To: w1n1
From what I’ve been hearing, the 5.56 wasn’t designed to kill. It was designed to wound.
That way, it would make the enemy forces have to use personnel to extract the wounded from the field -meaning less people available for the fight.
6 posted on
03/16/2017 6:57:55 AM PDT by
RandallFlagg
(Vote for your guns!)
To: RandallFlagg
That way, it would make the enemy forces have to use personnel to extract the wounded from the field -meaning less people available for the fight. That did not always work.
Sometimes the NVA/VC would bury their wounded.
7 posted on
03/16/2017 7:03:29 AM PDT by
BwanaNdege
("The church ... is not the master or the servant of the state, but the conscience" - Luther)
To: RandallFlagg
If unattended, they would eventually die of a long miserable death. Unless the enemy is N. Korea or some other country who don’t care about human suffering. In which case, they would just be human shields.
10 posted on
03/16/2017 7:10:23 AM PDT by
jr3000
To: RandallFlagg
The original 55 grain bullet out of a 20 inch barrel was very lethal at close range (under 100 yards) but would wound at a distance.
12 posted on
03/16/2017 7:17:45 AM PDT by
MCF
(If my home can't be my Castle, then it will be my Alamo.)
To: RandallFlagg
That way, it would make the enemy forces have to use personnel to extract the wounded from the field -meaning less people available for the fight. Unless the insurgents just abandon their wounded, in the expectation that WE will take care of them.
18 posted on
03/16/2017 7:39:05 AM PDT by
PapaBear3625
(Big government is attractive to those who think that THEY will be in control of it.)
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson