New Army "Caliber Configuration Study"

[Tony Williams]

And if it were not for the proven effectiveness of 5.56, I'd make my slippery slope argument, saying if ammo quantity is the prime consideration then why not .204 Ruger, or, to absurdity, why not .22LR?

Less absurdly, the 5.7x28 FM P90 or 4.6x30 HK MP7 are both designed to inflict disabling wounds after penetrating CRISAT body armour at out to 200m, and against soft targets are probably effective (in terms of being able to hit and - potentially - inflict disabling wounds) out to 300m - provided a crosswind isn't blowing. Since I have often been told that it is pointless to expect the average soldier to see or hit a target beyond 300m, that would seem to meet the baseline minimum needs, and the weight saving would be huge.

I'm not recommending this, mind - just playing devil's advocate!