Vets: Full Auto vs Semi Auto?

I was not in combat during my short tour in Vietnam, 1971 - and only got shot at a few times so my military weapons experience was only at the range... Years later in police work I moved up the ladder and found myself doing after action stuff - as well as internal things. One night our SRT (swat team) ended up in a running gun battle while providing cover for a dope deal in a shopping center parking lot. No one (officer or BG) injured but lots of bullet strikes on buildings and lots and lots of shell casings on the ground - all of them 9mm - and from our team... They were armed with suppressed MP-5's capable of both semi-auto and full auto fire. They had good training - mostly for quick assaults on stationary targets as well as back up on any undercover ops that needed it. They were very good at controlled close quarter fire - but we'd never trained them on running fire exchanges with several different active targets running and shooting as they went (BG's were only armed with pistols - and our intended dope deal - they planned a rip-off... Miami at its finest...).

Our reaction.... We quickly prohibited full auto fire - except as a last resort - and never had another problem. On the night in question we had store fronts, vehicles, and shoppers downrange - fortunately only property damage, but the possibilities were enough to keep you up at night if you considered how bad the outcome might have been... All of this was in the early nineties - when we still had BGs posing as cops in uniform doing robberies of drug deals and/or other situations where a situation might yield lots of cash or dope. Very glad that time is long passed - and I'm long out of police work...

Full auto in light weapons is best left to belt fed machine guns or sub machineguns if a good hit ratio to fired rounds is expected. A well trained light machine gunner can keep short bursts easily on COM at 100 yards and a sub gun, especially the HK MP5 fired from the shoulder can easily do the same at 50 yards.
Shooting the HK G3 in full auto while running is more about making noise ...

I never shot any in combat but did get to fire at will with the M16 and 203 a fair bit. Most was in the Nat Guard as in the Army I was n MP. I did get to run the PIG there enough strangely though. None of us were a real fan of the thing because it was a pig. Carrying that thing in the bush was nasty.
I liked the 16 on semi because I could literally pile them into a 2’ space as fast as I could pull the trigger , way more effective and controlled than even the 60. Even at 2-300 yards it’s wonderfully accurate compared to the muzzle climb of full auto. Sure if you were prone and held it down it would be more manageable but in many cases just not practical especially for those of us who were actually good shots. I never fired 3 shot burst as my guard unit at that period was sporting A2s while with the 203 you needed the pencil barrel to fit the Grenada launcher. I was the squad Auto rifleman / grenadier that only shot full auto a few times on the range. Go figure

Idaho National Guard unit is deploying and have been issued full auto M4s made by Colt. According to guard personnel.

JCooperfan1911 said:

Veterans and those with actual military experience, what is your opinion about the usefulness of fully automatic fire for infantry rifles? How effective is it vs carefully aimed but slow semi-automatic fire? I know weapons like the AK-47 are meant to be used essentially like larger caliber submachine guns and fired in fully automatic, but am aware that in the US the M16 and M4 are often fired in semi auto for qualification.

Thoughts?

Click to expand...

3 round bursts out of shoulder-fired carbines are effective in situations where you are having to stand your ground and fight-off superior forces that are advancing on you in an offensive manner and have closed within 50 meters or less.

Three round bursts can also be somewhat effective in CQB, MOUT operations particularly, where opforces' concealment can be penetrated but you're not sure of their exact position behind said concealment. (Think of a bad guy behind a plaster wall, you know he's there but you're not sure where ... a couple of carefully swept 3 round bursts is amazingly effective at flushing or eliminating a concealed threat.)

(A Cal 50 M2 can also do this, turning concrete and cinder block walls into concealment rather than cover, but you get the picture.)

Full auto, small, shoulder-fired arms, especially 22 caliber, are a waste of good ammo imho, SAW included (excluding tripod mounted belt fed with an ammo bearer and plenty of resupply and then only for suppressing fire or to sweep organic concealment such as bushes or small shrubbery).

