Vets: Full Auto vs Semi Auto?

It's a fantastic way to convert money into noise....

Actual veteran here. There is a saying that the loudest side wins. Don't underestimate the value of suppressive fire or fire for effect. In actual combat aiming is often out of the question. It does depend a great deal on the situation, your role and weapon you are issued. My friend was a sniper with a scoped M-14. At times he did take individual shots during a battle and was effective right up until the bunkered NVA caught on and poured fire on his position. Most of the time I couldn't see the people shooting at me and just poured fire into a position or direction. That was mostly jungle fighting with a bunch of guys on either side. There is a lot I can't speak to. I can't see any civilian use for full auto especially when you buy your own ammo. Also if you haven't been there you will never know the reality, no matter how much you think you know. I can tell that some of you are not actual combat veterans, count your blessings.

Archie said:

About five decades ago I was a Marine infantrymen. The issue weapon (rifle) for infantrymen at that time was the M16E2 (if memory serves). That was the basic M16 rifle, chambered 5.56 NATO, fully or semi-automatic (at user's option) with forward assist.
At that time, aimed fire was considered the basis of using a rifle. Fully automatic fire was offered as a sop to those who could not shoot and feared their inability. The later three shot burst option was used to turn a "one long shot" weapon into a ten shot weapon while giving some comfort to the terminally incompetent.

The whole concept of infantry level gun fighting is rather complex and intricate. A few sentences will not be sufficient. The idea of firing wildly while hiding is not really effective. Testing shows that regular troops cannot hit five silhouette targets at twenty five yards using a fully automatic rifle (Stoner 63 in belt fed, hand-held mode). However, armed with semi-automatic arms (same rifles), most could hit all five targets with five shots at one hundred yards.

I am staunchly against fully automatic fire for infantrymen. It does have some function for perimeter defense, and seems effective in aircraft use.

I would point out the only reason the M16 was at all useful in Vietnam was it's employment as a submachine gun rather than a rifle.

No doubt some will disagree.

Click to expand...

I do not agree with you. You forgot that you have to be alive to shoot. Full auto is much better at keeping the enemy from placing accurate fire and making him run than semi auto. Aircraft use?

Walk onto a near ambush; full auto and assault the enemy. Far ambush; one mag full auto then go to semi and try to break contact. Seldom worked as well as it looks on paper.

From over fifty years distance I remember shooting full auto to achieve "Fire Superiority." Not just one magazine either. At night it was semi-auto shooting at flashes or not shooting at all since the NVA shot at flashes too. Better to let the Mortars/Artillery do it's thing. M79 Grenade launchers were very useful at night too. The M16 A1 was what I was issued. Funny thing, the WWII correspondent S.L.A. Marshall reported that only 10 to 15 % if the Infantry Soldiers fired their weapons in combat. What I remember was everyone firing like mad at least initially until the Platoon Leaders started screaming "Slow Down!"

Grumpy_old_Fart said:

Your basic combt load used to be 180 rounds. (88-95). Using the 3 round burst ate a lot, but you would be out altogether using full auto. Full auto allows no control. Even 3round bursts gets you off target quick. Not that you focus much in combat.

Click to expand...

The basic load out for every single soldier issued a M16 was 7 magazines - 1 in the rifle and 6 in mag carriers which equals 210 rounds if all mags are loaded to 30 rounds. If you down load each mag by 1 is 203 rounds or if you download by 2 is still 196 rounds. That was how it was when I was in from 1989 to 1996. The combat load was the same for the A1 and A2.

I can't really say much on the use of the M16 since I carried the M60 in combat. My role was different than the average rifleman or combat engineer. Again full auto does have its place when needed. Otherwise semi auto rules the day.

d2wing said:

But you are not an actual combat veteran. I do not agree with you. You forgot that you have to be alive to shoot. Full auto is much better at keeping the enemy from placing accurate fire and making him run than semi auto. Aircraft use?

Click to expand...

Your agreement or not does not invalidate the information.
You are unaware of aircraft with fully automatic fire?

