AR15 or M1A1

[LCR]

and emphasizing all of your points with a period makes you oh so right, period. If the M14 could outshoot the M16 then why do military shooters using M16s always win at Camp Perry at 600yds? Ask someone who has shot at Camp Perry about the winds. The M14 loses, always.Period. While the 7.6X51 is used past 600yds it is not used in an M14. Not if they want to hit anything. Match grade M14s do not hold MOA at 600yd at Camp Perry. Where do they shoot 600yd MOA? I know that Springfield Armory puts out a Whitefeather M21 wannabe. Carlos Hathcock never used an M14 or M21. He used a bolt action, IIRC it was a Winchester Model 70 in .30-06.PERIOD

             I wasn't talking about "Camp Perry", I'm talking about the "Real World". Do you really believe that a 223 will buck the wind better than a 308? Everybody and their brother in the middle east are being issued M14's for Designated Marksman Rifles. Maybe you should call the DOD and let them know about the magazine articles you read.

     
LOL! You darn sure hit the nail on the head there BUT! That once again is a military scenario. Are we talking military or civilian use? What is this tread about. As far as gun magazine articles, I could not agree with you more. They for the most part are ARMCHAIR quarterbacks selling guns for manufacturers, and magazines for publishers.
As far as calling the Dept. of Defense, I would rather discuss them getting us constantly into POLICTICAL "POLICE ACTIONS" which NEVER WORK, but get a lot of good men killed. I had rather them WIN THE WAR, and fight the Police Actions THEMSELVES. JMO on the DOD.

    Mornin' Dee, I was going off Green Mtn's first post. When I saw "Circle the wagons", I figured the gent wanted something for SHTF, not Camp Perry.

[kevthebassman]

I don't have a dog in this fight, so pissing contests aside this is how I would break it down from my limited experiences.  Note that I have not handled or shot modified (match grade, carbine, etc) of either rifle:

M1: Harder hitting cartridge with more penetration.  Accuracy as good or nearly as good as AR-15 with open sights.  Reliable system.  

AR-15:  Ammunition cheaper, easier to carry, as is rifle.  Total glut of accessories, kits, parts, magazines, etc on the market.  System proven reliable despite criticism.  Accurate gun with iron sights.  Relatively inexpensive.

[SharonAnne]

Camp Perry is not 'real world'? What world is it in? It is not a matter of belief about what works, it is results. Camp Perry is on the shore of Lake Erie. It gets windy. If the M14 was better at range, in the wind, it would win; it doesn't.
Ask Derrick Martin of Accuracy Speaks. He is a gunsmith and did much of the development of the Army National Guards M16s. He spent 18 months in the sandbox. He repaired everything under the sun. The M14 cannot equal the M16 (not that atrocity M4) in combat. While having a .30 caliber in hand may give one a warm feeling, reaching out is the M16s forte. Yes it is used at range.
One area of Baghdad had so many head shots it was investigated to see if these were executions. They were long shots, 300M and longer, made by Squad Designated Marksmen shooting M16A4s with scope sights.
Yes, I learn from reading, and exchanges with those who 'been an dun'. I have not read a magazine in over 2 years. Obviously I have never been in combat. If I had, 'Nam would have been my war.

When one 'circles the wagons' one is pinned down. The BGs can sit back and snipe. You must return the favor. A Camp Perry M16 would be just the thing to keep them back 600yd or more. If M16s are no good for long range shooting 'in the real world',why then are our troops putting scopes on them?

Now if you want to take that 7.62X51 and put in an AR10 platform, now you are talking.

[Dee]

