Are we at a tactical disadavantage without full auto?

[Spot77]

Hmmmm....I could hardly keep 2 out 3 shots on the paper at 25 feet with an HK mp5......with my semi auto AR, I can consistently put 30 rounds COM at 100 yards in well under a minute.


That helps a lot, doesn't it?


But the mp5 sure was fun to shoot!

 

[saltydog]

IMO a 1 shot one kill attitude at the 600 yrd line is the only way to go. If you need full auto fire then you are to close to a bad situation!

 

[cslinger]

Geeez, Spot77 practice a bit. I am hell on wheels with an MP5. That is one of the most controllable full auto firearms I have ever shot. Now a full auto M14, well that is another story...........think epiletic kid, having a seizure, with a machine gun.....it wasn't pretty........fun but not pretty..

 

[Oldnamvet]

An aimed semi auto infantryman will always be more useful that a "spray and pray" type. You'll spend more time actually shooting at and hitting the enemy than shoving in one mag after another. Most of your time is then spent reloading.

 

[VorpalSpork]

But what does that mean? What is the tactical significance?

It means you have a need to shoot a target more than once, because the target is not being incapacitated fast enough and is still a threat. It's tacticaly significant when you can achieve the same number of good hits, faster.

But you say this never happens.

So, why doesn't it happen? Inside 10 yards I can get more good center of mass hits on an IDPA sized target faster on full auto than semi, and if I practiced more I'm sure that range would increase. If I can do it, it's not a feat of marksmanship. You mean to tell me that you don't see anyone that can do that at Shugart-Gordon? Can I get a job as an instructor?

Why do they even have full auto on assault rifles, and subguns if it's been proven to never work better?

 

[Jenrick]

To Hkmp5sd on the MP5 full auto issue: Two of the guys I've had the pleasure of talking with/observing carry MP5s, one as the team leader, the other as the scout. Both carry them with the semi-auto, full-auto trigger grouping rather then the Navy (semi, burst, FA). Both of them use FA rather then single.

There reasoning was based on a couple of factors. The first is that the MP5 is one of the most controlable FA firearms out there. Secondly the cyclic rate is low enough that you can squeeze off 3-5 round bursts easily (as you noted). Lasty the MP5 is in a pistol calibre rather then being a rifle, so it's possible the 9mm rounds wont penetrate/do enough damage. Basically they felt comfortable firing FA in short bursts, replicating the effect of a 3 round burst, and felt that if the initial hits were not effective, having FA gave them the option of putting alot of rounds in the target fast at short range. (As an aside I've been on the recieving end of a FA MP5 loaded with simunition ammo, not a terribly fun experience, but gives me a lot of respect for it's capabilities).

However in a situation where aimed precision fire (ie more then just COM shoots) was required, they would not use FA, and if at all possible let one of the rifleman, armed with an M-4 or the like, take the shot. They would also let go to SA or let the rifles go to work if a shoot needed to be taken from any distance.

To VorpalSpork: Are those FA COM hits while moving? If they are, good for you. That's what gets most people in trouble from what I've seen is the amount of practice it takes to put the rounds where you want them moving. CQC is all about shooting and moving. Sure it can be done, but with a lot of practice. SF guys, SWAT guys from the big departments, etc. have the time and opportunity to train. Heck I'm willing to bet a lot of poeple here on THR spend far more time on the range then a decent chunk of the military or LE.

As an additional note to the FA debate, there's an Army Training film from WW2 talking about the MG42. For those who don't know, the MG42 was a German MG with a ROF of around 1000 per minute (yes a thousand), the sound was a lot like "ripping canvas." The film discuss how you shouldn't be intimidated by the sound of the weapon, and it's weakness. The points it mentioned (IRC), was the massive usage of ammo and the need to change barrels frequently. The film addressed that just because you hear the MG42 firing, and possibly even see it firing in your direction there's a very low chance you'll be hit. From the studies done on rounds expended in any fire fight, this seems pretty true.

-Jenrick

 

[jefnvk]

The only scenario this non-combat specialist can see in FA is kicking in doors and clearing rooms.

This is excluding the crew weapons, the heavy MG's which are very valuable.

 

[plnkr1234]

Hi Guys,

I believe full auto may have a place in immediate action drills.

Best

 

[MachIVshooter]

I would feel better armed with my AR-10C than with an M-4, if for no other reason than I know the .308 is much more likely to eliminate the threat with 1 hit. One day I will have an NFA weapon, but I'm not gonna waste my money on an M-16. It'll be an M-60 or M-2 .50.

