Okay guys, I know that this response is a bit late but I have conducted some additional reading and apparently first of all the U.S Army, despite adopting the rifle, delayed orders for eleven months!
And there was a steel strike in 1959 that forced Harrington & Richardson to buy “substitute, lower quality steel”, leading to a batch of brittle relievers.
Sources:
http://www.nramuseum.org/media/940585/m14.pdf
https://prism.ucalgary.ca/bitstream...ary_2016_zhou_yile.pdf?sequence=5&isAllowed=y
Let’s assume that the orders weren’t delayed and instead were placed immediately, and also negotiations by the government were conducted with the strikers, leading to a quick (week or two depending on the demands and willingness to compromise) resolution.
And second, the main reason why the Brits were gung ho on the L1A1 was the thought of taking advantage of the American and Canadian industries to manufacture rifles. The other, of course, was the thought that Uncle Sam would whole heartily adopt the FN designed rifle after the EM-2 project was sabotaged, to say lightly.
So if the manufacturering issues were resolved early on (not to mention having contracts with FN and CETME and a possible early adoption of the M240 by the Yanks), do you think it’s possible that we could see NATO as a whole issued with the weapon?
It ain’t looking good rifle wise for Uncle Sam here judging by the poll so far
Yet it also seems as if the majority is in agreement with a unlikely yet possible adoption of the M1911.
Let see if we can somehow resurrect the concept by getting back on topic, shall we?