I found myself, out of habit, carrying nearly 400 rounds of ammo, using Tactical Tailor kit that I had set up for long range reconnaissance. It didn't make a lot of sense, given that I was riding around in a Humvee with ammo cans sitting right behind me. If I could have dropped 150 rounds off the total, but know the remaining rounds would give me a guarenteed knock down, I'd have done so in a heartbeat.
The other is the wound factor. It is a fact that if there is a wounded soldier, it takes two or three others out of action to take care on them...one of the reasons 5.56 was created.
That just means we wind up fighting the same terrorists over and over. We don't want to or three guys carrying away a wounded terrorist, we want all of them to stay within range so they can be taken down. Once they retreat, we lose them until they surface again. Many of the guys we rolled up had been shot a few times prior, but likely would not have survived if those hits were 7.62.
The other is close quarter combat. A 16 to 20 inch barrel would be preferred I think...
Plenty of heavier weapons come with shorter barrels. I've seen a number of AKs shorter than my M4.
Again, I have never been in combat so I cannot voice strongly on the need for more "knock down" power.
There may have been some grand mathmatical logic for using 5.56 during a massive war, causing tens of thousands of casualties that would wear down our opponents medical infrastructure. These days, if an insurgent gets shot, we're the ones treating them. Thus, they survive on our dime, and are released from Abu G a few months later to attack us again.
I see your view of the wounded...and with this enemy, I understand how we end up the care givers. FWIW, I am of the take no prisoners mentality...
I agree with you.
5.56mm made sense in Viet Nam, where long foot patrols were typical, with resupply in doubt. Soldiers had to carry enough bullets to hold off enemy for long periods until helos could bring in resupply, often over night.
Plus, the old 55 grain slug out of a long M-16A1 barrel was vicious, barely stable in flight and easily upset when hitting the enemy at 3,000+ FPS.
Today, firing the very stable 62 grain slug out of a short M-4 barrel greatly diminishes its wounding and killing power. The 62 grain fast twist bullets at lower velocities often make clean through and through icepick wounds. They don't tumble.
Today, troops ride to the fight, and carrying 450 rounds on their persons is not as important as it was in VN. Also, enemy are fighting from behind mud or block walls, and soldiers need a round which will punch through. 5.56 won't. 7.62 NATO will.