M14s in stock as-issued form, were good enough for average Marines to qualify as Sharpshooters (213- 219 out of 250 points) on a known distance range, with a max distance of 500m. I have successfully engaged the enemy out to 600m myself.
The really important part of the M14 was its dependability: it always fired, in heavy rain, dust storms, and weeks without good cleaning in a very filthy environment. The 7.62mm NATO round dependably punched through walls, gravestones, heavy foliage, whathaveyou, and killed whatever was on the other side.
I have also successfully used the National Match M14 in Marine Corps competition in all weather, winning several times (one gold medal, one bronze and two team trophies). My match M14 never failed me and that fiberglass bedding didn't need pampering.
In short, yet another enthusiast for the goofy Stoner design, which is a fine rifle for the civilian range and the gun safe - but I will always be skeptical about any military action that doesn't allow easy access to the chamber and is made of aluminum.
When your life depends on it, wood and steel, baby!
I don’t disagree with what you say; I shoot a M1 myself though it’s not quite the same thing.
The article was just a look at the reasoning behind the decision to drop the .308.
If you remember the Europeans weren’t sold on that idea and kept the FAL and G3 around for decades.