The Daewoo rifle itself is a very good weapon. Daewoo Precision Industries operates the government built factory that porduces them. They also produced M16s under license there. The quality of production is every bit as good as a USGI M16. I own one of the pre-ban K2s and I spent a year there in the Army, and I've seen them in use and abuse by the ROK. They work well.
It uses alloy receiver technology similar to the AR, along with compatibility with most M16 accessories, like the bayonet, bipod, and magazine. It utilizes an AK type gas system, with an M16 type bolt. The gas system has four gas settings on it. It has better sights than the M16A1, in that they are adjustible for elevation, but uses the same windage drum as the A1, so they are probably not as good as the A2 sights for match work. I replaced mine with a "Rapidex" drum and it works great. Accuracy is the same as any normal AR/M16. It has a folding stock that is so good, you don't know it's a folder when you have it extended. It's a good rifle, and really has some nice features that make it a good choice.
Price for pre-bans are around $1000+, or a couple hundred cheaper than an AR. Post-bans go for about $750+. Prices seem to be climbing just slightly faster on them than ARs, but not enough to really say it's a better investment.
The Daewoo is an adopted military weapon, and it has been successful. The ROK didn't produce the rifle with a mind to export in the first place. They just built them to replace the Army's M16s they had also built and were wearing out. The ROK AF still uses just the M16, because of cost vs requirements. The Daewoo's a better gun, but not so much better as to make the M16 trash. Sorta like the A2 is better than the A1. It is, but not by much.
As for a comparison to the Robinson M96, I dunno. I haven't owned an M96. For the price of the post-ban M96 you can own a pre-ban K2 folder and have a couple hundred left over for mags and ammo. The M96 costs almost twice that as a post-ban Daewoo. The M96 is heavier and the Daewoo is a military adopted rifle in service for many years. Not knocking the M96, because I down't own one. Just knocking their price tag (which is why I don't own one).
Economically, there's no way that the M16 system could be replaced in the US military system unless the new rifle really represented an actual leap in capability. That will probably mean new technology. As for a slug-thower, the M16 is still a great system, and launches bullets at individual targets about as good as anything else will. The cost of replacement won't be justified until a new technology matures enoug to use in an Infantry rifle.
Ross