I think a lot of it is understanding (or not) its use, and having the training to make use of it. From most of the people who I know that went through the military, they had very little actual training (some had none, other than a couple of mags for familiarization) in how to actually shoot effectively in full auto.

Pistol caliber guns are very easy to shoot well with in FA, open or closed bolt, and things like the M16's and AK's arent hard either, but they are a tad different, due to the recoil. Things like the M14, G3, ect, are a handful, but once you understand the technique, can work well too, but generally, semi is your best bet with them.

And the technique is simple to learn, and even those who have absolutely no experience with one, can learn it in just a few mags, as long as they are willing to learn.

I think a lot of this too, is the expectations of those shooting, and not understanding the use. If you think 12ga with buck, youre in the right mode. If you think youre going to hose things down at any distance, and especially anything much past 25 yards, your not. Not for the type of shooting Im talking about, which is picking a specific, close range target, and shooting a burst into it.

Shooting in controled bursts, with good trigger control is the way you should be shooting, if you want to be effective. Forget all the silly crap you see in the movies, war or otherwise.

Over the course of three deployments overseas, I carried three different rifles two of which (M-39 and Mk12) were semi only and one (M-4) that was select-fire (semi and full auto). I feel that all three were very well suited to their intended usage and never once did I feel under gunned with the semi's nor did I ever feel that I had to have the full-auto option on the M-4.

If you are running an ambush or caught in one, full auto is necessary.

Archie said:

You are unaware of aircraft with fully automatic fire?

Click to expand...

Aircraft are a different thing entire. You only have a mer second or two where your target is where your aim is. So, you want as much lead there as soon as possible for the brief instant you have the sight picture.

CapnMac said:

Aircraft are a different thing entire. You only have a mer second or two where your target is where your aim is. So, you want as much lead there as soon as possible for the brief instant you have the sight picture.

Click to expand...

Im not seeing a difference there.

Actually what you need is an entire rifle Fire Team or Squad all operating in a trained manner.

Suppressing fire from just one shooter is not very suppressing--you just cannot make a big enough beaten zone.

Also, the training of your troops to act as a unit has another purpose--to be able to "porcupine" to need, but also do so in a way that they don't have to walk home with no ammo.

A combat tema has to be able to "work" even when everything they are supposed to have is broken. The vehicles with spare "stuff" are in a ditch. The helos can't fly in the rain. The radios don't work because they are radios and hate us all. Or, maybe there are many bad people around and operating radios, helos, or vehicles would invite them to come be ugly to your combat team.

All of these things are why a given infantry rifle need not be automatic.

But, most importantly, the Fire Team, is meant to be supported by its Squad, and they by their Platoon, and they by their Company, and so on right up the theater commander.
That support includes things like heavy MG fire, mortars, arty, the full range of the terrible implements of the soldier.

trackskippy said:

Im not seeing a difference there

Click to expand...

Well, other infantry seldom moves in excess of 300mph while you are also maneuvering at such rates.

You can take single shots when both you and the bad guy are both limited to how fast you can low crawl in the mud.
Even if you are in a Bradley, you take single shots most of the time (and stopping to take the shot is better that trying to get rounds off while rolling).

Ask 100 people, get 101 different answers.
The answer to the question is dependent on who you’re asking, the current tactics and the circumstances. One is not better than the other in every situation.

@CapnMac said it best

Now, in fairness, there is a military doctrine where full auto to your infantry has a place.

But, it's not a good place.

If you are unwilling to invest in getting your troops into any accuracy at all, and you have an excess of "shock troops" (or excess political prisoners to expend). Basically, you form them up in a line give them all full auto weapons, and advance them upon your enemy (typically with Political officers and field police in a line with MGs behind them--"to ensure Revolutionary Zeal").
You have to have a large population you consider expendable and a decent supply of cheap arms for them.
Mind, that's why the first stop on an AK selector is the full auto.

Just out of curiosity, those of you trained in the military to use/shoot in FA, how were you taught, and how much time and ammo was spent in training? Was it part of your qualifications? Did you work at it often?

Was it training to learn to properly shoot the gun itself? If so, what did, or are they teaching? What kind of courses of fire did you run.

