What round should the Army use?

What round should the Army use in rifles and light machine guns?  That is the real question, isn't it?

The 5.56x45 (.2230 is light and accurate over its 400 meter effective range.  The current 62 grain round isn't terrible effective, however.  And it is so over pressured that it breaks weapons, or at least wears them out much more quickly than is normally acceptable.  We would be better off going back to the 55 grain round, and redesigning the gas systems on the carbines.  They simply weren't designed for the sort of abuse we're giving them.

What is the problem that recommends switching rounds?  Afghanistan and, to a lesser degree, Iraq.  The average range of an engagement is under 50 meters, or over 500.  At close range, any round can be effective.  At long range, the .223 just doesn't cut it.  Of course, neither does the 7.62x39 - that's why our enemies like to set up ambushes with mines, medium and heavy machine guns, and RPGs.  So, we started giving one trooper per platoon, eventually per squad, an M14 or similar rifle, in caliber 7.62x51 (.308).  This rifle/caliber has the oomph to reach out and touch someone.  But it's heavy, and now we have squads carrying multiple types of ammunition.  That's what we've been trying to avoid.

Oh, and the rest of the world is finally discovering that body armor is a thing.

So, the quest for "the little round that could."  We need a round (and rifle/LMG combo to fire it) that is light, lethal, accurate to 800 meters, useful in automatic weapons, and penetrates rigid body armor at useful distances.

So, the Army created a bullet.  It's 6.8mm in diameter, because reasons.  It is allegedly between 130 and 145 grains in mass.  They need this bullet to be fired from an infantry carbine with a 12" barrel at a speed of at least 3,300 feet per second.  Faster is better.  And it needs to be able to hit a man sized target at 800 meters, with the built in sights.  And it needs to be useful in room clearing.

A competition is under way, with three companies in the running.  None of them have what I would call decent entries, although some of the details of each are interesting.

Here's what I would do.  We already have the proper rifle and round for this task.  They are both over 70 years old, and proven to work.  The rifle is the AR-10.  The round is the .243.  No, the .243 isn't 6.8mm, but it will do all the jobs the Army wants done.  The 6.8mm bullet is most likely just something some idiot dreamed up, like the green and black tip 5.56 bullets that suck so badly.  (What, you think I'm still bitter after all these years?  Yes.  Yes, I am.)

You need a light machine gun?  You know, the Russians developed an entire series of light and medium machine guns, all of which are better than anything in our inventory, while being both lighter and cheaper.  Or we could have some young genius beef up the Stoner 63 system. 

You really need that 6.8mm bullet?  Put it in a .270 Ackley Improved cartridge.  We've had those for a long, long time.  Of course, the Army would never do anything this sensible.

Of course, most of this is moot.  Troops can't hit targets that far away.  They can barely hit enemies at 300 meters, much less 600.  So keep the .223, keep the M16/M4,  and drop the M249 SAW for a cosmetically updated Stoner 63.  But go back to the 55 grain round that worked, and didn't destroy gas systems.  What we really need to do is accelerate the roll out of the Karl Gustav recolless rifles.  They can hit targets out to a kilometer, and have useful warheads to take out everybody near where they hit.  The enemy lights up a patrol with RPGs, we respond with Gustavs.

Oh, and for crying out loud, spend the extra few bucks and get the better, lighter, newer models (Gustav M4).  Why are we buying weapons (Gustav M3) that were outdated a decade ago?  I mean, the Slovaks have the M4s, why can't we play with them?