Are we at a tactical disadavantage without full auto?

[DMK]

In the book Blackhawk Down, a comment was made that the Rangers were highly discouraged against using automatic burst from their M16s. They were taught to use fire dicipline, to make every shot count.

I got a chance to shoot an M16 with full auto (not three round burst) a while back. Even with the very light recoil of 5.56, It took great effort to keep three and four round bursts on an 8x11 paper at 50 yards. Obviously that takes practice to get effective. Perhaps it would be even more effective at CQB ranges, but one could also put practice into double and triple taps with a semi-auto.

So is full auto an advantage? Can one make up for the lack of it by training with a semi-auto?

 

[Domino]

So is full auto an advantage? Can one make up for the lack of it by training with a semi-auto?

This is just my opinion (having never fired a full-auto) but I think that full-auto on shoulder fired, small arms is probably only useful at very close ranges. I would say that in all practicality, semi-auto weapons are more effective when aimed shots are required. Now when it comes to a 1919 A4 or a 50 BMG machine gun, there is plenty of use in one of those.

 

[Nightcrawler]

So is full auto an advantage?

In a light, shoulder-fired weapon? Yes, but an extremely minor one. Not much of an advantage at all in, say, a .308, when it's generally uncontrollable.

Can one make up for the lack of it by training with a semi-auto?

Oh yes!

 

[cslinger]

Full auto is very useful as far as small unit tactics are concerned. Fire and maneuver is all about keeping the enemy pinned while your other team moves to a flanking/kill position.

For HD or any other single person SHTF scenario I can't see where full auto would provide a huge benefit unless you are very highly trained as you are likely to burn more ammo then you have to.

Now I am certainly not a soldier, warrior, merc., Swat memeber etc. this is only what I have researched and discussed with those who are more in the know.

Chris

 

[Father Knows Best]

No. But full auto sure is fun!

 

[oh blanky]

It's only an advantage when you have choppers or trucks dropping off cases of ammo as needed.

 

[NMshooter]

A typical basic load of ammo for a 5.56mm rifle is 210 rounds.

For a 7.62x51mm rifle it is 100 rounds.

At 1lb. per 30 round 5.56mm mag and 1.5lbs. per 20 round 7.62x51mm mag the weight starts adding up quickly.

I can definitely see certain advantages to automatic weapons if I am an infantryman, but since I am not the increased ammo consumption would be very difficult for me to deal with.

You are your own supply system, what can you handle on your own?

 

[Hkmp5sd]

Obviously that takes practice to get effective.

You have nailed the reason the military went to 3-round burst over full auto. It takes a great deal of practice to be proficient with a full auto. That takes a lot of time and a lot of ammunition, which in turn means a lot more money.

The military adopted the 3-round burst as a mechanical fix to a training problem. Instead of teaching trigger control, they limit your fire capabilities. And in typical government fashion, they chose to worst possible method of achieving burst fire, a POS ratchet.

 

[1 old 0311]

2 years in Vietnam with A 1/3 3 Rd Mar Div. I bet I didn't go full auto 2 times. You don't need it.

Kevin

 

[RecoilRob]

Didn't the Marine Corps do the testing that resulted in the 3 round burst being adopted? They had a 99+% hit on the first, something like 17-18% on the second and 0 hits on the third round fired at 100 yds. Target was a man sized silouette IIRC.

I can think of a couple of scenerios where full auto would be desireable, but most situations can be better solved with semi fire.

So, to answer the question, in my opinion...NO we are not at a disadvantage without full auto.

 

[Stinkyshoe]

No I don't believe so. Lets say you nail an intented target with a 3 rounds of your 4 round burst and 50 yards(and you've chosen the 223 because of its controlability. Your first shot was aimed and the ones after scattered around the target.

Compare this to one aimed shot from a M1A or FAL.

The intented target probably has lead poisioning now from either rifle, but the 308 is to the point with one shot.
-----
Another aspect of full auto in a SHTF situation, is giving away your position and drawing fire to yourself.

I don't believe civilians need full-auto, but I don't think that the gov't should tell me I am responsible enough to own a semi, but not fa. I would rather own two semi 308s in a good platform than one registered fa. I doubt I could afford to shoot fa often anyway. Even though fa isn't really useful, there is sure is something fun about a brass rainbow....

just my two cents
Ss

 

[Vern Humphrey]

Full auto is very useful as far as small unit tactics are concerned. Fire and maneuver is all about keeping the enemy pinned while your other team moves to a flanking/kill position.

