real reason we went with 223 rifles for war

May 2018
200
23
usa
and why the rest of the world gave up the .30 AK for the .20AK. Troops fire 50,000 rifle rds for every hit that they get and only about 1 hit in 4 is lethal. Since the rifle accounts for at MOST 10% of battlefield casulties, it makes no sense to burden the soldier with bulky, heavy rifles and ammo. His carrying capacity is far better served by wearing armor, carrying a spare belt of ammo for the machinegun, a spare mortar rd, spare rifle grenades or handgrenades. So he's still packing the same (or more) weight. That weight is just no longer wasted on a heavy caliber rifle and its ammo. We rely on poorly trained, poorly motivated soldiers, who can't be trusted to put their sights on the enemy and kill him. So we instead trust to fragmentation weapons, napalm, tanks, artillery, etc, rendering the rifle pretty much irrelevant. How many troops you lose doesn't really mean anything to leaders, as long as they achieve their objective. There's always more troops that can be conscripted, cause they are dumb enough to allow themselves to be so treated.