Should the 5.56 Nato round be replaced after this conflict?

Good for varmits you know squirrels and shit

I have not been following the issues. Is it the round, or the delivery system(s)?

Of course, but it won't l.

Yes, with 6.5 mm Grendel.

Leave it be. The cost to replace our current arsenal would be monumental. Plus, everyone I ever shot with 5.56 dropped. It's all about shot placement.

If we used bullets with optimized terminal performance, such as hollow-points, I do not think it'd be an issue. 7.62x51 and the earlier 30-06 are both very good calibers, no doubt about it, but they also recoil more, are heavier, and thus more time (and expense) must be committed to training AND sustaining the Soldier's proficiency. And 7.62mm platforms are heavy as hell. An M4 with optics, lasers, light and foregrip feels about as heavy as the naked M-14 I trained on when I was in the Navy, but the M-14 didn't have an optic, laser and flashlight.

Or we could just use hollow-point bullets and we could move on to new business.

My real concern is that the M16 family is mature technology, we have generations of information on how, when and why it fails, its strengths and limitations, but historically, there were some very significant teething problems when it was first procured that I would rather not deal with again.

Or we could just use hollow-point bullets, and move on to new business.

Not until we adopt a new personal small arm to replace the M-4, not to mention the SAW.

I'm no ballistics guru...but what intelligent discussion I've heard would lead me to conclude that the scuttlebutt about "stopping power" is more accurately detailed as the lack of a disturbed flight when used as a carbine round instead of a light automatic weapon round (what it was made for). If true, then maybe we keep the 5.56 M249 and replace the carbine with something like the 7.62 SOCOM?

The 5.56 is a NATO standard round and is not going to be replaced anytime soon. You can neck it up to use a larger bullet but are performance limited by the case capacity of the propellant. And you'd have to rebarrel the rifle and mg's. Maybe change all weapons back to 30'06!

The reason something like the 5.56 NATO was selected, over other rounds of the day, was portability. A round has weight, simple statement. Now, imagine carrying hundreds of rounds for a rifle, the magazines to hold bigger rounds, a bigger weapon to shoot the bigger round. A soldier can only carry so much weight. They have so much room on their person to lug gear. In WW2, they were getting away from the venerable M1 Garand for a couple of reasons. First, the clips held limited rounds; six I believe. Second, the tell tail "ping" announcing "hey, come get me, I've gotta reload over here!" Third, the weigh for many 30-06 round was weighing down the soldiers. This was part and partial to the creation of the M1 Carbine, but it had it's flaws too: a bolt retaining pin that would fail and limited projectile range. Ever wonder why the 7.62x51 NATO and the 30-06 look like cut a section out of one and created the other? It's probably because they did it for weight and portability. Then enters the M14, it didn't fair well in jungle environments and shot the lighter, but less portable 7.62 NATO round. Solders were having to carry more rounds and less provisions to sustain themselves in combat. This gave rise to the M-16. Less weight in the weapon, ammo, and magazines. Simpler to maintain and better portability of supporting gear. A bullet that was devastating to the enemy, if hit by it. But, late on, Command wanted a weapon that was more accurate at longer ranges and could do more, but weigh about the same as the M-16. This brought on the A1 model: better weight, handling, and the introduction of the forward assist. With the A2 came a far more accurate round, even better ballistics, armor piercing capabilities, and removal of the full-auto option, going to a 3-round burst. Now, we are closer to today in this path of military firepower. Command sees the protective gear getting into the way of using their weapons, so they have a collapsing stock created to replace the fixed stock. Technology has increased, get rid of the fixed carry handle for improved electronic sights. Shorten the barrel, as more fighting will be closer combat. Now, non-military developers get a hold of the design and start "tweeking" it, adding new rounds to its capabilities: 204 Remington, 6.5 Grendel, 6.8 SPC, 300 Blackout/Whisper, 7.62 x 39, 9mm x 19, 45 ACP, 458 SOCOM, 500 Beowulf, and even the 50 BMG. The only fault of the M-16 is you get a piece of sand between the bolt carrier and the breach face, you will not get the bolt to lock. Thus, a weapon that will not shoot, until the object is cleared. Now, I will admit that most of this is information I have learned and some guessed at, over the years. You can bet that they are still looking at the big killers of the combat soldier: portability and weight. They are doing this, while maintaining operability and simplicity for the soldier in the field. Now, if you want a new round, what would you want and have for the soldier use and carry into combat? And, for two cents, I will throw in my opinion: the 300 blackout. Pros of this are: heavier projectile, fewest changes to the current weapon platform, better at closer range combat, ballistics that closely mimic the 7.62 x 39. Now for the cons: shorter range, possible over penetratio

Me I say go .308 / 7.62x 51. In the same rifle configuration.