Origanally posted by lasersailor184
The ammo argument stemmed from a 1950's US Army research project. They concluded that the .223 was the equal of the .308 in killing ability, and since it was lighter more rounds could be carried, thus making the standard infantryman more effective.
They were wrong, and many US Soldiers paid with their lives during Vietnam (not even considering the M16 design flaws, just that of the .223).
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I'd like to add to that; Part of the same project drew a conclusion, that the .223 round would have the property of inflicting incapacitating wounds on enemy personell. Even though the round's immediate lethality was substantially less, the theory that ordanance procurement put forth was that more wounded would create a larger manpower drain, and huge burden on enemy logistical and medical facilities. The reasoning was that fewer personnel would be available for front-line use, having to use more for care of wounded.
Unfortanately, with the first-generation of the M-16, mishap's such as using an improper powder, that quickly jammed the gas-return system, added with the idea that the rifle was not issued with a cleaning kit initially, led to American casualties during the Rifles' introduction during Vietnam.
They did remedy the most immediate problems, such as the propellant powder, and adding a bolt-assist, and a cleaning kit with every weapon issued. But, as far as the debate as to which caliber is better for the battlefield...I'd have to say, would depend on locale. Close quarter areas, such as an urban environment, or a jungle, might lend more to the .223, which might see more usage on full-auto, being more controllable than the .308, and at short ranges. But in something like the open desert, or long plains, or mountains, where 400+ meter engagements might happen, the edge might go to the .308.