Was it more theory and purpose of use, as a group or individual level, or both? Was it simply en mass suppressive fire, or was there also individual use training?

Im just curious, as my personal observations and experiences when shooting (mostly pistol caliber guns) with both active and former military over the years, was they didnt seem to have much in the way of skills with the guns when they were shooting with us. It usually just seemed more like a hose fest, than an actual deliberate aimed fire with trigger control.

Not that hose fests arent fun too, they can be, but some of them were down right scary when it came to firearm handling skills.

BLACKHAWKNJ said:

In Vietnam troops kept their M-16s on full auto as a matter of course,

Click to expand...

Not in the First Brigade of 1st Infantry Division from May '69 until at least Dec '69. I was an Infantry platoon leader then and there, and the rule was semi-automatic for all except designated "automatic riflemen" (usually 1 or 2 per full squad). As we never had full squads (TOE platoon was 43 men, and we ran from 17 to 29) we usually had one or two designated for full auto per platoon.

The idea was for the designated automatic riflemen to use full auto suppressive fire as the balance changed position. Being caught on full auto without authorization was a Summary Court martial offense - Capt: "Were you on full auto?" PFC/SPc4 "Yes Sir." Capt: "$50". Didn't happen very often.

Reason for the rule was to not waste a limited (90-120 rds per man) valuable resource which was not always easily replaceable (usually due to weather i.e. monsoon).

As an aside, often the only persons allowed to have a round chambered were the point and flank men. There had apparently been to many friendly fire wounds from hitting the ground and having the rifle fire after being attacked. Lots of time to pull the charging handle after you hit the ground, and sometimes getting new men to fire at all was a bigger problem.

My experiences, other may vary.

I also served on the Weapons Committee at Ft Lewis AIT (Advanced Infantry Training) Center, teaching new recruits how to fire all the weapons available to the infantryman. Full auto fire with the M16 was not taught at that time (Nov '68 -Apr. '69).

CapnMac said:

Aircraft are a different thing entire. You only have a mer second or two where your target is where your aim is. So, you want as much lead there as soon as possible for the brief instant you have the sight picture.

Click to expand...

Bingo! There is a reason why aircraft machine guns fired much faster than their ground counterparts. The M2HB fires at around 450-550 rounds per minute. The AN M-2 at more than double that rate. If that enemy plane is in your sights, he won't stay there for long.

As for the OPs topic I can say with certainty that an M-14 on auto is pretty useless. I had one in Nam because that's what rear area troops got. It had a selector switch. I got to fire it often during H&I fire. Never could get it to hold still. The army was wise to put selector locks on most all of them.

SOCOM M4 carbines have nonrestricted FA, in the "big army", the M4 is 3 rd burst. The FA triggers are better than the burst triggers in semi auto. That said, if it were up to me, there would be no weapons in the US mil capable of anything but semi auto unless they were fed by a belt. I used my M4 more than a few times for real- with 1 exception, all in semi auto. The one time I used FA, I burned through most of a magazine, made lots of noise, and hit nothing of consequence. The bullet strikes threw a ton of dust in the air from the mud wall they struck, and decreased visibility for myself and my team. While waiting for the dust to clear, I switched to semi like I should have in the first place, and engaged effectively.

I spent the majority of my enlistment as either a SDM/Squad Designated Marksman or on part of a 240B gun team. Between those two roles I either shot precise rounds at distance or was next to/on a very effective suppression weapon. Because of that I rarely got to rotate to the giggle switch: Auto or Burst. I had both kinds of rifles, because the military switches back and forth of what it wants companies to make. There were a few times when it was allowed and encouraged. I am of strong belief that every combat soldier should know how their weapon feels in full auto or burst in order to put forth suppressing fire. A rifleman is not always going to be near the 240 or SAW and will have to suppress fire in their own zone. Semi auto has its uses, but so does burst/auto.

