Why is the military using small calibers?

Have to point to Lawyer Daggits post. It's about wounding and taking several people out of the fight in tending to the wounded. It's not about "stopping power".
 
Taking half a dozen men out to treat a single wounded man was pre-helicopter evac and improved medical services. There is a huge difference between the MASH hospitals of WWII and Korea and being able to do emergency surgery in a comparatively short time after getting shot and spending the next night in a hospital in Germany or on a transport to Walter Reed.

Expecting the Insurgents to share our concern for their wounded is to expect them to have the same reverence for life and their fellow man as we do. Enough with the tumbling bullets wounding the enemy and taking half a dozen of their fighters out of action to care for him. It isn't happening.
 
Expecting the Insurgents to share our concern for their wounded is to expect them to have the same reverence for life and their fellow man as we do.
Click to expand...

One of the most, if not theeee most logical thoughts on this here thread...I've always thought the same way as well.
 
I don't see how it takes six men to take care of a wounded man. You can also become a casualty without getting a scratch; it's called being captured. In that case, the enemy gets to take care of you, only the care varies a lot.
 
The reason the military uses the 5.56 is because originally they could use hollow points, then it worked just fine but now that you can't because of the Geneva convention, hollow points are illegal.
Click to expand...

Wow, there is so much incorrect data in that sentence it's not even funny.
 
Before this thread takes off in a new direction, everybody should google both the Hague Convention and the Geneva Convention. One established what ammo could and could not be used by IMPERIAL powers many years ago. The other established the International Red Cross. A lot of people get these 2 conventions confused.
 
Actually, Bartholomew, it is very possible to kill another person, in THREE different ways, without hitting a vital organ. The first way is if you center punch a person just right the shock wave of the bullet passing very close to the heart can disrupt the beating of the heart. As such, disruption of the heartbeat is like a very bad heart attack with death as the result. The second way for a person to die is from the shock of being shot. Yes, shock can kill you. If a person dies from shock, there may not be any marks at all on the body. The third way is from blood loss. If a person is shot just right, a good example is the major blood system veins in the upper legs, a person could bleed out without there being even a single major organ having been hit. In fact, if I remember right from my sniper training most people can bleed out in under 2 minutes. But I am getting old so I might be off a little on the approximate time. But I understand what you are saying in general, so, yes, for a decent or fast killing shot you generally DO have to hit a major organ or do damage to the CNS (central nervous system) in a severe fashion. Sort like putting a bullet through the brain.
 
I'll have to agree with Art Eatman based upon my recent experiences. The idea behind no collateral damage holds true for the most part within "city limits." Artillery does in fact advance with the ground troops up until some sort of control is gained especially in areas not covered with regular citizens. In highly populated areas though, the 5.56 has been fine because it's well within it's range and if it's not doing the job air is called. Air and IDF assets are still widely used if PID of hostile act or intent is gained, however. Don't rule out mortars!

-Max
 
Politics and greed have ALWAYS been the driving factor behind selection of military weapons. When the .223/5.56 caliber M-16 was FORCED upon the U.S. infantrymen in Viet Nam who did NOT want it, the old standbys of politics and greed won out. Those of us in the field either traded off the M-16 rifles for something more effective, like a captured AK-47, or stole something else to use in lieu of the M-16. One guy I knew managed to "relieve" a Huey helicopter of an M-60 machinegun and then cut down the barrel of it to his liking. That "liberated" M-60 became his personal gun until he left Viet Nam.

I've heard that even now soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan are replacing their .223/5.56 M-4 carbines, when they can, with heavier and bigger diameter boomsticks. When they can, they try for the 6.8 SPC carbines to use and like them. If they can't get a 6.8 SPC carbine they go for the old standby AK-47 rifles when they can get them. So things haven't changed that much in all the years between Viet Nam and now.

Hopefully, one day soon, the desires of the combat infantrymen will be heard when it comes to the debate of how useless/ineffective the .223/5.56 round is when used in combat. Until then, the average American G.I. will still be stealing guns to go to war and with which to survive.
Click to expand...

