Would American troops be better off with semi autos?

[Gunfighter123]

Guys. the OPs screen name is Kimber 45 acp, why would you put creedence in anything he posts? It's obvious that from the infinite amount of better manufactured guns available (and that he chose Kimber) means that any recomendation by him should be considered dubious at best.

Nothing personal OP but...come on.

Come on !!! Now that sounds personal !!! How about if someone posts " the model of 1905 is crap and only a jerk would like one " ???? Now if you want to debate Kimber45acp post or others replies -- thats fine ---- attack the post and not the postie .

BTW --- I only own Colts and Para-Ordnances and I've never owned a Kimber.

Back on topic ---- I think most troops do fine with the 3 rd. burst and they , as a whole, should not be limited to just semi-auto.

 

[Gungnir]

Interesting how you respond by first 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.

I'm not accusing you of anything, I was relating my experience. However on the trust issue you seem to be doing fine all by yourself.

 

[possum]

I am in the US Army, an 11B weapons squad leader. there are automatic weapons and then there are individual rifles. our rifles are safe, semi and 3 rd burst. i train and train my men with semi on thier m4's and that is the extent of that.

our saws and 240's are full auto, and they are a must have on the battle field. i am not just saying that because i am in charge of my platoons most casulity producing weapon systems, but anyone who has spent a day in contact, and many that haven't understand the need for these types of weapon systmes. though they are full auto my gun teams and saw gunners are very lethal, and more than capable of putting 6-9 rd burst in target at very far ranges.

 

[possum]

The three round burst is correct for urban; house to house warfare, where you enter at your risk.

possibly, however i train consistancy with me and my soliders, the kill switch is on semi or safe (unless doing a functions check).

 

[Joe-R]

Full auto is handy if you have to fight your way out of a ambush.

 

[heron]

Funny, I've never been in the military, but so far I haven't seen word one about rules of engagement or other more specific instructions. Seems to me that the troops would be instructed when to use a particular option, and expect a chewing if they disregarded their orders.
If that's the case, then they should have all the technological options available -- but, they should also be trained sufficiently in marksmanship to make semi-auto effective.

 

[Mandolin]

Every other nation on earth has full-auto, why shouldn't we?

 

[berettaprofessor]

You know, I'm not military, so I'm not going to try to second guess what the military think they need as the original post does (Kimber45ACP, are you active military?). So I voted "no" since there wasn't a "leave it up to those who do the shooting" option. If there's one place I think we shouldn't put limits, it's in support of those on the razor's edge.

And I have to agree with Joe-R, if in my fantasies I'm caught in a bad place, being able to sling a whole bunch of lead downrange quickly while keeping my head down would at least be a comforting thing and might just slow down the attackers.

 

[Boba Fett]

Better to have the option and never need it than to need it and not have the option.


Plus, there are more weapons out there than just a battle rifle. The SAW, 50 Cal, etc. all have their full auto uses. Which mainly consists of sending a barrage of rounds down range at the enemy



Or to answer your question another way:

YES! I think they need it.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=31vm3-BQRJU

 

[twency]

I responded "no" because the standard combat rifles they use are semi-auto when set as such. Which, as I understand it, is often the case. If there are occasions when the training/tactics/situations call for 3-round-burst or full-auto fire, they have to option of selecting and using it.

They also have (subject to availability) the option of using grenades, .50-caliber rifles, shotguns, mortar rounds, artillery strikes and lots of other useful and effective tools. Just because our troops have access to them doesn't mean they use them, but when the situation is appropriate and such tools are available, they can be quite effective.

You want to second-guess the training and battlefield decision-making of our troops by artificially limiting their options. I don't.

 

[627PCFan]

I responded no. Im willing to bet the majority of our fighting troops dont get enough trigger time (practice) on a regular basis to truly "learn in detail" their weapons systems. I would think bursts help compensate for that. Full auto should be available for "keep their head down" fire.

Im not upset by our troops hosing down an area 62 grains at a time. Im happy to have my tax money keep our troops well armed-

 

[nitetrane98]

Wow, aside from the low road racism in that post, you are presupposing that EVERYONE in such a room is a bad guy. Wow. So much for the rules of proper firearms use (knowing your target). There seems to be a lot of support here for blind firing, A.K.A. spray 'n pray. I submit that this may make some people feel tough, but it is not a good tactic, and could result in some bad consequences (stray bullets hitting kids in the room, or the NEXT room, for starters).

Since the beginning of warfare I believe fighting men have attached a less than currently PC generic name for the enemy. Japs, Nips, slopes, Krauts, Charlie, Russkies, Ivan, Haji's... the list goes on. As time goes on the use may be considered inappropriate but while the bullets fly whatever the soldier calls them is fine with me. They are my enemy too.

To worry about over penetration in a combat situation simply boggles the mind. Unbelievable.

My son was in Afghanistan a few years ago as a civilian LE trainer. He was never in a firefight and said that he preferred to use semi on his Bushmaster M4 in training but was very happy to have the choice.

 

[Madcap_Magician]

I'm a SAW gunner.

I would point out that cyclic fire of most automatic weapons is simply not all that fast to begin with. IIRC, the SAW has the fastest cyclic rate of any personal weapon in US service right now at 850 rounds per minute (650 if you go to the lowest setting of the gas regulator), and I can still squeeze off single shots.

My point is that rapid semiautomatic fire is actually very nearly as fast as full automatic fire. The only downside is your trigger finger doesn't get as tired on full auto.

For the average rifleman, whose weapon is not controllable on full auto beyond about five rounds, there is no real need for full auto. For a heavier automatic weapon that can be mounted on a turret, tripod, or bipod, full auto is actually useful.

