- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
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 upgrayedd
Posted on 3/5/18 at 5:28 pm to upgrayedd
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 on 3/5/18 at 5:30 pm to TaderSalad
quote:
glorified .22 cal.
It’s a good round for children because there’s little kick.
Posted on 3/5/18 at 5:37 pm to TaderSalad
I was told by my DI in basic that the m16 was designed to wound not kill.
Posted on 3/5/18 at 5:39 pm to TaderSalad
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 on 3/5/18 at 5:42 pm to TaderSalad
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 on 3/5/18 at 5:46 pm to TaderSalad
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 on 3/5/18 at 6:18 pm to TaderSalad
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 on 3/5/18 at 7:12 pm to TaderSalad
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 on 3/5/18 at 7:55 pm to TaderSalad
Should go back to a .308, or perhaps a .243.
Posted on 3/5/18 at 9:27 pm to TaderSalad
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 on 3/5/18 at 9:28 pm to TaderSalad
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.
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News