Why don't more Soldiers wear their full size medals?

i always thought the service was supposed to provide the standard medal but when i was in i see that was not the case, i do believe it is a "service branch thing" because marines ALWAYS wear andonized and navy ALWAYS wears the mini medals - the poinnt of them - i have no damn clue lol ?

I was in for 20 years and forget the cost having been in from Panama through Afghanistan I have 18 full size medals and just the weight alone makes them unrealistic to wear. They look cool, just better in a box built by my soldiers when I retired. RLTW

Simple answer? EXPENSIVE!

It was always “suggested” that we didn’t wear metals unless you were in Mess Dress.

Generally speaking, they are not required except for FULL DRESS times like Command Inspections, military balls, etc. I only had to wear full medals ONCE - in the Navy and never even saw anyone in the Army wear medals. Depending on you actual duty, it's more or less optional, but frankly, if your unit fell in with only ribbons, and you wore medals, well aside from looking different, you might be told to not wear them (uniformity).
SFC (Join to see) gives a great example of why, and under what circumstance it's not a bad idea to go "Full Dress."

The simple fact is that the vast majority of enlisted soldiers don't even own a set of full size medals mounted for wear. Sure, you (usually) get handed the full size medal and the ribbon, but the issue medals are barely suitable for wear if you have just a single medal. If you have more than one medal, the issue medals are totally unsuitable for wearing on the uniform. You need to buy a set of professionally mounted medals if you want them to look right. (OK, yes, it may be possible to buy just the rack and mount them yourself, but generally that doesn't work nearly as well for medals as it does for ribbons.)

As several people have mentioned, cost is certainly a major factor. My own rack of professionally mounted full size medals (not anodized, because I prefer the look of the regular medals) would cost $297.64 plus tax and shipping - and that doesn't include one device that I would have to get elsewhere and install myself. A set of miniatures would be $179.22. Meanwhile my ribbon rack would be just $51.80 despite having three more ribbons that don't have medals. Which do you suppose I would have more occasions to wear?

Frankly, unless medals are dictated for a specific function (rare because of my following comments) I would only wear my rack of 14 medals and the associated stars implanted on them. Honest reason is the pure cost to have them professionally mounted. We're talking $100 plus just for the mounting not to mention the cost of the stars. Honestly, by year 18 it was a syndical laughing point to receive an award and my peers and I would all laugh "how much is your remounting up to now?"

So truly, unless it's a hyper important event, professionally set ribbons are sufficient. Don't judge. We service members do not get reimbursed for medals mounting. The uniform allowance does not take that into consideration.

I find this question interesting. In the Navy, when I was in, when in full dress, you wear medals if your award has a medal. If your award does not have a medal , you wear the ribbons on your right side while wearing your medals on your left. Formal affairs requiring Medals, you wear them. Wearing ribbons only for a formal affair was never an option offered to us. Ribbons were for daily wear depending on the uniform of the day. I do have miniature medals, I wear them on my Prince Charlie when wearing my kilt to a formal affair when representing the Scottish American Military Society (SAMS).

Being it the Marine Corps ball. Chances are the uniform is blues. Usually full sized medals are worn. Things like ribbon only awards PUC, NUCS, CARS Or Combat Action Ribbons are worn to the right. Medals on the right.