There is some argument to be made for 30 cal belt fed hip or sling fired full auto especially where grazing fire is appropriate but that is so rare these days. 30 cal also allows for jackhammer type breaching (or for sending a message if no ground support is available for small elite infantry troops) .... but back to the question, yes, 3 round bursts from anything is useful of imposed upon adversaries properly, but full auto spray and pray is always a last ditch response and you had better hope you have guaranteed resupply if the intended results are not immediately achieved.

CapnMac said:

Well, the most damaging weapon on modern battlefields remains artillery

Click to expand...

The most dangerous and powerful piece on a chess board is the queen. And that's why artillery is known as "the queen of battle."

At least that's what somebody told me.

(A Cal 50 M2 can also do this, turning concrete and cinder block walls into concealment rather than cover, but you get the picture.)

Yes. This negates a lot of nonsense.

Airborne Falcon said:

A Cal 50 M2 can also do this, turning concrete and cinder block walls into concealment rather than cover, but you get the picture.

Click to expand...

When Ma talks, people listen.

Full auto fire is perfect for suppressing an enemy position and not much else.

tark said:

The most dangerous and powerful piece on a chess board is the queen. And that's why artillery is known as "the queen of battle."

At least that's what somebody told me.

Click to expand...

Somebody that told you got that wrong. Queen of Battle is Infantry. Artillery is King. Antiquated terms for modern warfare in relation to chess. Plenty of small artillery pieces can go where infantry can. Just watch some videos of airborne artillery units, crews jumping out of planes with ammo and pieces, fire rounds, then get lifted off.

An Achilles heel of training in burst/full auto is both modes are horrendously unreliable when using blank ammo. During belt tightening budget cut years, the military will cut ammo budgets so soldiers wont get as much live trigger time as they want. So they get dirty blanks more.

tark said:

The most dangerous and powerful piece on a chess board is the queen. And that's why artillery is known as "the queen of battle."

At least that's what somebody told me.

Click to expand...

My mom’s cousin was in artillery during WW1.
His battery slaughtered lots of Germans who were attacking in waves. The Krauts were getting so close, the Americans were setting their shells to detonate at close quarters.
Cousin was almost deaf for the remainder of his life into the 1980s, due to no hearing protection.
He also suffered respiratory issues after being gassed in the trenches.

herrwalther said:

Somebody that told you got that wrong. Queen of Battle is Infantry.

Click to expand...

I stand corrected, and I learned something. Thanks!

Automatic fire is very useful to kill everyone at a restaurant or telephone booth......single, aimed fire, is more accurate, effective and recommended...........

herrwalther said:

An Achilles heel of training in burst/full auto is both modes are horrendously unreliable when using blank ammo.

Click to expand...

You can say that again! I used blank-adapted Browning guns in WW1 and WW2 reenactments. Not only is unreliability a problem (I could rarely get more than a 5-shot burst off without a jam), but so is heat buildup. (The barrel gets hot faster than when using live rounds, since the gases are trapped inside the barrel by the bore restrictor.) Since the Browning design fires from the closed bolt, the danger of cook-offs was real. I found myself having to constantly open the breech by hand to allow for cooling.

herrwalther said:

Somebody that told you got that wrong. Queen of Battle is Infantry.

Click to expand...

...and the Queen is Toast without the King...
https://www.facebook.com/101st/vide...-division-air-assault-comman/2408559112610335
(Start at about 0:55)

(With apologies to the Moderators if too far off topic )

Ranger Rog said:

Automatic fire is very useful to kill everyone at a restaurant or telephone booth......single, aimed fire, is more accurate, effective and recommended..........

Click to expand...

This is a somewhat contradictory statement. First it sounds as though full-automatic fire would be more dangerous in the hands of a mass shooter, and then it seems that accurate aimed fire would be more dangerous (effective) in the hands of a mass shooter.