 

[Sunray]

"...Can one make up for the lack of it by training with a semi-auto?..." Absolutely not. It ain't the same thing. Training is required. Trigger control is essential with FA. As is mental discipline. You don't just pull the trigger and hope for the best. It's aimed fire. You shoot an SMG differently than you do an LMG or a select fire battle rifle.
There's no such thing as an assault rifle anymore. An assault rifle is a select fire rifle using the same calibre bullet as the regular issue rifle, but with a smaller case. The AK-47 and MP-43 are assault rifles, but the M-16, FAL, G3 et5c are not. They're battle rifles.
"...the sound was a lot like "ripping canvas."..." Yep. The sound of an MG42 is very distinctive. It's like a really fast raspberry.
If ya'll ever get the opportunity to shoot FA, grab it. Think in terms of 3 to 5 round bursts. Lean into the firearm, pull the trigger and say to yourself, 'sonofabitch' and release the trigger. 3 to 5 rounds, depending on the rate of fire, will have been fired. It works with all FA, but the leaning in depends on the calibre. A 7.62 LMG recoils more so you have to lean in more.

 

[T.Stahl]

Full-auto is for belt-feds on bipods.

I was ordered to shoot G3s on F/A only twice during my time in the army and the reserve. In neither case I wanted to, because I considered fast, single shots to be more effective than two or three rounds bursts. The only sitution in which F/A in an assault rifle might be useful is against aerial targets.

 

[SamlautRanger]

I see no need for full auto in rifle sized or smaller weapons. For crew served weapons or the SAW (m249) OK. I served for 8 years in the milatary and have been overseas for several conflicts and have never had to use or felt had to use full auto or 3 round burst in my m16A2 or M4. For suppressive fire you have SAW or M240. You can put 30 rounds down range accurately very very quickly in semi auto mode on a M4 or Ak.

 

[Vern Humphrey]

It means you have a need to shoot a target more than once, because the target is not being incapacitated fast enough and is still a threat. It's tacticaly significant when you can achieve the same number of good hits, faster.

If you need to hit a target more than once, use semi-auto. It's more controlable than full auto.

If the first round of the burst misses, succeeding rounds will be very unlikely to hit. If the first round hits, succeeding rounds will still be unlikely to hit, and unlikely to hit where you want them to hit.

The longer the burst, the longer it will take you to recover, re-aim and fire again.

The longer the burst, the quicker you will have to reload.

But you say this never happens.

Only if you believe you can shoot more accurately on full auto than on semi auto.

So, why doesn't it happen? Inside 10 yards I can get more good center of mass hits on an IDPA sized target faster on full auto than semi, and if I practiced more I'm sure that range would increase. If I can do it, it's not a feat of marksmanship. You mean to tell me that you don't see anyone that can do that at Shugart-Gordon? Can I get a job as an instructor?

Literally thousands of troops have run through Shugart-Gordon, where we do live fire up to 105mm. We have targets that shoot back (using lasers and also simunitions). The results show the odds are so heavily against success with full auto that we don't use it there any more.

You could get a job as an instructor -- join the Army, and after 20 years or so, they might assign you such a duty.

Why do they even have full auto on assault rifles, and subguns if it's been proven to never work better?

Mostly because they were designed by people who thought it might work.

1. Many of the decision makers have little combat experience

2. Until recently, we had no good way to prove the point.

Studies done at the Infantry School in the '80s showed that semi-auto was superior to full auto in every scenario tested -- yet armchair commandos kept insisting full auto was needed. We finally have a huge database of experience to back up the Benning work.

 

[NMshooter]

If you shoot people through the head with one round it is more effective than shooting them a dozen times elsewhere.

It is expensive to train soldiers to shoot that well, however...

 

[VorpalSpork]

Not knowing the details of those studies I'm very suspicious that they are biased by a lot of instances of soldiers shooting full auto, from too far away, and or not really getting an opportunity to shoot full auto enough to become proficient at it.

I guess I'm just an exceptionally talented individual.

 

[Vern Humphrey]

If you shoot people through the head with one round it is more effective than shooting them a dozen times elsewhere.

It is expensive to train soldiers to shoot that well, however...

We are slowly beginning to understand it is more expensive not to train them. The troops we have now are the best shooting troops we've ever fielded -- thanks to both live fire and simulation training, plus wide-spread issue of optical sights.

