It's a mathematical principle that larger objects have greater

File: dfe3a7b7-a97a-4e5d-b91a-1a67115b5f75.gif (2MB, 302x281px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 302x281px

>>33746198
What are you asking, exactly?

From what I can tell, all you did was create a thread for no reason.

>>33746215
I'm arguing that 5.56 mm is not a viable rifle caliber.

File: It begins.png (331KB, 583x571px) Image search: [Google]

331KB, 583x571px

>>33746224

File: 028-scul.jpg (28KB, 341x454px) Image search: [Google]

28KB, 341x454px

>>33746224
>I'm arguing that 5.56 mm is not a viable rifle caliber.

>>33746198

You make this thread every day.

>>33746224
Just because 6.5 is better doesn't mean 5.56 is shit.

File: Retard.jpg (7KB, 259x195px) Image search: [Google]

7KB, 259x195px

>>33746198
>>33746224

>>33746224
Viable for what? I need more info, anon.

>>33746224
thanks for your input. have a nice day

>>33746224
Everyone who argues this should receive a controlled pair to their center mass

>>33747425
Basically this. It has been adequate for almost every theater we have been in with the exception of Afghanistan and even there it is great in villages, night raids, and in close base defense. Would a battle rifle for that region be better hell yes. Would it be worth the cost when we have air, artillery, and various vehicle based weapons. ....... well we decided no over a decade ago so too late to fund it now. So for whatever 6-7 mm round you are shilling for yes could work better but you have to unfuck bureaucratic inertia, fet the military industrial complex on board, convince NATO (britts will be salty on their .260 or .270 forget which) and retrain a fuckton of soldiers on a weapon system (yes can be mitigated if ar template) for a bullet that is only obviously superior for controlling poppy fields.
t. one who fucking considered it for fucking months