U.S. Army looking for a new rifle...

[ExciteBike66]

97. Here is the run-down:

1.) The OP stated that us whiny lib gun controllers are wetting our pants over a rifle that the US Military views as not-high-powered, and implied that gun controllers are wrong to assert that the civilian versions of that rifle are "high-powered".

2.) My point is that the rifle is capable of inflicting a lot of damage, and regardless of caliber, it can still be accurately portrayed as "high-powered".

My point is not limited to .223, 5.56, intermediate rounds, AR-15, etc. My point originally was about the language used by the gun-control movement.

Even at this late date, no one has pointed to any official definition of a "high-powered" rifle. Some have tried to argue that "intermediate" rounds are not "high-powered". However, the category of "intermediate" rounds includes 7.62 rounds, which seem to be considered adequate by the vets on this forum for military use (even the expert you cited, Gary K Roberts, argues for the military to use "intermediate" rounds (http://www.dtic.mil/ndia/2008/Intl/Roberts.pdf)).

I freely admit that larger caliber rifles tend to be MORE powerful than the AR-15, but that is not really the point at issue.