I’m going to question the M14/M14E2 decision from a realistic and competitive standpoint. Realistically, the M14-E2 was a development test rifle for a squad automatic to assist in support. The M14 was an arms reach distance rifle and a standard issue, both are incredibly similar but every difference between the 2 change their characteristics. The M14E2- Was lighter, with more wood than metal and even implemented plastic. Had a compensator vs a break. A Bipod AND foregrip. An actual pistol grip that was implemented to increase recoil management. Faced overheating issues due to higher rate of fire. With that said, having both the M14 and E2 variants makes no sense. Competitively: They both have the same barrel length and ammo type (.308/7.62), why is there a difference in damage? Same question for distance, same round through the same barrel. Why is the reach different with a different damage fall off? The M14 is a single fire, heavier body rifle WITH a muzzle break, the E2 was developed with a compensator, foregrip, and pistol grip to face those M14 issues. If anything, the M14 should have increased accuracy whereas the E2 should have better recoil control. Both were designed with different positions within the infantry squad. Because heat affects the performance of a rifle, the E2 should suffer in this spectrum more so than the M14. In an argument of a competitive shooter, the M14 should be changed out for the M1A, Gewehr or German SKS if some variance and real competitive edge for distance shots is to be had. As it stands, there’s no real sense behind having 2 variants of the same rifle with different characteristics.