I ask this because of this story which slams the 5.56mm round compared to the heavier 7.62mm round that the old M-14 fires:
Fired at short range, the M855 round is prone to pass through a body like a needle through fabric. That does not mean being shot is a pain-free experience. But unless the bullet strikes a vital organ or the spine, the adrenaline-fueled enemy may have the strength to keep on fighting and even live to fight another day.
In 2006, the Army asked a private research organization to survey 2,600 soldiers who had served in Iraq and Afghanistan. Nearly one-fifth of those who used the M4 and M16 rifles wanted larger caliber bullets.
Look, I've fired no rounds in combat. I fired M-16s in training and carried an M-14 for ceremonial purposes. I will say that as a left hander, I hated the M-14. I shudder to think what would have happened to my right hand if I was shooting in combat. And the damn thing is heavy compared to the M-16.
But as I say, I'm no combat veteran. Yet combat veterans have differing opinions.
And even as a former REMF, I can read. For a controversy damning the US military for using 5.56mm rounds, I find it astounding that an "issue" is being flogged over "nearly one-fifth" of Iraq and Afghanistan veterans wanting larger rounds.
This means that over 80% didn't think we needed larger rounds.
This is a crisis?
My understanding is that at longer ranges the 5.56mm tumbles inside the body and causes wounding more than deaths. In conventional battle, that is an advantage. A corpse is quiet and doesn't scream, spreading panic. A corpse doesn't need two unwounded soldiers to haul it back to an aid station. A corpse doesn't burden a medical system of the enemy.
Clearly, we need to adjust how we shoot when the fighting is at short range, and we'd rather create corpses since this is not conventional warfare.
But come on people, can't we at least generate plausible plastic turkey issues?
UPDATE: General Casey says that the Army will examine the ammunition issue. The article says:
The military is reviewing soldiers' complaints that their standard ammunition isn't powerful enough for the type of fighting required in Iraq and Afghanistan[.]
Interesting. Now the AP is talking about "soldiers' complaints" without noting that nearly 20% of soldiers surveyed complained. Now it implies this is a general complaint of all soldiers.
Is there a problem? I don't know. I'm no combat veteran. But again, when nearly 20% of combat veterans surveyed complained about our ammunition, is thisa really a crisis?
