Started By
Message

re: Soldiers Hate the M4 and M16. The Pentagon Is Finally Doing Something about It.

Posted on 3/5/18 at 5:28 pm to
Posted by TaderSalad
mudbug territory
Member since Jul 2014
24677 posts
Posted on 3/5/18 at 5:28 pm to
quote:

Soldiers Hate the M4 and M16. The Pentagon Is Finally Doing Something about It.




I know a few infantry guys who saw combat. They hated the round. Despite the media making it sound like the .223 round was extremely powerful, there are reports of soldiers shooting guys 3 and 4 times and watching them run away.

I had heard the reason we switched to the .223/5.56 in Vietnam was so that we wouldn't kill many enemy combatants. If we wounded them, then it would take 1-2 others to carry him out.

Before I lost mine in the boating accident, I use to enjoy the glorified .22 cal.
Posted by TheHarahanian
Actually not Harahan as of 6/2023
Member since May 2017
19568 posts
Posted on 3/5/18 at 5:30 pm to
quote:

glorified .22 cal.


It’s a good round for children because there’s little kick.
Posted by geauxdaddy72
Shreveport,La
Member since Sep 2008
885 posts
Posted on 3/5/18 at 5:37 pm to
I was told by my DI in basic that the m16 was designed to wound not kill.
Posted by AUstar
Member since Dec 2012
17060 posts
Posted on 3/5/18 at 5:39 pm to
Supposedly the .223 round was used so that the enemy would have to spend more time picking up wounded from the battlefield. There was also another benefit: the M-16 and the .223 round were lighter than competing platforms like the AK-47. If you've ever held an M-16 with a full mag of ammo and then held an AK-47 with a full mag of ammo, there is a significant difference in weight. This is a big deal to the grunt having to lug around a rifle in the middle of a 95 degree jungle.

Posted by Ace Midnight
Between sanity and madness
Member since Dec 2006
89619 posts
Posted on 3/5/18 at 5:42 pm to
quote:

I had heard the reason we switched to the .223/5.56 in Vietnam was so that we wouldn't kill many enemy combatants.


This is an old wives' tale. The reason is weight. M16 was a smaller, lighter rifle than the M14. The M16's round is lighter than the M14, so you can carry more ammo.

As it is, weight was killing the average infantryman and still is. By the time you add up body armor, 35 pounds, rifle, 7 pounds, 7 magazines, 7 pounds, ACH, 3.25 pounds, so - that's 55 pounds and we haven't talked about uniform, boots or ruck, which can often get to another 35 or 40 pounds EASILY.

95 pounds is a figurative TON of weight (most don't carry it or don't carry it far, but still) even for a fit male of 225 pounds. And they want women to do that, right?

Now, double the weight of the rifle and almost double the weight of the ammo.
This post was edited on 3/5/18 at 5:44 pm
Posted by texag7
College Station
Member since Apr 2014
37574 posts
Posted on 3/5/18 at 5:46 pm to
quote:

I had heard the reason we switched to the .223/5.56 in Vietnam was so that we wouldn't kill many enemy combatants. If we wounded them, then it would take 1-2 others to carry him out.


That's a common myth. It was chosen for several reasons. Mainly being soldiers could carry more ammo than in 7.62x51.

Most rounds fired in combat are misses anyway. No reason to lug around all that extra weight when most of the rounds won't hit anything
Posted by CGSC Lobotomy
Member since Sep 2011
80459 posts
Posted on 3/5/18 at 6:18 pm to
The rounds used were never meant to kill, they were designed to spin and WOUND, theoretically causing Soldiers around them to be taken out of the fight to assist.
Posted by Kcrad
Diamondhead
Member since Nov 2010
55034 posts
Posted on 3/5/18 at 7:12 pm to
quote:

I had heard the reason we switched to the .223/5.56 in Vietnam was so that we wouldn't kill many enemy combatants. If we wounded them, then it would take 1-2 others to carry him out.



You heard wrong. The 5.56 was adopted because it kills people and Joe can carry lots of them compared to 7.62x51. The M16/M4 system is a fine method of introducing the enemy to the 5.56 .
Posted by Eli Goldfinger
Member since Sep 2016
32785 posts
Posted on 3/5/18 at 7:55 pm to
Should go back to a .308, or perhaps a .243.
Posted by MrCarton
Paradise Valley, MT
Member since Dec 2009
20231 posts
Posted on 3/5/18 at 9:27 pm to
quote:

I know a few infantry guys who saw combat. They hated the round. Despite the media making it sound like the .223 round was extremely powerful, there are reports of soldiers shooting guys 3 and 4 times and watching them run away.




This can and does happen with larger rounds too. The anecdotal experience of a couple of infantry guys is not evidence of effectiveness.

The 5.56 is lethal, but it has its compromise like any other round. The difference between 5.56 and other rounds is that the 5.56 has a huge advantage weight that is not in any way offset by a lack of lethality. 5.56 has killed a lot of people. Sure, a 12 ga slug might be "more lethal" at 10 feet, but dead=dead. More importantly, the 5.56 has enabled more covering fire and maneuvers than 12ga or 308 ever could.
Posted by MrCarton
Paradise Valley, MT
Member since Dec 2009
20231 posts
Posted on 3/5/18 at 9:28 pm to
quote:

I had heard the reason we switched to the .223/5.56 in Vietnam was so that we wouldn't kill many enemy combatants. If we wounded them, then it would take 1-2 others to carry him out.



This is the other half of the mythology of the m16. One half says its virtually a WMD, the other says it can't kill shite.
first pageprev pagePage 1 of 1Next pagelast page
refresh

Back to top
logoFollow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News
Follow us on Twitter, Facebook and Instagram to get the latest updates on LSU Football and Recruiting.

FacebookTwitterInstagram