Vets: Full Auto vs Semi Auto?

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...

My former Grandfather in Law, Mother in Law's side, was Theordore Eickhoff ... designer of the Thompson.

I don't think he ever intended it to be used as a front line assault type weapon but more of a CQB carbine and trench sweeper.

Well, anyways, in his own words ....

http://www.mikesmachineguns.com/Eickhoff_p3.html

FWIW I fired serial #3 at the family camp in Hendersonville NC which Theodore, Jr., had in his possession at the time ... pretty sure he still does. That was some years ago. I never met Senior personally but knew his daughter quite well and she worshipped him ... she still does last time I talked to the ex.

You might say I knew his granddaughter very well. Wonderful beautiful woman at one time, until she hit menopause, then it was game over.

AlexanderA said:

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.

Click to expand...

I can't fathom what might be more effective and dangerous in any current semiautomatic firearm than identical functionality in semiautomatics of yore, dating back over a century to Remington Model 8 and others our grandfathers hunted with back in the day. Maybe more common availability of regular/"high" capacity magazines, which in itself isn't anything really new either.

12Bravo20 said:

When you need massed firepower, grab the M249, M240, M60, or M2.

Click to expand...

I have been in firefights where we had 3 out of the 4, M60 was retired before my time. And some M4 switches still went to burst or auto. When fire suppression is absolutely needed, the third option is nice to have. 210 rounds is considered the "standard" combat load. I never saw anyone carry that little on my deployment.

trackskippy said:

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.

Click to expand...

One important thing your post overlooks is the difference between modern warfare and the world wars is the difference in combat styles. In WWI and II, entire cities were leveled by artillery and air strikes. Germans and Japanese fought in waves. Modern fighting is more urban so accuracy in training takes precedence over volume fire to avoid civilian causalities. This is why a modern vet has more experience with semi for accurate, well placed shots.

JCooperfan1911 said:

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?

Click to expand...

We (my unit) trained up on foreign weapons before going, including FA on weapons like the AKM, RPK etc. Probably one of the best training sessions I had in terms of useful overseas knowledge. Our mission was to train the Afghan Police and Border Patrol units. When they didn't sell their ammo, they liked to spray and pray on full auto, not hitting much. So we had to teach them the accuracy and usefulness of semi-auto. In retrospect, that was an easier lesson to teach than what "maximum effective range" is to a culture that doesn't know measurements.

herrwalther said:

210 rounds is considered the "standard" combat load. I never saw anyone carry that little on my deployment.

Click to expand...

We usually carried more too when possible.

The only M240's we had were the COAX guns on the M728 CEV.

herrwalther said:

One important thing your post overlooks is the difference between modern warfare and the world wars is the difference in combat styles. In WWI and II, entire cities were leveled by artillery and air strikes. Germans and Japanese fought in waves. Modern fighting is more urban so accuracy in training takes precedence over volume fire to avoid civilian causalities. This is why a modern vet has more experience with semi for accurate, well placed shots.

Click to expand...

I understand that doctrine has changed, but I think there are still a lot of similarities in some things, like urban fighting.

And accuracy is always the goal and more of what Im stressing here too. Most seem to be looking at FA fire as strictly an area or suppression type weapon, where Im talking about using it as a precision type weapon. The difference seems to be in how people are taught, and the results, or lack of them because of it. Most modern weapons have a "selector", and you do have a choice available to you, should you choose to make it. The old knight in that one Indiana Jones movie has the answer.... "Choose Wisely".

Im guessing with the military, they are just trying to KISS, and dont want you thinking, and/or maybe dont think youre capable of it. Im sure there's also a bean counter or two involved somewhere in their thought processes. Im also kind of surprised they havent gone the M14 route, and just removed the capability altogether. Probably save $1 on the cost of the gun too.


That pic I posted above is WWII, but that burst in his armor was made at close range, not long range. Whoever shot him, was pretty close (by the hits, Id guess 5 yards or so), and put a deliberate and well aimed burst into him. Those arent haphazard, random hits, they are aimed.

