The theory is: The M16 was designed to wound and maim.
That is not true. 5.56 simply means you can carry more ammunition. The M16 has greater lethality than a 7.62 rifle, because the heavier fully capped projectile tends to - sometimes - punch right through, leaving a more easily treatable wound. While the 5.56 tends to fragment, tumble and so on, creating an inner sish-kebab situation that's really difficult to say anything positive about.
Overall, lethality isn't the decider either way, if you get hit in combat, you are essentially out of the fight. Good enogh. The lighter cartridge has slightly shorter range, comparable penetration against most things (but not ceramic or composite plate), but allows you to carry substantially more ammo. The latter really was the deciding factor: Logistics over all other concerns.
Sorry if what you say is true, then that is revisionist history. Just wound and maim and not kill is what was basically taught. This is what was taught in Army Basic, this is what the vietnam vets were taught when they were issued the original M16s. This is what is passed down from the experienced to the new guys. Yes the logistics were a bonus to carrying more ammunition but at a cost due to the lack of penetration. The M16 was developed to find a lighter weapon while the US was in Vietnam, so removing 3 people was more desirable then the one dead person. But being lighter did hamper reliability & durability. I am not a big guy, but I even snapped a few M16 rifle butts going to the ground. The AK47 was much more durable and reliable. You can set the AK47 in the mud, stand on it, then pull it out and still shoot. So you could repack and reuse AK47 ammo brass.
On the other hand, if you’re not accounting for the expandable on the FR side why are you only accounting for them on the soldier’s side?
Because expendable ammo is worth more than it's weight in gold. Without that ammo, then the weapon is useless, as the bullets are what causes damage. Arrows and sing rocks are "semi" easily obtained. Refilling your magazines with bullets is not.
^^ this. A bow without arrows and a rifle without rounds of ammunition are both fairly useless, with a slight edge to the rifle because it makes a better club than a bow makes a staff. That said, you can run down to the local fletcher and get the bow back in action as intended, and the rifle, without a supply of ammunition will never be more than a club.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Any time an unfathomably powerful entity sweeps in and offers godlike rewards in return for just a few teensy favors, it’s a scam. Unless it’s me. I’d never lie to you, reader dearest.
Sorry if what you say is true, then that is revisionist history. Just wound and maim and not kill is what was basically taught.
It's a popular myth. It's not why the cartridge was adopted. Look it up, if you like. Not that I can 100% swear you won't find a source to support that claim, because ... it's a popular myth.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Blanket disclaimer: I only ever state opinion. But I can sound terribly dogmatic - so if you feel I'm trying to tell you what to think, I'm really not, I swear. I'm telling you what I think, that's all.
Given the Forgotten Realms setting I would assume the more learned individuals and organizations would think this unit of soldiers would be from the realm of Lantan (wiki here: https://forgottenrealms.fandom.com/wiki/Lantan) and may constitute some sort of mercenary force from there, or if they are feeling particularly paranoid, maybe an invasion force. Ultimately though I think the soldiers fare rather badly as their minds may not be able to cope with the plane shifting to a realm where laws of nature and indeed moral codes are not what they are used to, adding to the general shock of the situation is the language barrier they all face unless you hand wave their real world language to be the same as Common, then when they get into town they also have the myriad of people to get used to whether they be halfings, dwarves, elves or orcs etc. The soldiers will likely find themselves the target of a lot of manipulation as the soldiers have no basis for deciding what group or individual is good or evil or what is best for the society in which they now find themselves.
On a slightly different note though....you could do a variation of Evil Dead: Armies of Darkness and have the soldiers leading a "peasant" army against a horde of undead.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
* Need a character idea? Search for "Rob76's Unused" in the Story and Lore section.
Sorry if what you say is true, then that is revisionist history. Just wound and maim and not kill is what was basically taught.
It's a popular myth. It's not why the cartridge was adopted. Look it up, if you like. Not that I can 100% swear you won't find a source to support that claim, because ... it's a popular myth.
I am telling you what was taught in basic training and by vets who are there turning in the M14s. That is the reality. What is written is not necessarily true either. To be honest, I am not sure they can write that the bullets are meant to maim, the myth would be that maiming is not a factor.
As an example of the books clearly being wrong is: The books say a FIST-V was deployed a few years (after I got out) after a local unit brought it to us for show and tell (familiarization training). They were a mech unit, we had no vehicles.
I am telling you what was taught in basic training and by vets who are there turning in the M14s. That is the reality. What is written is not necessarily true either. To be honest, I am not sure they can write that the bullets are meant to maim, the myth would be that maiming is not a factor.
As an example of the books clearly being wrong is: The books say a FIST-V was deployed a few years (after I got out) after a local unit brought it to us for show and tell (familiarization training). They were a mech unit, we had no vehicles.
Oh don't get me wrong, I heard the same thing while serving in 1991. It's still a myth. The 5.56 is a more lethal round due to fragmentation and tumbling acting - not less. It was adopted not for any ballistic qualities or lethality concerns, but because it allows soldiers to carry more ammo. As another, lesser concern, the rifle is also easier to control due to less recoil.
