I'm tickled pink the modern ammo is more practical. By the same thinking I have zero issues if OUR military can utilize better weapons than the M16/M4. IF it's better and does it's job better than why would any of us be against a better military issue weapon?
I don't think anybody would be, but I really am not sure the .308 is that round.
Damn, I mean how much data do you want to ignore?!
Prior to WWII, we ALMOST had a .264 or .270 service cartrdige. If the dead were honest, it was probably SOLELY due to ego v. the Brits that we stuck it out with the .30-03, then .30-06.
If that had not been set as the precedent for millions of rounds worth of bullets, and metric sh@#-tons of cleaning and sundry equipment, we likely would never have had the T65 --> 7.62x51 NATO...
...and we aren't having this stupid discussion when the .260-class rounds are right there for the taking (or any other similar round that outperforms .308 in the wind, is easier to carry volume of, has 1/2 or 2/3 the recoil in automatic fire, costs less per round, and hits with nearly all the force of .308 anyway...)
-Nate