Full auto in combat?

[La Pistoletta]

Are there any recorded instances of full auto shotguns, such as the USAS-12, being successfully used in combat?

If yes, what's the performance evaluation? I can't think of much general utility reasons for using a fully automatic shotgun, only maximizing firepower against human opponents comes to mind. Does it actually work well as used by the (few?) police/military units that have tried it?

[rcmodel]

I've never heard of anyone being able to hump enough ammo to feed a full-auto shotgun in combat!

It's hard enough with a pump or semi-auto.

rcmodel

[La Pistoletta]

Still, at least the USAS-12 has been manufactured in sufficient numbers to make you think it's been used here and there.

[MCgunner]

Why? A minigun ain't enough?

[rcmodel]

I just don't know.

My personal view is that shotguns have a few very specific uses in combat, and are not at all good for ground combat most of the time.

Consider that a good man with a bow & arrow or spear has a range advantage on you.
Not to mention a skilled grenade chucker or rifleman.

An assault rifle, SAW or LMG has it all over any shotgun in range, barrier penetration, mass ammo portability, and accuracy.

rc

[Gunnerpalace]

I read that Navy seals in Vietnam used a full auto 11-87, the problem with it they said it "kicked like a b" and burned through ammo.

[Beagle-zebub]

I can't see how it would appeal to anyone. The ammo is so heavy, making it impractical for laying down fire, and actually shooting at things full-auto (if it even happens, aside from with an actual machinegun) would be redundant, or else better done with a rifle.

[Zundfolge]

The purpose of full auto in combat is suppressive fire, you're not going to suppress much if you have to stop every 10 rounds and reload (or even 20 rounds with the drum).

You'll run a full auto shotgun and all the ammo a soldier could carry dry real fast and then have an expensive club.

Note that our soldiers are taught not to shoot their full auto M4s full auto very often.

[La Pistoletta]

So they aren't used in special operations to, well, engage hostiles at close range with as much firepower as you can get in CQB?

You'd think there would be some reason for those things to be made, let alone getting ordered by some agencies.

[ArmedBear]

I've spoken with only one person who has actually been in combat, about the use of full-auto or burst fire.

He said that it's almost always considered a waste of your limite supply of ammo in combat, and that the select-fire feature of a military assault rifle exists primarily for "oh ****!" situations. A USMC sergeant who went to Iraq, he said they didn't train with full-auto, just occasionally did a little for fun with excess ammo, in training.

Bottom line? Full-auto is like something you carry with you like highway flares. You want to have them, but you don't plan to use them.

To carry a machine-shotgun and enough ammo to make it useful as such, you'd have to be planning for it.

[Lee Lapin]

Not 11-87s- those weren't around for Vietnam. It was experimental Remington 1100s they used, which first came to market in 1963.

Remington began a serious military shotgun devekopment program in the mid-1960s, with focus on both the semaiuto 1100 and the pump 870. The selective fire 1100 (dubbed the Model 7188) differed only in its trigger assembly, as it had a three-position fire selector lever instead of a safety button, and the necessary parts in the assembly to allow full auto fire.

By the middle of 1966, several prototype guns were appearing. Different variations of the 7188 appeared, with4, 7 or 8 shot magazines, with or without heat shields, with bead sights or rifle type sights, etc- Marks I thru VI.

The Marines tested them, the Air Force tested them, the US Secret Service tested them. At least half a dozen went to Vietnam with the Navy SEALs.

For sheer firepower the automatic shotguns were unbeatable. But they failed some of the environmental tests they were subjected to (as did most other semiautomatic shotguns of the time), and many shooters found them completely uncontrollable in full automatic fire. The limited capacity of the tubular magazines and the lack of easy reloading were other issues.

The Remington experiments with seletive fire shotguns never went any further.

Prototypes were built of a few other designs- the Atchisson Assault 12 (forebear of the USAS-12), the Foote Machine Shotgun, the Childers Special Operations Weapon. As far as I know, none ever went further than the prototype stage.

lpl (again, data from Swearengen's The World's Fighting Shotguns)

[La Pistoletta]

"For sheer firepower the automatic shotguns were unbeatable."

Makes sense to me.

"As far as I know, none ever went further than the prototype stage."

I guess this excludes the Atchisson - USAS-12 relation? Since to my knowledge, the USAS is complete and in production, or at least was.

Do you think the problems with environmental testing were shared with the semiautos, and that if the semis work now, so will the full autos? What about the usage of drum magazines, to increase magazine capacity, from the 80's and forward?

The FA shotgun seems very much like a niche instrument, but as you mentioned, for pure firepower against a close-range target not behind cover...at the risk of sounding a bit cocky, that should be a matter of aiming, firing and killing. Fast.

[Gunnerpalace]

Thanks for the clarification Lee I must have had "No country for old men" on my mind.

[Lee Lapin]

LP,

The AA12 is to the USAS-12 as... well, think about Model T's and Thunderbirds. Both are Fords, but there is a difference. The AA12 as it was prototyped never actually saw production, the USAS-12 is a derivation of it, true, but the USAS-12 is different in a lot of more refined ways. Actually the USAS-12 looks more like the Foote in general external appearance. The redesign of the AA12 seems to have come into production, but with distribution limited to LE and military agencies only. I've never seen any references to its actually being used in combat, could be it has but i don't know.

See http://world.guns.ru/shotgun/sh16-e.htm and http://world.guns.ru/shotgun/sh29-e.htm for more...

lpl (who REALLY wanted an AA12 'way back when.')

[DMR]

"For sheer firepower the automatic shotguns were unbeatable."


Well at least for the first 5-10 rounds. After that carbines can and will clean you clock since "Combat" by definition means you are going to see a lot of bad guys, none of whom should be expected to be stationary or with in 30 meters for most engagements. Most likely you will also only be able to carry on your body maybe 50-100 rounds with a preety good wieght penalty.

I'll stick with a carbine and a special purpose pump as required if I had to. For general HD or most LE requirements I'd be happy with a semi or a pump.

[rcmodel]

I wonder how many of those USAS-12's were relegated to less-then-lethal crowd control use?

Rubber balls & tear gas don't kick much on full auto, but you could sure lay down a cloud of gas in a hurry!

Somehow, I can't see any police agency in the free world hosing down a BG with a full-auto shotgun & buckshot!

rcmodel

[Bud Tugly]

I know nothing about them, but I can visualize a swivel-mounted one on an urban assault vehicle for crowd suppression. That way you wouldn't have to lug around all the ammo with you on foot.

I can't imagine shooting one from the shoulder, though.

[rcmodel]

If you notice the news lately, our solders get charged with murder now for suppressing crowds in combat.

rc

[Gordon]

Back in the early 60s when I was in college, there was a good old Georgia boy that had a 20" Browning Auto 5 rigged quite professionally with a selector switch. I remember shooting 5 rounds of 00 buck at a target a ways out .

[Ben86]

The recoil is such that it would not allow accurate automatic fire unless mounted on a vehicle or something. Yes you do have to be accurate even with a shotgun. I'm fine with pumps because the recovery time even with an automatic is plenty long enough to pump the next round.

[Blakenzy]

I don't know what type of loads they are firing here, but they seem to produce very managable recoil even in full auto.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hhstuvzMiB0

[DMR]

I wonder how many of those USAS-12's were relegated to less-then-lethal crowd control use?

Rubber balls & tear gas don't kick much on full auto, but you could sure lay down a cloud of gas in a hurry!

I have yet to see a semi that will reliably cycle Less Lethals. I doubt you will find the USAS-12/AA-12 to be any better. Many Breaching rounds will also not cycle most semis.

[Sunray]

Using any shotgun in combat is contrary to the 'Rules of Land Warfare' conventions. The Hague Conventions, as I recall.

[bobby n.]

i seem to recall a full auto .410 cylinder gun that fired short rounds of flesheaters and rifled slugs ...a lot lighter and faster use than the so called 1187s , its barrel had a titanium inside so it didnt melt down and the mag held thirty rounds each . very effective as an assault weapon, but they never put it in full service that im aware of, called the shoals auto or something like that...it still may be used in special ops.. but its been ages since i was anywhere near them things..