I believe we still train for these types of close-range encounters, and I dont see the difference between an MP40 or a M4 if the cases were similar. You put the front of the gun on the target, and give it a burst. Its quick, deliberate, aimed, and effective. And, like with a handgun, or anything else, if youre accustomed to shooting that way, requires no thought to do so.

Oh, and that pic also emphasizes one of the main reasons why the pistol caliber guns have fallen out of favor.

trackskippy said:

That pic I posted above is WWII, but that burst in his armor was made at close range, not long range. Whoever shot him, was pretty close (by the hits, Id guess 5 yards or so), and put a deliberate and well aimed burst into him. Those arent haphazard, random hits, they are aimed.

Click to expand...

Full auto has fallen out of favor in the military. That you can thank the bean counters for. Vietnam/Korea era, too many troops were using the full auto mode and burning through ammo for less significant hits or misses. So, that is when 3 round burst started making its way into the M16A2, M16A4, regular M4 (not M4A1) etc. I think burst is the better, more useful, and balanced third mode of fire for a military arm. Burst is useful for CQB and more accurate for suppression than straight up full auto. Based on how I was trained in the military, and the rare times I used burst/auto, I am surprised it is still on the M16/M4. Both/either does have a use and it is a shame the military does not incorporate it in training as much. I received exactly zero instruction on burst/auto at my basic training. All the training I got in using it was at my unit and shooting courses they sent me to.

JCooperfan1911 said:

you would classify the AK-47 as also most effective (in the majority of situations) on semi-automatic as well?

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...

Soviet Doctrine was to be on full auto--first stop of the lever--at all times.
Soviet doctrine was to advance or die trying, too.
Soviet infantry doctrine was based on having a huge population of conscript riflemen given little or no dedicated rifle training, but being incredibly replaceable due to the low training requirements.

I'm not a fan of the great gaping hole in the side of the beast, but, were I equipped with them, my unit SOP would be semi. And a significant part of my reasoning would be in the effort required in bringing up replacement ammo.

trackskippy said:

Im guessing with the military, they are just trying to KISS, and dont want you thinking, and/or maybe dont think youre capable of it. Im sure there's also a bean counter or two involved somewhere in their thought processes. Im also kind of surprised they havent gone the M14 route, and just removed the capability altogether. Probably save $1 on the cost of the gun too.

Click to expand...

That's just a tad jaded.
And unfair, too.
While there are any number of Flag officers who are uncaring and under-concerned; there are more than enough field-grade officers who understand that our enlisted ranks are a precious resource and deserve appropriate attention and treatment.

But, the cruel fact of it remains that, it's not the guns, it's the Logistics.
If you can't get beans, bullets, and bandaids to the troops it doesn't much matter if they have spears or phased plasma rifles in the 40W range.

One troopie can hump maybe 30-40kg of ammo. That troop need food, water, shelter. To move more, they need a vehicle. The vehicle needs POL, PCMS, and all that goes with it (including the support staff). To move the vehicles needs yet another, larger, vehicle. Which needs its own crew. And, there is a time tare on all of that action. So, just because there's a need does not mean that the need is filled.

There are very legitimate reasons Army Infantry units have 10 troops to support every one troop at the point of the spear.

JCooperfan1911 said:

Thank you. I resupply we’re not an issue, would you still instruct mostly semi?

Click to expand...

Supply is always an issue.

But, really, well trained troops will work much better using dedicated automatic weapons as bases of fire support. And if under-trained auxiliaries or the like, for sure keeping them out of FA is practically required (they will be wasting so much ammo into the sky so as to be a hazard to all around). Such levies are also less-able to hump weight in the field, too. And, with irregulars, you often simply do not have enough ammo to go around, too.

Reading up on the Nationalist forces in the Spanish Civil War is illustrative to this end.

Im still getting the impression that the ingrained mentality here is, it will all be wasted time, effort, and ammo, and thats the only way it will be shot if its available. Thats not what Im saying, and in fact, just the opposite.

I simply saying, give your people a minor upgrade in their training, and allow them to take advantage of, and be more effective in the use of their tools. I doubt youd see consumption go up all that much, and you will likely see performance go up.

