From Al on the 'Poodle Shooter' :

"That is why I do not like the .223 it did not kill enough of the enemy, who had nothing but contempt for anything shooting them. Give our people a weapon that is superior is my point. I was sort of hit by a sniper in bad guy country. He got frustrated that I did not give him a good shot and managed to hit my butt pack and kill my lunch. A C-Rat. can of spagetti and mystery meat. Pieces of the can embedded themselves in my right buttock and I can tell you tomato sauce sure stings. I qualified for most embarassing purple target award in Laos and only Kerry had me beat in SEA because his was self inflicted. Although my staff sergeant did come close when he got most of his butt blown off by an RPG on the banks of the Mekong River. They just do not make bandages big enough for that but we got a poncho to fit and I was amazed when I got back stateside and I found out he had survived."

Thanks for your service, Al, and the insight. A lighter, more compact M-14 was certainly doable back then. The stuff Springfield is making now isn't so much high tech as it is simply updated from WWII materials and methods.The M-16 was most certainly a political decision, and the bean counters in the pentagon were focused on 'numbers' (weight, capacity, etc.) instead of practical application and war worthiness. Plus, it was a 'new way' (high velocity - low mass) which always feeds the egos of the next generation believing everyone before them was a little less sharp.

As we look back on this fiasco, and it's attendant switch to 9mm handguns we can see the lesson is learned, but I will bet the farm it will not be applied to future equipment issued to our men in harm's way.