You may not expend your ammo as quickly, but you will eventually run out.  If one side in a firefight runs out before the other, then they better have a safe line of retreat or they are SOL.

 

True enough....but the hole in your logic is that using single shots vs. opponents autofire you they will still run out before you do. Yes auto fire has its uses...I was a machine gunner in the Army and at time you need suppressing fire, and sometime the SAW ain't available...but in reality I doubt that carrying 200 rounds and using single shots vs 300 rounds and autofire makes much of a difference in rounds placed into the enemy, but it does make a difference in killing the enemy by using a more powerful round.

Just my 2 cents

If I remember correctly the Soviets issued the AK74 in a .22" caliber in the 1970's. This is the same government that issued the AK47. They too thought more ammo more important than bigger bullet.

Stoner I think got that part right. Combine that with better training and marksmanship you are much more effective than a force using 7.62mm with "spray and pray" tactics.

Most infantry combat occurs at 400 metres or less...probably, IIRC, 30% occurs between 0-50 metres.  A round that is "lethal"-whatever that means- at 800 metres is a waste of resources, for most infantrymen.  A weapon capable of firing such a round is over-built and a waste of resources for most infantrymen.  The 400 metre rule has been around, empirically verified, for 100 years.  It may not apply to Afghanistan, sometimes, but overall an Army, like the USA, that is GLOBAL, not regional doesn't need a weapon, for most infantrymen, that can "kill" at 800 metres. 

 

Bottom-Line:  5.56mm over 7.62mm in a military riffle, sorry whisperzzz...you're just wrong.  And all the above ignores thousands of words on this board about shot placement.