Hmmmm
Nando, so is the conclusion of those 2 paragraphs that Army grunts took 200,000 per kill, and Marine grunts took only 50,000 per kill (4 times the efficiency of the Army soldiers)? The first sentence of the first paragraph doesn't specifically say Marine soldiers, but that seems to be implied, because if it doesn't imply Marine soldiers (non-snipers anyway), then it conflicts with the 2nd paragraph.
Or, maybe they mean that Army soldiers (NOT counting snipers), took 200,000 shots per kill, whereas in the Marines, the average of BOTH non-sniper and sniper Marines averages out to 50,000, but the non-sniper Marines alone (for which no stat is given), would also be up there close to 200K, but averaging in the 1.3-per sniper kills, it comes down to 50,000. No that's not it, because paragraph one says "with the M16". That must mean that the Marine non-snipers were actually better than 50,000 (less than), because the 1st sentence of the 1st paragraph doesn't distinguish any branches, and thus in order for the average soldier (of any branch) to make a kill per 50K rounds, and if the Army soldiers are firing 200K rounds, then to come up with the average, the Marine (and other branch soldiers) must on average do much better (lower) than 50,000 shots per kill.
Actually, on second thought, the distinction in the paragraphs could mean 2 things: (1) that Marines didn't expend as many shots per kill from the M16, if you take paragraph 1 to imply Marine soldiers, or (2) that all soldiers using the M16, regardless of branch, took 50K shots per kill, BUT when you factor in mini-guns and other "rounds/shots" from every conceivable piece of armament including chopper door-gunners, Puffs and whatnot - don't know how big you can go and still call it a "round expended" - 20mm?? Bigger?? - then the average raises to 200K. Needs more clarification on the distinctions of Marine/Army (or non-Army/Army), and M16 vs other armament shooting "rounds".