Up to a point. When we get our hat handed to us by adversaries who use a technological advancement, it brings change along in a hurry. Examples abound, from the reservist volunteers of 1898 going up against the Spanish in Cuba with their Civil War Springfield muskets reworked into single shot breechloaders, versus Spanish 5-shot Mauser bolt-action repeaters firing smokeless cartridges. The good news was it gave us the Krag and Lee repeaters, whose shortcomings were resolved with their replacement by the Springfield bolt action rifle of 1903.
Likewise, the M14 and early AR15 rifles were thought to be just dandy when fitted with a 20-round magazine, since that was what the WWII [and late WWI] BAR had used. And then US troops started going up against AK47s with 30-round magazines.
Our present enemies have mostly fielded that same weapon, so our shortcomings in the small arms department aren't as critical as those in personnel body and vehicular armor were. And it's always the squeaky wheel that gets the grease.
But either a breakthrough in propellant technology, probably caseless, or a situation in which American troops find their most basic tool to be horrible inadequate will get great bright spotlights of attention on the problem. I would be happier if it's the former.
As I recall, around 1980, the Marines were pushing hard for a rifle upgrade. They were offered two options: continue with the M16 and minor changes (sights?) and wait 10 or 15 years for the next generation of rifle which would include caseless ammo, or get nothing. They took what they could get.
I’m sure someone closer to the process will be along to fill in the blanks.
BTW – At the beginning of WW II, those .45-70 single shots were still in National Guard armories. Your great-grandkids will be training with M4s some day.