I agree with the lead being removed. More lethal is actually better for small arms, though lead doesn't play a real point in this area. The 5.56 is very frustrating for combat troops, though. In many thousands of demonstrable instances, it takes more than one round to bring an enemy combatant down. This was not the case when the US still issued .30 caliber individual weapon systems. Massive difference in power between the two. The 5.56 is OK out to about 100M if the operator puts the projectile in a CNS region.
The .30 will reliably put opponents down very well, even with the required FMJ rounds. The .30 stuff is far better at hard barrier penetration than the 5.56. The .30 turns cars and walls into concealment rather than actual cover. The 5.56 suffers here unless it's a crew served weapon that can chew through barriers.
I understand the reasons for going to the 5.56. I lived through the transition from the .45 to the 9MM, which was and is lamented by the USMC. The 9MM is analogous to the 5.56/.30 issue. NATO compatibility is the sole reason, but the troops suffer from the lack of power these rounds offer. In the gas-operated weapons used, recoil difference is negligible, since the system soaks up the recoil pretty well, and when the adrenaline runs, recoil and noise are not really noticed anyway.
I was under the impression that weight and the ability to carry more rounds into combat was a bigger driver of the original 5.56mm development, not recoil.
Given the rapid growth in hard armor that can take a few 5.56mm rounds before failing, I wouldn’t be surprised to see militaries shift more towards a 6.5 or 7mm cartridge with a hardened steel penetrator.
The reason is NATO compatibility. No more, no less. That was the answer when I asked when serving. Now, having said this, there are .30 caliber individual weapons aplenty in troop hands and those that use them prefer them. They do perform far and away better.
What most people don't understand is the troop loadout for combat ops. Men are not dripping with weapons and rounds per Hollywood. The standard loadout is an M4 rifle with 6 30-round magazines (180 rounds). If you are issued a handgun, that is 3 15-round magazines for an additional 45 rounds of ammunition, albeit in the "weak" 9mm, which is a get-off-me gun meant for house-to-house, close quarters fighting where a long gun would be unwieldy.
As you suggest, there is a large push to go to the 6mm/243/6.5, which offers SUBSTANTIAL performance benefits over the 5.56. A .243 (6mm) is pushing more ballistic energy at 500M than a 5.56 does at 100M. That's a lot more. And the rounds don't weigh that much more or take up that much more space. Recoil, likewise, is negligible at best due to the gas-operated platform. But, NATO... NATO is sold on the idea of 5.56 and 9mm. I think that DMs should be issued the better long guns to deal with issues the 5.56 cannot handle.
The .30 will reliably put opponents down very well, even with the required FMJ rounds. The .30 stuff is far better at hard barrier penetration than the 5.56. The .30 turns cars and walls into concealment rather than actual cover. The 5.56 suffers here unless it's a crew served weapon that can chew through barriers.
I understand the reasons for going to the 5.56. I lived through the transition from the .45 to the 9MM, which was and is lamented by the USMC. The 9MM is analogous to the 5.56/.30 issue. NATO compatibility is the sole reason, but the troops suffer from the lack of power these rounds offer. In the gas-operated weapons used, recoil difference is negligible, since the system soaks up the recoil pretty well, and when the adrenaline runs, recoil and noise are not really noticed anyway.