"Actually, BSA was a private enterprise, and did market the Lee-Enfield to other militaries."
Yes, they did. AS a private company, by special permission of the Ministry of Defense, AND with the understanding that were war to come BSA would immediately drop all foreign contracts and re-establish production for the Crown.
However, there's a problem with your theory that the fact that BSA didn't flood the world with LEs somehow makes them the worst rifle ever conceived...
BSA didn't receive a Royal Warrant to start marketing it's guns to other military forces until AFTER World War I, when several things conspired against it success:
1. Anyone who wanted to arm their militaries cheaply could simply buy surrendered Mauser rifles from companies like Francis Bannerman -- by the pound.
That's pound weight, not pound Sterling...
2. The general consensus was that WW I had, well, ended wars. Few nations were looking to rearm.
3. For those nations that were looking to rearm in the interim, and especially during the financial crises of the Weimar Republic period, Mauser sold its rifles at cutrate prices, virtually at cost, as a means of keeping the plant operating.
So, it's not nearly as simple as you make it out to be.
As for the "scientific" spin on things...
So, do prove to us in the strictest scientific fashion, i.e., to the fourth decimal place, to the nearest grain, ounce, milligram, whatever, the Mauser's superiority as a battle rifle.
Remember, it must be in calculable, repeatable, numeric fashion only.
You can't taken into account such pesky trivialities as rate of fire, battlefield impact, world-wide usage, or anything like that.
Please do prove to us, so scientifically...
Because you're sure not doing it based on accurate historic facts.