I don't get it (again)

I'm sure this argument has been made before, but I saw something that made me want to rant.

I know I'm old.

I retired in 2003 from the Air Force Security Forces.

I haven't totally kept up with today's .mil practices in the catbox and Asscanistan, but I have noticed a few things.

Back in 'Nam, the US military ditches 7.62 NATO and goes with 5.56, ostensibly to save weight on the weapon and to allow the troops to carry more ammo. The net effect is that the troops can't shoot as far, and when they do, it doesn't hit as hard.

Later on, US military ditches M-16 variants and goes with the M-4, which looks a lot like the GAU-5A I used to have in the AF. Now they're shooting carbines, which are inherently less accurate than the full-length weapon.

So now we've reduced the weight, the accuracy, and stopping power. So what does the military in its infinite wisdom do?

They put Picatinny rails on the carbines, so the troops can hang 30 pounds of shit off their weapon in an attempt to gain the range and accuracy that they lost, and totally defeat any weight advantage they might have had by using 5.56. Not to mention the 50-60 pounds of crap on their MOLLE gear.... And they're still shooting varmint rounds.

I'll stick with my 7.62, thankyouverymuch.