I reiterate my previous statement that you obviously don't know much about the history of either rifle's procurement. Or prefer to repeat mythology because it's less difficult to deal with than facts.
So you're denying that the picnic and the demonstration took place?
Not unless they divorced the M14 from the 7.62x51 cartridge for general service use. Had the same folks who rigged testing to get the M14 adopted in the first place not also insisted on the 308 cartridge, things might have been different. Or maybe not -- as noted, they tried that, and lost to the AR-15.
That's okay, they tried the AR-15 chambered in 7.62x51 (AR-10), and it lost out to the M14.
There still would have been a whole lot of ergonomic issues to correct, that even the new tacticool stocks don't address, though (charging handle misplacement, poor safety design, magazine well design, etc) . . .
There is nothing wrong with any of the features you listed from a functionality nor ergonomic standpoint that hasn't currently been addressed and fixed. The safety and mag release are both fine. They are functional, and located so as to be quick and easy to reach and fully ambi, a feature which puts them above the M16 series from an ergonomic standpoint. The charging handle is awkward for right-handed shooters to charge quickly, esp with optics on the rifle, but current modifications made to the rifle in the Mk 14 Mod 0 address this problem by modifying the bolt stop to work in a manner similar to the AR-15, so that right-handed shooters need only slap the side of their rifle to release the bolt and charge the rifle after a magazine change. The mag well is already funneled and is easy to use. The rock and lock action required to lock magazines in place is not a deficit if training is administered. I taught myself how to do it and can now change magazines in my M1A as fast, if not faster, than I ever could with the M16.
The technique is simple, really, and matches what people have been doing with the AK for some time. When the bolt locks back on an empty magazine, from a position of underarm-assault, the user drops to a knee and calls "reloading!" Then he grabs the easiest to reach mag, already pre-positioned in its pouch with bullets facing the rifle across the body and the top of the magazine facing the ground. The magazine is pull from the pouch and held "low beer can grip" similar to performing a reload in the M16, except it is oriented parallel to the deck with the rounds facing forward, or downrange. In one smooth motion, the front of the loaded magazine is struck against the paddle style mag release and into the back of the empty magazine, knocking it free of the rifle. The loaded magazine is then rotated 90 degrees so that the top is oriented up and is rocked and locked into place as a continuation of the same movement used to clear the empty mag from the rifle. A left-handed shooter can then flip the palm of the hand up and grab the charging handle with the meaty part of the hand, in the exact manner the charging handle of the M249 is manipulated. It is pull back and released, charging the weapon. Right-handed shooters would simply hit the bolt stop on the left-hand side of the receiver. It is very simple, very quick, and very smooth. I put my mind to it for 15 minutes in my boxer shorts one night before bed and was changing mags as fast or nearly as fast as I ever changed them on the M16.
Speaking of charging handle misplacement, have you seen where they put that charging handle on the M16 lately? Talk about awkward...
So yes, the M14 is ergonomically not the M16, but again, that is part of the point. The M16 is not without its own ergonomic faults, esp when shot left handed.
As for my signature line and the supposedly authority I supposedly borrowed it from, we're all free to have our opinions. But if I believed everything "authorities" told me, I'd be in a pretty bad place.
