RY>I"m going to go out on a limb here, and work from memory. Which
means, I'll
RY>likely be wrong, But....

RY>Usability is a function of design.

RY>The .30 carbine was a supoprt services weapon primarily, Designed for those
RY>troops that needed a weapon larger than a pistol, but not as heavy as an M-1
RY>The carbile fired what was generally considered a "hot
pistol" load, and was
RY>accurate {?} out to about 300 yards {if one know what one was doing} no more
RY>no less. This is similar in thought to the issue of M-3 "grease
guns" to
RY>tankers and other armored types.

The .30 Carbine was issued to Advisers in Viet Nam, men who served in
4-man teams with South Viet Namese infantry units.  As a weapon, it was
pretty sorry.

RY>The 7.62 nato was designed for both range and stopping power, and that it;s
RY>still used to this day {like the .50 cal M-2} testifies to it's worth. Not f
RY>wimps, the M-1 and M-14 {both of which I trained with} are heavy, rugged,, a
RY>work exceptionally well.

RY>The .223 was designed as a varmint round. While it's all well and good again
RY>woodchuck and amradillo and such, and while it does have range, the stoppig
RY>power and overall penetration qualities are, shall we say, questionable.

The .223 was designed as a military round.  It was specifically designed
for Eugene Stoner's AR 15 rifle (which became the M16 when adopted.)  It
was based on a varmit round, the .222 Remington magnum, but was a
military round before it was commercially avaliable.

RY>There is a legend told at Aberdeen that when the idea of the m-16 was
RY>indrotuced that one of the selling points to the Army was " The troop can
RY>carry more ammo"... It was not metiond that the tropp would
/need/ it  in th
RY>same manner that prompted the design of the .45 pistol beacuse the .38's wer
RY>not stopping the Moro Indian charges with any effectiveness.

RY>All of the other flaws of the -16  aside, one fo the big ones was /doctrine/
RY>That of 'hosing down" or "fire suppression" rather
than the priciple of
RY>/aimed fire/  which had been taught previously.

RY>Having fired most everything in the inventory up to 1977, my preference woul
RY>be, heavy as it is, the M-14 for distance work, and a Thompson for short-ran
RY>duties.

I have used several weapons in combat -- I remain convinced that an M14
with enough ammo to accomplish the mission is lighter than an M16 with
enough ammo to accomplish the same mission.
--- Platinum Xpress/Win/WINServer v3.0pr5