Vets: Full Auto vs Semi Auto?

Status
Not open for further replies.
He would fire his BAR in semi for a bit.
The semi mode on the BAR was supposed to have been removed prior to WW2 (the M1918A2 had only a "fast" and "slow" automatic mode). This was a retroactive change that was supposed to have been applied to the whole inventory of BARs. How any original unaltered M1918's made it to Korea is an open question.

On the other hand, there was actually a proposal in the early 1920's to convert the BARs to only semiautomatic fire. That's because some officers felt that the automatic "walking fire" employed during WW1 was ineffective, and wasted too much ammunition. The proposal was rejected because of the development of semiautomatic rifles (ultimately leading to the Garand), and the pressing need for a light machine gun. Never mind that the BAR wasn't a very good light machine gun.
 
Semi auto fire with most FA only guns is usually pretty simple and just as effective as a SA only gun. You just need to be familiar with the gun and trigger, and used to the bolt moving forward when the trigger is pulled.

My bet would be that his reference to "semi" is just squeezing of single shots.
 
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.

I appreciate this post. As a person on the military channel recently said, the purpose of full auto is to keep your opponent from shooting you. You criticize the lack of aim. I was trained on the quick kill and was expert with the M-16 and M-60. Ability to aim was not a problem for me. Opportunity, not so much. Now with urban warfare, you have to pick your targets but on the other hand you can actually see them and aim. That is different. But there are times you need suppressive fire too. To keep someone from shooting you. If you watch actual combat video, you will see that full auto is still in use and is necessary for battle.
 
I just recently found this:



Larry Vickers claims that with the AK-47, full-auto fire “looks good in the movies” but has “very limited value” in the real world.

Another data point to suggest our civilian legal semi-auto only AKs might not be as “neutered and useless” as some on the net have postulated.
 
I appreciate this post. As a person on the military channel recently said, the purpose of full auto is to keep your opponent from shooting you. You criticize the lack of aim. I was trained on the quick kill and was expert with the M-16 and M-60. Ability to aim was not a problem for me. Opportunity, not so much. Now with urban warfare, you have to pick your targets but on the other hand you can actually see them and aim. That is different. But there are times you need suppressive fire too. To keep someone from shooting you. If you watch actual combat video, you will see that full auto is still in use and is necessary for battle.

I never criticized lack of aim. The only thing I ever criticized is poor discipline and training.

The ability to aim and fire your personal weapon is paramount to success.

I too was expert with my weapon. (every time we qualified, for 28 years, except for 3 times)

I also understand urban warfare, having been involved in it on many occasions in Iraq. That suppressive fire you talk of, is exactly why I'm such a proponent of FA fire in a basic issue weapon. I am glad that FA is back. IMHO, it never should have went away. I need not watch combat video... I've "been there done that" as the saying goes, (3 times) and am now living on VA disability because of it. When I was in country we just has 3 rd burst, but something may have "happened" to the cam & disconnector system in mine, and it may have had FA capability. You do what you have to, just like my wife sending me a couple dozen of my own mags to hand out to my section because the unit I was attached to had a FUBAR supply sgt, that didn't realize magazines were a consumable item.
 
I am sorry You did not say anything about aiming. I probably was thinking about what someone else said. I misspoke. I do appreciate your information as a true veteran and being very knowledgeable.
 
Last edited:
I never criticized lack of aim. The only thing I ever criticized is poor discipline and training.

The ability to aim and fire your personal weapon is paramount to success.

I too was expert with my weapon. (every time we qualified, for 28 years, except for 3 times)

I also understand urban warfare, having been involved in it on many occasions in Iraq. That suppressive fire you talk of, is exactly why I'm such a proponent of FA fire in a basic issue weapon. I am glad that FA is back. IMHO, it never should have went away. I need not watch combat video... I've "been there done that" as the saying goes, (3 times) and am now living on VA disability because of it. When I was in country we just has 3 rd burst, but something may have "happened" to the cam & disconnector system in mine, and it may have had FA capability. You do what you have to, just like my wife sending me a couple dozen of my own mags to hand out to my section because the unit I was attached to had a FUBAR supply sgt, that didn't realize magazines were a consumable item.
Exactly!!!

There is always a difference between the “doctrine” printed up in manuals to help favor an OER rating, and the reality where the “metal meets the meat” so to speak. The real “doctrine” is to have as many tools as you can, learn to use them as best as you can, and use them when needed. Even if it means “Household 06” needs to send you some things downrange.
 
Exactly!!!

There is always a difference between the “doctrine” printed up in manuals to help favor an OER rating, and the reality where the “metal meets the meat” so to speak. The real “doctrine” is to have as many tools as you can, learn to use them as best as you can, and use them when needed. Even if it means “Household 06” needs to send you some things downrange.

