Standards change over the years, but some things don't
So it pays to remember history. The military always learns from history, but sometimes they don't learn the right lesson, or learn it fast enough. And sometimes, they do, but cannot implement the lesson learned against the political master of the pocketbook that they work for.
The "economy" required by governments (especially democracies) on military weapons is responsible for the majority of their failures, often costing servicemen's lives in the process.
Note that JM Browning designed the BAR virtually overnight (in terms of design time, compared to mnost other guns), AND he gave it to the US govt for a pittance (virtually free, he took the govt's first lowball offer), his only request was that the first guns go to his son Val's unit (and those like them) in France.
Our govt has a long history of not giving our troops the best weapons possible, but of giving them the cheapest best weapons practical. There have been notable exceptions, but generally this has been the rule up until fairly recently. And there is still a strong predisposition to choose the cheapest route if possible. We have a huge investment in the M16 rifle system, and we will not replace it with anthing less than a quantum leap forward in technology (the ray gun in some form). We might eventually adopt a more effective cartridge than the 5.56mm, but only if it works in an M16 reciever. There is no getting around that in the real world. Some variant of the M16 will remain the standard infantry rifle for the forseeable future.
But the M14 (in some variation) has a place as well, and it is good that the military (particularly the Army) is remembering it. Since the end of WWII, the military has been obsessed with the idea that there is a single "best" thing for all situations. Gun, tank, plane, rifle, etc. Standardization is great, it is useful, it is cheapest, and if numbers are the most important thing (ahead of performance) it is the way to go. (think Sherman tank), but if performace is critical, then there is no single "best" for all situations. One size may fit all, but one size fits almost nobody perfectly!
During WWII we used HMGs, LMGs, SMGs, rifles, and carbines, and all had their benefits and drawbacks. Today we have combined the SMG, rifle, and carbine, and to an extent the LMG as well. The compromise works well for a lot of things, but there are still situations where dedicated specific designs work better. An M14 isn't the best thing for walking a jungle trail, or clearing houses, and an assault rifle/smg isn't the best thing for potting the bad guys at extended range. Our sons (and daughters) need, and deserve both, and in useful amounts. And they need and deserve the training to be able to make the most of them. These lessons have been learned before, and paid for in our blood. Why do we have to relearn them again and again?