The truth is that we don't have data to confirm either of these contentions. That's because mass shooters don't use automatic weapons (with the possible exception of the Las Vegas shooter, who used ersatz auto fire (bump firing)). My personal opinion is that aimed semiautomatic firing would be more lethal, not least because less ammunition would be wasted.

If indeed semiautomatic fire is more lethal in these situations, then we can say that the National Firearms Act is misplaced in focusing on machine guns. Either the NFA should be repealed, or it should be broadened to include semiautomatics. Since the latter is not going to happen, that leaves us with a strong argument for repeal. (In other words, it's a law that is not accomplishing its stated purpose.)

AlexanderA said:

In other words, it's a law that is not accomplishing its stated purpose.

Click to expand...

Oh, I think its been accomplishing its intended purpose since its inception.

Full auto is fine as long as somebody else is carrying the ammo.

trackskippy said:

Oh, I think its been accomplishing its intended purpose since its inception.

Click to expand...

The narrow purpose of the NFA was to make full-auto weapons (specifically, the Thompson submachine gun) unaffordable. The broader purpose was to remove ostensibly "dangerous" weapons from the civilian population. Technology has leapfrogged this. Semiautomatic weapons (unregulated by the NFA) have been developed that (even according to this thread) are more effective and "dangerous" than the ones regulated by the NFA. Example: a semiautomatic AR-15 is probably, all things considered, more effective than a full-auto Thompson (considering range, weight, ammo supply, etc.).

My late father-in-law was in the U.S. Army in the North African theater in WW2. He was originally issued a Thompson, but exchanged it for a Garand the first chance he got. According to him, the Thompson was too heavy for such a short-range weapon. The Garand had the power and range. So there you have it: The NFA is a failure because it regulates the Thompson but not the Garand. Once again we have an example of why gun control is kabuki theater. Always has been and always will be.

As stated by those of us that have actually used a M16A1/A2 or M4 in combat, burst and full auto do have their place. But their use is only handy in a very small amount of circumstances. When you need massed firepower, grab the M249, M240, M60, or M2.

AlexanderA said:

The narrow purpose of the NFA was to make full-auto weapons (specifically, the Thompson submachine gun) unaffordable. The broader purpose was to remove ostensibly "dangerous" weapons from the civilian population. Technology has leapfrogged this. Semiautomatic weapons (unregulated by the NFA) have been developed that (even according to this thread) are more effective and "dangerous" than the ones regulated by the NFA. Example: a semiautomatic AR-15 is probably, all things considered, more effective than a full-auto Thompson (considering range, weight, ammo supply, etc.).

My late father-in-law was in the U.S. Army in the North African theater in WW2. He was originally issued a Thompson, but exchanged it for a Garand the first chance he got. According to him, the Thompson was too heavy for such a short-range weapon. The Garand had the power and range. So there you have it: The NFA is a failure because it regulates the Thompson but not the Garand. Once again we have an example of why gun control is kabuki theater. Always has been and always will be.

Click to expand...

Nothing has really changed, and believe it or dont, they had semi auto rifles for a couple of decades or so prior to the NFA being passed, so the technology existed at the same time and really hasnt leap frogged anything. The mindset for its use just wasnt really yet established, and the effectiveness of FA guns was pretty much blatantly established, at least in the minds of the public and those who dont want us to have them. And basically, just the same sort of thing that the AR's have been facing for the past couple of decades with the same sorts of people.

Keep in mind too, the Thomson is select fire, and doesnt have to be shot FA. But FA is what gave it its rep, and in the hands of someone who knows how to shoot one, it can be a very devastating weapon. The key point is, "someone who knows how to use one".

There's no doubt that FA has narrow uses, but it does have very valid uses, especially in the hands of those who have been trained in its use.

Most of the knowledge and experience here seems to be military, and use seems to be based on military doctrine and what was taught, or not taught. I haven't yet heard anyone say they got actual, specific training in shooting in FA, other than as a limited generalized use, fire suppression, break contact, ect..

