Forgive me for asking a question that might seem a bit mong but I am genuinely curious. There are many specialists here, who clearly know a great deal about the intricacies and finer details of combat rifles and ammunition and the points in favour and against respective models, and I respect that and find the contributions fascinating.
What I am wondering about however is the big picture in regard to general issue to regular troops, for whom these intricate details are rarely, if ever, important. Does it really matter what model of tried and tested rifle (as opposed to revolutionary new designs) is issued to troops for general use? Has there ever been a case where the quality of rifle made a difference to the ultimate result (not specific incidents, such as Canadians finding their Ross rifles inappropriate for the trenches)? We are always told that Mauser rifles were the finest bolt-action infantry rifles made, how in the hands of Boer trekkers they were lethal, but the Boers lost, as did pretty much all the other armies equipped with Mausers. Is the design of a rifle that important at the end of the day? Is it not the case that any half-decent rifle, if issued in sufficient numbers to well-trained troops, will do the job?
Veterans who used the L1A1 still swoon over it, but if they had been issued with M-14s, H&K G3s or even SKS rifles, would any of the campaigns that the British Army was involved in during that time have ended differently? If so, how?
It's a genuine question being asked of experts, and not trolling.