My father served in Vietnam and when my youngest brother (adopted he is quite a bit younger than the other siblings, but that is another story) got home from Iraq my father asked him about this. My brother said that he had shot some AKs for fun, but in combat it is important to use the guns that every one else is so that you can borrow or give out your ammo as needed and so that no body hears the AK and mistakes them for the other side.

He stated that he did hear some people talking about wishing they had a different gun (usually a hunting rifle from home) but that it was mostly in jest. So long as the guns are working most people don't complain about them.

My father claims he used 2 guns in Vietnam and that one was a confiscated 12Ga sawed off. Who knows...
 
Deja Vu, at many field locations things were not always up to supposed Army or Marine standards. The last field location where I was we kept a number of enemy weapons with us there. We had one enemy machinegun that we kept around that was on a par with the American M-60. Then we had some SKS carbines and a couple of AK-47s. We actually had more weapons than soldiers. We also had some old Korean War/WW2 weapons too. We had a variant of the M-1 sniper rifle, I think it might have been an old M-1D with a simple 4 power scope. And we also had a small collection of French weapons too. It was like each bunker or hootch had one or two cached extra weapons.

Here's one for you too... A buddy of mine had a Colt .45 caliber Gold Cup mailed to him while he was in Nam. It came to him in a box of cookies lined with aluminum foil. This was when he was with the Recon Platoon. When he extended, he ended up becoming a crew chief or gunner on a Huey helicopter. He sold that pistol to me. I used it for the rest of my tour and brought it home with me. I had to get such-and-such a federal form to bring it back as a "war trophy" but I got it done. I now have that pistol still with me to this day. That gun and I have been together through 3 marriages and 40 years of time.
 
To Rifleman 173

I agree with Déjà vu’s assessment of Rifleman 173’s first post in this thread, particularly pertaining to Vietnam.

My personal view is that it is folly for any soldier to use the enemy’s weapon unless in dire circumstances. Ammunition supply is a drawback unless you rely on constantly capturing the enemy’s ammunition. Another drawback is the difference in the distinctive reports of an AK47 and M16. Want another drawback? Green AK tracers and red M16 tracers. American and Vietnamese soldiers shot at the source of differing reports and tracers. Why tempt fate merely for the novelty of carrying the enemy’s heavier weapon. An empty AK47 is about 1.5 pounds heavier than an empty M16 and the ammunition is more than twice as heavy. Never saw American soldiers in Vietnam carrying the enemy’s weapons (except as captures) in 1 ½ tours.

I trained quite well with the M14 but was very glad when issued an M16 due to the lighter weight and increased ammunition load. Aside from the initial problems with the M16 it was, and its variants continue to be, fine effective battle rifles. Those who mistily reminisce about carrying an M14 probably never carried one in near 100F temperatures, super humidity, up and down jungle covered terrain, while carrying a pack with 7 days rations, a couple of claymores, a couple pounds of C4, several grenades, bandolier of .308 for the machine gun, two plus bandoliers of M16 magazines each filled with 18 rounds of mixed ball and tracer, flashlight with extra batteries, maps, strobe light, bayonet, .45 pistol, and etc. and more etc. By the way, our platoon sniper carried an M21 with ammunition but not the full load of supplies the other platoon members carried.

The comment about carrying a shortened M60 implies lunacy on the part of the carrier of such a weapon. Maybe about three pounds maximum can be stripped, but that leaves about 20 pounds of a deliberately altered-to-be-inaccurate weapon plus the heavy .308 ammunition. Dumb.
 
Last edited:
Someone reading this thread might get the impression that troops go into battle equipped with nothing but M4 carbines and in other threads, pistols.

Whatever they carry now, it is an interesting fact that in some wars, mostly minor (never minor to those doing the fighting), the combatants on both sides used almost exactly the same weapons, sometimes even bought from the same salesman, no doubt. Yet one side wins, the other loses.
 
As a former Marine and a current infantryman in the Nat Guard, I'm gonna weigh in on this. The title of this thread is Why is the military using small calibers?

