why would the military make such a drastic change in it's equipment roster when everything that is being used currently is pretty much working.
This is brought up every time the military looks at changing its materiel. We don't need those new fangled repeaters, all they'll do is let the troops waste ammo...etc.....
Until the other side makes a change, that proves to be some level of improvement, at which point we play catch up, and try to start the research that will eventually let us get ahead, again. Tis why they call it an arms
race.
Nobody is complaining that the 5.56 is wimpy or underpowered.
Actually, it seems that more than a few people are complaining, and combat vets, at that. They just aren't being listened to, much, and its not the dramatic center stage issue it was during Viet Nam.
More than a few will tell you how they routinely had to shoot insurgents two, three or more times before they were stopped. But this is often dismissed as A) just poor shooting, or more often B) the "video game effect". Modern youth, "trained" on video games expects the bad guy to go down from one hit. Every time. That's the way the game works. SO, when this doesn't happen in the real world, they think stopping power is lacking.
pretty sure there is some truth on both sides. We know (through testing) that one kind of 5.56mm ammo, when fired from the short barrel carbines, loses the velocity needed for full performance beyond 200yds or so.
I think its really rather pointless to discuss potential tactical changes that would be brought about by the "dream rifle" until we know what that dream rifle and its round actually DO in the real world.