Well as you say SharonAnne you haven't been there, and a lot has changed since VietNam anyway. I also have not been to the sandbox as they call it, but have used the pistol, revolver, shotgun, and AR15 in anger of one sort or the other in a 20 year law enforcement career mostly tactical.
My sons both grew up in this environment and worked at the ranges as gofers for me, as I have been a tactical instructor since 1977, but am now retired.
To get to the gest of this post, my youngest son, by the time he was 16 yoa, has fired everything used by most police agencies short of a grenade launcher (shoulder fired) which we used to deliver gas.
He is a Combat VETERAN SGT. in the 82nd Airborne, and HAS BEEN THERE AND DUN THAT. Twice in Iraq, and once in Afghanistan. He and his crew fought house to house in Baghdad and that ATROCITY M4 you referred too was a much trusted weapon.
The evidence speaks for itself, and though there are many opinions from various folks the ones that have actually had the experience are the ones I listen to.
Being sniper trained, I cannot imagine taking a 300m head shot other than for entertainment purposes. A good solid torso hit being more desirable and practical at that range, and an M14 WILL buck the distance, and deliver more punch at that range. That SharonAnne is a FACT!
I see that you have lots of strong opinions here and I respect that, but if you don't read magazines as you say you don't you must be getting you opinion from somewhere. So where?
As far as Camp Perry being the real world? Camp Perry is a world of range finders, wind meters, bench rests, shooting vests, custom tailored loads, shooting GLOVES, tuned rifles, and millions of dollars of research. That is what Camp Perry is. A DISPLAY OF THE "LATEST" TECHNOLOGY "NOT AVAILABE" to most, including the combat soldier.

[LCR]

Camp Perry is not 'real world'? What world is it in? It is not a matter of belief about what works, it is results. Camp Perry is on the shore of Lake Erie. It gets windy. If the M14 was better at range, in the wind, it would win; it doesn't.
Ask Derrick Martin of Accuracy Speaks. He is a gunsmith and did much of the development of the Army National Guards M16s. He spent 18 months in the sandbox. He repaired everything under the sun. The M14 cannot equal the M16 (not that atrocity M4) in combat. While having a .30 caliber in hand may give one a warm feeling, reaching out is the M16s forte. Yes it is used at range.
One area of Baghdad had so many head shots it was investigated to see if these were executions. They were long shots, 300M and longer, made by Squad Designated Marksmen shooting M16A4s with scope sights.
Yes, I learn from reading, and exchanges with those who 'been an dun'. I have not read a magazine in over 2 years. Obviously I have never been in combat. If I had, 'Nam would have been my war.

When one 'circles the wagons' one is pinned down. The BGs can sit back and snipe. You must return the favor. A Camp Perry M16 would be just the thing to keep them back 600yd or more. If M16s are no good for long range shooting 'in the real world',why then are our troops putting scopes on them?

Now if you want to take that 7.62X51 and put in an AR10 platform, now you are talking.

       Back to Camp Perry are we?(I knew you would) This is not rocket science, it's simple grade school mathematics, a 223 at 600 yards has 250 ft lbs of energy remaining, so what good does accuracy do you? The "I can carry more ammo" argument- a staple of the AR deciples is a lost cause, if you have to shoot someone 3 times instead of just once to take them out of the fight, where is your advantage? In a firefight it doesn't matter how many targets you can engage, it only matters how many you can take out of the fight. If you shoot someone 2 or 3 times with a 223 and they're still shooting back.....you're still in s**t city. This is very, very bad, especially when 3 other people are shooting at you. The accuracy of your rifle doesn't mean ANYTHING, the only thing that matters is taking away your adversaries will to fight. That is the real world. And that is what the M14 does. I'm trying my best to guide you through this maze of smoke and mirrors you seem to lost in. At any rate, I admire your sand.

[Dee]

LCR, while I disagree with much of SharonAnne's theory, and what I consider in some of it, "disinformation", I also will disagree with you on the fighting qualities of the 223 and 308. The human being is the thinnest skinned animal on the planet, and penetration from a a rifle, is not rocket science either.
I have actually seen as many folks killed with a 22 rifle as with a shotgun. Possibly more, as they are generally more available to the average person.
SHOT PLACEMENT, and MARKSMANSHIP is the key to stopping a fight in it's tracks. You may make all the shoulder shot, John Wayne movie wounds one pleases with either the 308 OR the 223, and if the opponent has the mindset and the sand to continue, he will.
I saw what appeared to be a very determined fighter take a round thru the calf of his leg with no bones, major veins or arteries hit. He went down like a turd in a well. I also looked at photos of another officers' investigation of a chest hit with total penetration, from a twelve gauge, and the man ran a block before he went down. He was dead, and someone forgot to tell him.
Shot placement IS ALWAYS the issue in a fight REGARDLESS of caliber. Major caliber IS an advantage in pistol rounds, and rifle rounds but, bad shooting will not most times be "made up for" with a major caliber. A good hit is a good hit, and a bad one is a bad one.
The windage bucking capability and the punch left at extreme ranges are different things to consider. I will say the head shot story in Baghdad, sounds like just that. A story.