When I am suited up in full battle rattle with a helmet, vest, camelbak, grenades, a 40 lbs pack loaded with mre's, extra acu's, underwear, 2 quart canteen, poncho, poncho liner, night vision device, hygiene kit, and gortex and the patrol part of my sleeping bag depending on weather, I am pretty weighed down. Being that I'm an assistant gunner for the M240B, I also carry an extra barrel, tripod and about 400 rounds of 7.62. You can add about another 50+ lbs for that. Line squads carry extra 203 ammo, frag grenades, and batteries for radios.

I'm weighed down as it is. I couldn't imagine carrying a heavier rifle and the same amount of ammo in 7.62 for my battle rifle with infared laser, optic, and flashlight. We have machine gunners and designated marksman if 7.62mm is required. The 5.56mm is more than adequate for ranges up to 300 yards.

The troops of yesterday never carried that much crap. They had no ballistic armor and did not carry all that ammo for their rifles. If you watch old footage, they didn't even have packs on.

With that being said, I would still prefer my M4 vs an M14 or other rifle in a **** hits the Fan scenario. I currently have an M4orgery and 18 30 round mags on a chest rig. The rig is heavy. I couldn't imagine carrying that much ammo in 7.62. Possible of course, but I wouldn't be as mobile. Imagine this scenario. I am behind cover and the enemy is advancing. The enemy could be foreign soldiers, police or what have you. Take your pick. It doesn't matter. I would much rather have 5.56mm vs. 7.62 mm. I could put more rounds downrange to keep the enemy from advancing or flanking me while I move back from cover to cover. I can put more rounds downrange without recoil taking me off target. I would be deadlier being that I can actually hit what I aim at. With a 7.62 I would be able to hit, but I'd be much slower due to recoil taking me off target and adrenaline dump and heavy breathing. I would be able to hit 2 to 3 more advancing enemy in the same time that it would take me to hit 1 in 7.62. My extra speed, hit ratio, and mobility could be the difference between life and death.

With that being said, I have yet to meet someone who will tell me that they'd rather get hit with a 5.56mm vs 7.62. A 5.56 that hits and fragments or expands depending on the ammo that you are using is going to be taken out of the fight. The 5.56mm actually causes more shock in the chest cavity when it expands or fragments than a high powered .308 or 7.62. Even if the 5.56 does not expand or fragment, a high powered 22cal would be the result. If I got shot with a 22lr revolver while running from cover to cover, my fight would be over either immediately of later.
 
Last edited:
Tuzo, here is a photo of me. This photo shows me going on my first recon mission with an M-16 rifle. Later on I would ditch that rifle for a heavier XM-21 sniper rifle. Now, whether you believe it or not, I did carry a heavier rifle akin to an M-14 in a war zone with temperatures that went over 100+ degrees. Just like some guys are doing in Iraq right now.

And as to the guy with the chopped off M-60... I never did nor would I ever try to hint, suggest or lie to you about him being sane.
 

Attachments

  • Me ready for 1st Recon Mission 001.jpg
    Me ready for 1st Recon Mission 001.jpg
    194 KB · Views: 37
Rifleman 173 - nice photo

Great photo and the make-up is absolutely fabulous. Our platoon sniper carried the same weapon - M21. I have a photo of me with the silliest weapon ever foisted upon soldiers, a CAR 15. Short barrel was great for the underbrush but any target beyond 50 feet was safe. Ditched the CAR 15 and returned to my M16. Also captured a Russian SKS (CKC in Russian) but I never carried it nor did anyone else in the platoon.

I was in the 9th Infantry Division located in the Mekong Delta region plus we visited Cambodia for two months courtesy of President Nixon. Served with great people in a crummy politician-contrived war.
 
Tuzo, those CAR-15s had a lot of feeding problems. My team leader had one and he eventually ditched it for something else because it jammed once too often for his liking. 9th Infantry, eh? Bet you got kidded about being puddle jumpers, didn't you? I was 1st Battalion of the 173D Airborne Brigade.We were the bad boys over there. When they wanted to REALLY punish a guy they sent him to the 173D. Any way, that's what some of the guys used to claim.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top