And bacon…
2 Likes
I thought that, but it was amusing
The .223 was designed to wound a person on the battle field, not necessarily kill. The idea is that if you injure a combatant, it would take 3 people off the battlefield – him and his two buddies that drag him away.
This is a poor strategy in Afghanistan and Iraq (and now Syria).
One, they leave their wounded in place for us to save. They have no hospitals.
Two, they are so hopped up on meth (or the equivalent) that they keep fighting for several minutes after receiving a fatal wound. You had to shoot them 5 times before the threat ended.
1 Like
Good points. I’ve heard many arguments for the 223 cartridge. The wounded one you mentioned, you can carry more 223 cartridges because they weigh less and have less volume, easier to shoot(true, especially if full auto is in the equation).
More ammo carried isn’t a good argument if you if you need five shots to put a man out of a fight. Most of the rounds loosed by grunts are suppressive fire, or a partial target sighted due to cover, a licence to waste ammo unless used sparingly when tactically appropriate.
Even back in WW2 marines in Guadalcanal were criticising underpowered weapons like the M1 carbine, vs 30-06 rifles like the M1 Garand, and Johnson 1941 rifle. 5 shots were needed with M1 carbine, vs one shot from a 30-06. Admittedly the M1 carbine was intended as a side arm for officers, and support personnel, rather than front line troops. It still saw plenty of frontline action.
Same accounts in Nam with the M16 .223, vs M14 or FN FAL 308. M16 took lots of shots to put an enemy out of the fight, 308 one shot. 223 was also criticised as being deflected by jungle foliage, not so with a 308.