With the ops in Afghanistan (mostly) and Iraq, the troop were being "out-ranged" by enemy fire.
Basically, the US Army wasn't comfortable with the idea during the Afghanistan War that US squads with 5.56 mm M4/M16 and M249 were being out-ranged by enemy personnel utilizing 7.62x54mmR weaponry. Essentially, the 7.62x54mmR weapons like SVD rifles and PK machine guns allowed the OPFOR to engage from 800+ meters away while the 5.56 mm weapons were only able to engage ~500 m effectively.
Also, there was a need to increase the stopping power because in Afghanistan they found out the 5.56 wasn't putting & keeping down the insurgents reliably when they were hit. That's when they started introducing the 77 gr. Mk.262 loads that were more effective.
The advantage of 6.8x51 is that it has higher muzzle velocity, higher muzzle energy and a much flatter trajectory than the 5.56 and 7.62x51 (and the 7mm/08 & 260 Rem) and does all this out of a 13” barrel.
The front-line combat formations and combat service support units will be fielding the new M7/8 rifles & M250 MGPMGs. Majority of the rear echelon units and probably all of the reserves and guard units are still keeping their M4’s for the foreseeable future.
So, riddle me this...
#1 - Were there any complaints when the M16/5.56 was first adopted?

I think it took awhile to get the bugs out in the A2, and they moved to a 62/64 gr bullet for more effectiveness against supposed Russian armor, when they figured out the 55 gr pill wouldn't cut the mustard.
#2 - Why didn't the US Armed Forces use the "heavy" M1 Garand/30-06 when the lighter M1 carbine/.30 carbine was available and the troops then could have a lighter & higher ammo load-out?
#3 - Why did the USMC move to the lower-performance M4 carbine due to the US Army experience in Afghanistan when they had higher-performance A2/A4s, other than the M4s were easier to carry when in vehicles?