Exactly. You know this weapon in and out and you know its pluses and minuses. How long would it have taken to come to terms with all of this? A few years at least, perhaps?
Don't you think it would be great if you folks in the army can sit down with folks at OFB and discuss these at length on how to iteratively improve INSAS by getting rid of the shortcomings, while retaining what makes INSAS so good. All of it being in house in the country means that once the solutions are identified, the guns can be quickly upgraded and recycled into the armoury.
Now suppose IA goes in for a wholly new gun and it passes a few trials, but once you start using them in various ops, in various terrains, the gun will start revealing itself i.e. you'll come to understand how the gun performs under various scenarios, in various climes and environs.
Now if there are glitches, you'll have to run to an overseas manufacturer, who may or may not be as receptive to your suggestions. Even if they are, their "experts" will have to fly down to India, sit with officials, not down the kinks, take them to their R&D team, which will most likely be based in their home country. The R&D team will look at your list, maybe start working on some of them, then provide you with hopefully a new improved product, which will need to be tested again to see if the glitches are gone. And the cycle repeats again.
Even assuming that the R&D team based overseas addresses all your concerns, then how long before the solution can be implemented en masse and each and every gun that was issued can be upgraded to the same standards by the local "assembly" unit?
How many years do you think this will take?
With INSAS you have already amassed huge user data. Army and OFB can use this wealth of information to improve and enhance the rifle and develop new generation derivatives.
