Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!lsuc!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!bellcore!decvax!ittatc!dcdwest!sdcsvax!sdcrdcf!hplabs!qantel!lll-lcc!lll-crg!seismo!brl-adm!brl-smoke!wmartin
From: wmartin@brl-smoke.ARPA (Will Martin )
Newsgroups: net.politics
Subject: Re: Dangerous Military Myth
Message-ID: <1885@brl-smoke.ARPA>
Date: Tue, 18-Mar-86 10:34:13 EST
Article-I.D.: brl-smok.1885
Posted: Tue Mar 18 10:34:13 1986
Date-Received: Wed, 26-Mar-86 23:06:07 EST
References: <373@ihnet.UUCP> <711@mtuxn.UUCP>, <377@ihnet.UUCP> <719@mtuxn.UUCP>
Organization: USAMC ALMSA, St. Louis, MO
Lines: 16

> You might think that with modern weapons a soldier
> should be able to kill an enemy by firing, what, maybe 100 to 200 rounds.
> For comparision, that is about 2 to 4 M16-fulls of ammo.

Minor nitpick, but I thought I might as well mention it -- The standard
issue M-16 magazine holds 20 rounds. There are also 30-round magazines
available; I believe they are issued on a more limited basis. On the
civilian market, there are 40-round box and 75-round drum magazines
available, but they are not military standard issue; reliability goes
down as the size of magazines goes up. I believe that it was SOP in
Vietnam to load somehat less than 20 rounds in a standard magazine for
the  greatest reliability in functioning.

So "100 to 200 rounds" is more like "5 to 10 M-16-fulls" instead of "2 to 4".

Regards, Will