As a former company commander in Viet Nam (A-1/61 IN) and an Adviser to Vietnamese infantry the tour before that, I not only disagree -- I used to levy a $50 fine for firing M16s in full auto mode.

Aimed semi-automatic fire is far more effective. You put more rounds into the "box" where the enemy is located, and you can keep it up longer with semi-automatic fire.

The "burst fire" feature was adopted based on tests -- not on actual combat. The idea was to "increase hit probability" without actually training men to shoot. We have since found the way to increase hit probability is through training (including simulation theaters) and giving them optical sights. We now have the best-shooting army ever fielded, and full auto and burst-control should be things of the past. Full auto fire should be the province of dedicated machine guns, only.

 

[Commissar Gribb]

I would imagine that it's more useful in squad support weapons.

 

[AK103K]

Full auto has its uses and personally, I dont see shooting past 25 yards being one of them.(I'm not talking about beltfeds or suppressive fire here either, these are another subject.) I think the SMG or M4's, etc, are more useful than a shotgun for close range work, where full auto is meant to be used, and more versatile over longer distances. You have more options at the flip of a lever with the better ones.

From what I've personally seen from people that were supposedly trained in the military, they must be getting zero training in its proper use, or at least, competent use. Then again, seems like everyone who was in seems to remember things a little different when they tell you about it and when they show you.


Once you learn the technique, most shoulder fired full auto guns are not hard to control or to learn to shoot well. Pistol caliber guns are very easy to shoot, and full mag dumps into COM on an IPSC type target at 10-15 yards are not difficult. Even with an M16 or AK, its not all that tough. The trick is not to try to hold the gun on the target, its more like "riding" the gun and going with it. If you fight it, you tend to get the "up and right" or "up and left", depending on which way your shooting. You have to think of it as a hose and just keep pouring in into where you want the rounds to go. The more relaxed you are, the easier time you will have, the more tense you are, you'll never get it. Dont get me wrong here, I'm not saying to dump the mag into every target, just that it can easily be done and the 3-4 round bursts you would normally fire are simple and easily put where you aim them.


As for the "....takes a great deal of practice to be proficient with a full auto" theory, I dont buy it. I've taught an number of people, many who have never fired any type of gun, to shoot full auto with little trouble. The kids and women are usually easier as the ego problem usually isnt there. Once you explain what to do and they see it, I can usually have them keeping all their 3-4 round bursts on COM at 7-10 yards in just a couple of mags out of my MP5. Trigger control usually isnt a problem, and I dont give them full mags until they can show me they have it down, which is usually within one mag or less.

 

[VorpalSpork]

Yes, if you don't have full auto, you are at a disadvantage. It's another tool. It's not a tool for everything, but it has a place. Flip the switch back to semi when you don't need it. When you do need it, what good is extra ammo if you arn't around to use it?

If only we could at least have the honor or paying NFA taxes on new machineguns, instead of having to pay these crazy prices for pre-86 ones.

 

[GunGoBoom]

In a light, shoulder-fired weapon? Yes, but an extremely minor one.

+1

 

[Jenrick]

AK103K: One thing to remember about using and learning to shoot full auto, the military was trying to teach people to use it effectively in the 100-300m range, not the 7-10yd range. I've never tried FA fire out to that range, but I imagine in any position other then prone it's not very effective with a rifle.

To DMKs original question: From what I have read, and few people I've talked to (I interned with an agency that does SWAT training), going FA isn't terribly useful. If you have the time and budget to get effective with it, then by all means feel free to use it when you need to. However if you only make it out to the range or shooting house once every couple months (for some rural departments once a year), then it's probably not the best choice.

Now for the military, they care quiet a bit less about where your extra rounds go. Then again your also probably not going into just one small house, after just one guy. So the logistics of burning a lot ammo, and having to resupply, or carry it in becomes important. Look at home much ammo guys carried in WW2 for the Garand, and that was a semi-auto weapon.

-Jenrick

 

[Vern Humphrey]

Yes, if you don't have full auto, you are at a disadvantage.

I have never found a situation where full auto from a hand-held weapon was an advantage, and never found anyone who can tell me -- other than flip, meaningless comments like "When you want to lay down some fire."

