I call BS.
The “problem” with a .223 is an ammunition problem. Expanding rounds > non-expanding rounds. The question that needs to be asked is, why aren’t we using the most effective ammunition?
Also at range, mortars always > rifles.
Another question to ask is, if resupply is not an issue why not equip with the heaviest, most accurate, most lethal round available? And it’s not a .223.
Seems like an article designed to build momentum to transition to the 6.8 SPC. Just my opinion.
“The question that needs to be asked is, why aren’t we using the most effective ammunition?”
Treaty.
The issues with the .223(5.56) is that each bullet just doesnt have enough mass to give decent stopping power. The 7.62, on the other hand, starts falling out of the sky at a couple hundred yards. I am surprised that you were the first I saw to mention the 6.8SPC... From what I’ve seen its one of the best compromises between the .223’s flat trajectory, and the 7.62’s stopping power.
http://www.barrett.net/firearms/rec7
First of all, while the 5.56 rounds, either the old 55gr or the new 62gr ones, don't expand, they do yaw when they hit flesh. That results in a nasty wound channel, and a large temporary cavity, which may crush or otherwise damage tissue. Second, exanding rounds are banned by treaty. Even the Soviets did not use them (but the 7.62x39 and 5.54x39 rounds they do use, also yaw in flesh).