DB> TS>> the .30 Carbine isn't an '06, but it's
 DB> TS>> better than the glorified .22 that is the M-16.

 DB>> Just my opinion, Todd, but I have to disagree. The .223's 3250+ fps
 DB>> muzzle velocity for a standard NATO light round more than makes up
 DB>> in stopping powe what it lacks in weight.

 VH> I'm here to tell you that "stopping power" and
".223" can't be used in
 VH> the same sentence.

 VH> I have seen men take multiple hits with a 5.56X45 NATO round (the
 VH> .223) and continue to function.

 VH> Nor is the 5.56X45 nearly as effective against barriers, such as logs,
 VH> sandbags, walls, and so on as the .30-06 or the 7.62X51 NATO.

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

Usability is a function of design.


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


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

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

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

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

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

Thanks for your time..



---