[Evil Monkey]

The shotgun, I don't even know why it exists because it's so useless.

It's about as useful as a round headed screw driver.

What was that about the CAWS in the 80's or so? Something about how it was a waste of time and money to create a heavy and bulky mag fed auto shotgun that had crappy range and poor ammunition capacity? ;)

[Doc_Jude]

For sheer firepower the automatic shotguns were unbeatable. But they failed some of the environmental tests they were subjected to (as did most other semiautomatic shotguns of the time), and many shooters found them completely uncontrollable in full automatic fire. The limited capacity of the tubular magazines and the lack of easy reloading were other issues.

Lee, you beat me to it! & you can believe that if a weapon used by SEALs failed a "environmental test", it wasn't due to it not being well-maintained. The full-auto shotguns fit well into the SEAL mission, strike hard&fast, but they don't usually pack for sustained firefights. You wouldn't either if you had to SWIM your combat load into the target. Also they needed very specific shells for their shotguns due to the typical maritime element to their mission.

Here are two SEAL shotguns from Childers, the top one could run full auto. The bottom one was for quick mag reload.
http://i46.photobucket.com/albums/f114/jim_jude_3/sowrb2.jpg


Of course, Army troops adapted the shotgun to their own special needs...
http://img141.imageshack.us/img141/4643/sarmysoldierssmokingcanqm3.jpg


Same with the Stoner 63 "SAW", the Army dumped it and the Marines (1st Mar Div) and SEALs played with it & made it work as well as possible.
Same same with the M249, the Army & Marines used them and the Army almost dumped them but then brought in some Marine armorers to teach how to "properly" maintain them ^_^
Trust the Marines to "make it work", a good "field-expediency" Marine can squeeze milk from a turd, you give him enough time to figure out how...


BTW, the Mossbergs & Remingtons (still!) that 1st MarDiv keeps in their armories are VERY well maintained and very accurate. I used them back in the late 90's on "Combat Shotgun" ranges & I would have been more than willing to carry any of them into combat (being a Medic it would have fit my particular needs more than an M16 or M4, or my stinkin' M9, which I was "surgical" with btw). I made a point of being able to pick up & operate most any weapon that the guys in my platoon may drop, just to help out, you know... ^_^

[Lee Lapin]

Doc,

Thanks much for the picture of the Special Operations Weapon (SOW). I gave it pretty short shrift earlier- I never knew it got that far ( people could write books about what I don't know- and I wish they would 8^). There's a pretty good section on Carroll Childers in Swearengen's book and some pictures of the SOW mockup, but no mention of anything beyond a firing prototype of the SOW. Did you know he envisioned a belt-fed version of it as well?

That box magazine conversion of the 870 he did was interesting- too bad it never went to full manufacture.

Childers also designed a 50-round M-16 magazine- some few were manufactured, and were well received by the SEALs he distributed them to.

It was the looming end of the war in Vietnam in the mid-'70s and the drying up of all the budget money which had funded development projects that brought an end to this work. That was a shame, because Childers' projects showed a lot of promise.

Not long before I retired from the civilian side of the special operations training community at Fort Bragg, the Army built a new Special Operations Medical Training Center (SOMTC) as part of the Special Warfare Center. When I left SWC, they were busy training Special Forces medics (MOS 18D)- and the corpsmen who were headed for duty with the teams- in the Special Operations Combat Medic course ( http://www.med.navy.mil/sites/navmedmpte/nomi/nsomi/Pages/SpecialOperationsCombatMedicCourse.aspx )

I never had any experience with corpsmen, but I'd rather have a good 18D than a lot of full blown doctors, if I was in a bad situation.

Sincere thanks for your service,

lpl

[Doc_Jude]

You're very welcome ^_^

Oh, & for your viewing pleasure...
http://i46.photobucket.com/albums/f114/jim_jude_3/l_9592505178242d9985c1bbcd5300d6c7.jpg

an old Vietnam FMF Corpsman... with A SHOTGUN!!!

