This debate has been going on for quite some time with many members giving their recommendations some based on the "Looks" some on the caliber and some just for the sake of it.
First thing to be very clear baout is there does not exist one "Ultimate weapon", but there are many "Right" weapons for the various kinds of roles. Ideal would be to employ various different platforms best suited for various different roles, this can be done on a smaller scale for specialized operations but some kind of standardization would be desirable for mass deployment, firstly for the logistical reasons and secondly for the cost considerations.
Many members here critize 5.56 NATO for being ineffective (mostly based on reports coming out of Afghanistan), they are totally wrong. To start with 5.56 was designed/meannt to be "ineffective".... Ok...don't geet me wrong...heere is the explanation.
As an infantry man your primary objective is "NOT" to "kill" the oppponent soldier, but to put him out of action. whats the difference? A dead soldier is a deadsoldier, one less gun to fight with. An injured soldier is a logistical problem for the enemy, you not only put onesoldier out of commission by injuring him but also make 2 or 4 other soldiers to attend him/carry him. Use a transport Jeep/ambulance/helo to transport him back, pressure on hospital, on doctors, on medical logistics etc. etc. To this end both NATO 5.56 and Russian 5.45 are very effecctive, but this strategy does not work with irregular combatants like Taliban.
Coming back to PA main battelfield gun, we will have to identify the possible scenarios where this weapon will be / is expected to be used. Once we have identified the scenarios/roles we can then put down basic operational criteria like minimum effective range, accuracy in MOA, type of operation (single fire, Tri/Penta burst, Full auto, etc), mag capacity, use in extreme conditions (min/max temp), weight, attachment systemm etc..
Now based on these parameters a broad list can be drawn of the available weapons which can be compared against each other based on paper information to make a final list of 5/6 weapons, which can then be evaluated by offical tendering process, this is where the finer details like TOT, liscence manufacture, right to export, cost, and financingarrangements become part of equation.
Second option can be a to decideto develop a new plateform chambered for a totallly newcaliber, which is only possible when you have a well developed competetive infrastructure, which unfortunately we don't. We have been manufacturing G3 and MP5 variants for more than three decades but haven't come up with one single weapon of our own "design". Don't confuse it with adding folding or retractable stocks or chambering the same platform for anew caliber.
Now all this exercise wouldn't start because some PDF fanboy thought that "G3" was not cllo anymore or dreamed of a new "killler" looking gun. This would start if the operator (in this case PA) found any serious deficiencies or comes up with a new battelfield requirement that can not be met with the existing platform.
M16 or all of it's other variants though look pretty "cool", is quite accurate at 500/600 meters but this gun has some serious drawbacks...it's a maintenance hungry gun and prone to jamming specially in dusty /sandy environments, is "ineffective" killer but still it serves with majority of US ground forces.
AK47 and its variants (AK74/AK97 etc) are the most widely used, are very robust, durable and dependable wepon of alll times but seriously suck in terms of accuracy, but still half the wold armies still use it as their mainstay infantry weapon.
Now coming to G3, what are the real issues here? Weight, range, accuracy, mag capacity, caliber?Lets examine and compare with other weapons to see how far off this wepon is from other famous weapons used by major Armies and what advantage/disadvantage it gives to a regula PA soldier (not considering Special units here).
Comparison in the next post tomorrow.