Modern military arms all seem to have come to some general consensus that the ideal rate of fire for a weapon is roughly between 650-800~ RPM. However at least until WW2 the generally sought rates of fire were much lower, America's first mass issue bolt action simply firing from a 5 round magazine was deemed excessive at first and the Krag was fitted with a device to stop the magazine from working so troops would have to fire in a single shot mode like the old Springfield trapdoor guns. In world war 2 sub-machine guns were often below even 600~ RPM. The MP40 and Sten fired at 550~, the American grease gun fired even lower at about 450~ which replaced the Thompson which itself was modified from it's original prohibition era design to shoot slower; so I could be wrong but that seems like an indication that these are conscious design choices to make the guns shoot slowly, not just the result of them being limited by less advanced mechanical engineering at the time. So what changed that more modern designs like M4s, MP5s, and AKs now shoot much faster than that?
Why have guns been so slow, historically speaking?
- Thread starter The Exile
- Start date
- Status
Having shot a MP-40 and PPSH-41 I can tell you the lower rate of the MP-40 makes it extremely easy to control. The PPSH-41 was not uncontrollable, but it was insane compared to the MP-40. I could literally write my name with the MP-40. A high rate of fire is useless if you can't hit your target.
Really? I have never shot either but I always assumed that the PPSH was the superior design. How far out was the target? I had once been told that the PPSH was so much better than the MP40 because it was just fully dedicated to being a bullet hose, and was really good at being that as a result.
Eh, 20y or so. The 41 wasn't bad and it laid down rounds faster than you can imagine, but the 40 was easier to keep on target. At least in my very limited experience.
entropy
Member
The MP5 has a very slow rate of fire for an SMG. @ 350. It is one of the few SMG's that fires from a closed bolt. It also makes it the most accurate SMG. OTOH, the Ingram M10 has a very high rate of fire. .45 @900, 9mm, @1110, .380, @1200+
The older guns had more mass in the bolts, and /or stronger springs.
The older guns had more mass in the bolts, and /or stronger springs.
BLACKHAWKNJ
Member
- Joined
- Dec 30, 2007
- Messages
- 1,122
Slow ? The cyclic rate of the MG-42 was 1200 RPM. Why-no consensus or general agreement on the ideal rate of fire.
edwardware
Member
- Joined
- Feb 23, 2010
- Messages
- 4,424
You're not, they are.
If you watch a bit of Ian's work on Forgotten Weapons, you'll see that he test fires quite a few full-auto firearms and comments on relative controllability. Rate, and recoil characteristics beyond simple impulse, matter a lot.
A tangentially related issue is the search for ways to cause infantry to slow down and LOOK at what they're shooting at.
entropy
Member
As did the Springfield M1903 and some other guns of the WWI era. The prevailing theory was soldiers would use the magazine cut-off to volley fire on command at distance, thus saving the magazine full of ammo for a charge or to repel one.
Here is a fascinating history of The Krag, with an explanation of the magazine cutoff:
Othias and Mae do a metric butt tonne of research for each of these videos.
jmorris
Member
- Joined
- Sep 30, 2005
- Messages
- 24,136
Faster than what? M4~700-950, MP5 ~800\min, Ak47~600/min
as pointed out the MG42 will run 1200/min an M249 will run as fast as 1150/min, an M134 can run upwards of 6000/min but can be had with 5000 round belts.
Its not all about being able to control, but not being empty.
A 33 round mag doesn’t last near as long as a 200 round belt.
Vs the 550-650 of a SCAR.
Last edited:
Riomouse911
Member
I think you've observed and noted the evolution of the military arm from muzzle loader, to single shot cartridge arm, to magazine fed bolt, to semi auto, to full auto. 
The guns evolved rapidly, as technology often does.
The men running things in the army didn’t, as the military is steeped in tradition compounded by the fact humans are naturally resistant to change. (If one was raised as a trooper on a trapdoor, as a General you could say the Krags multiple shot magazine encourages wasting ammo, etc. )
The Mp5k I was so fond of carrying for years on dignitary and high-risk witness protection details had a 900 rpm rate of fire on full auto; 30 rounds in the gun doesn’t last long at about 15 rounds per second.
We rolled on semi almost all the time, set on 3-round burst if things called for quick action. Full auto was trained on, but never employed.
Stay safe.
The guns evolved rapidly, as technology often does.
The men running things in the army didn’t, as the military is steeped in tradition compounded by the fact humans are naturally resistant to change. (If one was raised as a trooper on a trapdoor, as a General you could say the Krags multiple shot magazine encourages wasting ammo, etc. )
The Mp5k I was so fond of carrying for years on dignitary and high-risk witness protection details had a 900 rpm rate of fire on full auto; 30 rounds in the gun doesn’t last long at about 15 rounds per second.
We rolled on semi almost all the time, set on 3-round burst if things called for quick action. Full auto was trained on, but never employed.
Stay safe.
There are a lot of factors involved in determining the rate of fire. You have to take into account controllability/accuracy, wear and tear on the firearm due to heat, the amount of ammunition that can be carried. For the SMG family of weapons, there are no quick change barrels available plus they are magazine fed. A general purpose machine gun will be belt fed and have quick change barrels. Heat is one of the biggest enemies of a full auto firearm and the higher rate of fire equals more heat.
We use to try and get our hands on the aircraft bolts for both the M2 and M60 machine guns to get higher rates of fire. But along with going through ammo quicker, we also had to change out the barrels sooner when using the aircraft bolts. And yes I have melted a M60 barrel or three.
We use to try and get our hands on the aircraft bolts for both the M2 and M60 machine guns to get higher rates of fire. But along with going through ammo quicker, we also had to change out the barrels sooner when using the aircraft bolts. And yes I have melted a M60 barrel or three.
Well there are of course a handful of standouts but once the US army got their hands on MG42s and reverse engineered them they came out with the much slower shooting M60 which keeps with the theme of the post. Now I've never been a machine gunner but I have a lot of admiration for the MG42, IMO the best MG ever made if for no other reason than that it's still here; albeit with a new name and a new caliber as per NATO requirements. But since the US army didn't just outright copy it I imagine they're being particular about it.
350 on an MP5? You sure about that?? Heckler & Koch MP5?
The early Thompsons were 1000rpm guns
A lot of the early sub guns were of a very high rate of fire.
The Italian 1918 1/2 villia posar? Was a 800rpm gun.
Russian PPD, PPSh, PPs were all over 1000rpm or just a little under at 8-900rpm.
The sten is about 650-700 on a good day.
Most Italian ones were faster than that.
Hell even the Japanese once they got the type 100smg figured out it was a +800rpm gun from the 450rpm of the first ones.
They weren't slow by any means. Its all about getting a balance between overwhelming firepower(rate of fire), controllable & portability.
Having played with a .45acp M-1928 boat anchor erhem...Thompson, ill take a BAR any day especially since its only about 4# heavier and FAR more effective.
The modern post '50 subguns mostly hover around 700rpm on average.
A lot of the early sub guns were of a very high rate of fire.
The Italian 1918 1/2 villia posar? Was a 800rpm gun.
Russian PPD, PPSh, PPs were all over 1000rpm or just a little under at 8-900rpm.
The sten is about 650-700 on a good day.
Most Italian ones were faster than that.
Hell even the Japanese once they got the type 100smg figured out it was a +800rpm gun from the 450rpm of the first ones.
They weren't slow by any means. Its all about getting a balance between overwhelming firepower(rate of fire), controllable & portability.
Having played with a .45acp M-1928 boat anchor erhem...Thompson, ill take a BAR any day especially since its only about 4# heavier and FAR more effective.
The modern post '50 subguns mostly hover around 700rpm on average.
entropy
Member
Old eyes reading 800. It didn't seem 800 when I fired them. Maybe the SD3 with it's integral silencer slows it down.
And aircraft mounted machine guns had faster rates of fire. There are certainly stories in the WWII Pacific theater of using MG's typically mounted in aircraft in a modified one-man portable role nicknamed "Stingers" for effective suppression of fire from Japanese strong points.
https://guns.fandom.com/wiki/AN/M2_Stinger
https://www.guns.com/news/2012/08/15/stinger-light-machinegun
Dunno about if any other such improvised weapons built from MG's typically mounted in aircraft ever existed or were used in other WWII theaters such as North African, Mediterranean, and Euroean or along the Eastern Front. It's noted numerous MG15's & MG30's were converted to ground use but not on an ad-hoc improvised basis to serve along with the MG34's & MG42's by the Axis forces. Late war MG81's are noted to have been delivered to ground forces at the fronts converted for ground use, not as something ground forces "salvaged" from aircraft unit stocks.
It should be noted the "Schnellfeuer" machine pistols had a cyclic rate of 1000+ RPM and had extremely low reputation for ability to control in fully automatic mode. The original MP18 & MP28 designs had a cyclic rate was 350 - 500 rpm that was increased to 550 - 600 rpm with the MP28II & various MP34 & MP35 designs, directionally different from the history of the Thompson SMG.
ETA: The USSR PPS-43 had a cyclic rate of 600 - 700 rpm, considerably more "tame" than the PPSH-41.
https://guns.fandom.com/wiki/AN/M2_Stinger
https://www.guns.com/news/2012/08/15/stinger-light-machinegun
Dunno about if any other such improvised weapons built from MG's typically mounted in aircraft ever existed or were used in other WWII theaters such as North African, Mediterranean, and Euroean or along the Eastern Front. It's noted numerous MG15's & MG30's were converted to ground use but not on an ad-hoc improvised basis to serve along with the MG34's & MG42's by the Axis forces. Late war MG81's are noted to have been delivered to ground forces at the fronts converted for ground use, not as something ground forces "salvaged" from aircraft unit stocks.
It should be noted the "Schnellfeuer" machine pistols had a cyclic rate of 1000+ RPM and had extremely low reputation for ability to control in fully automatic mode. The original MP18 & MP28 designs had a cyclic rate was 350 - 500 rpm that was increased to 550 - 600 rpm with the MP28II & various MP34 & MP35 designs, directionally different from the history of the Thompson SMG.
ETA: The USSR PPS-43 had a cyclic rate of 600 - 700 rpm, considerably more "tame" than the PPSH-41.
Last edited:
Deus Machina
Member
IMO, it largely comes down to use.
To your standard infantryman, slow aimed fire was more effective than firing faster but only being able to keep the first round or two on target.
Just looking at paper, a Garand or BAR with the rate of fire of an MG42 sounds great, right? Except it's not mounted, so after the first shot or two it's no controllable. Plus, 1200 rpm is a lot less attractive when they can still only carry a few hundred rounds. A soldier than can only fire for a combined 15 seconds isn't useful in an extended firefight.
Then it comes down to supply. In a skirmish or quick firefight, two or three hundred rounds lasts a while from a semi-auto or bolt-action. Again, 1200rpm? Providing for thousands of soldiers firing at that rate would be an absolute budget and logistics nightmare.
Of course, purpose is a huge consideration. The Germans and Americans handed SMGs to soldiers that were already essentially riflemen. Someone that already has good aim and can suddenly put four or ten rounds on target instead of one is suddenly more effective. And the exceedingly fast Russian designs would be even more so, all else being equal. But you could also hand one to someone with less training, and 800rpm makes good use of shooting fast from the hip--aimed fire would only keep the first few on target, but when your target becomes 'right around there' with less aiming, there's a larger chance to hit it.
Which is what you need for the guns that did get obscene rates of fire. It's not exactly easy to take slow aimed fire on a plane. But an aircraft can carry a lot more than a soldier. So stuff it full, point it thataway and walk it onto target.
Same for things like the MG42. It had to put a hail of fire downrange before targets could get behind cover. And since it was made to be mounted and served by more than just the guy carrying it, there wasn't as much of a concern about keeping it effective.
They didn't serve the same purpose as an infantry rifle.
To your standard infantryman, slow aimed fire was more effective than firing faster but only being able to keep the first round or two on target.
Just looking at paper, a Garand or BAR with the rate of fire of an MG42 sounds great, right? Except it's not mounted, so after the first shot or two it's no controllable. Plus, 1200 rpm is a lot less attractive when they can still only carry a few hundred rounds. A soldier than can only fire for a combined 15 seconds isn't useful in an extended firefight.
Then it comes down to supply. In a skirmish or quick firefight, two or three hundred rounds lasts a while from a semi-auto or bolt-action. Again, 1200rpm? Providing for thousands of soldiers firing at that rate would be an absolute budget and logistics nightmare.
Of course, purpose is a huge consideration. The Germans and Americans handed SMGs to soldiers that were already essentially riflemen. Someone that already has good aim and can suddenly put four or ten rounds on target instead of one is suddenly more effective. And the exceedingly fast Russian designs would be even more so, all else being equal. But you could also hand one to someone with less training, and 800rpm makes good use of shooting fast from the hip--aimed fire would only keep the first few on target, but when your target becomes 'right around there' with less aiming, there's a larger chance to hit it.
Which is what you need for the guns that did get obscene rates of fire. It's not exactly easy to take slow aimed fire on a plane. But an aircraft can carry a lot more than a soldier. So stuff it full, point it thataway and walk it onto target.
Same for things like the MG42. It had to put a hail of fire downrange before targets could get behind cover. And since it was made to be mounted and served by more than just the guy carrying it, there wasn't as much of a concern about keeping it effective.
They didn't serve the same purpose as an infantry rifle.
Riomouse911
Member
True, horses and wagons could only move so much over rough terrain to where it was needed.
Stay safe.
Pudge
Member
Has anyone ever heard a comparison of the M-14 fired in semi vs full auto from a soldier who was trained on or carried one?
buck460XVR
Member
- Joined
- Feb 6, 2007
- Messages
- 10,077
^^^Best answer.
entropy
Member
Precisely. Belt fed MG's were and are used for supressive fire, whether in offense or the defensive role. SMG's were originally used for 'walking fire' when crossing no-man's, much more controllable (and reliable) than either a Lewis Gun or a Chauchat. They were also used as a 'trench broom' The BAR was the culmination of the 'walking fire' gun, but arrived to late for WWI. SMG's found a couple roles in WWII, with the Germans as a light gun for NCO's and those with support roles. The Russians preferred to use them as a massed fire assault weapon. There were whole companies issued almost exclusively PPSh-41's. The British and Americans used them at first for Commando units, but soon found the same uses as the Germans. With the advent of the select-fire rifle, the SMG's were relegated to commando and guard/VIP protection use mostly, and for specialized roles. .
I had a number of high school friends go off to Iraq and Afghanistan. Full auto isn't used very often. Very fast full auto just depletes ammo even faster. Aimed 3 round bursts are more effective unless laying down suppressive fire. One friend was engaged in a firefight where dozens of Taliban soldiers were swarming down a mountainside attacking his forward operating base. That was the one time where full auto was very helpful and able to stop the assault quicker than anything else. Out on patrol you're usually only carrying 200 to 300 rounds per person. Blowing through ammo is generally discouraged and could lead to disaster if you run out. There aren't many situations where putting 100's of rounds downrange in a couple seconds is the best option. There are other weapon system that are usually a better option or you just call in air support.
entropy
Member
Any of them using an M-14 (which is what was asked) were using it semi-auto (at some point after VN, the M14's were changed to semi only) as a DM rifle. Your friends were probably issued M4's.
That's how you get the enemy's heads down and pinned, so you can call in Arty or Air. Sporadic fire just encouraged escape.
That's how you get the enemy's heads down and pinned, so you can call in Arty or Air. Sporadic fire just encouraged escape.
Last edited:
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