At the Joint Readiness Training Center at Fort Polk, we have an elaborate Live Fire village (Shugart-Gordon) with all sorts of instrumentation and video cameras. In close combat, room clearing, exploring sewers -- you name it -- semiautomatic fire is more effective.

 

[Sam]

Full auto can be used effectively from an M16. It takes practice, lots and lots of practice. During a period when the military was flush with ammo I mastered it. My friends and I would sign out weapons and a footlocker full of magazines and go to the range and practice all morning.
By the time I got the hang of it I had completely worn out 1 M16 and 1 GAU-5/A.

I am with Mr. Humphrey on this one. For all practical purposes full auto from a rifle is a waste of time and ammo. A whole lot of fun but a waste militarily.

Full auto from a belt fed is useful, but I can't think of too many cases that any of us would run into in the near future.

Sam

 

[VorpalSpork]

I think any answer you get, you will take as flippant Vern. As I see it, that's basically it, when you need a lot of bullets going down range, when you are close enough that you can keep your bullets on target, and when you have plenty of ammo, why would you want to take the extra time to double or triple tap targets, when you could give them a short 2-5 round burst, or more if needed?

I only have limited experience with full auto, I'm sure I don't know it all, so answer my question and enlighten me. Given those conditions above, how is it semi-automatic fire is more effective?

 

[hillbilly]

There are some very interesting statistics out of the Rhodesian war a while back. I read quite a bit about the war a couple of years ago.

Yes, the Rhodesians lost, and now their country is called Zimbabwe, and is suffering under the tyrant Mugabe.

And the Rhodesians lost for all kinds of reasons, but being out-gunned was not one of those reasons.

The Rhodesians used FALs, and shot them only semi-auto. Their guerilla enemies used AK-47s, and routinely fired them full-auto.

In almost every single case of battle or ambush, the Rhodesians killed far more guerillas than they lost troops, because aimed, semi-auto fire out of .308 rifles was much more effective than random, full-auto spray-and-pray from the AK-47s.

Eventually, the Rhodesians were forced to surrender by sheer weight of numbers.

But the reason they lost the war was not because their troops used semi-auto rifles against full-auto fire.

hillbilly

 

[Hkmp5sd]

In close combat, room clearing, exploring sewers -- you name it -- semiautomatic fire is more effective.

From what I have read, and few people I've talked to (I interned with an agency that does SWAT training), going FA isn't terribly useful.

Then why the popularity of the MP5 in each of those roles (although it is slowing being replaced with the M4)? Most of the SWAT types I know practice 2-3 round bursts in the AUTO position and can do them quite easily. I can also say that with my suppressed MP5, I can put anywhere from 1 to 30 rounds COM at 25 yds in full auto all day long.

 

[Vern Humphrey]

As I see it, that's basically it, when you need a lot of bullets going down range,

But what does that mean? What is the tactical significance? It's like saying "when you need a lot of bullets going straight up in the air."

Now, I can tell you what grazing fire is, what plunging fire is, infilading fire, overhead fire, and so on -- but what is "a lot of bullets going down range?"

when you are close enough that you can keep your bullets on target, and when you have plenty of ammo, why would you want to take the extra time to double or triple tap targets, when you could give them a short 2-5 round burst, or more if needed?

Because it doesn't happen. You need hits, not spray. If it worked, it would be proven to work at Shugart-Gordon. I would have seen it work in combat.

 

[geekWithA.45]

3 round burst logic:

You need to hit a guy @ least 3 times with 5.56 before he'll go down, so you might as well do it all at once!

Either that, or use .308 to begin with!

 

[cslinger]

As a former company commander in Viet Nam (A-1/61 IN) and an Adviser to Vietnamese infantry the tour before that, I not only disagree -- I used to levy a $50 fine for firing M16s in full auto mode.

How dare you disagree with my armchair warrior, second hand, researched data with your so call first hand experience.

Just kidding of course. I was only speaking to what I have been told by other folks who have been there and done that so to speak. I have shot lots of full auto and although I am certainly not some highly trained high speed low drag operator I certainly tend to agree that well disciplined semi auto fire is more effective, if not quite as much fun

Thank you for your input as things like this interst me much. Once again I was being sarcastic in my first statement as I have no personal, and I want no personal, experience in the matter.

Chris