Insane_Megalamaniac wrote:
"Switching to 5.56mm has little to do with increased ammo capactity or reduced cost. The main reason that it takes more manpower to deal with an injured person than a dead one. You don't have to medevac, hospitalize, or care for a dead person. "
Why are you connecting 5.56mm with high ammo capacity in my statement? I said that the current trend is toward low-caliber bullets, such as the 5.56mm, and high ammo capacity. Not that one means the other. And I get the concept of "If I shoot the guy and he's dead, that's one out of action. If I shoot him and he's wounded, his buddy will have to drag him to the M.A.S.H. and that's two out of action". It just doesn't work when faced with an actual battle field. I'd rather be secure in the knowledge that my enemy is dead and incapable of harming me than hoping he's too focused on pain to get pissed and shoot me back.
I connected them because they were mentioned in the same sentence, and the fact that you can pack more of a smaller round in the same size magazine.
I_M wrote:
"There is also the benefit of incresed re-fire accuracy due to the decrease in kick, and the ability to wield the weapon while injured or in other less than ideal circumstances. "
This is true of most small-caliber weapons, yes. 5.56mm has its place, but it shouldn't be the standard for the general-issue weapon.
I didn't argue that it should be, but i'm trying to explain why it is.
I_M wrote:
"The Geneva convention prohibts the use of hollow-point, glass cored, hydra-shock, or mercury cored amunition, as well as the modification of jacketed ammunition such as "cutting". "
Again, what does this have to do with anything I said? The Geneva Convention is a bunch of rules some good old boys put together to try and be nice to each other while the kids were getting their asses shot to pieces and blown up. FMJ rounds are considered more humane because they do less collatoral damage than, say, hollow-point. I get the idea behind it. I don't necessarily agree with it, but if everyone actually follows the rules and plays nicely, maybe we can keep war from being as bad as it would be in a knock-down drag-out waste-everything-that-breathes war to end all wars. Too bad nobody actually plays by the rules. The Soviets never did. Heck, before the USSR collapsed, they were experimenting with bullets that had barbed prongs on them to make it impossible to remove the bullet from a wound without cutting out a chunk of the victim with it. They never issued it, but they made it. The Barret .50BMG rifle is an "anti-materiel" rifle and weapons such as it are prohibited from being used against personnel. Yeah, and what are we shooting with it, tanks? Cars? Missiles? I don't think so. Heck, snipers in general aren't allowed, but do you see a single modern military that doesn't have dedicated sniper equipment?
I_M wrote:
The point of this debate is to discover the proper bullet for the modern battlefield and what exactly a gun needs to be the ultimate weapon for general military issue. Comparing various weapons to one another and arguing over which is better would also be approriate.
If you're going to argue about what the standard battlefield weapon/round should be, you need to accept the idea that the military cannot issue a weapon which violates the geneva convention as standard to all soldiers. Mostly this is a political decision, if we at least give a polite nod to the geneva convention, so will everyone else. The ideal general issue weapon is not necessarily the best weapon for every soldier, but the weapon which is best on average for all soldiers. This is where modularity is key. At 123lbs (~56kg) I couldn't fire 2-3 shots from a .50 rifle or handgun half as accurately as i could a .223 or 9mm. The fact that the 220 lb (100kg) guy in my squad could doesn't help me, and it doesn't help him if i have to cover his back. (before some moron makes a "women shouldn't be in the military" reference, the same goes for the 135lb motor sergeant, or the 150lb armorer)
I_M wrote:
You're right though. The modular weapon system will rule the battlefield of the future. Screw the fancy electronics and hideously expensive computer control systems that adjust the rate of fire for range, make the grenade explode at a certain distance, etc. Soldiers don't need to mess with that crap while being shot at. Give 'em simple, tried and true accessories and tools that they can actually use and swap around for certain scenarios. A maritime night operation might want large, glow-in-the-dark sights, a laser sight, and a collapsing stock. An urban combat unit might want a grenade launcher and a flash suppressor. A marksman might want a scope and silencer, etc. Being able to switch it all out according to the mission and the soldier's role would be much better than simply issuing a basic weapon and saying "here, use this".
It's more important, especially in the Current Operating Environment, to be able to reconfigure based on mission. In the span of a 2 year tour, the same infantry unit may be deployed in a balkan peacekeeping mission, small scale "war" in a North african or middle-eastern country, and a tour in Iraq. In fact, the same units that had to fight a "conventional war" going into Iraq had to change missions after about 4 months to something between peace-enforcement and urban combat. Depending on a unit's mission, they might want 5.56 carbine or bullpup rifles with M203s and a mix of 40mm HE and Flechette ammunition one day, a handgun and 40mm launcher with beanbag or rubber ball ammo the next, and a mix of handguns for interior guard detail and full-length rifles for exterior guard details the next.