Requirements for Replacement of Currently Issued 5.56 M-855 and 7.62 M-80.

[stanc]

What I'm addressing with the various duty positions is the fact that a very large percentage of soldiers would be encumbered if they were to be saddled with anything heavier than an M4, with less ammunition capacity. That includes...Combat Medics, Forward Observers, etc.

I could go on, but you see the point. If you really want to hear the moaning and complaining, issue these guys something heavier than an M4, with heavier ammunition, who will most unlikely or never be trained in wind-doping skills, right along with the riflemen who rely on them for all kinds of support. I can see the Gun Rag articles now..."Everyone remembers the days of the wonderfully-lightweight M4 carbine, (a superb carbine with a nasty little cartridge with devastating wound effects, highly-preferred by Special Forces soldiers) before the Army came along and adopted this horrible monster..."

Heh, heh, heh.

Yes, I do see your point. And IIRC, LR1955 has said that most infantry riflemen -- even if given a more capable cartridge -- would still be unable to hit long range targets.

Nevertheless, there seems to be a signifcant number of (US and UK) troops who are calling for longer "reach" from their individual weapon than 5.56 can deliver. Are they to be ignored?

What if a new cartridge can be created that doesn't impose a great weight penalty, and thereby (maybe) avoid being a "horrible monster"?