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

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

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

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

Article 15, the "catch all" as we used to call it, authorizes
CO's mast. While I believe that it allows for the CO to delegate to the XO,
as in XOI, I've never heard of this article used by officers junior to the
XO. The chain of command requires officers junior to the XO to report to
the XO (assuming that they're the department head), not the CO, and the XO
would not be authorized to
delegate their delegated power. However, if you insist, I'll believe you,
but had I been an enlistee in your outfit, your fine would not have gone
unchallenged. :) During my service, I have to admit that I delighted in
making things right for enlistees with legitimate gripes. :)

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

Vern, you're all over the board, here. You crapped on the M-16 for various
reasons, including the fact that there's no place for full auto weapons in
combat. I defended the use of full auto weapons, and now you throw out that
they're not _really_ full auto, but 3 round burst. It seems to me that you
just want to argue. If you have plenty of experience in small arms, great,
but I do too... I enjoy debating back and forth regarding this gun or that
round, but lets not argue just for arguement's sake.

--- Ceska Zbrojovka