To keep from further deviating the other thread in the other sub-forum, I figured it was best to just start a new thread.
I'm all for not fixing something that's not broken, but it strikes me that if you have a cartridge that performs well terminally that could replace both 7.62x51 and 5.56x45 and it comes at little cost of recoil and capacity over 5.56, then why wouldn't they go with that? I mean, I get it, that's quite a bit for initial costs of new hardware and all that, but it would serve Big Army far better than the XM17 trials, would simplify logistics, and give our troops a more effective standard rifle. Sure it's not a NATO caliber...yet...but if it cuts the mustard I don't see how you couldn't make it a new NATO standard.
On top of that, a 6.5mm bullet from a cartridge that sounds like is performing about on par with 6.5 Grendel or better could also be shoe-horned into a role of bolt-action hunting rifle. Bolt-action, general purpose carbine, and also probably SPR and DMR. That's 4 different roles filled by one caliber. Am I way off base here or does this make sense to others as well?