Wheeler44
You are 100% correct in that we currently do not have the technology capable of selective kill/wound. A .22 may wound 90% of the time, but does little to incapacitate an enemy (I don't know the statistics, I just tossed 90% out there as an example). I wasn't suggesting that the 5.56 was that round, merely that, based upon my readings and information relayed to me from more experience folks than myself, that part of the decision making process involved in the selection of the 5.56 involved the wounded soldier theory. Whether that's a myth or not will not be determined or disproved by me, or anyone else that wasn't the final decision maker. The truth is that, like you said, it probably had more to do with money than the welfare of our troops. While I love my AR, I also love my AK, my 1917, my 03-A3, and my Model 11 shotgun. All combat weapons (well my AR and my model 11 were never in combat, but you get the point) and all capable of doing severe bodily harm. However, the AK and especially the AR in no way compare to the sheer power of the 30-06 round used by the 1917 and the 03-A3. So if killing is the primary goal, why pick a significantly smaller round? (Just a rhetorical question, no need to answer.)
I do know for a fact that the wounded soldier theory was being propagated in WWII, as I stated in my earlier post. My father was taught that a wounded soldier was more of a burden than a dead soldier. Again, they never told him to wound anyone, I think is was more of belief that if you wound a soldier to the point where he would need immediate medical attention, don't waste another round to finish him off, let him suffer and be a burden to his fellow troops. As you know, WWII was years before Vietnam, the AR-10 or the 5.56. Whether this was faulty training or antiquated techniques, not for me to say.
Whether the wounded soldier theory is true or not is irrelevant to this discussion and to the adoption of the 5.56. Either it's a true, or it's not. Probably not as Byron's experience would indicate. Whether it was used as a factor in the adoption of the 5.56 is true, or it's a myth. Either is was or it wasn't, really no middle ground. If it's a myth, let's be done with it. If it's not a myth, then the point is that some decision maker believed the wounded soldier theory and utilized this belief in his decision. Whether he was right or wrong, he made the decision and folks have disagreed on it every since.
I appreciate each of your input. Did it change anything that I've read or heard, no. It did give me another viewpoint and, thanks to Al Thompson, additional reading material. There are so many so called facts that are myths and myths that are actually true that it's hard to take anything for face value that you don't have personal knowledge about.