Those reports were not always consistent – some units would
report a “through-and-through” problem, while others expressed
nothing but confidence in the performance of their M4 carbines
In its entirety:
Not long after the US Army’s entry into Afghanistan, reports from the field began to surface that in close quarters engagements, some Soldiers were experiencing multiple “through-and-through” hits on an enemy combatant where the target continued to fight. Similar reports arose following the invasion of Iraq in 2003. Those reports were not always consistent – some units would report a “through-and-through” problem, while others expressed nothing but confidence in the performance of their M4 carbines or M16 rifles.
It is a statement about General Battlefield performance of 5.56mm without regard to specific details of the unit engaging at close quarters. It does not specify data specifics of units whose mission skillset was Initiative Based CQB.
SOCOM does not use M16 rifles in CQB, very different physics when fired from a M16 compared to a SOCOM M4.
they are still being provided the best performing weapons and ammunition available while the armaments community works to develop something even better.
That effort is planned to look at longer ranges, intermediate barriers, and different target postures, and will further refine the tools and methods developed in the original study.
Hence, 6.8 Fury....
The idea that "8 rounds average" was some isolated experience, an immediate stop at CQB distances is not a priority, or that the Army ignored the tested results is poppycock.