ballistic advantage. 223 and 308 just don't have the shock and awe of 30 06, 243, 22 250, 7mm mag, 270, 220 swift, 300 win mag , 25 06, 338 luapa, or other proven wildcat rounds that put those silly 223s and 308s to shame

short and fat means faster more complete burn and greater power 300 Jamison is the round of choice in my book

I have a relatively small frame, very little fat, and a moderate amount of muscle. Without having served in the military, I've fired M-16 and M-14 rifles, and found the latter to be very difficult to control, although I certainly acknowledge the stopping/killing power of 7.62x51 (.308).
Recoil isn't the only issue - there's also muzzle climb. The three round burst was, as I understand it, chosen to diminish effects of muzzle climb as a soldier or Marine fired their weapon. Tests showed that past round 3 or 4, the rest were misses or marginal hits. Short bursts increase hit probability on a specific target. Full auto is best reserved for suppressing fire.
In a gunfight, only hits count. All told, if I knew ahead of time I'd be in a firefight, I'd pick up an M-16 or an AK (different sized 7.62 round), and leave the M-14 in the armory.

Originally posted by anumohi
the ultimate round for the military would be the 300 Jamison because of its short action and ballistic advantage. 223 and 308 just don't have the shock and awe of 30 06, 243, 22 250, 7mm mag, 270, 220 swift, 300 win mag , 25 06, 338 luapa, or other proven wildcat rounds that put those silly 223s and 308s to shame

short and fat means faster more complete burn and greater power 300 Jamison is the round of choice in my book

Aside from the 30cal and 223 on your list, all of those rounds are complete powder whores and when you start weighing out how much powder it takes to move those rounds down range, there is the push on why none of them are military rounds.

They cant compete on the economic aspect of the other 4, 223/30/06/25

The M16 5.56 was a jungle gun adopted for Vietnam.
Works very good in jungles and heavy wooded forests.

The problem is many of the conflicts we have been in during the last 20 years have been in areas where you can see the enemy a half mile away and he can see you.

In afghanistan the enemy has the advantage as they set just outside 5.56 range(and 203 range) and spray the troops from dug in positions. if they get to much return fire they fade away.

Do this enough times and you are bound to hit someone.

In many cases air support does not help as the enemy is spread out so that its two or more bombs just to get one enemy.

Mixed units with both 5.56 and 7,62 weapons helps in some cases if used right. base defence

The US troops use of scopes on there weapons helps. but when you weapon does not do major damage when it does hit the enemy does not help.

308 just don't have the shock and awe of 30 06,

these is no difference between military 308 and 30-06 except case size.
30-06 military rounds had extra space the the case when less dense modern powders were used.
military 308 removes that unused space. and has the same powder load and bullet weight as the military 30-06 just a smaller case.

You can not compare civilian 30-06 with military 308 because the military 30-06 had to use the lighter 156 gr bullet because heavier bullets would bend the feed rods on M1 Garands and later converted M!s that used the 308 round.

The 6.5x48mm or 6.5 MPC (Multi-Purpose Cartridge) was created to utilize the 5.56 casing but have a larger projectile for more stopping power.

I think the 6.8 SPC is the best all-around compromise on performance and stopping power. As I understand it, much of SOCOM is already using that round.

I remember when the the army was testing and considering the XM-8. I was hoping they would field it in a 6.8 SPC version, but at the time, there was some issues with performance because of errors in SAMMI specs.They worked it out but only after they decided not to go with or look more into that caliber.

If the military doesn't adopt it, I hope it sees more growth in the public sector. I have noticed more and more manufacturers offering rifles in that caliber though.

edit:: The 6.5 MPC has the benefit of allowing the continued use of the 5.56 NATO magazines and lower receivers, requiring only a change in barrel. This would give the 6.5 MPC would the advantage of a cheaper upgrade for the force, more capacity over the 6.8 SPC and thus be a lighter payload for the soldier.

I am not familiar with how much testing or consideration the military has given to the 6.5 MPC. If the military were to go to a new weapons platform, then I would hope to see it chambered in 6.8 SPC. If they were only going to upgrade (which in this economy may be the only option if any) then the 6.5 MPC may be something.

I agree with the author of the threat that the troops do need a better round than the 5.56.

If given a choice of platform for the 5.56 round id skip over the ar and stick with my sig sauer 556 any day of the week. For .308 I much prefer the H&K 91 over the ak 47. What it really comes down to is having the right tool for the job at hand. in an urban setting I'm just as happy with the 5.56. If I'm in need of something for distance I'm likely to go for something in .308/7.62 or possibly something like a Mauser .270. Everyone has their own preferences and a weapon I'm more comfortable with is going to be much more accurate in my hands than another weapon I've never fired no matter how many people on the interweb say otherwise.

Now keep in mind ive never been in the military. However theres just something about a 50 cal rifle that you gotta love. Now in between the 5.56 and the 7.62 id pick the 7.62 every time just for the sheer nock down power. However im not slandering the 5.56 i think there are benifits and detractors to both rounds. The 6.5 and 6.8 rounds that are being developed now try to get the best of both worlds. I dont really think in the argument between the two calibers there is a clear victor. Its more just based off of individual choice.

Originally posted by Wolf321
The 6.5x48mm or 6.5 MPC (Multi-Purpose Cartridge) was created to utilize the 5.56 casing but have a larger projectile for more stopping power.

I think the 6.8 SPC is the best all-around compromise on performance and stopping power. As I understand it, much of SOCOM is already using that round.

I remember when the the army was testing and considering the XM-8. I was hoping they would field it in a 6.8 SPC version, but at the time, there was some issues with performance because of errors in SAMMI specs.They worked it out but only after they decided not to go with or look more into that caliber.

If the military doesn't adopt it, I hope it sees more growth in the public sector. I have noticed more and more manufacturers offering rifles in that caliber though.

edit:: The 6.5 MPC has the benefit of allowing the continued use of the 5.56 NATO magazines and lower receivers, requiring only a change in barrel. This would give the 6.5 MPC would the advantage of a cheaper upgrade for the force, more capacity over the 6.8 SPC and thus be a lighter payload for the soldier.

I am not familiar with how much testing or consideration the military has given to the 6.5 MPC. If the military were to go to a new weapons platform, then I would hope to see it chambered in 6.8 SPC. If they were only going to upgrade (which in this economy may be the only option if any) then the 6.5 MPC may be something.

I agree with the author of the threat that the troops do need a better round than the 5.56.

edit on 28-6-2011 by Wolf321 because: (no reason given)

the 6.8 is an absolute savage round. I have seen the terminal balistics on it and the caliber is just plain scary.

You are getting the velocity of the 556 with almost triple the energy at 250yds. That turns this caliber into a legit man stopper at anything under 750 yds.

The real beauty in this round is that it travels much like the 308 with out most of the windage adjustment that you will find in the "lobbing" of the 308. It is great urban/tactical sniper round and is flat out scary on the AR platform. I do see some slight issue with back pressure, but if they went to a more gas operated system (HK) this would take alot of the wear and tear out of a round this hot.

Originally posted by Hellforge
Now keep in mind ive never been in the military. However theres just something about a 50 cal rifle that you gotta love. Now in between the 5.56 and the 7.62 id pick the 7.62 every time just for the sheer nock down power. However im not slandering the 5.56 i think there are benifits and detractors to both rounds. The 6.5 and 6.8 rounds that are being developed now try to get the best of both worlds. I dont really think in the argument between the two calibers there is a clear victor. Its more just based off of individual choice.

that's might be true.

My Thoughts???

buy one of each and lots of both.