 

[Vern Humphrey]

Not knowing the details of those studies I'm very suspicious that they are biased by a lot of instances of soldiers shooting full auto, from too far away, and or not really getting an opportunity to shoot full auto enough to become proficient at it.

I guess I'm just an exceptionally talented individual.

The tests at Benning were quite rigorous, and were published through normal channels -- I belive there was even a write-up in "Infantry" magazine.

The results of literally tens of thousands of troops running through the JRTC thoroughly confirm the Benning tests. As does current combat experience, where we place our reliance on trained riflemen and issue optical sights widely.

 

[NMshooter]

I am just remembering the dark Clinton years, and my experiences as an Air Force puke in the so called "rear".

Everyone in any group of people calling itself "military" should have a rifle and know how to use it.

 

[Vern Humphrey]

Everyone in any group of people calling itself "military" should have a rifle and know how to use it.

Funny how people think ammo is cheap in combat -- when every ounce has to be carried forward by muscle and sweat -- but expensive in training, isn't it?

 

[Sleeping Dog]

odds are so heavily against success with full auto that we don't use it there any more

Vern, did the tests include sub-machine guns, MP5, Thompson, M3 grease guns? Those things have a long history, but is all that lead really effective? Even pistol rounds get heavy if you carry a few hundred of them.

Regards.

 

[Vern Humphrey]

Vern, did the tests include sub-machine guns, MP5, Thompson, M3 grease guns? Those things have a long history, but is all that lead really effective? Even pistol rounds get heavy if you carry a few hundred of them.

Regards.

The Army long ago relegated submachine guns to special case roles -- such as emergency weapons for tankers. It doesn't make a lot of sense to carry a weapon that weights as much as a rifle, but only shoots pistol ammo in infantry combat.

 

[Sleeping Dog]

Thanks, Vern.

Following the logic further, does it make sense to carry a pistol (M9 or 1911) in infantry?

It seems useful for MPs to carry a pistol, maybe something more compact than M9 or 1911.

But what role does a pistol play in infantry? Does it add to the effectiveness of a unit? Or is it just a show-piece, or a PITA that requires annual qualification? Is it of any use in the Shugart Ft Polk scenarios?

 

[Crosshair]

Full auto is not needed unless one of these two conditions are met.

1. The weapon is belt fed
2. CQC

Personal Rant: Using M4's for house clearing is just idiotic. MP5's are much more compact, less muzzle blast/flash, and still effective at longer combat ranges.

 

[Vern Humphrey]

Following the logic further, does it make sense to carry a pistol (M9 or 1911) in infantry?

By and large, it does not. Pistols are basically limited to auxilliary self-defense weapons for people with other duties -- machine gunners, company commanders, and so on.

It seems useful for MPs to carry a pistol, maybe something more compact than M9 or 1911.

Why? MPs -- real MPs -- are not police officers, they are military provost officers. They need to be visabily armed -- they do local security, direct military traffic and so on.

But what role does a pistol play in infantry? Does it add to the effectiveness of a unit? Or is it just a show-piece, or a PITA that requires annual qualification? Is it of any use in the Shugart Ft Polk scenarios?

Pistols are the one exception to the rule that every weapon must be replicated. While we have simmunitions for them, they are hardly ever used.

 

[odysseus]

I have shot a few different full auto's. My favorite, not for any tactical reason but just because, is the Thompson .45. Something about firing that full auto is similar to how I felt when I had my mod' 302ci Mustang with straight pipes (no smog) chirping through my gears on a nice cool day with a little moisture on the ground, sliding around controlled spinning the wheels. Ok, enough sentimental stuff.

The MP5 is the most controllable of full autos I have run through. Unlike what someone here earlier wrote, I did not have any problem keeping all my shots on paper inside of 25. I did some magazines full auto through +20 rounds. However into 50 yards, I could see dropping off a bit, but then controlled bursts would keep all on paper. With controlled bursts, it's a very formidable weapon system. Even the m16 in a 3 round burst was manageable inside of 100, but I still would prefer rapid controlled semi on that system.

There is a place for full auto, however as one would expect it doesn't do better than controlled aimed semi-auto shots. I assume the "we" means most civilian owners without a class 3 license. I would venture to say that the advantage of full auto would be situational, good for supression or close range tactics - or mounted on a vehicle in x-large capacity.