[slayerfanx55]

Glocks, because I love them.

And I would go with an ACR because they have such an effective anti-recoil system and you can change the calibre from 7.62 to 5.56.

They can also be chambered for the 6.8 Winchester SPC.

I'd have to go with an H&K G36, and an M1911.
Let's be honest, as much as I love the .308, and .338, the better choice for assault, and riflemen would be the 5.56. It's very accurate, and an 8-month old can handle that recoil. I chose the G36 because, well... H&K. It's so much more practical than an M4/M16, or other AR variants. The ambidextrous bolt handle, and selector make it very convenient for any one to use.(The M4's design is retarded. you have to take your hand off the trigger to load it.) The G36, is also much more reliable, and has over 1.5x the effective range of an M4. Maybe I'm just a G36 Fanboi. Not that I don't like AR's I love them. but they're not as practical.

 

[slayerfanx55]

Really? If both are chambered in 5.56 NATO (standard for those rifles in their military variants), what magic does the G36 use to achieve 1.5X range using the same cartridge...? I could agree that the piston vs gas tube design is superior, though.

G36

M4

And using the word retarded is, well- retarded. Just an opinion. You're free to say what you wish, but it's a matter of presentation, presentation, presentation... :shrug:

In those two links you posted. Look on the side. And scroll down a bit.
G36 effective range 800M
M4 effective range 500M

Besides. If you can keep your hand on the trigger, and use your off hand to pull the bolt back, you can resume shooting, and stay on target much more easily, right?

Now I'm not saying the AR's aren't good. And the right person can make it work. Look at Chris Costa, that guy is an animal. But for an army the G36 would be much better suited, as it's just so much easier to use, and well... H&K.
I do love the looks of the M4 more than the G36, but I've seen shooting tests, and durability tests and the G36 are always better. You hear about stuff going wrong with M4s all the time, but how often do you have a problem with an H&K gun? I will, however, give the rate of fire to the M4.
Funny coincidence, V3 GB(G36) is much better than the V2 GB(M4.) Irrelevant lol.

I'm not just knocking the M4, I mean if I had to use it in a war, I'll gladly take it. But If I had a choice, I'd take the G36.

 

[slayerfanx55]

G36 effective range 800M
M4 effective range 500M

I saw that, reconman, I'm not doubting your data- but I do have issues with the definition of "effective range" used in there.

Honestly, I am wondering how they are defining this alleged effective range. If it's the same cartridge, with the same energy- the effective range of the CARTRIDGE has to be the same, no? Trust me, having done my share (a LOT!) of benchrest shooting and accurizing, mostly on the 5.56/.223 and their variants, that effective range number is meaningless.

Effective range, how? How far I can put that round? How far that round has significant energy to incapacitate a target? Hit a man sized target, regardless of effect? In the end, this is pretty accurate, and "effective range" doesn't mean SQUAT when comparing platforms that fire the same round.

Now granted the G36 has in my opinion, far superior control surfaces, and the piston design makes for reliability that the AR/M4 platform cannot match. But range, with the same cartrdge? I call BS on that.

http://gunwiki.net/Gunwiki/FactorsOfEffectiveRange

This definition makes effective range VERY subjective, IMHO. Not meant as a slam, just a statement of data/viewpoint.
Respectfully, Rev.

I never thought about it that way, you make a good point. I just generally assumed that effective range was how far out it got.