For the purpose of discussion, let's take the shooter out of the equation as much as possible. I don't care who could beat who at what, or with what. Take a finely-tuned, high-end AR (Teichi probably has one... lol) and shoot, say, ten five-shot groups for an average. Then take an el-cheapo rifle and do that same thing; your groups will open up with the lower quality rifle. That's all I've been trying to say this entire time; someone, probably lots of someones, could beat me with a cheap rifle, but they'll beat me even worse with a good one. That's why a $2,000 AR is better than a $600 AR, and that's what you're paying the extra $1400 for. Is it possible that one specific cheap AR could outshoot another specific high-end one? Of course, but that's completely anecdotal and irrelevant, not to mention very, very rare. If you drop two grand on a LaRue OBR, it's virtually impossible that you won't see an improvement in your group size over your bargain bin AR.
I really don't know what's so hard to comprehend about this. Ferrari is better than Mustang, the Abrams tank is better than the T-72, and high-end ARs are better than cheap ones.
The question is not whether LaRue, Noveske, et al, are better than the competition, it's whether those rifles are worth the extra money. They may or may not be; if you're just going to bring it to HDF fun shoots and blast targets on the run from fifteen yards away, they're probably not. But if you're going to painstakingly develop the optimum handloaded ammo and take Teichi up on his offers to compete in the Puuloa matches, it probably is.