Would American troops be better off with semi autos?

You do realize today's M-4s only fire three round bursts? Except for the M-4A1 which is typically reserved for special forces.

Now back when I was in the Army National Guard we carried original M-16's and were trained for 3 round bursts even though the firearm was truly full auto.

I agree with NavyLT. The military had problems with "ammo dumping" in full-auto during Vietnam, and most of the service rifles were converted to have a "Safe-Semi-3-Rnd Burst" fire control. The switch is supposed to aid in aiming and not wasting ammo. Many of the people that I personally know in the military prefer semi-auto, and train to do double taps.

Soldiers shouldn't be limited to one or the other. What ever will do the job that needs to be done should be used.

Kimber45acp

so your thought is that limiting the options currently available, in fact down grading them, would be an improvement?

The effects of automatic fire against semi-automatic/bolt action fire were well demonstrated in WWI where during the first half of the war, Germany had significantly more field machine guns than the allies, and often the allies were cut to bits.

I also think your evaluation of suppressive fire is inaccurate, it's highly effective in many theaters of operation not just jungle. It is temporary, but is intended to be it allows your unit to more easily maneuver with less risk of being shot by a covered or concealed known enemy location. Where rounds are intended to do hit, there are a lot of semi-auto or bolt action rifles used (sniping).

Unless you propose on turning the entire army into snipers, however financially that's never going to happen, the cost of training someone as a sniper vs. an 11B outweighs the cost of ammunition per kill that the 11B needs compared to the sniper.

Kimber45acp, why do you not trust soldiers to decide for themselves when and how much to fire while in combat?

Current M16A2's, M16A4's (A4 is current front line, as it accepts more tactical accessories) are semi-auto, 3-Round burst. M4's too, 5.56 is a huge cartridge, so the 3 rounds is extra punch. But you are wrong on suppressive fire, semi-auto is not enough for all situations, and a little bit more money spent=More Troops coming home....

Nope. No reason to limit them. Current training is that you better have a good reason for switching from "semi" to "full". Rapid shots in semi-automatic is the norm, for the very reasons you mentioned, but that's no reason to limit the firepower available.

My entire point is that it's NOT a "downgrade." If we honestly accept how the human mind works, we would never want to undo our training by going to full auto.

Click to expand...

That assumes that the average guy on the ground is not aware of his ammunition consumption, which is not the case, in my personal experience.

better off with semi's

The three round burst is correct for urban; house to house warfare, where you enter at your risk. The automatic capability could be used by certain select troops.

It may also have a place for those poor souls caught within an ambush; jungle warfare, where the enemy is close up.

And even combat hardened soldiers loose some self discipline when "they are coming through the wire."

This is not to derail this post, but the last example is my argument for replacing the varmit rounds with the substantial firepower our fathers and grandfathers fought so well with.

PS: I love the semiauto M-14 and M-1. There was not much wrong with them and much right.

in addition to wasting ammo like crazy

Click to expand...

Wasting what ammo? The ammo the individual soldier is carrying? Or are you saying it uses up too much ammo in general?

If there is a correlation between higher amounts of rounds fired in a fire fight and increased soldier survivability, then it hardly seems like a "waste".

Going into a room full of hoji's armed and shooting back, full auto will really come in handy. Yes, aim would really help at distances beyond 15 meters, but close up and personal it becomes a deal of efficiency and speed.

Damian

The whole POINT of having a firearm is to AIM.

Click to expand...

Not always. Sometimes the whole point is to make a lot of noise, throw a lot of lead and make the bad guys duck or run or get so scared they'll do something stupid.

The M4 has a selector lever, doesn't it? If so they have a semi-auto when they need it. So isn't the question moot?

Interesting how you respond by quoting my reference to training, which I have explained refers to AIMING, and then you talk ammo consumption (which I mentioned as a side problem with full auto). You're trying to accuse me of not "trusting" the troops as much as you, but that's not the topic.

Click to expand...

Trust is the heart of the issue. You believe that by having weapons with burst or auto, troops will naturally use those more and burn up more ammo without aiming. You don't take their individual intelligence or sense of tactics into account at all. You in fact are asserting that by having burst or auto, they will misuse the option, to their own detriment. That is a trust issue on your part.

Sorry, Kimber45:

I read the initial question, a few posts, and then made mine.

You beat me to it, and you are correct.

Kimber, your points are moot. It's not like one guy is out there picking off hagies with his irons. It's squad based combat, with for us at least 4 to 5 man fire teams. No I have never deployed but I have trained for deployments. (not that that means much) I have even taken a defensive carbine class or two and burst is an excellent option to rapidly move on to the next target. You shoot threat stops move on to another threat, or shoot move to closer threat than shoot original threat. It's not like you shoot the guy once and move to the next target waiting for the first target to stop being a threat.

Our troops are very well trained in the use of and massing of fire. Understand that under many situations more than one round is required to terminate an enemy attack. Three round
burst can be very accurately delivered.