Most of my experience with military, ex-military, police, etc who shot FA guns that I owned, or those of friends, has been, they were never actually taught to use the guns in that mode. They all claimed to have shot them, and most acted like they were experts (human nature I guess) with them, but many of them seemed surprised when they first shot the guns, seemed to have a hard time controlling them, and didnt understand why they had the trouble shooting them that they did. On the other side of that, the old boys I learned to shoot them from, never seemed to have any difficulty shooting them, even at an advanced age.

Another thing these days to is, pistol caliber SMG's have fallen out of favor in many places and things like the M4 have replaced them. Not that there is really any difference between them other than caliber and power, they both are still shot the same way, if you understand how to shoot them. But if youve never been taught that, then you will probably not see the usefulness and think them a waste.

From a civilian standpoint, especially as a HD type weapon, I still believe they are a superior choice over a shotgun, especially for those of small stature and are sensitive to recoil. They arent hard to learn, and with a little familiarization and regular shooting, are as easy to shoot as anything else, and even easier than some. And this isnt an either or sort of thing, we do have brains, and selector or not, precisely aimed shots are still readily available if needed.

It appears some of those who used them in WWII knew what was what, as far as how to shoot them anyway. Looks like its just another "lost art" disappearing like a lot of other things. Too bad so many have missed out.

Point and click baby.

Many units train in full auto, but it may not be until they are in theatre and are somewhat free of the constraints placed upon them in a stateside or otherwise “garrison” type environment. Then, it also comes down to the ability to master the technique of its use. Just in the specific case of the M4, some may be able to easily control it, and others may not. It really is dependent upon technique, ability, and the situation. Just use what works for you.

I had a buddy who could use an ACOG while engaging in flight from a helo with an M4. Effectively! Me, nope. I needed an aimpoint (no magnification) and, and varied between semi and burst (or auto), depending on the situation.

It varies. Have as many tools as you can, and use them accordingly. There is no one size fits all.

It’d be great to hear from some of the folks that have done the helicopter hog hunting.

kwguy said:

Many units train in full auto, but it may not be until they are in theatre and are somewhat free of the constraints placed upon them in a stateside or otherwise “garrison” type environment. Then, it also comes down to the ability to master the technique of its use. Just in the specific case of the M4, some may be able to easily control it, and others may not. It really is dependent upon technique, ability, and the situation. Just use what works for you.

I had a buddy who could use an ACOG while engaging in flight from a helo with an M4. Effectively! Me, nope. I needed an aimpoint (no magnification) and, and varied between semi and burst (or auto), depending on the situation.

It varies. Have as many tools as you can, and use them accordingly. There is no one size fits all.

It’d be great to hear from some of the folks that have done the helicopter hog hunting.

Click to expand...

Well said!

And yes being in combat engineer units, I did get quite a bit of weapons training to include full auto fire with the M16A1 and burst with the M16A2. Again it depended on each individual unit or command on how much training you got. Most of my units were even given plenty of range time with the M3A1. We would actually qualify with the M3 instead of just getting "familiarization" training with them.

JCooperfan1911 said:

Thank you, all.

Most responses are from members who’ve fired M4s and M16s in service (among other weapons). I am interested in if, in your experience, you would classify the AK-47 as also most effective (in the majority of situations) on semi-automatic as well?

View attachment 1041134

Given that the AK is also a lightweight, select-fire, intermediate caliber weapon also feeding from the same magazine capacity and yet has a bit more recoil and the ammunition is heavier than 5.56mm (meaning less can be carried on the soldier) I am assuming they, too, are best kept on semi?

Click to expand...

Yes even the AK47 and AK74 are better and more effective when shot semi auto from the shoulder versus on full auto. Now one thing I will say about the AK74 (5.45x39) is that it is very controllable on full auto with its flash hider/muzzle brake. We did quite a bit of training with Russian weapons when I was stationed at NTC/Ft Irwin.

In my experience shooting the AK47/AKM (7.62x39) full auto was somewhere in between shooting the M16A1 and M14 on full auto. Closer to the M16 but still not very controllable.