One of the toughest tasks in the military is issuing a new rifle. It costs a lot and you have to issue them to like 1 million people. But bullpup designs are ideal for CQB. Not as ideal as say SMGs but I trust the M4/M16. Those 2 rifles are one of the icons of the US military and if the US is doing really well with it, then there's no point in rearmament for now.
Only update I could see being worthwhile would be a gas piston upper to reduce stoppages, but I don't know how reliable the current iterations of the M16 have gotten. Maybe it's completely unnecessary.
You're right - the AR's problems were due to feeding, but this is a result of the direct impingement design - the weapon "shits where it eats". The gas system dumps off into the bolt carrier group, which is right atop the magazine and such in normal operation - so the more you use the weapon, the dirtier the feed system gets.
Again, bullpup for CQB is debateable. Although it's a shorter weapon, unless it ejects the shells directly down or forward, you can't switch hands and that can be a problem with corners.
the M4 and the M16 as well as their predecessors have thrived in our military for decades, i do not think our country will REPLACE them, but they will be edited, updated, and tricked the hell out.
I don't see the US Armed Forces changing the AR-15 platform anytime soon. It's a proven system but so are many bullpup platforms out there too.
My AUG with my Interceptor Vest....
My AR-15 rifles... some I built and other were purchased. Most were built.
I'm a man of culture and class.... I can live with both in my world. More varity means more flavors... more flavors mean more sexy gals... err... I mean rifles. Yeah, rifles. irate2: