Vets: Full Auto vs Semi Auto?

d2wing said:

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.

Click to expand...

I've never fired a shot in anger but as a reserve platoon leader, the doctrine was to keep the rifle in semi auto unless specifically instructed to do otherwise or when facing a risk of being run over by a mass assault. Full auto in short bursts was specified when you carry out an assault yourself, which is done with platoon sized and larger groups.

Our service rifles were Valmet RK62:s (and later Sako RK95:s), with a strong bias on marksmanship at distances up to 165 yards; the goal was to have the majority of soldiers to shoot approximately palm-sized 10rd groups with open sights at that distance, which was surprisingly common. In any case accuracy and rapid, consecutive aimed shots were emphasized far more than full auto fire. Of course we practised that too, with anything from SMG:s (Suomi M/31, yay!) and LMG:s to heavier machine guns, but if was never implied that anyone should have to use it except in a dire emergency and you just needed to be familiar enough to be able to do that.

Archie said:

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

Click to expand...

No with an M-16. That is what we are discussing.

"...never implied that anyone should have to use it except in a dire emergency
and you "just"* needed to be familiar enough to be able to do that.

Click to expand...

(edit/emphasis mine [meh])

Read Post #21 again (including last line)
and realize that If you are "just" familiar, you die.


.

hq said:

I've never fired a shot in anger but as a reserve platoon leader, the doctrine was to keep the rifle in semi auto unless specifically instructed to do otherwise or when facing a risk of being run over by a mass assault. Full auto in short bursts was specified when you carry out an assault yourself, which is done with platoon sized and larger groups.

Our service rifles were Valmet RK62:s (and later Sako RK95:s), with a strong bias on marksmanship at distances up to 165 yards; the goal was to have the majority of soldiers to shoot approximately palm-sized 10rd groups with open sights at that distance, which was surprisingly common. In any case accuracy and rapid, consecutive aimed shots were emphasized far more than full auto fire. Of course we practised that too, with anything from SMG:s (Suomi M/31, yay!) and LMG:s to heavier machine guns, but if was never implied that anyone should have to use it except in a dire emergency and you just needed to be familiar enough to be able to do that.

Click to expand...

And that can be an entirely different situation. Typically in Vietnam you would be ambushed by with full autofire by concealed targets at close range in heavy cover. Of course there are very different situations and very different wars. As I said I can't speak to other situations. I am only relating what I know from over 50 years ago. Also many of you are talking about training theory or SOP. In the jungle it is very different. Before we went to Nam some actual Veterans talked to us about the real deal. As I said your training, weapon, type of fighting can be very different. I also know that training is not like being in combat. And today is much different than 50 years ago in a far away jungle. I do not recall shooting at airplanes with an M-16 though.

Yes fighting in the jungle is way different then fighting in the wide open desert. I have had a taste of both. I preferred the desert since there is a greater chance of seeing the enemy before he is right on top of you. And different tactics for different environments.

Yes, in some situations you need full suppression now. It was also used in fighting mass attacks on small outposts although I only know about that from a friend. It's in a book. He was recently consulted about a movie about another battle in a different book. In the only two mass battles I was in our company was held in reserve. Ambushes though, had those.

d2wing said:

I can't see any civilian use for full auto especially when you buy your own ammo.

Click to expand...

I can, but it's going to be VERY specialized situations.

During the 1919 Chicago race riot, my great uncles broke into their National Guard armory and along with rifles took machine guns to defend their neighborhood. My grandmother didn't know what kind, but my guess would be BARs.

FL-NC said:

The drill was a 30 round cyclic burst at 10 meters with all rounds going into the 4" circle.

Click to expand...

What position were you tested that in? Prone supported and kneeling I could probably do. Unsupported and standing, probably not without some lengthy practice. We did a similar test using AKMs in full auto just before deploying. Our chain of command wanted us to be familiar with the common weapons we would be facing overseas. So we shot full auto AKMs and PKMs. Distance for full auto fire was 10-15 meters, supported, and getting 75% of the rounds inside the chest cavity.

d2wing said:

I can't see any civilian use for full auto especially when you buy your own ammo.

Click to expand...

Might as well do away with the 2nd and everything else then too.

Guns and ammo were not always as tough to come by, or as expensive as they are now, but then again, we were also a bit freer back then too. Thanks to the politicians on both sides of the party, and "friends" like the NRA, some less then friendly gun people, ect, we are where we are now, and if things keep on the way they are, its not going to get any better.

As far as civilian use goes, why would they be any different than anything else? I think the attitudes towards them are more driven by lack of knowledge and experience with them, than anything else. A lot of people still believe you cant own one, and the vast majority have no experience shooting one.

Ive always found things like an MP5 to be handier and easier to shoot than a 12 ga, and even more so for my wife and kids to shoot, so it made more sense to use that for a home defense gun than the shotgun. So I still believe they a valid use, for anyone who chooses to use one.

Im not saying you'd want to risk the equity they have in them these days either, but whats your life worth?

herrwalther said:

What position were you tested that in? Prone supported and kneeling I could probably do. Unsupported and standing, probably not without some lengthy practice. We did a similar test using AKMs in full auto just before deploying. Our chain of command wanted us to be familiar with the common weapons we would be facing overseas. So we shot full auto AKMs and PKMs. Distance for full auto fire was 10-15 meters, supported, and getting 75% of the rounds inside the chest cavity.

Click to expand...

When we do it, they are shot standing, like most other shooting challenges, wheres's the challenge in shooting off a rest?

trackskippy said:

Might as well do away with the 2nd and everything else then too.

Guns and ammo were not always as tough to come by, or as expensive as they are now, but then again, we were also a bit freer back then too. Thanks to the politicians on both sides of the party, and "friends" like the NRA, some less then friendly gun people, ect, we are where we are now, and if things keep on the way they are, its not going to get any better.

As far as civilian use goes, why would they be any different than anything else? I think the attitudes towards them are more driven by lack of knowledge and experience with them, than anything else. A lot of people still believe you cant own one, and the vast majority have no experience shooting one.

Ive always found things like an MP5 to be handier and easier to shoot than a 12 ga, and even more so for my wife and kids to shoot, so it made more sense to use that for a home defense gun than the shotgun. So I still believe they a valid use, for anyone who chooses to use one.

Im not saying you'd want to risk the equity they have in them these days either, but whats your life worth?


When we do it, they are shot standing, like most other shooting challenges, wheres's the challenge in shooting off a rest?

Click to expand...

You have a good point. I wasn't thinking about it as a right or equity with government weapons. I was just thought they weren't practical for civilian use but then I could be wrong about that too.

Would I want to own a M16A1 or M16A2 with either full auto or burst capabilities? Probably not. I only used those capabilities a very few times while in the Army. Now I would love to have an old M3A1 SMG in 45ACP. This were fun and actually pretty accurate the one uses the shoulder stock as intended.

As for a need for civilians to own full auto firearms, no there isn't a need. But there is absolutely nothing wrong with wanting one. Heck I wouldn't mind owning a M60 just for nostalgia reasons. The Pig got me through a lot of stuff.

I was never in combat, but the only times I fired live ammo full auto were using up ammo so as to not have to do the excessive paperwork for turning it in, testing 10" barreled 'shortys' I helped build for the LRSD, trying out an M249 I borrowed from a friend of mine in the Manchus, (4th Bn./9th Regt.) an "expected opposition weapons familiarization course" , and some door kicking training with a group of Force Recon Marines with MP5SD3's.
Fired a lot of blanks full auto from M60's, but I only fired full auto blanks from an M16(A1) once; That was to initiate an ambush in training.
Outside of the military, I've fired an M1A1 Thompson, an Ingram M10 in .45 ACP, and an Uzi.

herrwalther said:

What position were you tested that in? Prone supported and kneeling I could probably do. Unsupported and standing, probably not without some lengthy practice. We did a similar test using AKMs in full auto just before deploying. Our chain of command wanted us to be familiar with the common weapons we would be facing overseas. So we shot full auto AKMs and PKMs. Distance for full auto fire was 10-15 meters, supported, and getting 75% of the rounds inside the chest cavity.

Click to expand...

Standing with weapon at full presentation (aimed in). Drill executed on command.

d2wing said:

I also know that training is not like being in combat. And today is much different than 50 years ago in a far away jungle. I do not recall shooting at airplanes with an M-16 though.

Click to expand...

I was talking about the training principles and, like I said, I've (fortunately) never seen combat. Then again the tactics I was taught may not be up to date, that happened over 30 years ago. My son has been trained for long range recon fairly recently; his instructions have been to prioritize conserving ammo unless it's absolutely necessary for disengaging the enemy and breaking off contact. The nearest friendly supply depot is typically hundreds of miles away and anything you need has to either be air dropped or captured from the enemy.

Full auto has its places, and is nice to have when needed. It’s just another tool in the kit.

As for a need for civilians to own full auto firearms, no there isn't a need.

Click to expand...

Actually, there is. We are all part of the militia and should have access to and possess the same arms as the military. The only difference between a Brown Bess and an M4, is the time period.

Unfortunately, some seem to think the Constitution is archaic, not a serious thing, subject to interpretation, and as the PTB constantly tell us, the "masses" really cant be trusted with, anything, but certainly not military type weapons.

12Bravo20 said:

Would I want to own a M16A1 or M16A2 with either full auto or burst capabilities? Probably not. I only used those capabilities a very few times while in the Army. Now I would love to have an old M3A1 SMG in 45ACP. This were fun and actually pretty accurate the one uses the shoulder stock as intended.

As for a need for civilians to own full auto firearms, no there isn't a need. But there is absolutely nothing wrong with wanting one. Heck I wouldn't mind owning a M60 just for nostalgia reasons. The Pig got me through a lot of stuff.

Click to expand...

When we transitioned to the M9 from 1911's we went through a a lot of .45ACP ball. One range session we broke out the M3s, I had two in my battery for the recovery vehicle. As I recall they were an M3 and an M3A1 (no charging handle, just a finger hole in the bolt to cock), IAW my master hand receipt, costs were I think $119 for the M3 and $98 for the M3A1.

Anyhow we did multiple runs on the pop-up pistol qual course with those things, it was a hoot. Slow rate of fire for an MG, utterly reliable and probably the most utilitarian weapon the US ever produced.

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...

It really comes down to what you did while you when in the military. I actually work with a retired AF OSI officer who only fired an M-16 once, when he was at the AF Academy, during his AF career but had to qualify every six months with a few different handguns; conversely, my manger was enlisted Army intel for 12 years and he only remembers qualifying with the M-16 a few times and never once touched a pistol while he was enlisted.

For me personally, we only ever fired M-16's on burst twice, that I remember at least, all the way through basic training and ITB (the Corps' name for infantry AIT) and those times were more to specifically show you how ineffective it really was. After that, when I went to security forces and F.A.S.T. training we had some additional training on effectively using the burst feature and during CQB school we got quite a bit or range time with full-auto M-4's, but this was as much to reinforce the importance of proper body positioning and follow through as it was on how to effectively use full-auto, mistakes compound really quickly and become super obvious when you are firing 10 rounds a second or so. For that particular training exercise, our goal at the end of nearly two months worth of training was to be able a full mag in a single burst into the head of a silhouette target at 7 meters shooting from a "combat stance".

While deployed overseas, I experienced exactly one situation where I feel like full-auto in a non belt-fed weapon could have actually been used effectively, and in that instance several rapid fired semi auto rounds took care of the issue just as effectively and I never even considered flipping the selector to full until after the encounter was over.

As you can see from this pic, I am fond of the M-60 as well. It is a vastly better weapon for full auto and I qualified expert with it.

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?

Click to expand...

That's going to vary.
A lot.
Especially different Services, and especially over different times.
How much the training "took" varies, too.

Now, a military truck driver is unlikely to retain a lot of rifle skills, in either firing format. There's an argument to e made that, like towed artillery crews, given that if they are in rifle shot of the bad guys, it's A Very Bad Thing, and less-aimed FA fires might be a better way to train. If you are working a 203mm gun 5-6km behind the line, or driving the truck delivering ammo to same, and you are in rifle shot, it's Not A Good Day..