I think the burst function is a reasonable compromise, even if we don't actually use it much.

More important than full auto vs. semiauto on US weapons, I think, is having a more ergonomic safety lever on the M16/M4 series and better safety button on the M249.

 

[Warhawk83]

I believe giving the troops the option on which to use is the way to go. I suppose the 3 round burst does,sort of. There are probably situations in which actual full auto would be of great benefit, but I am not certain on that. The people that would know better than anyone would be those on active deployment and those that have been in war.

If a new rule came into effect that limited them to SA, I'm sure there would be a lot of pissed off GI's.

 

[Joe Demko]

Once upon a time, in the early days of magazine-fed breechloaders, it was feared that soldiers would burn through their ammo too quickly. Hence, devices like a magazine cut-off were added to some rifles. They were found to be superfluous pretty quickly.
Soldiers aren't as panicky and dumb as they are often assumed to be.

 

[Mp7]

... if u fight for freedom ..

the freedom of the soldier selecting himelf
what is appropriate ... could make sense.

my 02$.

 

[Enachos]

Kimber45,

You asked for peoples opinions. Don't be so quick to get hot-headed simply because you aren't getting the answers you want to hear. This is a forum and these are their opinions.... relax...

And i voted "no." I like options

 

[JoeSlomo]

There are times when you need a greater volume of fire than can be achieved by semi's, and that is why the burst feature is available on all rifles, and why auto exists on rifles in the SOF organizations.

The burst feature is an excellent compromise as it allows lesser trained and disciplined individuals to deliver a good volume of fire in a more efficient manner than they would with automatic fire.

 

[Freedom Fighter 78]

Somewhat agreed with Kimber45. 3 round bursts may not be so bad an idea. Save ammo and possibly no/less collateral damage this way. But let us not worry, just as our gubmint has created those "smart-bombs" with "stealth-accuracy", I hear they also have a "smart-bullet" in the works.

 

[LRS_Ranger]

For the 10% of troops (usually combat arms) that would use (and not misuse) a FA option it would be good. But for the at least 90% that would spray and pray with it, it would be a bad thing. I would wager those few who would know how to apply it correctly can do the same job with semi and burst. IMHO FA is for suppressive fire, which the M4 is not.

 

[MinnMooney]

Kimber45ACP (post 5) :

3 round burst = fully automatic

Matters not how many times that you say it, a 3-rd burst does not equal fully automatic using 30, 40 or 100 rounds. If 30-40 enemy troops make a charge from 100 yds away, hopefully you and your 3 or 4 buddys have fully auto and loaded weapons. If not, prepare to be over run by maybe half of the original chargers.

If we honestly accept how the human mind works, we would never want to undo our training by going to full auto.

Huh?!? Do you have that little confidence in our troops that you think that the soldier is only capible of doing one or the other??? Bad, bad statement.

I go to a range where I can rent my choice of 12-15 fully auto weapons. I'll shoot several 30-100 round mags though one or more each time I go and it's a riot. Ten minutes later, I'm prone on a table shooting 300 meter F-Class with a 6.5x284. Do I forget what I'm doing and try to spray my 1st 20 rounds with a single pull of the trigger? According to Kimber45ACP that's exactly what would be on my mind to do. Sorry, that has just never happened. I give myself more credit and I give our troops more credit to be able to pick and choose as to which setting gets the best results.

 

[Freedom Fighter 78]

Yesterday, 11:31 PM #36
James T Thomas
Member



Join Date: September 15, 2005
Location: Pittsburgh, PA
Posts: 1,170 no change in vote


Side line for you suppressive fire lovers. If, .. you are in a dug in position,
and the enemy is assaulting and getting close up. Are you going to let
suppressive fire, all that noise, keep your head down until you see the white's of his eyes? QUOTE

You bring up a good point here Mr. Thomas. How many times within the last century does it turn out that we, America, should have been overseas in battle in the first place? History seems to tell us that for some reason or another, we, the U.S.A., should not have been involved in those overseas ventures in the first place.
Obviously, many an American has forgotten what the founding fathers tried telling us when they stated that we as a people should not go into others' affairs.
Maybe if the Isolationist position had been kept, things would not have reached the point where we need f/a arms, "smart-bombs", nukes.... Ah heck, what do I know though?

 

[Gunfighter123]

How many times within the last century does it turn out that we, America, should have been overseas in battle in the first place? History seems to tell us that for some reason or another, we, the U.S.A., should not have been involved in those overseas ventures in the first place.
Obviously, many an American has forgotten what the founding fathers tried telling us when they stated that we as a people should not go into others' affairs.
Maybe if the Isolationist position had been kept, things would not have reached the point where we need f/a arms, "smart-bombs", nukes.... Ah heck, what do I know though?

And we all would be speaking German if we just minded our own affairs or in the last 15/20 years , some form of Middle Eastern/Tali-Ban !!!! I can't remember who said it but --- " those who forget the past , are doomed to repeat it " or something close to it.

 

[gym]

Combat is Hell, you don't want to limit a soldier from being able to lay down heavy cover fire.

 

[Joe Demko]

And we all would be speaking German if we just minded our own affairs or in the last 15/20 years , some form of Middle Eastern/Tali-Ban !!!!

Um...no. The WWII Germans would still have eventually been crushed by the USSR even without our involvement. The big difference in the outcome of things would have been that most or even all of Europe would have been ComBloc after the Germans fell. Hitler made up for being crazy and a poor decision maker by having a few strokes of luck. Luck always runs out.
No MidEast nation is even remotely capable of launching a war of conquest against the US. That idea is so counter to reality that it is just bizarre.