>>64219685 (OP)
Same reason why the US armed forces will never replace the AR platform.
A hypothetical scenario to make my point.
>have new rifle that beats the AR in everything
>fulfills every single requirement and then some
>cheaper to produce
>it's lighter with a magical caliber that allows soldiers to carry more rounds
>better ballistics than 5.56 at every distance
>parts are more durable and less prone to failure
>comes with universal attachment system that magically accepts everything
>it will never be adopted
Simply because, over the last 60 years, pretty much the whole system is built around the AR platform. What about the soldiers familiarity with the AR? You want to retrain a million people, from the quartermaster to the captains, on a new rifle? What about the whole supply chain? What about the manufacturers? And that's just the rifle. Same goes for that new caliber. And then the biggest hurdle of them all is the question: Is it worth it? Is the role of the AR in combat scenarios big enough that overhauling everything for an increase in performance is worth the, probably, decade long process? Imagine the herculean ordeal that was the m14 vs. m16 debacle, now multiply that by an order of magnitude. Even without the drama, lies and miscommunication. That will never happen again. The only rifle that would replace the m16 would be a tech jump to a laser weapon that doesn't need to be recharged in the field.