Now, if you are on a boat crew performing Stop & Search at sea, you need a lot more focus on your firearm skills. Especially given the tight quarters.

The AF para-rescue kids also are like to have, and retain superior training with their arms. After all, you are taking a large, very noisy, helo to an area potentially neck-deep in Bad People and had to stand still, hovering, while recovering personnel from the ground.

Our brothers & sisters among the USCG can come under fire unexpectedly while minding their own business. Not all Coasties will be crack shots, but many will be experienced in being shot at and missed.

There's not just the one universal standard for these things. Much like there is not one universal "best" firearm.

I spent a lot of time training and down range with both an M4 rifle and 240b (‘crew served weapon’ full auto, 7.62x51), qualified with both as well.

For individual weapons systems? There’s really no need. A couple of guys can burn through a lot of rounds fast and accurately on semi auto out of an M4. Full auto is a waste of rounds. Not only that but it heats up barrels pretty fast. On a weapon you can’t change the barrel out on, that’s a problem.
- Now, burst does have its place (L and linear ambushes) but it’s to be used sparingly.

Full auto should be reserved for crew served suppressive/cover type weapons, which in US military doctrine you’ll have at least one of in a squad sized element (usually). Even with the crew served weapons they teach you to shoot a short burst because full auto is hard to aim (see comments about heated barrels too). A squad that finds itself without one for some reason can generally do just fine without full auto.

The faster you run out of ammo the quicker you’re dead and your average soldier only has 240-300 rounds on them at a time.


Given the choice I’d pick a semi auto rifle 99 times out of 100 over an automatic and they 1% would be only if my other choice was a pistol.

It seems doctrine might be skewing the direction of things or thinking here.

Most of what Im referring to when I think of its use, is basically a replacement for a shotgun loaded with buck, and where and why you would use that. The advantage being, you dont have to carry the rifle/SMG "and" a shotgun, you have both in your hands with the select fire gun, and move back and forth with uses, with a simple "switch" or use of the trigger, depending on the gun.

Close up, in or around buildings, tight spaces, etc. Its a much handier gun thats basically just point and click. Put the front of the gun on the target and give it a quick, short burst. Its not suppressive fire, or how many seem to think FA fire is used, its a quick, deliberate, short burst (or more if needed) on target.

Aiming isnt aiming in the traditional sense, and more along the lines of Applegate point shooting, where you shoot over the top of the gun. You use the stock and normally shoulder the gun with a good solid mount, as you would when using the sights, and you are aiming, but not with a traditional sight picture using the sights. Trying to do that is about worthless and impossible, as you wont maintain any kind of sight picture and just get lost in the sights trying to do that. Shooting over top of the gun/sights works well and is very effective. Of course, this is at the close distances Im talking about. If you need to shoot further, its "aimed" fire in semi, as it should be.

Im looking at this as a multipurpose individual arm that covers more than just what a semi gun would. And most of the time, if it had a selector, it would be used in semi, and if it didnt (this applies more to older open bolt guns), trigger control on most of the better guns, will easily allow you to squeeze off well aimed single shots.

This is why I was asking about training above. I understand that the military has a lot to deal with, different MOS's, training and ammo costs, etc, and Im sure its just easier to do what they do. And maybe the returns arent worth the effort too. I just think a lot of the attitudes are based on a lack of understanding and what can be easily attained, with good technique and a little hands-on training, and at least I see the advantage to that.

Then again, with the prevalence of armor, and the trend away from pistol caliber guns, it may all be a moot point. Not that things like the M4's cant be used, they certainly can, and woudnt be any trouble, buy they still arent as handy as something like a MP5, M45 KG, Beretta M12, etc., which I think would be perfect for civilian use, as pretty much anyone can easily shoot them.