[LCR]

LCR, while I disagree with much of SharonAnne's theory, and what I consider in some of it, "disinformation", I also will disagree with you on the fighting qualities of the 223 and 308. The human being is the thinnest skinned animal on the planet, and penetration from a a rifle, is not rocket science either.
I have actually seen as many folks killed with a 22 rifle as with a shotgun. Possibly more, as they are generally more available to the average person.
SHOT PLACEMENT, and MARKSMANSHIP is the key to stopping a fight in it's tracks. You may make all the shoulder shot, John Wayne movie wounds one pleases with either the 308 OR the 223, and if the opponent has the mindset and the sand to continue, he will.
I saw what appeared to be a very determined fighter take a round thru the calf of his leg with no bones, major veins or arteries hit. He went down like a turd in a well. I also looked at photos of another officers' investigation of a chest hit with total penetration, from a twelve gauge, and the man ran a block before he went down. He was dead, and someone forgot to tell him.
Shot placement IS ALWAYS the issue in a fight REGARDLESS of caliber. Major caliber IS an advantage in pistol rounds, and rifle rounds but, bad shooting will not most times be "made up for" with a major caliber. A good hit is a good hit, and a bad one is a bad one.
The windage bucking capability and the punch left at extreme ranges are different things to consider. I will say the head shot story in Baghdad, sounds like just that. A story.

  I would have to agree 100%, and add that in a firefight, shooting from cover into cover, around corners, through walls, moving and running, perfect shot placement is not always an option and I feel the bigger caliber would increase ones chances at survival, especially when shooting through cover. If the 5.56 NATO round worked, they wouldn't be increasing bullet weight every few months and trying to replace it with 6.8 spc, 6.5 Grendel and 7.62. It's just not putting people down and soldiers are complaining. If it wasn't broke, they wouln't try and fix it. I would also like to add that the AR-15 is a fine target rifle, but paper targets don't shoot back. Merry Christmas all.

[Cheesehead]

I do not see what so hard to believe about the "head shot" story. I can imagine our fine troops taking a shot at an enemy peeking out a window or door, with only their head presenting a reasonable target, I would. And, marginal shots happen. A larger caliber involved with a marginal shot might be a better fight stopper, I think. But this is speculation on my part since I have never been in a gun fight, but I do own an M1A and an AR15 in 6.8. Both rifles are MOA with the right hand loads.

Cheese

[Dee]

Cheese I don't disagree that it can be done. When in tune and constantly training (and much younger) I could guarantee a head shot at three hundred yards if the target was STATIONARY. However, in a combat role with everyone constantly moving, I see more room for a hit than a head shot. There is no doubt however that it IS DONE.
I do doubt however to the degree that it would cause an investigation of possible executions. If one however looks at a sniper, he IS more or less executing unsuspecting enemy that are unaware they are in anyone's sights.
Also, most of these designated snipers have had very little sniper training, if any. Sometimes the squad leader gives the rifle to the best shot in the squad.
I have watched film on Blackwater snipers in Baghdad, and many of these guys were using scoped ARs, AND were ex-special forces, but watching them shoot, and having been trained myself, I saw little time for head shots.
Our trained military snipers are without a doubt some of the finest shots in the world, but most want torso hits. A wounded enemy ties up TWO unwounded enemy in trying to evacuate him. A MISSED head shot is a missed shot, and snipers are not in the business to miss, and warn the enemy of their position.
I will at first opportunity talk to my son when he is in the right frame of mind to discuss it. He worked closely with Delta, and the Rangers in Baghdad. He will know.

[Lloyd Smale]

dee the type of house clearing we were training to do we werent worried about over penetration as a matter of fact if it hit another it was a bonus shot. I can see it being a problem if your clearing houses as a police officers though. Dee i also totaly agree on your assesment of how much it takes to kill a human or at least stop them. Most men when hit by a gun go down right there, any gun! Were not wild animals that are programed to escape the threat. Were  big babys that dont like pain and as you stated have no god give natural defense to guns like a thick hide. A 223, especially if it can be loaded with soft nosed ammo which it can unless your a soldier, is a wicked killer. Ive shot deer in the chest with them and it looked like an explosion happened inside. Put a 223 soft point into anyone in a vital area or even in the guts and hes not going to live or have enough life in him to give much of a fight. It will flat turn your insides to mush. It will probably do as much more tissue damage then a 762 ball bullet. As to penetration, how many here including myself have seen holes in there steal targets from 223s. Somehow i doubt my skin is tougher then steal. At least id dont think so when im sober.

