EIB0879
Member
I didn't use full auto on an M-16 very often.
Vets: Full Auto vs Semi Auto?
- Thread starter JCooperfan1911
- Start date
- Status
d2wing
Member
- Joined
- Nov 10, 2008
- Messages
- 6,409
I am pretty sure that military truck drivers and escort vehicles do need both rifle and full auto weapons. Trucks and whatever was in them were a prime target. I was on one of the original "Hard Trucks" There were an invention of truckers themselves. Now they are part of convoy doctrine.
We were making gun trucks ourselves using 5 Tons back in 90/91 before we every got the official go ahead to do so. Us engineers will rig up all kinds of fun stuff when needed
Last edited:
Yes we did. We either had Mossberg 590's or used the short NFA versions of the Shockwave for picking locks. I preferred the shorty for opening doors.
Bruce D Pease
Member
I took the oath in ‘59. At that time as an 0311 Rifleman..I carried an M1. There were 3 M1s and a BAR in the fire team and 3 fireteams in the squad plus the squad leader for a total of 13 in the squad. Each mans basic unit of fire was 80 rods in the cartridge belt and 48 or 96 rods in 1 or 2 extra bandoliers. The BaR man carried 10 20 rd magazines.
When operating as an 0331 light machine gunner the 5 man lmg section had a gunner and assistant gunner ( they carried the gun and the tripod) and 3 ammo bearers. Ea ammo bearer carried an M1 and two cans of ammo for the gun. The gunner and assistant gunner supposedly carried a 1911a1…. There weren’t enough of them so my assistant gunner and I both carried our M1s. The LMG section was to provide suppressive fire etc for the riflemen. In those days all Marines were Riflemen first and anything else second. We only had one guy in the Company who never qualified as even a Marksman. He was our running joke at the range. I think full auto has a definite place but in many cases AIMED and accurate semiautomatic fire is more effective. When I got out in 65 we were carrying the M14. I personally liked the Garand better although I shot them equally well (sharpshooter). Plus any one who went FA with the ‘14 had an aa gun after 3 rounds it was too light to replace the BAR. Just my random thoughts folks
When operating as an 0331 light machine gunner the 5 man lmg section had a gunner and assistant gunner ( they carried the gun and the tripod) and 3 ammo bearers. Ea ammo bearer carried an M1 and two cans of ammo for the gun. The gunner and assistant gunner supposedly carried a 1911a1…. There weren’t enough of them so my assistant gunner and I both carried our M1s. The LMG section was to provide suppressive fire etc for the riflemen. In those days all Marines were Riflemen first and anything else second. We only had one guy in the Company who never qualified as even a Marksman. He was our running joke at the range. I think full auto has a definite place but in many cases AIMED and accurate semiautomatic fire is more effective. When I got out in 65 we were carrying the M14. I personally liked the Garand better although I shot them equally well (sharpshooter). Plus any one who went FA with the ‘14 had an aa gun after 3 rounds it was too light to replace the BAR. Just my random thoughts folks
Pretty much a common thought and statement about the shooting the M14 full auto.
d2wing
Member
- Joined
- Nov 10, 2008
- Messages
- 6,409
Yes, I first trained with the M-14. They let us shoot a it once on full auto to demonstrate it. The M-14s we were issued had the selectors removed.
d2wing
Member
- Joined
- Nov 10, 2008
- Messages
- 6,409
There is a video about that, Maybe on the AHC channel. They got the idea from us doing the same thing in Vietnam. I think you can find it in Vudu or Utube.
Yes that is exactly where we got the idea. We still had quite a few Vietnam vets in my unit at that time.
jeff-10
Member
I was an 11B (infantryman) in the 90's. The 3 round burst on a M16A2 served no real function. It was all semi auto, even when rapidly firing. Fully auto is for belt feds.
BLACKHAWKNJ
Member
- Joined
- Dec 30, 2007
- Messages
- 1,122
Yes, the idea that a 9 pound rifle-the M-14-could be used for FA fire-who thought that one up? There was a heavy barrel version of the M-14, the M-15, intended to take the place of the BAR, it was approved but never put into production. Only time I saw an M-14 fired FA was in BCT, one of the instructors at the rifle range would fire one from his crotch-and his chin-to show it didn't kick. And they were using tracers so you could tell they weren't faking it
Yes, SA for individual weapons, FA for belt fed. Directing the troops fire is a leadership function.
