Just read that article and it seems to be contradicted by US experience in Somalia, Iraq. That is the complaint was that the 5.56 even at close range took 3 or more hits to stop an enemy. That is as the Colonel said in the article the M4 is more lethal because it can put more rounds on target.

Humm, that means I have to carry at least 3 times the amount of ammo to somebody carrying a 7.62X51 so I will end up carrying more weight and probably spend more time on a target instead of 2 hits move on.

I did read somewhere that the troops they seem to be getting good reports from come across as being young and not knowing the difference in using a 7.62 as opposed to 5.56 even at close range.

Lets hope that a rational and quick but well thought out solution to this mess is implemented asap.