Lloyd, I pretty much agree with all you've said here with one exception on house clearing which I have done a BUNCH OF.
The M1A WILL shoot with the AR15 or M16 the right load, and the right SHOOTER, and minute of angle is hard at times to determine when one is measuring a hole in a target that is 8 calibers larger than a 22.
You are also correct in that are we talking about BENCH rifles on this thread or are we talking about FIGHTING rifles here?

Now back to the house clearing issue. I have as I said done a BUNCH of that over a 20 year career, and the very LAST rifle I would choose for that task is one in 308. WAAAYYY Too much penetration! If we have gotten to the issue of clearing the house we have probably already taken control of the OUTSIDE of the house. That means friendly personnel OUTSIDE. I for one do not want to get into a fight INSIDE with FRIENDLIES "outside".
The shotgun is the way to go, or in second place a major caliber semi-auto pistol, and in third place an AR15 or M16 in an M4 type configuration.
I personally preferred the Model 1100 Rem. heavily modified, while the military gave my son a Persuader in Mossberg for house to house in Baghdad.
I also agree with you on sniping in a survival situation. It is the LAST THING you should want (a confrontation) in such a scenario. Avoidance is paramount, unless you are in a Rambo movie.
I also agree on the portability of the AR over the M14. I have humped both for several days at a time hunting dopers in the river bottoms. The AR gets the nod hands down.

[Empty Quiver]

This is very simple. Buy the one you are not sure about, then shoot it till you can purchase the other one. You know as well as we all do that you want both. Buy purchasing the lesser you will be motivated to get the other sooner.

[LCR]

dee the type of house clearing we were training to do we werent worried about over penetration as a matter of fact if it hit another it was a bonus shot. I can see it being a problem if your clearing houses as a police officers though. Dee i also totaly agree on your assesment of how much it takes to kill a human or at least stop them. Most men when hit by a gun go down right there, any gun! Were not wild animals that are programed to escape the threat. Were  big babys that dont like pain and as you stated have no god give natural defense to guns like a thick hide. A 223, especially if it can be loaded with soft nosed ammo which it can unless your a soldier, is a wicked killer. Ive shot deer in the chest with them and it looked like an explosion happened inside. Put a 223 soft point into anyone in a vital area or even in the guts and hes not going to live or have enough life in him to give much of a fight. It will flat turn your insides to mush. It will probably do as much more tissue damage then a 762 ball bullet. As to penetration, how many here including myself have seen holes in there steal targets from 223s. Somehow i doubt my skin is tougher then steal. At least id dont think so when im sober.

Lloyd, I pretty much agree with all you've said here with one exception on house clearing which I have done a BUNCH OF.
The M1A WILL shoot with the AR15 or M16 the right load, and the right SHOOTER, and minute of angle is hard at times to determine when one is measuring a hole in a target that is 8 calibers larger than a 22.
You are also correct in that are we talking about BENCH rifles on this thread or are we talking about FIGHTING rifles here?

Now back to the house clearing issue. I have as I said done a BUNCH of that over a 20 year career, and the very LAST rifle I would choose for that task is one in 308. WAAAYYY Too much penetration! If we have gotten to the issue of clearing the house we have probably already taken control of the OUTSIDE of the house. That means friendly personnel OUTSIDE. I for one do not want to get into a fight INSIDE with FRIENDLIES "outside".
The shotgun is the way to go, or in second place a major caliber semi-auto pistol, and in third place an AR15 or M16 in an M4 type configuration.
I personally preferred the Model 1100 Rem. heavily modified, while the military gave my son a Persuader in Mossberg for house to house in Baghdad.
I also agree with you on sniping in a survival situation. It is the LAST THING you should want (a confrontation) in such a scenario. Avoidance is paramount, unless you are in a Rambo movie.
I also agree on the portability of the AR over the M14. I have humped both for several days at a time hunting dopers in the river bottoms. The AR gets the nod hands down.

