I don't know too much about guns but everyone is "ak vs. M16".... Well is the AR-10 horiible? Isn't it basically a M16 that fires 308, which is the stopping power people want. And if the military was to restock would an AR-10 be a step up? And are parts between the M16 and AR-10 interchangable?

Don't know much about the AR-10. IIRC, it was designed before the AR-15/M-16 series, for the competition the M-14 won.

IIRC, the AR-10 led to the development of the Stoner SR-25/Navy Mark 11, Mod 0/Army M110 Semiauto Sniper System (a.k.a., SASS), all of which have M-16 parts commonality.

So if we went back to a 7.62mm rifle for general issue, yeah, a weapon based on the preceding might make sense for spare parts and training reasons. IIRC, the AR-10 series has the same manual of arms.

Don't know if it would be a "step up"; that's a value judgment. Depends what you mean, or what yardstick you want to use.

Bore, range, effects on machinery and structures?

Weight of ammo, easy recoil, salvo fire, beaten zone?

Both 5.56mm or 7.62mm have their upside and downside. There are arguments all over the world (especially, the Internet) about where those start and end. Terms like "stopping power" only get the ball rolling.

IMHO, it never stops.

thanks

The AR-10 was the original design, basically speaking. However, AR-15 series has gone through a lot of changes obviously and the current AR-10 is pretty much just an AR-15 chambered for the 7.62 NATO.

The thing to remember is that "stopping power" is not everything. There's also weight, recoil, and bulk. Plus, the standard 7.62, the 150gr M80 ball, does not generally fragment, unlike the M193 or M855 5.56 rounds, thus the 5.56 rounds actually have better "stopping power". Now, the M118LR 7.62 does fragment and is superior to all 5.56 rounds in terminal ballistics, range, penetration, etc. But, once again, there is the issue of weight. There is always going to be a trade off on something be it weight, power, etc. There is no "one round to rule them all."