[jon_in_wv]

In urban operations like in Iraq I think there is a definite advantage to using a tactical shotgun. Saiga makes several short barreled Semiauto shotguns that I think would be brilliant for that task but there is little chance we are going to use an AK style platform no matter how well it works.

[Lee Lapin]

Thanks, Doc.

And I keep forgetting to mention (senility is a terrible thing)... there seems to be a role, at least in some peoples' minds, for the fully automatic shotgun as armament for a remote controlled mini helicopter...

http://www.therawfeed.com/2006/02/helicopter-robot-armed-with-shotgun.html (wih picture)

http://i.gizmodo.com/329339/autocopter-gunship-drone-delivers-auto+shotgun-taser-or-grenade-rounds

lpl

[JR47]

The shotgun is NOT a violation of the Hague Accords, and never has been.

The SEALS in Vietnam used shotguns for the point-man in a patrol. If ambushed, or having spotted an ambush, the shotgun was used to suppress the ambush elements long enough for everyone else to cover and return fire. The automatic shotgun idea was well received, as it allowed the point to return fire without requiring any action to cycle the arm. There had been several cases where the point-man was hit, and only got off one shot due to injury to the arms.

The guns were troublesome after the environment had time to "season" them thoroughly, and had trouble cycling. When operational, though, they provided a storm of lead and noise for long enough to allow the patrol to locate at least part of the ambush, and move to break out of, or maneuver to roll the flanks of the ambush up if they were spotted early.

[Lee Lapin]

Ref. shotguns at war and legal issues... follow the link below. BTW, it was the British (in Malaya) who were the first to take my favorite shotgun, the Remington 870, into combat in the early 1950s. They also used Browning Auto-5s there.

lpl
====

http://www.olive-drab.com/archive/JSCS_DA-PAM_27-50-299_16.txt

OCTOBER 1997 THE ARMY LAWYER ? DA-PAM 27-50-299 16

Joint Service Combat Shotgun Program
W. Hays Parks
Special Assistant for Law of War Matters,
Office of The Judge Advocate General, U.S. Army
Washington, D.C.

Introduction

There is a long history of the use of shotguns in combat. But in the closing days of World War I, Germany objected to the U.S. use of shotguns, claiming their use violated the law of war.

Although the German claim was promptly rejected by the United States, questions about the legality of shotguns persisted.

This article1 sets forth the history of the combat use of shotguns, the 1918 German protest and U.S. response, and an analysis of the issue in contemporary terms. The memorandum of law upon which this article is based was coordinated with the other services, Army and DOD General Counsel, and the Department of State, and it reaffirms the legality of the shotgun for combat use. //snip

[4thPointOfContact]

Given that I've carried a USAS-12 a time or three (never in an official capacity) I'll throw in what I can.

The USAS-12 was indeed fully developed by Daewoo and was imported to the States by one, if not two importers. Gilbert Equipment and (I think) RAMO were two of them.

It does Not like low-powered or less-lethal rounds, it has a full-power appetite.

It does not like certain brands of 2 3/4 inch shells, due to the length restrictions of the stick and drum magazines. Certain brands of 2 3/4 shells are a bit longer than nominal in the unfired state and the drum magazine is a bit more sensitive to this than the stick since the shells in the drum lay horizontal instead of slightly inclined. I don't have the manual in front of me but I think Winchester was recommended (that may have been from a review in SWAT Magazine, it's hard to remember).

Even with a padded M60-style sling, it's still heavy and awkward. It's a front heavy beast with a full length barrel and the 2-3 lbs of shells in the mag or drum don't give it that ballerina like lightness. Say what you want about how light aluminium is, but 1 lb of almuminium weighs just as much as 1lb of iron.

It IS remarkably easy to double and triple tap and still stay on target, a function of the straight line stock, the unusually long recoil system and of course that 12-lb empty, 15-lb fully loaded weight.

The magazines and drums don't have metal reinforcements in the feed lips. That's a concern now that replacement magazines are a bit hard to come by. I believe the mfg's were thinking that magazines would always be available, after all who ever heard of such a ridiculous thing as banning a magazine back in the early 90's? What did a magazine ever do to hurt anyone?