    I like that last line, Lloyd. . 223 softpoints are very devastating, but getting through the steel plate isn't the problem, it's having enough energy to penetrate or at least incapacitate the guy on the other side wearing a flak jacket or some other form of makeshift body armor. One also has to consider deflection when shooting through cover or obsticles, the light 22 caliber bullet will deflect much, much more than the .30, further decreasing your chances of hitting your target on the other side. That's what I meant by shooting through cover in my previous post. The larger caliber gives your adversary less places to hide, therefore, increasing your chances of leaving them where you found them.

[Dee]

Gentlemen these scenarios are endless. There is no perfect rifle, only good judgement and God's will. Let me give another example, to prove this, not as a know it all, but as an example of ever changing circumstances.
I and my unit were once called in to extract a gentleman from a mobile home whom was distraught, heavily armed, and dangerous.
After I had gather all intel, and sealed the neighborhood, negotiations began, and were very slow moving. Hours passed, and some of my team members wanted to make a hard entry with several higher ranking officers agreeing.
I refused the notion, and opted to continue negotiations. Several more hours passed and we walked the man out under his own power. No one got hurt.
This is what we found on entering the house.
The couch had been turned over with one end facing the front door (the rear door was barricaded) and several mattresses were covering the couch. Quilts and pillows cover each end of the couch, and then man had backed in feet first facing the door. He was laying there waiting. Had I yielded to pressure and allowed my men to make entry he would have killed each one as they entered the door, with two shotguns that were still laying in front of his homemade fortress.
As a side note all windows were TOO HIGH off the ground to make any safe entry.
Which rifle would have worked best here? Neither! My synopsis is: Each has weaknesses, and each strengths, and it is not practical to carry both. Sorry for the side track but, I hope I made my point clearer, if I have one.

[Lloyd Smale]

Dee im just put one together for house busting. Its a 50 beowulf and my loads are pushing a 420 lfngc cast out of linotype at about 1600 fps. Should shoot end to end through a trailer house!

[drdougrx]

So....thanks....thanks alot...its CHRISTmas and because of you guys I had to go and put yet another bushy on layway.....this time a DCM Target....thanks alot....I also have a strpped lower that I haven't figured out what to do with......why o why do I read these threads......

BTW...my dealer tells me all ARs are flying off his shelves, he buys 24 a week whe n he can get them, as are the 100 or so stripped lowers he bought a week ago...get'm while you can.   

[Dee]

LOL! What is a good price on a lower now drdougrx? I haven't even looked at one in years.

It ain't the trailer houses Lloyd. It's what's in'em. Also that load sounds dangerous on BOTH ENDS!

[Lloyd Smale]

just got a complete lower for the beowulf upper. it had a rra parts kit and a rra retractable stock and was 250. I dont know if i did good or not but have seen complete lower selling for over 400 since this crap started and i see stripped ones as high as 200. by the way if anyone has a cheap stripped lower i might be intersted.

[drdougrx]

Hi Guys,

Paid $129 the stripped lower (DPMS), now they are selling for $159. Complete lowers were $249 (DPMS) and now are $350.  Here's alink to my dealer:

www.fsguns.com

[Totenkopf]

It just boils down to personal preference. Neither is better. Under different scenarios each will outshine the other. I have carried both in combat. We ran a 5 man team most of the time. Generally 1 man always carried a m1a as a scout sniper role. The rest of us used the m4. Personally I favor an m4. Quicker target recovery after shot due to less recoil. Lighter weight and more rounds on tap. Faster target acquisition due to less mass. More compact design for tight quarters. Less muzzle blast when pinned down in prone position. Easier mag changes. Less complicated internal system to fail. And more accuracy does matter in combat. The more accurate rifle the more room for error in a stressful situation.
 Most people base the AR on a 55gr round. If using this you are outgunned. It is a very poor performer. Even the 62 gr is marginal.
 Towards the end of my career we started using 77 gr sierra mk bullets. Many times we were in fire fights at or over 600 meters. The m4 is more than adequate at anchoring targets at long range. The last bit I did was Iraq with the 6.8. It is a much better round than the 556. Will either out penetrate or match the energy of a 7.62 nato, absolutely not. But the diminutive m4 kept me alive through countless bad scenarios in several countries.
 So in closing I would pick the AR. I do own both. However most likely all I have to worry about these days is hunting, so both get used. So no wrong answer on which is best. Just which you feel more comfortable using. After all that's all that matters, not what I or anyone else feels but your own oppinion.

