Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!uwm.edu!gem.mps.ohio-state.edu!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!att!cbnews!military
From: gwh%typhoon.Berkeley.EDU@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU (George William Herbert)
Newsgroups: sci.military
Subject: Re: M-16 reliability (was Re: early bad press may be justified)
Message-ID: <10402@cbnews.ATT.COM>
Date: 20 Oct 89 01:41:49 GMT
Sender: military@cbnews.ATT.COM
Organization: ucb
Lines: 21
Approved: military@att.att.com



From: gwh%typhoon.Berkeley.EDU@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU (George William Herbert)
>
>[mod.note:  To which I'm sure many readers will respond, "wouldn't
>	it have been better to design a gun to handle the specified 
>	ammo ?"   Seems to me that there must be a NATO standard for
>	9mm, that being, supposedly, why we dropped the .45.  Does
>	the US use a more powerful load ?  - Bill ]

There is a NATO standard for cartridge size, not laoding.  They
figured it wouldn't be a problem with breaking commercial standards
for loading...

I have no comment on the sensibility of decisions like this.  


****************************************
George William Herbert  UCB Naval Architecture Dpt. (my god, even on schedule!)
maniac@garnet.berkeley.edu  gwh@ocf.berkeley.edu
----------------------------------------