Too proud?
Which multinational arms company would even bother to submit it? They make NO money on producing something already on the open market with known issues.
1) wobbly open top receiver doesn't offer a secure optic mount
2) heavy receiver construction which requires press fitting the barrel
3) tall gas cylinder which creates barrel whip and accuracy degradation
4) poorly placed ergonomic controls that lack blocking the trigger while charging the weapon
I could go on, point being modern combat firearms use Stoner methods of construction - check the details of the XCR - the AK updated - ACR, ARX, SCAR, etc. You will find the lower configured in large part like the M16 - or better - because it's been proven over and over in combat and competition the control layout is superior, keeping the gun and shooter in the fight.
Most of the new guns have barrel nut or quick change locks - and use a barrel extension instead of a heavy receiver that is harder to headspace. Polymer or composite lowers, and extruded uppers are being seen - not folded carbon steel sheets bent into crude shapes and white wood stocks stained in a pretense of actual heartwood.
Suggesting that we could step back 50 years and adopt some relic firearm is ludicrous Even the second rate countries that made it have dumped it to use an improved version, or moved on to modern standards.
It would be akin to the US readopting the Krag Jorgenson to field in Korea, or hearing the unified Germany announce they were going to reissue the G43, or the Brits were going back to the FN FAL.
Last time they bought a .308, it was the L129A1 - a modern AR10 variant.
The list of competitor's is out there, take time for a reality check, as one of those will very likely be the standard issue rifle in ten years. And just like the replacement for the 1911, it's likely the average shooter won't have a clue why the selection process came up with the top choice.
