M14 not meeting aimed fire requirement???
the last TRUE " battle rifle" as far as i know is really the M1 garand. i WOULD say the M14, but that doesnt fufill the "aimed fire" requirement
It has only been recently that AR's have edged out M1A's and M14's at Camp Perry in the Service Rifle catagory, and I believe that is because paper doesn't care about stopping power. The less recoil of the 223 lends itself to rapid fire. That said, I don't understand how a rifle that can compete at 1000yds with full power ammo doesn't meet the aimed fire requirement.
Under 100 yds, in an urban door to door environment, an M4 has the handling advantage and still has stopping power. Add a 6.8 SPC upper to increase range and stopping power.
At Range and in harsh environments the M-1 and the M-14 would better suit the needs of a mid-range rifleman. The higher ammo capacity of the M-14 would give it an edge on the M-1, but the 30cal ammo of both would give precision volume fire at range. (600-800m without a problem)
The SKS and AK provide volume fire in a harsh environment to the untrained masses, but the AR, FAL, G-3, M-1 and M-14 are capable of better accuracy. The Ak and SKS will function reliably with little maintainance in the worst conditions. (the AR will need to be cleaned more!-full of sand it don't work well at all!)
I have an M-1A, a AR-15, and a 1911. As the threat gets closer, I grab the next tool in line.