The other stuff simply isn't true.
You simply cannot assign any value to whatever your ... is gunnery sargeant the term? Rifle instructor? That guy. He doesn't matter, at all.
The people who made the decision to switch did it primarily because soldiers could carry more. I've checked. I'm not remembering this wrong. This is definitely why.
I'd like to drop a source - specifically a video from Forgotten Weapons where Ian McCollum (aka Gun Jesus, for some reason) explains this ... annoyingly, I cannot find it. But if you simply google it, you will be provided with a smorgasboard of sources that confirm it.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Blanket disclaimer: I only ever state opinion. But I can sound terribly dogmatic - so if you feel I'm trying to tell you what to think, I'm really not, I swear. I'm telling you what I think, that's all.
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Sorry if what you say is true, then that is revisionist history. Just wound and maim and not kill is what was basically taught. This is what was taught in Army Basic, this is what the vietnam vets were taught when they were issued the original M16s. This is what is passed down from the experienced to the new guys. Yes the logistics were a bonus to carrying more ammunition but at a cost due to the lack of penetration. The M16 was developed to find a lighter weapon while the US was in Vietnam, so removing 3 people was more desirable then the one dead person. But being lighter did hamper reliability & durability. I am not a big guy, but I even snapped a few M16 rifle butts going to the ground. The AK47 was much more durable and reliable. You can set the AK47 in the mud, stand on it, then pull it out and still shoot. So you could repack and reuse AK47 ammo brass.
Because expendable ammo is worth more than it's weight in gold. Without that ammo, then the weapon is useless, as the bullets are what causes damage. Arrows and sing rocks are "semi" easily obtained. Refilling your magazines with bullets is not.
^^ this. A bow without arrows and a rifle without rounds of ammunition are both fairly useless, with a slight edge to the rifle because it makes a better club than a bow makes a staff. That said, you can run down to the local fletcher and get the bow back in action as intended, and the rifle, without a supply of ammunition will never be more than a club.
Any time an unfathomably powerful entity sweeps in and offers godlike rewards in return for just a few teensy favors, it’s a scam. Unless it’s me. I’d never lie to you, reader dearest.
Tasha
It's a popular myth. It's not why the cartridge was adopted. Look it up, if you like. Not that I can 100% swear you won't find a source to support that claim, because ... it's a popular myth.
Blanket disclaimer: I only ever state opinion. But I can sound terribly dogmatic - so if you feel I'm trying to tell you what to think, I'm really not, I swear. I'm telling you what I think, that's all.
My 2cp worth:
Given the Forgotten Realms setting I would assume the more learned individuals and organizations would think this unit of soldiers would be from the realm of Lantan (wiki here: https://forgottenrealms.fandom.com/wiki/Lantan) and may constitute some sort of mercenary force from there, or if they are feeling particularly paranoid, maybe an invasion force. Ultimately though I think the soldiers fare rather badly as their minds may not be able to cope with the plane shifting to a realm where laws of nature and indeed moral codes are not what they are used to, adding to the general shock of the situation is the language barrier they all face unless you hand wave their real world language to be the same as Common, then when they get into town they also have the myriad of people to get used to whether they be halfings, dwarves, elves or orcs etc. The soldiers will likely find themselves the target of a lot of manipulation as the soldiers have no basis for deciding what group or individual is good or evil or what is best for the society in which they now find themselves.
On a slightly different note though....you could do a variation of Evil Dead: Armies of Darkness and have the soldiers leading a "peasant" army against a horde of undead.
I am telling you what was taught in basic training and by vets who are there turning in the M14s. That is the reality. What is written is not necessarily true either. To be honest, I am not sure they can write that the bullets are meant to maim, the myth would be that maiming is not a factor.
As an example of the books clearly being wrong is: The books say a FIST-V was deployed a few years (after I got out) after a local unit brought it to us for show and tell (familiarization training). They were a mech unit, we had no vehicles.
Oh don't get me wrong, I heard the same thing while serving in 1991. It's still a myth. The 5.56 is a more lethal round due to fragmentation and tumbling acting - not less. It was adopted not for any ballistic qualities or lethality concerns, but because it allows soldiers to carry more ammo. As another, lesser concern, the rifle is also easier to control due to less recoil.
The other stuff simply isn't true.
You simply cannot assign any value to whatever your ... is gunnery sargeant the term? Rifle instructor? That guy. He doesn't matter, at all.
The people who made the decision to switch did it primarily because soldiers could carry more. I've checked. I'm not remembering this wrong. This is definitely why.
I'd like to drop a source - specifically a video from Forgotten Weapons where Ian McCollum (aka Gun Jesus, for some reason) explains this ... annoyingly, I cannot find it. But if you simply google it, you will be provided with a smorgasboard of sources that confirm it.
Blanket disclaimer: I only ever state opinion. But I can sound terribly dogmatic - so if you feel I'm trying to tell you what to think, I'm really not, I swear. I'm telling you what I think, that's all.