tofor
June 9, 2022, 12:23pm
20
Sam_Stone:
They chose it because it was theoretically lighter, a soldier could carry more ammo, at short-medium distances it was quite effective, and in war wounding a soldier can be more effective than killing him, because a wounded soldier is still out of the fight but now other soldiers are occupied treating, carrying,and evacuating the wounded.
I’m fairly certain that last part is a myth. We have even discussed it before (12 years ago!) though without any solid conclusion. If you have a cite for that, maybe resurrect this thread:
Over in a thread discussing the resurrection of the venerable Garand rifle, The Amazing Hanna argues that it was “[a] bit too lethal,” because “modern military doctrine says it’s better to grievously wound an enemy than to kill him outright. A wounded enemy takes others out of the battle to care for him.”
I’ve heard this story before lots of times as an explanation for lots of things–jacketed bullets and the shift toward .22 caliber projectiles such as the 5.56 and 5.45 rounds both come to mind…