Yes, SA for individual weapons, FA for belt fed. Directing the troops fire is a leadership function.
entropy
Member
When I was in ROTC, a Sgt. demonstrating the M16A1 fired a couple short burst from his, them stuck it on his crotch to show it didn't kick. He forgot to flip it back to semi, and the look on his face when he fired was priceless!
Deanimator
Member
If you're interested, there's a Squadon-Signal "In Action" book on gun trucks.
BLACKHAWKNJ
Member
- Joined
- Dec 30, 2007
- Messages
- 1,122
I read one book about a Special Forces/SOG operation in Vietnam, one team member noted he'd been burning up ammo with little effect, starting to get anxious, then the light bulb started to glow, he remembered what his straight leg DI told him in Basic, switched to semiauto, dropped down on one knee, used the sights and....
The M-14 was part of an attempt to simplify ammo supply and ordnance support, eliminate the plethora of shoulder arms -M1903 and M1, M1 Carbine, BAR, Thompson and Grease Gun-of WWII and Korea.
One Marine officer told me the reason why a Marine platoon leader does not carry a shoulder arm is because his duty is to guide 30-40 pairs of eyes in finding targets.
The M-14 was part of an attempt to simplify ammo supply and ordnance support, eliminate the plethora of shoulder arms -M1903 and M1, M1 Carbine, BAR, Thompson and Grease Gun-of WWII and Korea.
One Marine officer told me the reason why a Marine platoon leader does not carry a shoulder arm is because his duty is to guide 30-40 pairs of eyes in finding targets.
Bruce D Pease
Member
Actually the reason we were given for the change to the ‘14 was it was to make supply in mixed country operations as the 7.62 (308) round was the nato round. We were being compliant to the rest of nato
James Fonteneaux
Member
I was a 63S, heavy wheel vehicle mechanic in the Army Reserve. During basic, all qualification was in semi auto. When we deployed to Iraq, we used semi auto on the training ranges in Kuwait during close quarters marksmanship training. On convoy I had a SAW gunner right next to me with his upper body and gun sticking out of the roof of our truck. All of my experience was using the M16A2. We mainly used the three round burst feature was to burn surplus range ammo we didn't want to turn in. Also when trying to hit targets with gas masks on, iirc. Interesting discussion above about gun trucks and DIY armor. We did the same things in early 2004. We came up with this.
Attachments
Armorer 101
Member
Semi only, never full auto. If I caught one of my guys going full auto he would wear his adz for a hat. We could never afford to waste ammo, never had that luxury of supply or weight while in the field.
theotherwaldo
Member
Not a veteran.
Dad was a Marine forward observer that was attached to an Army unit that went ashore at Inchon.
His main complaint was that it didn't matter what shoulder arm was issued to the Army, most of the guys would be huddled at the bottom of their foxholes and just firing up into the air.
Only he, the BAR guys and the guys on crew-served guns were actually firing at the enemy.
He didn't think that select-fire would have changed much.
Dad was a Marine forward observer that was attached to an Army unit that went ashore at Inchon.
His main complaint was that it didn't matter what shoulder arm was issued to the Army, most of the guys would be huddled at the bottom of their foxholes and just firing up into the air.
Only he, the BAR guys and the guys on crew-served guns were actually firing at the enemy.
He didn't think that select-fire would have changed much.
d2wing
Member
- Joined
- Nov 10, 2008
- Messages
- 6,409
Thanks, I looked it up and ordered it. We rotated being drivers and gunners and driving regular semi's.
on the gun truck. It was very hard and uncomfortable to drive. They asked me to be the permanent driver. I grew up driving on a farm and was pretty good. I turned it down and the next convoy the driver screwed up and the truck went down a mountain.
Deanimator
Member
I'm a big fan of Squadron-Signal books. Unfortunately, they don't even know what they've got in print and in stock, and there's no place less than an hour's drive that has them. The only one I'm sure of is the Air Force Museum book store in Dayton.
d2wing
Member
- Joined
- Nov 10, 2008
- Messages
- 6,409
I ordered from there website. There are other sellers too.
mljdeckard
Member
I train my snowflakes, I am far more concerned about you getting good hits. Full auto or burst does not do that. If you need volume of fire, use the crew-served weapon, that's what it's for.
The only times I have used full-auto from a rifle are for simulated suppressing fire, or mag dumps to burn off ammo.
The only times I have used full-auto from a rifle are for simulated suppressing fire, or mag dumps to burn off ammo.
- Status