And if troops are a precious resource, I would think anything that would help them to "be all they can be", would be a positive. But whos making those choices?

trackskippy said:

I simply saying, give your people a minor upgrade in their training, and allow them to take advantage of, and be more effective in the use of their tools. I doubt youd see consumption go up all that much, and you will likely see performance go up.

Click to expand...

There's plenty of training, it just varies with the job.

There's a reason the switch is still on the rifles we issue.

Training is part of why it's virtually never on Full.

You need to keep some bad people from moving about by penning them in a cloud of bullets, you point the SAW gunners at the appropriate places (they are on Full, not Semi). This leaves you riflemen free to move about, to get better cover, or to engage from flanking positions, or, to just sit back waiting for the mortar rounds to roll in.

Being a Platoon Leader wants considerable (and considered) training.

Now, a Truck driver does not have a Platoon, other than in other trucks. If in convoy, as is typical for Trains, they are meant to have MPs as escorts to protect their Line of Communication. The MPs so have Squads & Platoons to back them up, even on Route of March.

Mechanics, back in the Motor Pool, is not meant to ever be close enough to Bad People to need large skills. Their level of training will differ from front line infantry,

Just out of curiosity, whats the doctrine for close range when shooting on semi? Number of rounds?

12Bravo20 said:

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.

Click to expand...

and always ended up with sore cheek, sore teeth for me

12Bravo20 said:

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.

Click to expand...

and the MK19 lol...

GoldieMI said:

and the MK19 lol...

Click to expand...

They evidently didn't trust us engineers with the Mk19, we never had them when I was in.

Full-Auto vs Semi-Auto

Full-Auto: to keep heads down…
Semi-Auto: to pick those heads Poking out after full-auto stops

JCooperfan1911 said:

Thank you. I resupply we’re not an issue, would you still instruct mostly semi?

Click to expand...

Especially with the AK; it is the most inaccurate rifle in full auto. Watch a slo-mo film of one being fired full auto and you'll see why:



When you consider the Soviet doctrine as Cap'n Mac points out, it really wouldn't matter, but that doctrine was developed with either them crossing the Fulda Gap all on line behind the tanks, or them ambushing NATO units invading the Warsaw Pact. The ambush doctrine was to dump the first mag in full auto for supression, then switch to semi, or fire short bursts after that. The units GP-25's and RPK's would flush hiders out, and semi fire and DM's finish.

JCooperfan1911 said:

It seems that in actuality, the American doctrine of mainly using semi-automatic fire would also be applicable to the Kalashnikov series of weapons systems.

Click to expand...

For what it's worth, the RK62 and RK95 I've trained with on a fairly strict semi auto, aimed individual shots doctrine are essentially Kalashnikovs, albeit with far better (aperture) sights, high grade barrels and strict QC. I'm not sure how well it would work with run of the mill AKM and its awful, short radius open sights. Regular non-RK/Galil AK is obviously not built for any meaningful level of marksmanship on battlefield.

12Bravo20 said:

They evidently didn't trust us engineers with the Mk19, we never had them when I was in.

Click to expand...

Nor I...but I did get to see the 11Boom Booms play with them...and thought it was a huge upgrade over the MK18s- always wanted to send a few downrange with it...but not worth another tour for me.

To talk about bean counters trying to save ammo is laughable compared to how much ammo has been wasted every war since WWII. When the staticians talk about the number of enemies killed, they include every round shipped to the military. Not just every round expended. In the European during WWII, that includes every round sent to the bottom of the ocean by German U-boats. That was a lot of ammo.

In later wars, the US military left millions of tons of gear behind because the bean counters determined it cost more than it was worth to ship it back.

The most important US doctrine is to bury whatever place we're fighting in supplies. It's not efficient but it ensures the enemy will run out of toys faster than we do.

During WWII and Korea, the average GI didn't have general access to full auto weapons. Most were issued Garands and far more M1 carbines were issued than M2s. So, what was the average footslogger using to burn through ammo?

