If your boys are expecting most engagements to be fought at ranges over 100m, then it might pay to arm them with M-14s or Garands. But in thickly wooded, urban, and/or suburban terrain, 5.56mm weapons are going to be a lot handier. In other words, I think it depends on the mission and the type of terrain that these teams would be operating in. I mean, the M-16 is far from a perfect weapon, but there are some legitimate reasons why the U.S. military moved away from the M-14 and the whole "battle rifle" concept. Weapon and ammo weight, and recoil, especially during full auto fire, being at the top of the list.
I think you'd have a more flexible load-out by arming one man per squad with an M-14 (i.e. the designated marksman), one with a SAW or LMG (to provide a base of fire), one with a GL (either an M79 or underbarrel M204) and the rest with plain ol' M-16s/M-4s.
|