Come on man. I listed the two attributes that I believe make the M14 a better rifle than the AK and pointed out what I think is a big flaw of the AK. Now you are trying to claim these are the only considerations I use. Reasonable people would recognize all the attributes that both rifles have and not need them to be listed individually.You want the M1/M14 to win so you narrow down your criterion so that only accuracy at 800+ yards matter. So that is the only thing that makes a rifle good? If that's the case - then the 1903 Springfield is your pick.
They are used around the world, because of what I mentioned before. When the trigger is pulled they go bang...no matter what. They are not junk - that's just a silly notion. Israel copied he AK to come up with the Galil, because they valued it's simple, small, rugged design and they were using the FAL at the time.
You make me think of the old story I read of the captured T-34/76 tanks that the Germans examined. Story goes that they considered making a reversed engineered version, since the Russian tanks were so effective on the battlefield. However they concluded they couldn't do that, because the Russian tanks would never pass their quality control inspections. Yet the simple, plain & crude T-34 was the tank that shocked the Wehrmacht and they couldn't understand how it could defeat their Panthers & Tigers. Plus later on there were so many of them. The T-34s were junk either - but a great simple design that does the job it's meant for. For me the AK family has the same design philosophy.
You want the AK to win, so you distort my argument against them.
Bottom line, most AKs cannot make reliable torso sized hits beyond 200 yards and many can't do it even at 200 yards. That's a non starter for me.

