DB>DB>>Hi Vern, what you're telling me here, is that you'd rather
have an M-16
DB>DB>>than
DB>DB>>M-1 Carbine, which is what my point was.

DB> VH> No, I'd rather have an M1 or M14.

DB>But we were talking .223 v .30 carbine. I would rather have an M-14 also, we
DB>I sniping in open territory. I'd rather have an M-16 in jungle or urban comb
DB>I've used both.

I wasn't.  I'd rather have an M1 or M14 under any circumstances.

I will say the M16A4 is a much better rifle than those we were issued in
Viet Nam.

DB> VH> Under Article 15, a company commander can levy fines as
DB> VH> part of
DB> VH> Non-Jusicial Punishment -- read the UCMJ.

DB>Article 15, the "catch all" as we used to call it,
authorizes CO's mast. Whi
DB>I believe that it allows for the CO to delegate to the XO, as in XOI, I've
DB>never heard of this article used by officers junior to the XO.

You were obviously in the Navy -- the rules are slightly different for
the Navy.  The company commander in the Army can administer Nonjudicial
Punishment, but cannot delegate that power.

DB> VH> Not quite true -- the current US standard rifles (M16A2
DB> VH> and A4) are
DB> VH> burst control weapons, not full auto.

DB>Vern, you're all over the board, here. You crapped on the M-16 for various
DB>reasons, including the fact that there's no place for full auto weapons in
DB>combat. I defended the use of full auto weapons, and now you throw out that
DB>they're not _really_ full auto, but 3 round burst.

Which is true.  In Viet Nam, the M16 WAS a full auto weapon, and I used
to impose Nonjudicial Punishment with a $50 fine for firing full auto.

The M16A2 and A4 are burst control -- which shows someone is getting
some sense about this full auto business, but not going far enough
(which would be semi-auto only.)


..............................................
--- Platinum Xpress/Win/WINServer v3.0pr5