Gun Trouble
Gun Trouble by MG (Ret.) Robert H. Scales, The Atlantic
The rifle that today's infantry uses is little changed since the 1960s—and it is badly flawed. Military lives depend on these cheap composites of metal and plastic. So why can't the richest country in the world give its soldiers better ones? …
Any lost edge, however small, means death. A jammed weapon, an enemy too swift and elusive to be engaged with aimed fire, an enemy out of range yet capable of delivering a larger volume of return fire—any of these cancel out all the wonderfully superior and expensive American air- and sea-based weapons that may be fired in support of ground troops. A soldier in basic training is told that his rifle is his best friend and his ticket home. If the lives of so many depend on just the development of a $1,000, six-pound composite of steel and plastic, why can’t the richest country in the world give it to them? …
MG Scales’ critique almost reads like advocacy towards the general adoption of the battle rifle over the assault rifle carbine, which would go against current Western military trend.
As U.S. tactical airpower remains omnipotent in most cases of open warfare, it would seem that in most cases of urban warfare, where the opponent is usually armed with AK-type assault rifles, the advantage of the smaller caliber in being able to carry a larger number of rounds would be of advantage, as is the current case in the fielding of the M4 and G36.
There have been cases where the range and knockdown capability of a battle rifle is desirable, as has been identified in certain firefights taking place during OIF. Likewise, this was experienced during the Iran-Iraq War, where there were typical battlefield experiences of Iranian G3 battle rifles outranging Iraqi AK-type assault rifles.
Perhaps the question might be better applied in relative terms of small unit, small arms composition, rather than a general replacement of type which if my reading of MG Scales criticism is correct, this is what he is advocating.