I think we are mixing tactics with rifles.
WWI was a different war then what we had in WWII. A good example would be comparing the M1903 with the 1903A3. In WWI you needed to put rounds on enemy trenches that may be 2000 yards away. The M1903 would do that, the M1903A3 wouldn't have been able to (accurately), that's not because the 1903 was more accurate then the 1903a3. It was the sights. The sights for the '03 were good to somewhere between 24-2500 yards (depending on the sight model) where as the 'A3s sights are only good to 800 or so yards.
The German loss of WWI had nothing to do with the accuracy of the M1903 (actually the M1917), it was because everyone was running out of soldiers and equipment, you throw in another 2 mil or so troops on either side, you'll see that side winning.
Tactics and Rifle differences show up quite well in Vietnam. You hear that it took X amount of rounds per EKIA and many blame the M16a1 and the soldiers shooting the rifle. That's not the case. In SE Asia a huge majority of fire fights was one jungle tree line firing at another jungle tree line. We very seldom saw who we were shooting at. It was about fire power, or who could put the most round into the adversary's tree line. Fire power ruled the day, not accuracy of rifles and rifle shooters.
When targets were seen the M16a1 and the shooter of the M16a1 could more then hold their own.
You can't say what rifle is best based on the tactics of a war.
WWI was a different war then what we had in WWII. A good example would be comparing the M1903 with the 1903A3. In WWI you needed to put rounds on enemy trenches that may be 2000 yards away. The M1903 would do that, the M1903A3 wouldn't have been able to (accurately), that's not because the 1903 was more accurate then the 1903a3. It was the sights. The sights for the '03 were good to somewhere between 24-2500 yards (depending on the sight model) where as the 'A3s sights are only good to 800 or so yards.
The German loss of WWI had nothing to do with the accuracy of the M1903 (actually the M1917), it was because everyone was running out of soldiers and equipment, you throw in another 2 mil or so troops on either side, you'll see that side winning.
Tactics and Rifle differences show up quite well in Vietnam. You hear that it took X amount of rounds per EKIA and many blame the M16a1 and the soldiers shooting the rifle. That's not the case. In SE Asia a huge majority of fire fights was one jungle tree line firing at another jungle tree line. We very seldom saw who we were shooting at. It was about fire power, or who could put the most round into the adversary's tree line. Fire power ruled the day, not accuracy of rifles and rifle shooters.
When targets were seen the M16a1 and the shooter of the M16a1 could more then hold their own.
You can't say what rifle is best based on the tactics of a war.