"Dependa 06" Lol.
 
I just recently found this:



Larry Vickers claims that with the AK-47, full-auto fire “looks good in the movies” but has “very limited value” in the real world.

Another data point to suggest our civilian legal semi-auto only AKs might not be as “neutered and useless” as some on the net have postulated.


Having taken the same weapons familiarization course many here have, I will concur with LV as to the very limited usability of FA in the AK.

As Space Ghost mentioned, every rifleman having full auto is a great thing- when they all have good fire discipline.
 
Remember that combat is often conducted by troops who are hungry, dehydrated, sleep deprived, edgy, nervous, units consist of everyone from the hard core to the anything but, experienced veterans and new replacements.
I read an account by a British officer working with the French Resistance, he noted the lack of fire discipline, the attitude "put enough lead in the air and you'll hit something." He said you'd be surprised how many bad shots there were with a Sten on full auto.
 
I just recently found this:



Larry Vickers claims that with the AK-47, full-auto fire “looks good in the movies” but has “very limited value” in the real world.

Another data point to suggest our civilian legal semi-auto only AKs might not be as “neutered and useless” as some on the net have postulated.

This is an illustration of why I said that it has little civilian use of want to actually hit an individual target. That is not the point of full auto-fire. While I had greater accuracy at greater range with an M-60, that was only part of the reason for full auto. Full auto is more about keeping your enemy from aiming at you, halting an advance and causing him to retreat. If properly done, it is about killing as well. Battle is not one on one at a static range but of many moving lethal parts.
I hunt with a bolt action rifle because I am a fan of precise one shot kills. I have always been an expert shot and agree that is the best way to kill an individual target.
 
Last edited:
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.

This whole post is a lot like my experience. I trained with both FA and 3 round burst weapons. But, I think both can have their place in the hands of an infantry platoon. 3 round burst is a lot more useful when fighting at bad breath distances. I know of a few HVTs that aren't a value anymore because they got hit with a burst (or pair of) at close range compared to some controlled pairs. Unfortunately, I don't see a 4th option being added to our rifles with the M4's replacement. Privates already have a tendency and lack of training to go to FA/Burst when they aren't supposed to. A 4th option would be more confusing to the undertrained. It is the same reason why the nut inside the selector exists on a PEQ13/15
 
This whole post is a lot like my experience. I trained with both FA and 3 round burst weapons. But, I think both can have their place in the hands of an infantry platoon. 3 round burst is a lot more useful when fighting at bad breath distances. I know of a few HVTs that aren't a value anymore because they got hit with a burst (or pair of) at close range compared to some controlled pairs. Unfortunately, I don't see a 4th option being added to our rifles with the M4's replacement. Privates already have a tendency and lack of training to go to FA/Burst when they aren't supposed to. A 4th option would be more confusing to the undertrained. It is the same reason why the nut inside the selector exists on a PEQ13/15

That's why I said it was probably a training, and discipline thing...
Given the maturity level of the recruits we're getting these days, (and the policy makers coming up with the new regs) I don't look for our military to be getting more professional any time soon.
 
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?

I was a former line medic with a light infantry unit in Ramadi, Iraq in '05-'06 and with combined arms outfit in Mehtar Lam, Afghanistan in '07-'08. I did very little shooting myself, fortunately. However, when we got into engagements, most of the M-4s were on semi (may all of them?), doing aimed shots. HOWEVER, we also had an M249 SAW and an M240B for some serious cover fire, which was awesome. If we didn't have these belt fed weapons, I suspect 3 round burst may have been used a bit more often. It's nice to have the option, but semi is more useful IMO.
 
Last edited:
I've never been in combat.

I was XO of a basic training company in the '80s.

When the trainees were shooting full auto at staked balloons at night, the safest place to be was among the balloons.

As long as you've got something like an M249 or Ameli, full-auto rifle fire is pretty much a waste of ammunition outside of banzai charge distances.
Thanks. I got a good much needed laugh out of that.....:D
 
I'm interested.
What are you seeing ?

Nothing from the inside... been retired since 2009. Just what crap I see in the news, (same as anyone) like all the political crap finding it's way into the military. (where it doesn't belong)
The hunt for racist extremism, because they think too many troops may be loyal to a former CIC, rather than one installed after a coup.
All the made up gender crap.
Wasting money on weapon systems we don't need, or not providing what we do because some senators buddy wants a contract...
Alienating our allies, and kissing up to dangerous threats to our security in the name of personal wealth.
Too many high ranking officers are liberal idiots, and too many new recruits are uneducated ones, brainwashed ones, or selfish ones with no real desire to serve, only ulterior motives...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top