Burst, but not auto, can have a particular edge in usefulness when doing close quarter combat. At room length distances, a rifle on burst is easy to keep on a man sized target putting three holes instead of one. Vast majority of my training where I did use burst/auto it was doing CQB operations in either room clearing or doing Cordons, where distances were going to be close. FWIW I did use Burst in combat in a CQB role.

trackskippy said:

Just out of curiosity, those of you trained in the military to use/shoot in FA, how were you taught, and how much time and ammo was spent in training? Was it part of your qualifications? Did you work at it often?

Was it training to learn to properly shoot the gun itself? If so, what did, or are they teaching? What kind of courses of fire did you run.

Was it more theory and purpose of use, as a group or individual level, or both? Was it simply en mass suppressive fire, or was there also individual use training?

Im just curious, as my personal observations and experiences when shooting (mostly pistol caliber guns) with both active and former military over the years, was they didnt seem to have much in the way of skills with the guns when they were shooting with us. It usually just seemed more like a hose fest, than an actual deliberate aimed fire with trigger control.

Not that hose fests arent fun too, they can be, but some of them were down right scary when it came to firearm handling skills.

Click to expand...

When I went to basic training, I was issued the A1 and the army was phasing in the A2. We had 1 range where we were taught to fire FA at targets at various ranges, in 3 round bursts. This was after our basic qualification. The only thing it proved was that the same results could be met better with less ammunition and aimed fire, which may have been the point of the exercise. Fast forward many years later, when attending one of the more challenging training programs in the army, and FA was used in exactly 1 exercise. The drill was a 30 round cyclic burst at 10 meters with all rounds going into the 4" circle. The point of the drill wasn't the employment of FA fire on a battlefield- it was to ingrain the importance of tight body position and follow through whether you were firing 1 shot or 30. If all the rounds went onto the target, your position is good and don't change it.
What's more- rifles like the M16 family are not and never were designed for such antics. If they were, they would have heavier quick change barrels and fire from the open bolt. Sustained jackassery like this accelerates the wear on the barrel and the bolt head, and will actually de-temper the bolt pretty darn quick, resulting in failure at either the locking lug adjacent to the extractor or at the cam pin hole- meaning that the bolt will actually break in half inside of the carrier. This failure doesn't necessarily happen during the "hose-fest", either. It often happens at a later time, whenever it decides to.

FL-NC said:

SOCOM M4 carbines have nonrestricted FA, in the "big army", the M4 is 3 rd burst. The FA triggers are better than the burst triggers in semi auto.

Click to expand...

Exactly. The cam that operated the 3 round burst has a negative effect on trigger pull when shooting semi auto.

IIRC, I only used a M16A1 on full auto once during the invasion of Panama. I was away from my 60 at the time. As a 12Bravo Combat Engineer, we still trained on infantry tactics along with our engineer tactics. Yes we trained to use full auto and burst but it was drilled into our heads to use semi auto fire except on rare occasions.

IIRC in WWII US doctrine was the MG supported the riflemen, in the German Army the riflemen supported the MG. Again IMHO full auto fire is somewhat overrated.

FL-NC said:

The drill was a 30 round cyclic burst at 10 meters with all rounds going into the 4" circle. The point of the drill wasn't the employment of FA fire on a battlefield- it was to ingrain the importance of tight body position and follow through whether you were firing 1 shot or 30. If all the rounds went onto the target, your position is good and don't change it.

Click to expand...

That is something that shows that you understand things and know how to work the gun in FA. While its not something you would normally do, it does show that you have control of the gun and "can" do it. I would say 4" with just a pistol caliber gun is a pretty high bar, doing it with something like an M16, M4 etc, would be impressive.

We used to do something similar with a paper plate at 10 yards and one pull of the trigger. Mostly pistol caliber SMG's. Money in the pot, whoever had the tightest group on the plate at the end won the pot. The easiest gun to do that with for the most part was the MP5, although keeping them all on the plate is pretty easy for most of the older WWII era open bolt guns. The MAC's, not so much.

Most people make the mistake of "trying" to hold the gun down and on target, instead of relaxing, and treating it like a fire hose, and just "riding" the gun. You wont hold it down, but you can easily direct it if you relax and just do so. Once you figure that out, everything usually clicks. A couple of round burst, or the whole mag, just point and click and youre on target.