The military just has other priorities up higher. For example, it needs to have a max effective range out to 1km, POI can only drift so far as it heats up, needs to withstand a certain amount of impact and vibration, needs to accept certain types of night optics, etc.
After all those requirements (as an example, that's not any kind of official list) then they might look at reducing weight or length, if it doesn't have a negative impact on performance or required criteria.
I do think too big a deal is made of it. Get in shape, carry something reasonable that does what you need. If you are dead set on long range, you may only find the performance you want in a heavier gun. If you keep to reasonable distances, I think you can get away with a lot less.
For me personally I think 6 or 6.5 pounds would be the point of diminishing returns on lightweight. Less than that gets expensive. On the other end, just for enjoyment and ease of carry, I'd definitely like to stay under nine pounds unless I really need long range, multiple shot, tough animal killing performance.
After all those requirements (as an example, that's not any kind of official list) then they might look at reducing weight or length, if it doesn't have a negative impact on performance or required criteria.
I do think too big a deal is made of it. Get in shape, carry something reasonable that does what you need. If you are dead set on long range, you may only find the performance you want in a heavier gun. If you keep to reasonable distances, I think you can get away with a lot less.
For me personally I think 6 or 6.5 pounds would be the point of diminishing returns on lightweight. Less than that gets expensive. On the other end, just for enjoyment and ease of carry, I'd definitely like to stay under nine pounds unless I really need long range, multiple shot, tough animal killing performance.