Full auto in combat?

I've never heard of anyone being able to hump enough ammo to feed a full-auto shotgun in combat!

It's hard enough with a pump or semi-auto.

rcmodel

Why? A minigun ain't enough?

I just don't know.

My personal view is that shotguns have a few very specific uses in combat, and are not at all good for ground combat most of the time.

Consider that a good man with a bow & arrow or spear has a range advantage on you.
Not to mention a skilled grenade chucker or rifleman.

An assault rifle, SAW or LMG has it all over any shotgun in range, barrier penetration, mass ammo portability, and accuracy.

rc

I read that Navy seals in Vietnam used a full auto 11-87, the problem with it they said it "kicked like a b" and burned through ammo.

I can't see how it would appeal to anyone. The ammo is so heavy, making it impractical for laying down fire, and actually shooting at things full-auto (if it even happens, aside from with an actual machinegun) would be redundant, or else better done with a rifle.

The purpose of full auto in combat is suppressive fire, you're not going to suppress much if you have to stop every 10 rounds and reload (or even 20 rounds with the drum).

You'll run a full auto shotgun and all the ammo a soldier could carry dry real fast and then have an expensive club.

Note that our soldiers are taught not to shoot their full auto M4s full auto very often.

I've spoken with only one person who has actually been in combat, about the use of full-auto or burst fire.

He said that it's almost always considered a waste of your limite supply of ammo in combat, and that the select-fire feature of a military assault rifle exists primarily for "oh ****!" situations. A USMC sergeant who went to Iraq, he said they didn't train with full-auto, just occasionally did a little for fun with excess ammo, in training.

Bottom line? Full-auto is like something you carry with you like highway flares. You want to have them, but you don't plan to use them.

To carry a machine-shotgun and enough ammo to make it useful as such, you'd have to be planning for it.

Not 11-87s- those weren't around for Vietnam. It was experimental Remington 1100s they used, which first came to market in 1963.

Remington began a serious military shotgun devekopment program in the mid-1960s, with focus on both the semaiuto 1100 and the pump 870. The selective fire 1100 (dubbed the Model 7188) differed only in its trigger assembly, as it had a three-position fire selector lever instead of a safety button, and the necessary parts in the assembly to allow full auto fire.

By the middle of 1966, several prototype guns were appearing. Different variations of the 7188 appeared, with4, 7 or 8 shot magazines, with or without heat shields, with bead sights or rifle type sights, etc- Marks I thru VI.

The Marines tested them, the Air Force tested them, the US Secret Service tested them. At least half a dozen went to Vietnam with the Navy SEALs.

For sheer firepower the automatic shotguns were unbeatable. But they failed some of the environmental tests they were subjected to (as did most other semiautomatic shotguns of the time), and many shooters found them completely uncontrollable in full automatic fire. The limited capacity of the tubular magazines and the lack of easy reloading were other issues.

The Remington experiments with seletive fire shotguns never went any further.

Prototypes were built of a few other designs- the Atchisson Assault 12 (forebear of the USAS-12), the Foote Machine Shotgun, the Childers Special Operations Weapon. As far as I know, none ever went further than the prototype stage.

lpl (again, data from Swearengen's The World's Fighting Shotguns)

Thanks for the clarification Lee I must have had "No country for old men" on my mind.

LP,

The AA12 is to the USAS-12 as... well, think about Model T's and Thunderbirds. Both are Fords, but there is a difference. The AA12 as it was prototyped never actually saw production, the USAS-12 is a derivation of it, true, but the USAS-12 is different in a lot of more refined ways. Actually the USAS-12 looks more like the Foote in general external appearance. The redesign of the AA12 seems to have come into production, but with distribution limited to LE and military agencies only. I've never seen any references to its actually being used in combat, could be it has but i don't know.

See http://world.guns.ru/shotgun/sh16-e.htm and http://world.guns.ru/shotgun/sh29-e.htm for more...

lpl (who REALLY wanted an AA12 'way back when.')

"For sheer firepower the automatic shotguns were unbeatable."

Click to expand...

Well at least for the first 5-10 rounds. After that carbines can and will clean you clock since "Combat" by definition means you are going to see a lot of bad guys, none of whom should be expected to be stationary or with in 30 meters for most engagements. Most likely you will also only be able to carry on your body maybe 50-100 rounds with a preety good wieght penalty.

I'll stick with a carbine and a special purpose pump as required if I had to. For general HD or most LE requirements I'd be happy with a semi or a pump.

I wonder how many of those USAS-12's were relegated to less-then-lethal crowd control use?

Rubber balls & tear gas don't kick much on full auto, but you could sure lay down a cloud of gas in a hurry!

Somehow, I can't see any police agency in the free world hosing down a BG with a full-auto shotgun & buckshot!

rcmodel

I know nothing about them, but I can visualize a swivel-mounted one on an urban assault vehicle for crowd suppression. That way you wouldn't have to lug around all the ammo with you on foot.

I can't imagine shooting one from the shoulder, though.

If you notice the news lately, our solders get charged with murder now for suppressing crowds in combat.

rc

Back in the early 60s when I was in college, there was a good old Georgia boy that had a 20" Browning Auto 5 rigged quite professionally with a selector switch. I remember shooting 5 rounds of 00 buck at a target a ways out .

The recoil is such that it would not allow accurate automatic fire unless mounted on a vehicle or something. Yes you do have to be accurate even with a shotgun. I'm fine with pumps because the recovery time even with an automatic is plenty long enough to pump the next round.

I don't know what type of loads they are firing here, but they seem to produce very managable recoil even in full auto.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hhstuvzMiB0

I wonder how many of those USAS-12's were relegated to less-then-lethal crowd control use?

Rubber balls & tear gas don't kick much on full auto, but you could sure lay down a cloud of gas in a hurry!

Click to expand...

I have yet to see a semi that will reliably cycle Less Lethals. I doubt you will find the USAS-12/AA-12 to be any better. Many Breaching rounds will also not cycle most semis.

Using any shotgun in combat is contrary to the 'Rules of Land Warfare' conventions. The Hague Conventions, as I recall.

i seem to recall a full auto .410 cylinder gun that fired short rounds of flesheaters and rifled slugs ...a lot lighter and faster use than the so called 1187s , its barrel had a titanium inside so it didnt melt down and the mag held thirty rounds each . very effective as an assault weapon, but they never put it in full service that im aware of, called the shoals auto or something like that...it still may be used in special ops.. but its been ages since i was anywhere near them things..

The shotgun, I don't even know why it exists because it's so useless.

It's about as useful as a round headed screw driver.

What was that about the CAWS in the 80's or so? Something about how it was a waste of time and money to create a heavy and bulky mag fed auto shotgun that had crappy range and poor ammunition capacity?