Fade2Gray wrote:You say "not really" and yet the 7.62 is mentioned in the source you provided as much better against types of surfaces common in urban environments, which is considered to be the focus of wars coming. Also not mentioned is how 7.62, like 50 cal, mulches up cover a lot faster than 5.56. This isn't about just punching through cover, actually breaking it down is critical in an extended firefight, ESPECIALLY in urban environments. You are trying to cherry pick again. 5.56 simply doesn't carve up a wall or car like 7.62 does, where as 7.62 will destroy cover faster.
Fade, you need a lot of ammo to mulch cover. Carrying 300 rounds of 7.62 probably wouldn't be too much of a problem for you vs. carrying 300 rounds of 5.56, but you're not normal. You're 6'5" and presumably not a string bean, so the literal doubling of weight for the same amount of ammo wouldn't be much of a problem for you. It would (assuming combat loads don't go down somehow) be a pretty big problem for most of the army, which is closer to my size. People already come out disabled because of knee problems they get from just rucking around.
The recoil's also less of a problem for you than it is for most people, because you're a lot bigger and heavier in the arms than they are, unless you're completely out of proportion. 5.56 has tiny recoil in an AR platform, 7.62 doesn't. It's just harder to hit things with.