I used to work with a Korean War vet who operated quad fifties mounted in a truck. It was meant for anti-aircraft, but he told me it was ineffective against jet fighters. But he did tell me about sweeping Chinese human wave attacks off a hill with his quad, using constant full auto fire. He said the barrels got so hot they drooped and he had to keep raising the barrels to compensate. I'd say his fullauto fire was effective.

It wasn't until the M16 was widely issued that our troops had universal access to full auto weapons. I can't comment on full auto vs semiauto because I wasn't there. What I know is only what I've read or heard from those who were there.

I've read accounts that some wanted the three round burst because of the perceived ammo wastage in Viet Nam. A concern was GIs poking their M16s over their heads while hunkered down behind berms and blindly cranking off rounds on full auto.

But the reason given for ditching the three round burst and returning to full auto was because it was needed by small units to break contact with larger units. Semiauto and three round bursts didn't put out enough volume of fire. Now, that's troops trained to lay down that kind of fire to effectively break contact.

It was during break contact training that really began exposing the short comings of the early M4s. Those shortcomings have been addressed to give us the most refined and battle proven rifle yet, with it's select fire intact. But that's a tale for another time.

Here's how a friend and mentor, now sadly gone, who carried a BAR in Korea told me that he used the two modes:

He would fire his BAR in semi for a bit. Then change mags, fire a couple of rounds, and have his ammo carrier bounce an M1 clip off his helmet. The chinese knew to change positions when a lone M1 was reloading. Then, he would hose them in FA while they were in the open.

This only worked once from a particular position, though. The chinese hated the BARs. He said that once a BAR was identified, they would rain fire and brimstone down on it. He quickly learned to shoot FA and scoot.

I have the benefit of having been in for a pretty good amount of time. I served from 1981 to 2009 (28 tears) so I was around for both the full auto times (M16A1) and the 3 round burst times. (M16A2/M4) I was also an Infantry Drill Sgt at Ft Benning, GA who spent a lot of time on the range teaching the IET (Initial Entry Training) soldier BRM, (Basic Rifle Marksmanship) and at the end of the day, (to expend unused ammo) and often to demonstrate the ease of controllability, we would spend extensive time utilizing FA fire with the M16A1.

What so many people fail to realize is that FA fire isn't there to hit targets. At least not when utilized in a basic issue infantry weapon. That role is reserved for the machine gunners. While it can be used in that role on a limited basis, it's primary design is in giving the capability to the individual soldier to extricate himself out of a sticky situation, or to allow himself to advance towards the enemy under that fire to further the mission. (it's a scary noise maker, like a machine gun) Being light weight (no heavy barrel, or means of a quick change barrel) and still being magazine fed (limited ammo supply) a FA fire basic issue weapon isn't designed to have the FA fire in use long term. It's an emergency use option. One to be sparingly used, as the need arises. If you need to keep an enemies head down for a few seconds to move to cover, or to cover your team member so they can move. If you are overwhelmed, and need to break contact. If you happen upon a target of opportunity, say of a mass of troops up close. (maybe you're point man, or tail end Charlie on dismounted patrol) Unfortunately, this requires training, and discipline, something the Army started laxing off on right about the time of the development of the M16.

As far as it being a waste of ammo... yes, it can be, if used improperly, or with undisciplined troops. However, the myth of it being ineffective, or incontrollable, is just that... a myth. Especially with the M16 platform. Even when I was a 17 year old 136 pound pvt, I learned to easily control my m16A1 with both semi-auto, and full-auto fire. The design of the weapon, and the low recoil of the round, make for very easy to control weapon, even in FA fire. As far as the 3 round burst mode goes, that's a crutch solely to limit troops... used as a band aid due to poor discipline. It's not as accurate as semi -auto for a well placed shot, and not as effective at suppressive fire when needing to move, cover your teammate's movement, or break contact. Furthermore, with the selector on Auto, it's very easy to get three round bursts (or thereabouts) with training. FA fire isn't a capability you need all that often, but it's one that when you do need... you need it, and not a weak 3 round substitute of it. I'm pretty sure the only reason it was done away with was because of training shortcomings. It was those shortcomings, that lead to the wasting of ammo, NOT the capability of the weapon system.