[Cheesehead]

Totenkopf

I did not know the 6.8 was used at all by the military. To what extent is it used and in what rifle configuration?

Cheese

[Dee]

It just boils down to personal preference. Neither is better. Under different scenarios each will outshine the other. I have carried both in combat. We ran a 5 man team most of the time. Generally 1 man always carried a m1a as a scout sniper role. The rest of us used the m4. Personally I favor an m4. Quicker target recovery after shot due to less recoil. Lighter weight and more rounds on tap. Faster target acquisition due to less mass. More compact design for tight quarters. Less muzzle blast when pinned down in prone position. Easier mag changes. Less complicated internal system to fail. And more accuracy does matter in combat. The more accurate rifle the more room for error in a stressful situation.
 Most people base the AR on a 55gr round. If using this you are outgunned. It is a very poor performer. Even the 62 gr is marginal.
 Towards the end of my career we started using 77 gr sierra mk bullets. Many times we were in fire fights at or over 600 meters. The m4 is more than adequate at anchoring targets at long range. The last bit I did was Iraq with the 6.8. It is a much better round than the 556. Will either out penetrate or match the energy of a 7.62 nato, absolutely not. But the diminutive m4 kept me alive through countless bad scenarios in several countries.
 So in closing I would pick the AR. I do own both. However most likely all I have to worry about these days is hunting, so both get used. So no wrong answer on which is best. Just which you feel more comfortable using. After all that's all that matters, not what I or anyone else feels but your own oppinion.

It too have owned both, but only used the M4 professionally. All you say I agree with, and you should know. You have been there with BOTH. Good info, thanks.

[Lloyd Smale]

good post and a reminder that were not soldiers anymore or policeman (at least most of us) and golphers and groundhogs dont shoot back. In an urban survival situation a man with a .223 and a pile of ammo is going to be way ahead of the average guy. Hell a guy with a 22 will be.

It just boils down to personal preference. Neither is better. Under different scenarios each will outshine the other. I have carried both in combat. We ran a 5 man team most of the time. Generally 1 man always carried a m1a as a scout sniper role. The rest of us used the m4. Personally I favor an m4. Quicker target recovery after shot due to less recoil. Lighter weight and more rounds on tap. Faster target acquisition due to less mass. More compact design for tight quarters. Less muzzle blast when pinned down in prone position. Easier mag changes. Less complicated internal system to fail. And more accuracy does matter in combat. The more accurate rifle the more room for error in a stressful situation.
 Most people base the AR on a 55gr round. If using this you are outgunned. It is a very poor performer. Even the 62 gr is marginal.
 Towards the end of my career we started using 77 gr sierra mk bullets. Many times we were in fire fights at or over 600 meters. The m4 is more than adequate at anchoring targets at long range. The last bit I did was Iraq with the 6.8. It is a much better round than the 556. Will either out penetrate or match the energy of a 7.62 nato, absolutely not. But the diminutive m4 kept me alive through countless bad scenarios in several countries.
 So in closing I would pick the AR. I do own both. However most likely all I have to worry about these days is hunting, so both get used. So no wrong answer on which is best. Just which you feel more comfortable using. After all that's all that matters, not what I or anyone else feels but your own oppinion.

[Totenkopf]

Totenkopf

I did not know the 6.8 was used at all by the military. To what extent is it used and in what rifle configuration?

Cheese

Not really sure to what extent I have been out of the loop for a couple of years. It is in the m4, I believe the seals use it in a SCAR. Saw some mercs for blackwater using them to snipe out to 800 meters in a varmint rifle ar semi set up.
We started testing this caliber in Bragg probably 1999 or 2000. Under the US Special Operations Command (SOCOM). 1st Special Forces Operational Detachment - Delta first used it in Afghanistan. When I was in Iraq Rangers were using it. No idea if it has went further than that. Actually the 6.8 was created by the military and didn't hit the civilian market until 4 or 5 years ago. It was intended for the xm8, but doubtful it will make it any time soon due to the overturning of the Hague convention in 1990. Which allows our soldiers to use hp bullets now. Since the 77 gr hp and the m4 are so effective and Dems usually don't like the military much odds are the m4 will be around another decade or better. The 6.8 has more energy and better ballistics than a 7.62x39mm. And you still get to keep the proven m4 platform.