But who wants to pony up $35K for a transferable MP5 these days? It really sucks to be living in 2021. Surplus M1 Thompsons back in the 70's were $70, M3's even cheaper, and ammo was dirt cheap.

trackskippy said:

Most of what Im referring to when I think of its use, is basically a replacement for a shotgun loaded with buck, and where and why you would use that.

Click to expand...

Well, the military uses shotguns mostly for unlocking locks. The 5.56 is not a good choice for that. As a civilian, I can't imagine many situations where a full auto would be a good replacement for a shotgun. A full auto carbine/SMG in the hands of someone trained well in the proper use of one is more versatile, but as many here including myself have attested, we've rarely used full auto in a non belt fed capable of it. It is really nice to have it there if needed, in a military context, because when you need it, you really need it! But in this day of Post May '86 NFA regs, it's not feasible for most of us.

If the prices were back to Pre '86 prices? Sure, I'd pick up an Ingram M10, (Kick myself often for not having done that) but it wouldn't be my primary HD weapon. An AR pistol with 'da switch', that would have a spot in the HD lineup, just as my semi one does.

For a lot of people, a 12ga shotgun can be quite intimidating and is definitely more cumbersome and harder to shoot well with. I can pretty much guarantee, I can have a woman, or child shooting the SMG well in short order, more so than you would with a 12 ga. They would also be more likely and willing to practice with it too.

I just see them as basically the same tool from a civilian standpoint, and one is easier for most than the other. Its just most may have had exposure and experience with one, and the other not so much, to see or know the difference.

I learned to shoot shoulder-fired FA's (mostly SMG's) from WWII, Korea, and Vietnam vets who had used them in combat. They always stressed solidly mounting the gun as much as possible, deliberate aiming/pointing and shooting what you wanted to shoot, in short bursts. I was lucky enough to be around those guys and that "community" as far as people and guns go, to have got a pretty good education with them. They also started an addiction that I still havent been able to shake.

I agree, an AR "SMG", 9 or 5.56 would be the shnitz. All you need is a registered lower.

I bought an SWD M11/9mm in the early 80's. NIB it was $225 and it had a bazillion rounds through it when I got rid of it around the time Obama got in. The Ingrams were first gen MAC's, and more desirable as a collectors gun. The SWD's were third gen, a little different, kind of a cross between the 10 and the 11, but basically the same thing. 30 rounds of 9mm in a second and a half too. They really arent all that practical, and not really what Im talking about here either. Fun guns, but you really need to know what youre doing with them though.

trackskippy said:

This is why I was asking about training above. I understand that the military has a lot to deal with, different MOS's, training and ammo costs, etc, and Im sure its just easier to do what they do. And maybe the returns arent worth the effort too. I just think a lot of the attitudes are based on a lack of understanding and what can be easily attained, with good technique and a little hands-on training, and at least I see the advantage to that.

Click to expand...

Well, the most damaging weapon on modern battlefields remains artillery, with Close Air Support, just behind that.
Rifles are not the most common source of death and injury, and haven't much been since back to the Franco-Prussian War.

While in the last twenty-odd years, there has been a shift to MOUT (Military Operations in Urban Terrain) it has not been a transformative change. While MOUT suggests use of close-in weapons, like handguns, they are still a minority-use weapon. (Military handguns really are for people who have mortars or artillery pieces or missile launchers as their "main" weapon.)

So, on average, riflemen do not suddenly spring up on people in situations where "shot gunning" the bad folks is appropriate. If they do, the Fire Team leader is like to wind up in a pointy discussion with the Squad Leader and the Platoon Leader.

(One of the other aspects of the All-Volunteer Force is that we have a limited number of highly trained troopies--we do not want them risked unnecessarily--these are group actions, and the "pyramid" works both ways.)

There's a "trap" of sorts in attempting to think these things through from an individual perspective. Military operations are always organized around groups and group actions. Back in my "loud and heavy" days a Squad was 13, so you could have 4 Fire Teams of 3, or three FT of 4, and you had 3 SAW and 3 M203, so, 3 of four made more sense, unless you wanted a base of fire from a specific direction. There were 2 more Squads in the Platoon, two more Platoons and the Weapons Platoon in the Company.