2006-10-12 18:59:39 · 8 answers · asked by Jennifer B 2 in Politics & Government ➔ Law & Ethics
I don't know exactly how "ethical" my answer is, because the whole issue of the M16A1 chambered in 5.56mm NATO had more to do with politics than anything to do with ethics (which is normally the case when dealing with politicians).
The US Army replaced the 30'06 round with the .308 (one of the first NATO calibers). However, due to a multitude of issues, it was decided that due to the cost of training, cost of rounds, the fact that some people had a harder time shooting accurately with the .308 due to recoil, number of rounds that can be carried, the fact that normal engagement of the enemy wasn't as far away as in previous wars, etc., the military decided, along with NATO to standarize a smaller round. For a few years, different calibers were played with. Stoner's original prototype wasn't even designed with the 5.56 the military adopted. Everything was considered, 22-250, .222 Remington, .270 Winchester, .243, etc. In fact, Europe was pretty pissed at the US over the .308 to begin with. In the end, the 5.56 mm (.223 Remington) was adopted within less than a year. It got a bad rep because the beaurocrats decided to switch out the powder that the original M16 was designed for. People complained about lack of range, knock-down power, etc.
The motivation for the M-16 had to do with portability, weight, lower production costs, ease of maintence, etc. Once the system got worked out, it became a truly dependable system.
2006-10-12 19:15:14 · answer #1 · answered by Daryl E 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
The wasn't about ethics. The M16A1 replaced the M14 for several reasons; reduced recoil, increased rate of fire, reduced weight, ammunition was cheaper to produce and lighter. For info the 7.62mm is still used today by the military.
2006-10-12 19:11:08 · answer #2 · answered by Ethan J 1 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I don't know if this a matter of ethics, or military hardware sales.
I do know that at the time that 7.62 mm was the NATO standard, and a change to 5.56 mm was a move away from this standard.
Was it a break from NATO allies, do cows lie down when it rains? Who knows?
2006-10-12 19:08:21 · answer #3 · answered by 13caesars 4 · 0⤊ 1⤋
The 5.56 is very effective but not a 7.62. The smaller cartrige allows the soldier carry more ammo for the weight.
2006-10-12 19:09:28 · answer #4 · answered by jekin 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Jeff is correct with his answer, but left out that the weapon and it's ammo are cheaper to produce thereby saving money from the budget to be used elsewhere
The Military does not think in terms of killing "ethically" but faster, cheaper, and better. That's their job.
2006-10-12 19:10:18 · answer #5 · answered by mark g 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
M16 rifles are lighter and more effective than the M14 rifles.
2006-10-12 19:24:16 · answer #6 · answered by FRAGINAL, JTM 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Just a guess, the 5.56 round is smaller, less powerful, more wounding power than killing power unlike the 7.62. If you kill one of the enemy you have only taken one off the battlefield, but if you wound one, you can possibly take up to three off the battlefield temporarily. That's one wounded, and one or possibly two to carry the wounded person off the field to get treatment.
2006-10-12 19:06:51 · answer #7 · answered by Jeff F 4 · 1⤊ 2⤋
Lighter and less recoil.
2006-10-12 19:09:06 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