You're ridiculous. I did 4 years and two combat tours as a Marine Infantryman. I also weigh over 200lbs. In other words, I am more than capable of handling recoil. You're very thick headed, I said recoil AT CLOSE RANGE. When firing rapid well-aimed shots at close range RECOIL IS AN ISSUE. The most battle hardened and well trained Special Forces soldiers consider recoil when choosing their CQB weapons and will tell you the same. The day they develop a reliable accurate rifle with ZERO recoil will be the day every military in the world switches over to it. NATO 5.56X45mm is designed to fragment. It's higher muzzle velocity means that it fragments much more than heavier 7.62 rounds. Then you also have to consider hydrostatic shock which is more prevealent in smaller faster rounds like the 5.56mm. When you hit center mass with a 5.56X45mm it punches above it's weight. Extremities are a different story though. Also, with a 10kg load out you can carry 280 rounds of 7.62x51mm, 300 rounds 7.62X39mm, and 660 rounds of 5.56X45mm. Your assertion that Ak-47 ammunition is about as light as M16/4 ammunition is 100% wrong. Ak-47s are also woefully inaccurate compared to M16/M4s. Infantry squads still continue to carry a wide variety of weapons overseas. Your average infantry squad on patrol in Afghanistan could be carrying any of the following M4s, M9, 203 40mm GLs, M249, M90A1, M240Bs (your 7.62x51!!), SAM-R, AT-4, M32, SMAWs. That's more firepower than back in your day. Also, most of these weapons come with optics and infrared targeting.
We have the same thing today. In a modern Infantry Squad, you have M-16 (or variants), at least 2 M-203/M-320 grenade launchers, and 2 M-249 SAWs. Move up to Company level, and add in M-240B. These are all essentially replacements for the M-79 and M-60, but the SAW is something that did not exist when you were in. And do not confuse "most prolific" with "most effectice" weapon. Yea, a lot of nations use the AK or it's variants. It is also a cheaply made piece of crap, that China, Czech Republic, Russia, and about any other manufacturer can ship out at a minumum cost. Just look at who uses the two weapons. The M-16 family has among it's users Argentina, Brazil, Canada, Chile, Denmark, France, Greece, India, Indonesia, Israel, Jordan, South Korea, Malaysia, Mexico, Netherlands, Panama, Peru, Philippines, Thailand, Turkey, USA, UK, and many others. Looking through the users of the AK, you mostly see former Warsaw Pact nations, and countries in revolution (past or present). I have used several variants of the AK, and always thought that it's reputation was overblown. I found them poorly made, of cheap supplies, and with poor quality control. However, they are easy to fix, as long as you have some basic machine tools. And I would call the M-16 more then "battle proven". It has been in service with US forces now for almost 48 years, and that is quite impressive in and of itself. I appreciate your service, but you have to realize, the military and equipment we have today is not the same as when you were in, or even as when I came in almost 30 years ago. I get strange looks also when I talk about the A1, the '60, and the Dragon and LAW. And trying to explain going through training with the Redeye to soldiers today is almost impossible to believe ("You see, you could only aim at the exhaust, so you wait for him to bomb or strafe you, then try to shoot him down as he flies away!")
NATO standard ball ammo is FMJ and is NOT designed to fragment. bullets designed to mushroom or fragment are a violation of the Geneva Convention, and even though we are not a signatory of it, which is why American soldiers have often used shotguns, MOST of the NATO signatories are. Anything moving as fast as a bullet MAY fragment at times, but 5.56 standard NATO ball IS NOT so designed. Do you think militarys use FMJ for any valid reason? The fact is that GENEVA CONVENTION rules that it is MORE HUMANE. About AMMO weight facts, try these for size----- WEAPON round weight M14 7.62×51mm 393 gr M16 5.56×45mm 183 gr AK-47 7.62×39mm 281 gr The AK round is MUCH less weight than the NATO round, even though it is heavier than the 5.56. Also the maximum effective range of the 7.62 russian is given as 350 meters which gives it the same military accuracy as the M16-M-4 series of weapons. But......The Muzzle energy of the ss109/5.56 is 1303 ft lbs, while the Muzzle energy of the 7.62x39 Russian ball is 1,529 ft lbs, which is a good deal more. In addition, at every distance down range the AK-47 round retains MORE energy meaning it can do MORE damage at every distance. In addition, the AK-47 design has been around far longer than the M-16. The AK-47 style is the MOST battle proven weapon in the world. It is a fine military weapon, it is inexpensive to make, it is dependable, it is easily field repaired with minimal tech skills, in general it works, in the ice, snow, mud, underwater, in the rain, desert, jungles and anywhere else. And it works with complete and totally untrained idiots using it. In effect it is the most nearly perfect general purpose infantry arm ever created. While the current version of the M-16 is a far cry from its origin, it is NOT as dependable as the AK, it does NOT have the power of the AK, it is NOT as cheap to produce as the AK, in fact, the ONLY thing it beats the AK on, is the weight of its bullet, but even that has been corrected in the AK-74, which gives the average idiot the ability to carry the most dependable weapon the world has ever seen and just as much AMMO as ANY American soldier. America got stuck on the M016 via childish political maneuvers and needs to wake up.
Actually, the concept of how the US uses shotguns dates back to at least the mid 1980's. I remember in 1983 training on the flechette round for the M-203. The things were awesome, being essentially a giant shotgun round (with three times the amount of shot of a 12 guage). But by 1985, they had already been phased out. The use of Shotguns is not actually banned by the Geneva Convention. However, they are limited to their use by the Hague Convention, and the US does follow those restrictions. The Geneva Convention largely deals with the treatment of POWs and civilians captured in a conflict. The Hague deals with weapons and the way that wars are conducted. All the Hague Convention {Hague IV 1907) says about weapons used is the following: To employ arms, projectiles, or material calculated to cause unnecessary suffering. Hague IV, Section II, Chapter I, Article 23 This is rather vague. The way that most nations interperate this is to limit the use of weapons they have against personnel. This is why the US allows the use of the .50 against buildings and vehicles, but not against personnel. You are free to use a 50 cal machine gun against aircraft, trucks, bunkers, and buildings. You can even use it against people inside of each. However, you are prohibited from the use of such a weapon against troops in the open. You can even use hollowpoint ammunition when in a defensive position (like a guardpost), since this is not offensive but defensive. But the US made the decision to not use such ammunition decades ago (although civilian law enforcement regularly uses it). Basically, the US does not use them for use in combat against personnel. This means that they are not to be used as a primary combat weapon against people. And if you look at how the US uses shotguns, they are not used in that way. The US military now uses shotguns primarily in one use, and that is in breaching buildings. In other words, they use a shotgun to blow the lock off of a door. And if you look at videos of breaching teams, that is how they do it. They blow off the locking mechanism (or hinges), then switch to their primary weapon to actually enter the building. However, the use of a shotgun is fully allowable for self defense. This is why you sometimes see security guards, gate guards, and the like armed with them. These are not combat troops, but security troops. They do not act in an offensive manner, but in a defensive one. And the rules change for troops in that capacity. It is the same reason that you see cops armed with shotguns much more commonly then with rifles. Shotguns have a wide shot pattern, and good dispersal, but lack the penetration and travel of a rifle. They are good for close action, but not for anything more then 50m or more away.
